JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘understand

Established

with 2 comments

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

FALLACIES

Making an argument

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

Logical Fallacies

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

Fallacies of Distraction

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

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

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

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

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

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

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

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.

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

Changing the Subject

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

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

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

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

Inductive Fallacies

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

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

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

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

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

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

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

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

Causal Fallacies

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

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

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

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

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

Missing the Point

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

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

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

Fallacies of Ambiguity

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

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

Category Errors

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

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

Non Sequitur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logically Fallacious Fallacies

by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe

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

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

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

ESTABLISHED

am-i-blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.

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

EURODELE

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

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

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

EVER

horse-feathers

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

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

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

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

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

agit

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

obama

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

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

EVERYTHING

New Developments of the Theory of Everything

2950673908_430413742f

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

theory-of-everything-2

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

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

And here are more references for you to follow up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

071115_e8

EVIL

hear-no-evil

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

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

technical-aspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evil-calls-1l

EXHAUST

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

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

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

EXPONENTIAL TIMES

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

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

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

EXTREME?

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

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

Extreme?

THIS IS EXTREME!

“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂

FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)

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

FORTRESSES

ff

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

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

“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b-17_flying_fortress

FRACTALS IN NATURE

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

FROZEMAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUN IN THE SUN

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

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

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

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

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

beachcomber2008
Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )

MissyM005
I am looking forward to seeing this documentary and informing other people about it as well. I think it’s fantastic! Well done to the makers. 🙂


beachcomber2008
Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”

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

MissyM005
beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.


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

MissyM005
Comment removed


beachcomber2008
Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors

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

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


beachcomber2008
Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
whistle, whistle

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS

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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.


beachcomber2008
It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777”

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.


beachcomber2008
Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there

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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.


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

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


beachcomber2008
Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years

stephenbowman311
Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.

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

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Divine intervention?

erniepond
@stephenbowman311
Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.


erniepond
@EnergySupply2008
Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.


beachcomber2008
I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD

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


beachcomber2008
Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail

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


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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.


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

visry
Excellent trailer…subbed!


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



Advertisements

Written by JazzRoc

November 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

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

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

Issue

with 2 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

ISSUE (1) – ISSUE (2) – JAZZROC – TEXT FROM “SECRET” WEBSITE – JBREEZES – John Aytche (reprise)

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

  

ISSUE (1)

sfc_contrail_1_26_01

“Contrails were not an issue” – they NEVER WERE an issue. Your ignorance and your desire to propagate ignorance ARE the issue.

“Samples have been collected from rain and snow throughout America” – and will show samples of RAIN and SNOW.

“normal commercial craft a lot higher not leaving much of a contrail even while others leave the thick noduled classic chem trail” – is a TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF YOUR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE WEATHER. The layered nature of the stratosphere presents different humidities and headings in every layer. And so the contrail behaves differently in each layer.

“they have been analyzed” – so BADLY as to NOT BE IN ANY WAY SCIENTIFIC.

“people like you” – you mean EDUCATED people who understand SCIENCE?

“we already know” – YES, THE JU-JU MAN TOLD YOU. More likely you entered “chemtrails” into your search engine and reconfirmed your prejudices.

“Commercial aircraft fly at 30-35k feet, the chems usually sprayed at 12-15k feet” – I haven’t seen a SINGLE VIDEO depicting such a thing ANYWHERE ON THIS SITE. This ASSERTION you make is full of FAULTY assumptions and calculations, for civil aircraft have lanes and levels they must adhere to, which they receive from air traffic control.

The OFFICIAL FACTS are these:

Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.

Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.

Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.

Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.

The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).

Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.

More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.

  

ISSUE (2)

“Smoke and Mirrors”

There are many ironies in this “chemtrail” issue. This one’s a beaut. It can be found (maybe!) here.

People with nothing better to do open their blogs, and to boost their self-importance, probably, gossip amongst each other and confabulate their “poison spray” stories as if totally unaware of the breathtaking social damage which may occur if other bad events concatenate. OK, maybe, in private emails, but obviously NOT OK as a web-wide transmission.

When brought up short by a question such as “Don’t you think that people that cause and assist powerfully emotive lies and false accusations to circulate within our society fit perfectly the description of fifth-column terrorists and may be subject to the attentions of the Patriot Act?”, such people consider they have been subject to some form of assault!

You know, “policemen are nasty people who assault criminals”! That’s me. I attack criminality. It’s the social duty of all of us, really – a part of growing up.

January 1, 2009 Bobbi Snow:
I live in Los Angeles. In March 2005 chemtrails began being sprayed over our neighborhoods, right after the heavy Winter/Spring rains stopped. All the plants on my deck were covered daily with an oily-sticky substance. I tried hosing it off, every evening, but eventually all the plants died, one by one. The water bowls we have out there for the squirrels & birds showed this same oily substance on chemtrail days. I had to change the bowls three times a day, when I was home. Lady Bugs and Honey bees were dropping dead all over the deck, on chemtrail days.
Seven months later I began to have severe digestive/stomach problems. I began feeling nauseated, and started losing weight. I’m down to seventy pounds now, and the specialists say they have no idea what’s wrong with me. I seem to have no cancer, at least none they can find… and on days when there are NO chemtrails in the skies, I eat normally; I just can’t gain any weight.
When I mentioned the coordination between the commencement of the chemtrails and my decline in good health a few months later, all the doctors acted like they thought I was CRAZY. (They’re all in their offices every day, and apparently never look out their windows and SEE these chemtrails!) But according to the head gastroenterologist at Cedars of Sinai, “business has been booming for the past couple of years!”
It doesn’t take a GENIUS to figure out that if the chemicals residue can kill plants and Lady Bugs and Honey Bees on my deck, it’s also getting into the water we drink, the soil in which our crops are grown, the food we eat, the air we breathe, the meats we buy…
I have written to the local meteorologists, UCLA, USC, the Los Angeles County Board of Health. I have never received a reply from any of them! But the one thing I have noticed is, during the past few months, the weather forecasters who are on early in the mornings refer to the up-coming chemtrails with the phrase, “Expect some high cirrus clouds during the day, but there should still be plenty of sunshine.” If they KNOW the chemtrails are going to be sprayed, then surely some of them have a idea as to their purpose, the chemicals in them, and which branch of our government is responsible for them.
Is this population control? Are the chemtrails making the pharmaceutical companies and physicians richer? And do SOME of the people have a pillthey are given that makes them immune to these adverse affects?
I’ve read about the analyses of some of the private testing that’s been made on the contents of these chemtrails. The chemicals discovered are KNOWN to cause digestive problems, allergies, skin rashes, breathing difficulties, and contain carcinogens. So WHY is our government allowing this to be done to the populations of so many different countries?
I would like to believe that eventually I will get better… but unless the chemtrails totally CEASE and never start up again, I think I will become just one more casualty in this War Against Humanity. I fear I will die in the not so distant future, never knowing why my tax dollars have been turned against honest, hard-working people who only want the best for themselves, their respective countries, and their future generations.

January 2, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Dear Bobbi, Thank you for writing – I am pulling my hair out with people who insist that either I am imagining it or I am misinformed, that they are“contrails” and no more. It is horrible, and I am in nowhere near the bad shape you are in due to this malfeasance – I have not gone to the lengths you have gone to get some answers, only to be met with either silence, or worse, that you are crazy.
Makes one want to tell the doctors who act as if you are crazy that their years of med school did not do much good, if you are so sick and they cannot figure it out.
I find it very interesting what you said about the morning news shows – I do not watch them, so have never heard the “forecast” you described above. That is downright creepy. The more I dig into this, the more disturbing it gets.
I agree with you – these are our tax dollars at work? Thanks a lot, folks.
I was with my husbands family yesterday for the traditional New Years Day meal, and I brought the subject up, as they had been over when i was feeling lousy, and the only person who was totally engrossed in the issue was my mother-in-law. She talked about the headaches she gets out of nowhere, but said she had never seen Chemtrails in their area. But then she answered herself, kind of chuckling, and said, “well, I never really look up into the sky that often.”
I have found that when people hear about it, after trying to come up with a reasonable explanation, they start gazing upwards much more often, and you find yourself with much agreement after a while.
However, that does not help the core problem – the folks in charge of this obvious mystery are not talking. What do we do?
I am going to write to the President-elect and ask about it, I will most likely get nowhere, but maybe something will happen. I did hear that when Bill Clinton was president, he started to address Chemtrails, then abruptly stopped. So……
If you go to the link I posted, Chemtrail Data, there is a lot of interesting information, and it seems to be a bit of a community – I think you should share your story with them. There is an interesting little contraption that some people invented that they say wards off the bad effects of the Chemtrails, but I just found it. Not committing quite yet.
I DO lean towards one of the reasons for the spraying is to make the pharmaceutical companies more money – and I do wonder if population control is a part of it. It is horrifying to me that we human beings are viewed as “business” when we are sick, and that the head gastroenterologist at Cedars actually said that “Business has been booming in the last couple of years”. Utterly reprehensible.
I wish I had some answers, but I, like you, only have questions. I am so glad you posted, and I am hoping you get better – this is one of the worst stories I have heard. I am so sorry, and if I ever stumble across something that can repel the effects, I will contact you. Right now, all there is is the crystal/copper wire contraption you can find on the link above. It is not expensive, if you can afford it, why not give it a shot?
Take care, hang in there. Maybe this will be stopped with the new administration, if enough people start demanding it. Best, Kelly
P.S. I have a pilates/bodyband video that I work out to, it is set in a gorgeous outside setting, and as I was following it one day, I noticed a chemtrail in the video! How is that for ironic?

January 12, 2009 James Stafford: Have you made any progress on this?

January 21, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo: I’m working on it, Hi-may. By the way, you are not one of the “contrail” people that bugged me. I have been hearing it for years.

May 1, 2009 jazzroc:
The planes you see making trails are the same ones you catch to go on holiday. Their jet engines burn kerosine to produce forward thrust, and leave in their wake carbon dioxide (the same as you exhale) and water (as you do too). This water turns to ice in a fraction of a second, and if the stratosphere (seven miles up) is dry, then the ice slowly sublimes to water vapor and appears to disappear.
If, on the other hand, the stratosphere is humid, then the ice is no longer able to sublime away, and remains, falling at less than a meter per second.
The average speed of the stratosphere over your head is sixty miles per hour, and if the ice were to continue to fall all the way down (which it never does because the contrail ice will inevitably fall into drier layers of the stratosphere and then sublime there), it would land two hundred miles away from you some three hours later.
This makes it very unlikely, does it not, that anything released by aircraft seven miles overhead had anything to do with your sickness…
Whatever illness you suffered could have been an infection breathed upon you by another person, or you could have eaten or drunk something toxic or infectious, or it could be a combination of pollen and exhaust fumes which made you ill.
Did this happen in December, when the cedar pollens are released? Somehow I bet it did, seeing as the word “cedar” crops up in your post.
https://jazzroc.wordpress.com

June 5, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Hello jazzroc, and welcome! Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comment.  While I appreciate your thorough explanation of contrails, I am keenly aware of what makes up a contrail, and if you watch the sky long enough, you can clearly see the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. The crisscross pattern that lingers in the sky for hours, for starters. Contrails dissipate quite quickly, where as chemtrails linger for hours, slowly spreading out until they manage to simulate some kind of odd cloud.
If regular airplanes were making those trails, there would be massive accidents in the sky – pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each others flight paths in such a fashion as the photo’s depict.
One day you will notice the difference. I, too, was completely skeptical when I first heard about this, then I started watching the sky.
The difference in contrails and chemtrails was so starkly different I was shocked that I had not noticed it before.
And a quick addendum – when Bill Clinton was President, this was an issue he was willing to talk about. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a fact. It just happens to be one that very few people talk about.
Thank you for visiting, different opinions are always welcome and encouraged as long as civility remains. Best, Kelly

June 5, 2009 jazzroc:
You say “I am keenly aware of what makes up a contrail”.
I beg to differ. You are NOT. My blog quite clearly demonstrates examples of contrails from the very brief to the very persistent. These were first recorded in 1921, and have been carefully quantified and written up in a stream of more than six hundred scientific papers since 1953 – all listed and mentioned in my blog. If you had read and understood them, you would NOT have written what you have just written.
“If you watch the sky long enough, you can clearly see the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.”
You might see the difference between a brief and a persistent contrail, but there is NO way you can honestly point at a persistent trail and say “there is a chemtrail”. It is a cloud of ice crystals almost identical to a natural cirrus cloud, whether it is persistent or not.
“The crisscross pattern that lingers in the sky for hours, for starters.”
Is merely the result of crossing shuttle routes at an angle to each other; the SAME TWO routes, but different aircraft. They may happen, say, at hourly intervals. The typical average speed of the stratosphere in which they fly is around 60 mph. The consequence is what you see.
“Contrails dissipate quite quickly, whereas chemtrails linger for hours, slowly spreading out until they manage to simulate some kind of odd cloud.”
This mantra is constantly repeated by chemtrailers. If you read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry you will find it to be INCORRECT. It states quite clearly that contrails persist when there are humid conditions in the stratosphere.
“If regular airplanes were making those trails, there would be massive accidents in the sky – pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each others flight paths in such a fashion as the photos depict.”
Regular aircraft make these trails for 20% of the time on average. You are correct – “pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each other’s flight paths” – and they DON’T. They fly above or below each other by 2000 feet. At a distance of seven miles (their usual altitude) this 2000 feet is not easy to discriminate. That is why there is Air Traffic Control.
“One day you will notice the difference. I, too, was completely skeptical when I first heard about this, then I started watching the sky.”
You falsely assume I am not older, wiser, and more experienced than you are. This is typical behavior for CT “theorists” who have in the past ridiculed the Max Planck Institute and many other Nobel Laureates in their slanders.
“The difference in contrails and chemtrails was so starkly different I was shocked that I had not noticed it before.”
Unfortunate. You should (and one day, I hope, WILL) be shocked by the lengths your absolute ignorance of the world around you has led you to.
“When Bill Clinton was President, this was an issue he was willing to talk about.”
Well, ole’ Bill should have kept his flies zipped and boned up on physics first.
“This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a fact. It just happens to be one that very few people talk about.”
It IS some crazy conspiracy theory. One day your shame will prevent you talking about it.
“Different opinions are always welcome and encouraged as long as civility remains.”
Believe it or not – I’m doing my best to be civil. The fairy story of “Chicken Little” springs to mind here. I always thought it had a lightweight moral point, but these days I’m not so sure.

How much REAL harm is being done by thousands of people, who through their own ignorance are spreading lies and slander through an information system? And doesn’t this come under the Patriot Act?

June 5, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Interesting, you are quite rabid on this subject – what is your issue, jazzroc? If you want to dismiss the Chemtrail people as crazies, why not just do so and get on with your life? You talk about the great harm being done to people over this Chemtrail issue – what harm is being done, exactly? Some people believe it, some do not. I have yet to hear of some Chemtrail maniac shooting innocent planes out of the sky, it is simply an issue of some people are certain they exist, others are certain they do not. Who is getting so badly “harmed”?
It must be frustrating for you that, as you quote above, from 1953 until now, you have six hundred scientific papers to quote from. Six hundred in fifty-six years? Really not much of a tome insofar as a span of over half a century.
Are you a pilot? My brother is a small aircraft pilot, and we have flown together many times, so I have a tiny bit of Air Traffic Control experience as a passenger next to the pilot.
You assume that I am not aware that you are older. I went to your myspace page, and could clearly see that you are older. However, I do not confuse older with wiser. Older often translates into calcified in ones belief system.
Putting Bill Clinton, one of our best Presidents, down because of personal indiscretions that have zero to do with how extremely smart he is, shows how immediately dismissive you are towards any possible credibility to this issue.
This tells me that your mind is a door that is firmly slammed shut, and there is no point in any further discourse.
I do hope some day you will wake up and realize how much of your precious life you have wasted calling other people ignorant, while you remained mired in your belief with cement shoes and ’scientific’ facts. We do not get told everything by our government, scientist, or military. Personal experience is all an individual has to go by.
Believe it or not, this is a civil response back – as civil as I can be when a total stranger comes on to my site, behaving like a condescending blowhard, and calling me ignorant, telling me I am harming others, and telling me I should be ashamed of myself. Move along, sir.

June 5, 2009 jazzroc:
“Interesting, you are quite rabid on this subject – what is your issue, jazzroc?”
Perhaps you are unaware of your hypocrisy here.
The ISSUE is that you believe (without REAL evidence – for there is none) that your own people are attempting to injure yourself and everyone else with “poison sprays”.
And then you state this as FACT, converting your belief into action.
THAT is RABID. And a form of terrorism, and within the aegis of the Patriot Act.
Me? I’m just carrying out my social responsibilities…

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Good God, man, you really love pointing out how “unaware” and “ignorant” everybody else is. The rabid I referred to is that your blog on the subject literally goes on for miles, and you seem to seek out any and all who disagree with you. You did not seem to fully read and comprehend the first person who posted, because you mentioned that the word “cedar” was in my post, and immediately decided that the unwell feeling was due to cedar pollens being released in December. Wrong.
The woman who wrote the first comment had gone to Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. And yet you have the nerve to condescend to me that I did not read and understand everything on your blog.
Your obsession with the Patriot Act is pretty funny – everything I post is in direct conflict with the Patriot Act – I am exercising my right to free speech and thought, without fear of being hauled away to Gitmo.
It’s called the First Amendment, pumpkin, and despite your attempts to steamroller over my right to free speech, wrapping yourself in some righteous cloak of “social responsibility”, you cannot stop me from writing about my experiences in the world I live in.
I am flattered that I have made the leap, in your fixed, narrow mind, from “ignorant” to “terrorist” in less than 24 hours.
I retract asking you to move along. Keep coming back, as with every comment you post, you emerge as a rigid, bullying, troglodyte. And Gosh Darn, I really need someone like you to “enlighten” me. Why, you should be on payroll somewhere for carrying out your “social responsibilities” with such zeal. You threw civility out the window when you came into my space and started hurling insults. Keep up the good work, you really have a way with people. Ta!

June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
No matter where you wander in your invective, the ISSUE STILL REMAINS that you believe (without REAL evidence – for there is none) that your own people are attempting to injure yourself and everyone else with “poison sprays”.
And then you state this as FACT, converting your belief into action, broadcasting this and conveying it to whoever has the misfortune to receive it.
These inimical actions CONFIRM you as an enemy of the United States and her people.
With your lies and false witness, you’s da enemy NOW…
How d’ya like those orange boiler suits! Ha! And those “showers”? Pffff – don’t look good to me!

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Oh honey – You have shown yourself to be a certified loon. You seem incapable of refuting anything I point out, you, in the style of Rush Limbaugh, state what you believe to be yours, consequently the only, truth, and if anybody disagrees, you start screaming the exact same argument, with your liberal use of the caps button.
This is not a discussion, is is a diatribe. Yours. Any evidence I have you would debunk, no matter what the source. I have gone from trying to have a discussion with you, to getting irritated by you, to laughing at you, but now I kind of feel sorry for you. I feel bad for the fact that someone with a life experience that differs from yours causes in you such uncontrollable wrath and crumbling ability to interact. Try to take care of yourself. My guess is you suffer from high blood pressure and if you keep this up, you could very well stroke out. Try a little Yoga, sweetie. Or take a valium.
I am happy for you to put this exchange up on your “Issues” page. You and your little gang of sycophants can rip me to shreds on the safety of your blog. Don’t expect a visit from me, I have no need to defend myself against folks this extremely mono-focused and unreasonable.
You know, science is not rigid and cemented in facts once proven. It is a constantly evolving medium, and to hold onto it as tightly as you do is a recipe for being left behind. I am sure you remember how Galileo was persecuted to his last days for his forward thinking progress – he did not stay static within the safety of the status quo. It is a relief that you are a simple citizen with an opinion, just like myself. God forbid you were in a position of governmental power – it would be the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
To anyone who is following this nonsense, my curiosity got the better of me and I hopped over to Mr. Jazzroc’s “Issues” page (and MAN does this guy have “issues”) – and I am honored to be in such interesting company!
It is made up of of many different people and their Chemtrail experiences, and jazzroc does not disappoint. He sticks to his guns, with some really fun and snappy retorts from him. It is too bad that he has such a short fuse and inability to address a single point from the opposition, as his cause suffers for it, but it makes for great entertainment, if one is so inclined.

June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
“Oh honey” May I call you “darling”? “you start screaming the exact same argument, with your liberal use of the caps button.” You mean, repeating what the issue is? You are bearing false witness against your neighbors – and you call it “free speech”! 🙂
The Bible, Exodus 20:2–17 Deuteronomy 5:6–21 Exodus 34:11–27: 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
The Patriot Act is described as: a law defining “domestic terrorism” as acts committed in the United States “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws,” if the U.S. government determines that they “appear to be intended” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” Such ambiguous language allows for a loose interpretation that might violate civil liberties and human rights. Yours.
 “You know, science is not rigid and cemented in facts once proven. It is a constantly evolving medium, and to hold onto it as tightly as you do is a recipe for being left behind.”
Well, YOU haven’t paid any attention to it at all, and show no signs of doing so. May I quote you, darling? – “and ’scientific’ facts. We do not get told everything by our government, scientist, or military. Personal experience is all an individual has to go by.” Incorrect. Science is a way of improving upon “personal experience”. You should try it sometime. It can be perfectly accessible to you.
.

“it would be the Spanish Inquisition all over again.”
It’s YOUR government’s policy – not mine. I fear that a world under the Inquisition mightn’t be as bad as a world stacked full of ignorant liars with blogs on the Internet, raising everyone else’s suspicion of innocent, capable, and hard-working professional people, and meanwhile distracting everyone’s attention from discovering the true causes of respiratory ailments. 

June 6, 2009 Tomas Hradcky:
Alas, one of my worst fears. A certain type of “Jazz/Rock” musician (with all due respect to the many great musicians I’ve worked with) who is one who will ultimately taser themselves thinking they are protecting all of us from the scourge of three chord power rock. Or in this case, oddly enough, chemtrails. JazzRoc, it might better serve your valuable time to lose yourself in an infinite II/V circle of fifths loop. It would certainly be safer and more peaceful for the rest of us. Breathe boy! Best,Tomas

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Ahh, it was only a matter of time before my suspicions about you were confirmed – you are now quoting the Bible. A questionable source of solid information, that book. You can call me anything you want, angel. You already have, but thanks for asking at this late date. You know, I used to be insistent upon having the last word in every argument, until one day I woke up and realized how childish I felt. I am moving on, and I hope you do to, only because you have a family, and I am sure they would like some of your attention, attention you are squandering going round and round in circles with a total stranger. Try to show a little restraint in your obsessive behavior, as you may look up one day and notice that your family has left you to your righteous insanity via the computer keyboard. But it has been fun, darling.  I have grown rather fond of your lunatic responses. But, it is a beautiful day outside, no Chemtrails, just one lone Contrail, so I am going for a hike.

But before I go, Jazz, I have one question. “It’s YOUR government’s policy – not mine.” Well, yes it is! So why in the world do you give a damn? Let the silly fools in the United States blog their opinions – enjoy looking down on us and laugh amongst yourself and your friends. You are taking your sense of self importance and “social responsibility” to a bit of an extreme, when you are not even in the same country. It’s a bit puzzling…….

Tomas – you kill me. I was going to suggest that Mr. Jazzroc go back to practicing his scales and working on his art, but you beat me to it.

June 6, 2009  jazzroc:
Haha. Tomas, I LIKE the occasional 3-chord power rock, but certainly not for any extended period!  The same goes for the other idea (I think!)
Safer – no. More peaceful – no.
We’re a technologically-based civilisation now, and the most dangerous thing we can do is retreat from an understanding of the science that holds us up.
We are BIG – and you KNOW how hard we will fall – unless we can build ourselves a parachute.
“Chemtrails” don’t exist at all. They are a symptom of our failure to properly understand the world around us, and an evil that must be countered, before it is backed up and amplified by other world events, such as the economic consequences of declining fossil fuels, possible climate change, maybe a world recession (oh, we have that), and worsening instability in the Middle East (oh, we have that), and a growing list of similar chickens coming home to roost.
“Chemtrails? WHO ordered THEM?”

June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
Kelly, from the outset you haven’t taken REAL notice of what I am saying.
Search Google for “paper” “aviation” “saturated” “atmosphere” “contrails” “-chemtrails” “-aerosols” (yes – all at once!)
These are properly-written scientific papers which directly contradict your “hypothesis”.
You haven’t challenged me to produce evidence because you quite obviously are unwilling to risk changing your belief. This only goes to confirm what I have as civilly as possible indicated to you, which is that your blog and activities are harmful. You pretend that it’s only an itty-bitty thing, but you deceive yourself. This blog is not a US-only manifestation. It IS worldwide. You have no evidence (for there can be no evidence for a non-existent entity) and what you suggest flies in the face of established science – and is just – LIES.
As you are too cowardly to confront your own ignorance you resort to abuse, namely “quite rabid – calcified in ones belief system – immediately dismissive – your mind is a door that is firmly slammed shut – how much of your precious life you have wasted – mired in your belief with cement shoes and ’scientific’ facts – condescending blowhard – condescend to me – your attempts to steamroller over my right to free speech – wrapping yourself in some righteous cloak – your fixed, narrow mind – rigid, bullying, troglodyte – started hurling insults – certified loon – incapable of refuting – start screaming – uncontrollable wrath and crumbling ability – you suffer from high blood pressure – you could very well stroke out – your little gang of sycophants – extremely mono-focused and unreasonable – short fuse and inability to address a single point – your obsessive behavior – your lunatic responses”

Mirror, mirror, on the wall……….. 

June 6, 2009 Tomas Hradcky:
The only thing “REAL” here is that you, JazzRoc, are in a world of your own. What wonderful world it must be. At least for you. By the way, an original idea of your own would be nice once and a while. Cheers.
p.s. I await your own scientific studies and hard wrought evidence and thank God I never had to play a gig with you.

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Okay Jazzy, Since you take zero responsibility for being the first in the comments section to start the name-calling, I will ignore your severe hypocrisy in your last post, and simply address your calling me a coward for not offering up any data, even though I had a link in my original post, a fact you have conveniently ignored.
http://www.rense.com/general20/cc.htm
http://www.willthomas.net/chemtrails/Articles/Chemtrails_In_US_Schools.htm

http://www.rense.com/general34/eva.htm
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails.html
http://www.bariumblues.com/

June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
I will post for each. First, Rense:
‘Deep Sky’ source – is not a credible source, is it?
“substance that showed up on ATC radars as a ‘haze’” – as does a supersaturated contrail
“radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999″ – how do they know that? Did they take the samples from Ontario to Vancouver? Really! Are YOU THAT credulous?
“The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout – and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario’s maximum permissible health safety standards” – dried soil dust will do the same: CLAY is aluminum silicate.
DND eventually replied, “It’s not us.” – Because it wasn’t them.
‘Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming’ – requires 20 million tons of material per shot, 250,000 tanker flights, and money that has never been available (and more than the billion bucks mentioned!).
“a predicted doubling of heat-trapping C02 in the atmosphere over the next 40 years” – no prediction of CO2 heating has EVER borne fruit. It’s strange, because it does in lab conditions – just not out there in the world. There are still as yet unknown “sinks” for it.
“warned that the stratospheric spraying of sunlight-reflecting chemicals could ‘destroy the ozone layer’” – more true of the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur than anything else, because it is nearly impossible to get solid materials in large quantities into the lower polar thermospheres.
“spraying something that regularly clouds their screens” – as I said before – that’s what a heavy contrail can do.
“A scientist working at Wright-Pat recently told reporter” – is not a credible source, is it?
“under pressure according to Kucinich” – due to HIS pressure, according to Kuchinich. Check it out.
“The unusual white plumes are often contrasted by brief, pencil-thin contrails left by commercial jets flying above them” – it’s warmer the higher you go in the stratosphere, which is stable, and layered with layers of differing humidities. Learn your science.
According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, andhumidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes – this is a plain lie. Check.
“artificial clouds and contrails can be manufactured under conditions of low humidity by dispensing particles from aircraft. The smaller the size of the nuclei introduced into the atmosphere, the greater the rate of artificial cloud formation”. – But it is also known that it can be done vastly more cheaply by salt spray from ocean-going ships. So why pick a dearer option?
Complete bullshit follows…
William Thomas quit discussing anything with me in a hurry. He and his back-off feature in my blog.

June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
NASA ON CONTRAILS
Contrails are all made of the same materials and are formed in the same way, but exist for different lengths of time. Because of the differences in contrail “life-spans”, contrails can be divided into three groups: short-lived, persistent (non-spreading), and persistent spreading.
Short-lived contrails look like short white lines following along behind the plane, disappearing almost as fast as the airplane goes across the sky,perhaps lasting only a few minutes or less. The air that the airplane is passing through is somewhat moist, and there is only a small amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. The ice particles that do form quickly return again to a vapor state.
Persistent (non-spreading) contrails look like long white lines that remain visible after the airplane has disappeared. This shows that the air where theairplane is flying is quite humid, and there is a large amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. Persistent contrails can be further divided into two classes: those that spread and those that don’t. Persistent contrails look like long, narrow white pencil-lines across the sky.
Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.
Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.
Contrails are “human-induced” clouds since they are formed by water vapor condensing and freezing on particles from airplane exhaust. Contrails are always made of ice particles, due to the very cold temperatures at high altitude. Other types of clouds can be formed by water vapor that condenses on particles which are present in the atmosphere due to many sources, such as from volcanoes or dust storms, not specifically from aircraft exhaust. Those clouds are sometimes made of water droplets, and sometimes ice crystals, depending on the temperature where they form.
Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C).

Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds.
Contrails were first noticed during high-altitude flights in the 1920’s. However, interest in contrails really blossomed during WWII when bombers could be sighted from miles away. In fact, numerous WWII veteran accounts tell of problems to aviation due to massive contrail formations. Planes could not find their targets, and sometimes collided with each other. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to  determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.

NOAA ON CONTRAILS
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mfr/aviation/Contrails.php

June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Funny, when I consulted my magic 8 ball, it predicted that you would respond in this exact fashion. 
I am sure William Thomas quit discussing anything with you in a hurry. How can anyone discuss anything with you when all you do is discredit everyone except your own sources? You don’t discuss, you dismiss. At this point I am speaking from experience with you, and you have become a bore.

June 7, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo: Fully aware of what a contrail is, thank you. Again, fully aware of what a contrail is. Thank you. In case you did not quite understand, I understand what a contrail is. Thank you. Contrails are not the topic. Thank you.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
That Rense stuff all falls down. The radar images are of heavy clouds, and there’s NO link to aluminum and silica on the opposite side of the continent – which is very likely to have been wind-blown soil. Have you lost all reason?
Sure, you “know about contrails”.
Then WHY are you claiming this: “Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails. Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.” to be “chemtrails”?

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
http://www.rense.com/general34/eva.htm
“On a busy day,” McCallum said, “with the right atmospheric conditions, these aircraft will form contrails that could accumulate and remain in the sky for hours. The Canadian forces and the Government of Canada have not been involved in activities such as you describe in your letter, nor would we allow any other party to conduct any form of aerial activity that could endanger the health of Canadian citizens.”
THAT is the sensible part of this.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:

chemtrailplaneonground3forum
“Very sinister looking tubes, but why are half of them facing the wrong way?
The plane is not for spraying the atmosphere, it’s for sampling the atmosphere. It’s a research aircraft, registration N701BN, operated by the department of energy’s national labs. It’s pretty much one of a kind, so it’s hardly likely to be responsible for all the persistent contrails we see every day. The research is mostly on pollutants in the atmosphere, particularly from coal and oil burning power plants. But they also investigate the properties of clouds, which includes contrails.”
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

June 7, 2009  jazzroc:
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro
“Your articles on chemtrails are pure fantasy. I worked for a gas turbine engine manufacturer for 10 years in engineering. The fuel purity requirements are extremely tight for jet fuel. No commercial airline would dream of sacrificing millions of dollars worth of engines to support some crazy government depop. plot. For every pound of fuel burned you get almost a pound of water vapor which at 30,000 feet and -60 F freezes to form, guess what, ice crystals – in cloud-like contrails. When there are on average 7,000 commercial aircraft in the air over the US every day that is a lot of water vapor. If they were trying to burn a heavy particle load in the fuel the engine fuel nozzles and hydromechanical fuel controls would plug up causing shutdowns and failures not good for the safety of passengers or the bottom line.

Follow the money man and do some homework!” Doug A

SENSE.

“most of the chemtrail spraying platforms are robotic craft under complete computer guidance.”

NONSENSE.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails.html

phony

This a phoney Photoshopped forgery, typical of the site it’s in.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
http://www.bariumblues.com/
“Dr. Rosalie Bertell is a world famous radiation scientist who can be trusted. She says electromagnetic weapons have the ability to transmit effects such as earthquake induction across intercontinental distances to any selected target site on the globe with force levels equivalent to major nuclear explosions.”

HAARP has a gigawatt of power. To apply the force of Hiroshima’s SMALL nuclear bomb (10 Kiloton) to “earthquake induction” it would (if it were 100% efficient) have to work flat out for sixty-nine weeks!
THAT shows exactly how ridiculous her claims are.
In all civility, you are being mislead by fraudsters, charlatans, crooks, and people with Alzheimers, down a path of misery and disorder, due to your own ignorance.
Please do not lead others down this same path.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
From William Thomas: “SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate “IronX” experiments did indeed trigger plankton “blooms” that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.
But – oops! – his kid’s science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading “dead zones”. [Chemtrails Confirmed ’04]“

So once more this pseudo-science “journalist” relies on “Chemtrails Confirmed” for his clincher. (That’s rather like asking a burglar to fix your door-lock!)
There are thousands of species of ocean phytoplankton. The majority of them photosynthesize airborne CO2 to sugars, liberating oxygen, exactly as green land plants do. Thus injecting an iron compound with a specific gravity similar to that of sea-water (so that it remains in the top 100 meters of solar-illuminated ocean) would help to oxygenate the planet – if that were ever to become necessary. Of course, one wouldn’t use helicopters, but it would a good use of ocean-going supertankers. A helicopter might be used for a small local test, because small sea organisms respond rapidly (within hours) to feeding.
There are also, however, ocean-going anaerobic phytoplanktons. They are blue or red in color, and are a small minority of the whole. They respond better to high sea temperatures, deplete oxygen (just as we and fungi do) and would suffocate oxygen breathing life wherever they were in the majority. Their numbers are kept low by the oxygen liberated by the more prolific denizens of the sunlit shallows.
Scientists know about all of these things, and would NOT go out there to create such apocryphal accidents “cooked up” by “Chemtrails Confirmed”.
Only ignorance leads you to believe such rubbish. It’s a bit like arguing that scientists invented fertilizers on land that killed the contents of a greenhouse with poisonous mushrooms. But that wouldn’t be tried would it – because gardeners everywhere would laugh them down.
Those experiments are no more “desperate” than fertilizing soil. I’m an organic permaculturalist by preference, but that wouldn’t stop me adding iron and other trace elements to my soil if I thought it needed it. The same goes for the mineral-deficient centres of all Earth’s oceans.
It’s merely commonsense, and SCIENCE.

June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
Tomas Hradcky: “By the way, an original idea of your own would be nice once and a while.”

Here’s a few: http://www.reverbnation.com/jazzroc – enjoy! 

JAZZROC

Hi kiwibro25! – “Jazzroc is a spook” – Yep. Secret as hell. Check my website here – the first song is for YOU

“trying to cover up the truth” – Oh yep. You found me out. On myspace.com/jazzroc, was it? The one with pictures of me and my family, my daughter’s wedding, my photography, my composed jazz and rock music, my transcribed and synthesized classical music, my blogs on contrails/volcanoes, “intelligent” design, tory canvassers, and religion?

“he’s probably working for the govt” – Damn. Where’s my money? (Don’t you know its very rude to talk past people?)

“chemtrails are very real & very dangerous” – Let’s see…

Morgellons can’t be coming out of the engines (2,000 degrees C), and barium/aluminum can’t be coming out of the engines

A single/shot would require 3.4 MILLION TONS, a silver single/shot works out at 8.5 MILLION DOLLARS. ? – ER, NO

“dont believe the misleading bullshit” – YET AGAIN, SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT

“this guy types” – THE TRUTH. AT LAST! (Another rude guy who talks past you!)  

JazzrocISaSPOOK

(TEXT FROM “SECRET” WEBSITE)

“I’m not convinced chemtrails are contrails. I suspect that people like JazzRoc are paid disinformation agents because of their methods and misleading tactics. I could be totally wrong and it would be wonderful if chemtrails didn’t exist, but from my personal experience and from hearing other people talk, makes me think otherwise. What do you think? Please post an intelligent comment about what you think of JazzRoc and others like him and not just an insult 🙂

I have received lots of messages about other debunkers on youtube. Many people suspect they are the SAME person using different profiles. Here is a list of profiles that people think JazzRoc also goes by:

Epoxynous
andy413
timmcal
jmr604
doublemeat
rockbag
VTarantino
RobinPillage
a2g6d4k8
mariaclarkeee
EarlMcCracken

SENTRYNOX
TheFlange666
Silentkill666
GE109bEngineer

If you suspect other profiles he is using please post it in the comments or message me.”

The COMMENTS section is interesting:

deepwatertree – almost forgot about a user name: coachgreywolf.  So anyways, picture this…what if all these accounts are created and monitored by artificial intelligence programs that have been given the ability to converse like humans and respond to questions or statements? Why not…this would be the perfect place to test such systems…google IS big brother, ya know? Check out the following video on you tube, and see what you think…”Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time” – MUCH LOVE TO ALL MY EARTH PEOPLE FAMILY! – DEATH TO THE MACHINES THAT CONTROL US! Okay, here is my theory:

Jazzroc, EarlMcCrackin, MrPayt, and all of these other “users” are not actually human. Think about it…can there really be THAT many guys that get paid to sit at a desk all day and post disinfo comments on truth seekers pages? Some of these accounts have only been active for a few months, yet “they” have viewed thousands and thousands of videos…is it humanly possible to watch that many videos AND respond back and forth? Unless they sit there for 20 hours a day, I doubt it.  (NO!)

Silentkill666 – lol I wish I got paid…

Apocalypticscreams  – Well, here’s two more to go on your list: imi72  &  blackcatcrying.   Hi, I’m putting together a list of all accounts on YT that I suspect are agents and paid trolls. Is it ok if I use your list of Jazzrocs fake accounts? 

awakekiwi  – i sent this below to jazzroc: hey man, you say youve studied science yet you think that depleted uranium is harmless in the field. i guess that says it all, your an idiot or living in denial or your just paid to sound like an idiot, either way.. your your own worst enemy! sniggle.. 🙂 

dbootsthediva  – Another person that I believe to be a debunker Spook is SENTRYNOX. Jazzroc is an evil person for his persistent posts in helping the government and the media to continue to cover up these chemtrails and the harmful effects it has on the entire population of the Planet. Jazzroc is a prime example of a paid debunker, whose job is to go around and post on all the damning evidence of the YOUTUBE videos the entire world is posting in which to try and deter others from the truth. Here is a video link to one of the videos Jazzroc posted many replys of probably scripted lines the government hands him to type, just like they hand out what stories the media is to report on. Can’t post the link I think so the comment is on the user name of DARGONTeraAlpha Name of video is ChemTrails: What are they?  /watch?v=5TKKtjxTO3g this is the last part of the lint after the / 

mish6874  – On my vid chemtarils uk government admits deadly spraying, ‘TheFlange666‘ has been rather busy trying to tell people that chemtails are nothing more than car exaust and we are all using chemtails as a reason not to own up and take our responsibility for polluting the planet. Don’t know if it is jazzroc but a possible disinfo agent.

ozobezleebSilentkill666, maybe a new jazztwat.

greenmts – BLOCK & DELETE.

sirbadman – Hey guys, I got an email from jazzroc that was calling me a liar and slimeball disinformation artist or something similiar. It is probably because I posted elsewhere for users to have a look at this page. In the email he detailed information about himself and then asked me what I had done apart from “lie”. I have since blocked him from contacting me but I think there is something wrong with him asking me for information about myself – and using inflammatory writing to perhaps provoke me into revealing such information. Has anyone else had anything similar? 

newton2013 – If he grew up around base – “army brat”…Then his information is from, the information circles that he would encounter in that environment. He does say..”A high achiever at school. I was a “forces brat”, so travelled around the UK and abroad” They have re-educated those in the field. He lives on the field, so what do you expect. I wonder, for instance, he thinks Depleted Uranium is a harmless substance that can be left on a battlefield without causing harm to future generations. He’s not necessarily paid to do what he’s doing, It may just be a function of what his being has been taught in that environment. His argument must be right after all, he’s all into guarding the most powerful country on the planet, and he grew up there- How could the information he has be wrong… eh? My Opinion.  (Grrr – a big fat LIE!)

4absurdity – thanks for your message! yes it’s completely obvious that jazzrock is a fake. why should someone copy paste the same comment to about every chemtrail video? and why should he want to communicate with us, when he thinks that er are all nuts? so much effort to heal some paranoids from their point of view?! that he is using different accounts completes the picture 😉 

givemeabreakgivemeabJazzroc will just waste your time and energy. I learned the hard way by engaging him in a discussion about a video I made. He trolls the web and posts the same “soda pop” crap to initiate never-ending arguments. He attacks anyone who suggests that chemtrails may not be simple contrails. His tactic is to bombard you with “scientific evidence”, he refers to his own website as proof and responds with a barrage of insults and bizarre accusations (such as “you are either uneducated or evil”) which derail any reasonable discussion. Classic misdirection. The only logical explanation for his behavior is he is paid to do this. Spread the word. 

badInvention – Ive seen planes flying the same altitude, one leaving a small contrail,the the other a huge trail of “ice crystalls” wich turns into a cloud of haze. This can not make any sense. All planes fly a specific flight route, the same path, just at different heights (according to air traffic regulations). Why do we have chess boards strung across our skies? why do these planes circle my town? (I do not even live close to an airport, that they might have to circle) Not to mention the dangarous flight behavior of these chembirds. Why do my eyes burn and my chest hurt on a “contrail” hazed up day ? Why does flora at home suffer from something that looks like chemical burn marks? someone out there wants to make us very weak and sick. 

Zigga12345Jazz Rock sucks cock, he chats the same crap over and over, i think he could be a piece of shit.

kissthisguy88 – Thanks for the message and creating the profile. Most people that have chemtrail videos don’t realize that they can silence debunkers like jazzroc. The best thing to do is block him and delete everything he has written. Don’t even brother to have an exchange with him. Believe me, block and delete will stop him cold in his tracks. AND other people new to chemtrails that might be watching for the first time don’t have to read his BS. Thanks to YouTube for giving video makers powerful tools like block and delete.

sirbadman – Aah so mister Jazzroc received some dirty money to set up his website and is using deceptive methods in youtube. Thanks heaps for your help in debunking the contrail con artist. So what is up with these chem trails then? And why are so many people convinced they are harmless?

Apocalypticscreams  – Thanks for the heads-up, I had my suspicions about him but never realised he had multiple accounts. If that is the case he is 100% a paid disinfo agent. No one would spend so much time “debunking” chemtrails if they knew it to be a load of crap, they (the three lettered agencies) only roll out the COINTELPRO, disinfo monkeys when people are getting too close for comfort. I see this as an own goal by the trolls and spooks: the more they try debunking chemtrails, the more credibility and reason to carry on with raising awareness they give us. Well done Jazzroc, you shot yourself in the foot. 

Blackheart77ceJazz is a shill. Everything Jazz says is refutable, but that’s a waste of time. He will get a new name and keep trolling. If you see him, point him out. The damage some people do to truth can only be minimized. Keep passing along the truth despite people like Jazz! 

BaZooKa4314 – I had to comment because if you pay attention and keep an open mind you will notice all sorts of things that are going on in this world. Informing yourself and listening to what other people have to say can tell you a lot more about what IS going on that what you hear on the news. I am free to make my own opinions on matters the same as anybody else, I am free to state that opinion in any way abiding the law. I don’t have much to say about jazroc except that his opinions seem to be more for disproving someone elses opinions and there IS something to be said about that…… 

WhereIsTruth – how can you have any level of intelligence and not see what chemtrails are…once they are pointed out to you. i mean come on…there are shots with one plane spraying while another similar plane at the same basic altitude is leaving no contrail at all. this is the clearest EVIL act the EVILDOERS are doing. 

drewswebsite  – First, epoxynous showed up in my CHEMTRAILS video #1 comments section, going on about contrails and chemtrails being the same, etc.. I called him out as a either ignorant or on the job. Then this same attitude and mindset shows back up in the comments section only this time the screenname is “timmcal“. And then “jazzroc” Same exact MO. All three veritable ROCKET SCIENTISTS!! LOL More like the THREE STOOGES… only not funny… 

diecrewdeluks – looks like we need to put jazzrock to the sword you fucking asshole haha him and dreamlandnightmare shoudl get married lmao 

RonBaggerman – whatever he is, he’s someone without a life…..i think he’s all of the above. but for sure he’s dangerous in the sense that he surely confuses and intimidates some people. anyway the anti chemtrail movement is growing day by day here in holland and everywhere around the world. it’s all about consciousness,,,,,as yogi bear said: if you start to look, then it’s amazing what you can see. check my CT vids.

jefflettis – I think he is either a spook or a mind controlled goofball. He is also posting on Morgellens videos that mention a link to chemtrails. I go out and look up in the sky practically every day and see them spraying. I’ve called the EPA and got no response. 

HumildeHumanojazzroc is a debunker robot. Fuck debunkers ! Fuck the system ! Fuck chemtrailers ! Fuck New World Order ! Fuck New Age ! Free Human !

ozobezleeb – What ever this jazzprick say’s is pointless, Chemtrails are true, they are happening every day, and soon will be taken on by all as fact. 

Skywitness – Unfortunately jazzroc is a spook who appears to have sold his soul to his NWO handlers. His purpose is to confuse, discourage, and to try and create doublemindedness within everyone who is searching for the truth concerning chemtrails. Video evidence for chemtrails, remains stronger than any of the disinfo words that come from jazzroc and the other spooks in his club. 

Matteo42Jazzroc can lick my asshole. 

JusticePistoff – I think that’s some badass fighter on jazzroc’s page. Can’t say I’ve seen that before. I guess being a spook does have its benefits.

howler monkey

howler monkey

 

JBREEZES

Food shortage is being created by creating drought, killing bees not just with spray, but also by fooling with electromagnetics of the atmosphere, animals dying everywhere of foot-in-mouth, blue tongue, rift valley virus, a goat 2 days ago of anthrax, pigs in vietnam a few days ago from an unknown new respiratory illness, and then there’s the bird flu.

The thing is, jbreezes, that these things have been on Earth for the best part of 4 BILLION YEARS.

Sometimes, methinks, it appears that the only NEW phenomena are the NWO and YOU. Now why don’t YOU BOTH “die everywhere of foot-in-mouth, blue tongue, rift valley virus“.

foot-in-mouth” you CERTAINLY have…

  

John Aytche

Why, John, if you wish to debate with me, do you use an anonymous email address?

aerocontrail-jeffwell

1.) Great photo. Where did you get it? It looks too good to be true. Maybe it has been PhotoShopped?

It was part of a set of forty pictures taken by a professional photographer.

2.) I did a search for the weblink/photo on Google, and there were no hits for the “jeffwell.jpg”. I even checked out Airliners.net and there was no photo there either!

It probably DID come from airliners.net. Try http://contrailscience.com

Uncinus writes: “On June 12 2005 from 14:59 to 15:06 Bejing time (~07:00 UTC) pilot and photographer Jeff Well took a series of 45 photos of an exceptionally colourful iridescent contrail produced by an A340-313X aircraft in 9600 m (31,500 feet) altitude, just 1200 m higher as his position on the same route over eastern China.”

3.) Your explination of “Burst Condensation” contardicts your assertions on how/when contrails are made coming out of the turbofan jet engine.

Yes. That’s because there are two entirely different sets of events taking place: the first is the condensation of steam into ice particles, the second the burst condensation of supercooled droplets of water over the point of minimum pressure (and maximum cooling) just ahead and above the maximum wing chord – on its topside. Learn to spell.

4.) The size progression of the supercooled water vapor: does it remain water vapor, or does it turn into ice? — you know, since it’s “supercooled”.

It isn’t vapor at all: it is a “Burst frozen” cloud of droplets of super-cooled water which are picking up more molecules of water out of the marginally-supersaturated air.

WIKI says: “Supercooling or Supercooled water is the process of lowering the temperature of a liquid below its freezing point, without it becoming a solid or a gas.

A liquid below its standard freezing point will crystallize in the presence of a seed crystal or nucleus around which a crystal structure can form. However, lacking any such nucleus, the liquid phase can be maintained all the way down to the temperature at which crystal homogeneous nucleation occurs. The homogeneous nucleation can occur above the glass transition where the system is an amorphous, that is, non-crystalline solid.

Water can freeze at 273.15 K (0 °C or 32 °F) but it can also be supercooled at standard pressure down to its crystal homogeneous nucleation at almost 231 K (−42 °C). If cooled at a rate on the order of 106 K/s, the crystal nucleation can be avoided and water becomes a glass. Its glass transition temperature is much colder and harder to determine, but studies estimate it at about 165 K (−108 °C). Glassy water can be heated up to approximately 150 K (−123 °C).[1] In the range of temperatures between 231 K (−42 °C) and 150 K (−123 °C) experiments find only crystal ice.

Droplets of supercooled water often exist in stratiform and cumulus clouds. They form into ice when they are struck by the wings of passing airplanes and abruptly crystallize. (This causes problems with lift, so aircraft that are expected to fly in such conditions are equipped with a deicing system.) Freezing rain is also caused by supercooled droplets.”

5.) When they increase in size they run through a progression of light frequencies? How does size relate to light frequency?

They are very small in size, and as they increase in size they “match” the interference properties of various wavelengths of the sunlight passing through them. That’s my opinion.

6.) To interfere means the lack of synergy, thus the result is “refraction”.

You’re wrong here. There is nothing “frictional” about interference. The physics paper that makes this case quite completely argues for a refractive process, and even manages a credible simulation.

7.) Petroleum has the rainbow characteristic you mention — You know, mix gas (in this case, kerosene) with water and what do you see? A rainbow effect… Duh! And wouldn’t you know, jet fuel is petroleum based…

Then this physics paper would be wasted on YOU.

http://contrailscience.com/files/Aerodynamic%20contrails%20Microphysics%20and%20optical%20Properties.pdf

All the properties of super-saturated air indicate that it must be pure. The phenomenon, if you hadn’t noticed, starts at the point of maximum cooling, which is just forward of the maximum wing chord, on the top surface of the wing, in PURE (but supersaturated) AIR. Not a LIKELY point to start “spraying” is it, right under the passengers’s eyes! (But actually the droplet size is probably too fine to be visible over the wing.)

8.) Burst Condensation relates to marine life, as explained in many abstracts on the subject. Jazzroc, you are slowly coming unraveled from the onslaught of proof we “chemtrailers” have provided, and thus have shown that you are nothing mors than a bald-faced liar. And what is so great, is that you will delete this post, giving me the last word!

So I checked by typing “burst condensation” into Google… and this is what immediately rolled out:

  1. An analysis of rapid increases in condensation nuclei …

    Massive bursts in condensation nuclei (CN) concentration were recorded at a … In a previous paper the burst phenomenon was linked to the movement of the …
    cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1879678 – Similar pages
    by JL GRENFELL1999
    Cited by 24Related articlesAll 8 versions

  2. Generalization of an asymptotic model for constant-rate aerosol …

    Key words: aerosol, asymptotic, burst, condensation, nucleation. 1. Introduction … and condensation to both be important during a nucleation burst. …
    http://www.springerlink.com/index/W4862551P4134428.pdfSimilar pages
    by BD Shaw2003
    Related articlesAll 4 versions

  3. Chronological Development of Shallow Underwater Burst

    For an underwater burst at moderate (or great) depth, essentially all of the … The descent of water and spray from the column and from condensation in the …
    http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/undrwtr.html – 12k – CachedSimilar pages

  4. JST Failure Knowledge Database > Case Details > Burst of a …

    Top > Case Details > Burst of a phenolic resin reactor due to abnormal … Condensation became insufficient because the tubes of the condenser were blocked. …
    shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000101& – 29k – CachedSimilar pages

  5. [PPT]

    Bose-Einstein Condensation Lesson

    File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint – View as HTML
    CU’s section on Bose-Einstein Condensation can be found at: …. Why burst energy and how. much? Why is there a cold remnant. afterwards? …
    phet.colorado.edu/admin/get-contribution-file.php?contribution_file_id=708 – Similar pages

marine life, as explained in many abstracts on the subject”, eh?

As you can see, there’s nothing to do with live sea creatures, only something to do with the opposite of what you indicate. In other words, you are a liar, which is why you find yourself here…

liar1

John
 
re your second letter. It concerns material found at the site below:
 
http://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/
 
which refers to this picture on airliners.net.
 
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin-Atlantic-Airways/Airbus-A340-642/1088680/L/
 
In the comments on this page Uncinus and I had this conversation:
 
on 29 Aug 2008 at 8:50 am jazzroc

“Very pretty. But what is it? It’s clearly not a regular exhaust contrail, as the trail seems to start actually ON the wing, and it has a weird rainbow effect you don’t find in exhaust contrails.”
Hi Uncinus. There are TWO elements to what you see. The first (starting at the wing) is the aerodynamic element, as the pressure drop above the wing initiates the precipitation of fine ice crystals into the air. The second is the exhaust water from the jets which is condensing directly into ice crystals. The aircraft is flying high in a partly super-satured stratospheric layer, and the picture wasn’t taken from sea level – because the sky is BLACK. (I can appreciate that a modicum of photographic contrast and colour saturation modification has taken place.)
“It’s actually an aerodynamic contrail. It’s formed by the reduction of pressure in the air as it moves over the wing. When the pressure of a gas falls, then its temperature also falls (the same principle as is used by your refrigerator). The reduced temperature cause small drops of water to condense, which then may freeze. The drops get larger as more water condenses on them. The different sized drops refract water by different amounts, which accounts for the “rainbow” effect.”
Well, I’ve covered that it’s TWO effects. I wish to argue strongly that your “growing water droplets” is way off. What were you thinking? You KNOW that the temperatures of the stratosphere don’t rise above freezing point until far above normal aircraft flight altitudes!
The effect (and its mostly visible on the aircraft exhaust ices due to their relative abundance here) is due to INTERFERENCE – not refraction.
Due to stratospheric super-saturation, the crystals are progressively growing in size as the agglomerate more ice from the “excess” water vapour.
As they progressively GROW in thickness (they’re flat hexagonal crystals), they also progressively INTERFERE with specific light frequencies. So you are “bound” to get a rainbow-like effect. Not only that, but subsets of these frequencies will “come around again”, so you’ll get two or three “rainbows”. But as they larger, the crystals get more “exotic” in shape, and degrade this initially “pure” physical phenomenon, until after a quarter of a mile the effect is gone – scattered away.
At high cruising speeds, the wave vortex of each wing isn’t as pronounced as it is at low speeds and higher angles of attack, but here you CAN see that the tip vortices are “coming inboard” as they follow the aircraft’s wave vortex.

on 29 Aug 2008 at 9:21 am Uncinus

The reason I was talking about growing water droplets was mostly to address the low-level aerodynamic contrails, such as those seen in the video. They can form where it is too warm for ice to form.
Regarding “what I was thinking”, my explanation is partially cribbed from the Gieren poster:
http://contrailscience.com/files/Gierens_Aerodynamic_poster_060625.pdf
Which is actually from a paper on the sequence of photos from which this one was taken. In the poster they say: The ice crystal size distributions (solid curves) are generated from homogeneous freezing of liquid aerosol droplets (dashed). The smallest droplets freeze first, followed by freezing of larger droplets, until all available aerosol particles are depleted .… Mie theory was used to calculate optical properties from the size distributions,
assuming spherical ice particles. It then explains this exact color distribution, which matches his assumptions. “Refraction” was probably wrong, I’ve changed the text slightly to reflect “different optical properties”. The formation of aerodynamic contrails is a very different process to exhaust contrails, it’s not fully understood, but it’s not surpising that the resultant crystals can be very different.

As for where the photo was taken:
On June 12 2005 from 14:59 to 15:06 Bejing time (~07:00 UTC) pilot and photographer Jeff Well took a series of 45 photos of an exceptionally colourful iridescent contrail produced by an A340-313X aircraft in 9600 m (31,500 feet) altitude, just 1200 m higher as his position on the same route over eastern China.
I must admit though, I’m not exactly clear if liquid water can exist at that altitude and temperature, even for the fraction of a second he implies. Deposition (the opposite of sublimation) seems more in keeping with what I’ve read.

on 29 Aug 2008 at 9:51 am jazzroc

Haha, so I was right about the photo!
I read the pdf AFTER I’d posted, and with some trepidation, when I realized the solemnity of the source!
But I now suspect they also hadn’t properly considered the temperatures involved, and that also the solid ice deposition and accretion would produce by interference the same sequence (in effect) as their results demonstrated – including the scattering they mentioned.
If exhaust steam at 1100 deg C cools down a 1000 degrees to visibility, hence changing phase to liquid at 100 degrees taking out 540 Kcal/gram in a fraction of a second, I cannot see how it could waste much time at all making a second phase change to solid at 0 degrees taking out only 80 Kcal/gram and dropping a further 30 degrees.
The strange nature of the ice trail leading from the trailing edge of the wing hold’s one’s attention, doesn’t it? It is “backlit” by reflected sunlight off the top of the wing, as well as lit by sunlight from above.
Quite a show. As ever, your site is superb…

on 29 Aug 2008 at 11:24 am Uncinus

I think this paper explains the situation better. Note Figure 1 in this paper is a photo of the same plane taken at around the same time.

http://contrailscience.com/files/Aerodynamic%20contrails%20Microphysics%20and%20optical%20Properties.pdf

They estimate the temperature at 241K (-25F), which is rather different to the -40C they mention in the poster. At that temperature, water can exist as liquid supercooled droplets that only freeze when they get to a certain size.

It does seem to be all explained in the paper. A bit complicated though.

on 29 Aug 2008 at 4:10 pm jazzroc

Ha!
You are right about it being “a bit complicated”, but I’m grateful for the complexity. Personally, to fully understand and master THAT would take me about a month of eight-hour days in a technical library. I shan’t be doing it, but thanks.
It’s interesting that this rare phenomenon will become less rare in the future, as more flights will take place along the Pacific Ring, where warmer and more humid conditions are to be found.
I like the way they considered the trail in depth and breadth, and made distinctions between particle sizes, and considered simplifications (!) to get their results. Also the discussion of the pre-conditioning of the aerosol particles by previous flights, and their relevance to GW and albedo modification.
They are right. You are right. A brilliant science paper of 54 pages. I’m off to eat some words…
 
Notice it was conducted without any rudeness, snide remarks, or incivility.
 
If you study the material available to you in the links mentioned above you will become fully acquainted with aerodynamic contrails. I also recommend the links below, which will acquaint you with research and conclusions about persistent trails leading to permanent cirrus cloud formation.

 
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dphju
http://tinyurl.com/hvp34
http://tinyurl.com/4qyaww
http://tinyurl.com/3lc9ry
http://tinyurl.com/4spcco
http://tinyurl.com/3mcj3e
http://tinyurl.com/3f2y2z
http://tinyurl.com/47lcdg
 
Meanwhile, your comment was deleted because of its irrelevance and incivility (as I warned I would do in my blog foreword).

incivility

Not Coming

with 2 comments

This is a lenticular cloud - and not an Adamski Scoutship

PAGE CONTENTS

NOMEANSNO – NOT COMING – NOT HEALTHY – NOTHING – NOTRAILS – NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME) – OFFICIAL (VERSION) – OGRISH – OUTSIDE IN – PAINT – PENITENT (The Longest Day II)

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

NOMEANSNO

People queuing up to be poisoned by a sprayer whose pilot was just too lazy to switch the spray off

This gentleman really means “No!” He has decided the way it is, and anything that doesn’t fit the way he sees it, is OUT.

Hey Jazzy, you seem to find me about every 6 months or so. I can’t return comments on the re:on off video so i thought I would PM you. First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:
/watch?v=E0AzCIzDf6I&NR=1
I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.
That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated. I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on. Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling. G

First to set it straight, are you debunking this guy?:

No. Michio is setting things straight here. A whole generation of radiation meters under-read a while back. The first time such meters went into space they read NOTHING. This was because the radiation overexposure SATURATED them. All that needs to be done is add some redundancy to the network, so that info can be moved out of the way of the storm. Satellites in earth’s shadow remain useful, and advance warning of approaching storms is already in place.

I know there is more to this whole topic than meets the eye. I am professionally trained in the field of thermal transfer and am fully aware of the conditions of our atmosphere. I have a better than average grasp of physics. And am a practicing expert in philosophy.

I don’t believe you at all. Anyone with the slightest grasp of physics knows you are barking up the wrong tree.

wobbly moment as spray pilot misses the switch in the gloom

That said, any information you have of the current global attempts at controlling/modifying the weather would be appreciated.

There are none. Just you bunch talking up a storm.
1. Teller’s Bar/Al Welsbach materials need placing higher in the atmosphere than planes can fly.
2. It’s possible to make liquid organic metals but they are expensive, corrosive, prone to spontaneous ignition, and don’t pump easily. If burnt in a turbofan they would destroy it in seconds,
3. If burnt in a turbofan there would be no GAP in the trail between the exhaust and the trail beginning. Instead the exit flame would be colored green or white.
These three objections, coupled with the fact that a jet is a 2000 deg F FLAME rule out completely ANY chemtrailer notion. One’s enough…

I have gleaned from our “discussions” that you know more than you are letting on.

Of course I do. It’s a huge field and 500 chrs is a small space to play in.

Why do the bulk of your ilk argue in the same manner? Act open to discussion yet when the chips are down, retreat behind a veil of name calling.

It’s a product of your hypocritical rose-tinted glasses worn as part of a partisan group. The opposite of what you say is almost always the truth. I certainly find personally that any chemtrailer’s assertion is a negative pointer to the truth of any matter. Faithinscience is abusive, and stands alone. I am normally abused after my first question which receives no answer, The abuser never seems to notice what he does. It’s almost like “Tourettes syndrome”.
In atmospheric physics the behavior of aircraft has been well understood for sixty years. Hundreds of papers have been written minutely examining the contents of trails to thousandths of a percent. These days they are measured and assayed using laser interferometry from satellite or ground.
It is known that in the stratosphere a jumbo can lay down thirty-five pounds of ice for each yard of forward flight. Did you know that?
The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice. Did you know that?
Now can you put one and one together and see what your mind has been doing to you?

I did not know that, and still don’t. I can not find any corroborating evidence to support such a claim, Ice is 977 times denser than vapour – a far cry from 10,000.
If Michio Kaku is so sure about a coming solar storm, you think nothing is being done about this? You don’t know about haarp and the other 25 such devices around the globe. The inventor/developer of this technology is on the record stating its scope of use?
I am well aware of contrail science, but normal contrails do not act this way, at least they didn’t when I was younger. If the reason for the extra spreading of contrails as of late, is normal, there is serious pollution issues in the stratosphere. And we should be rallying to put an end to this waste.

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
You cannot find corroborating evidence because you only find “chemtrailer” lies. To avoid them you must use “Advanced Search” and include “-chemtrail” and “-aerosol” in your search terms. Then if you search for “paper stratosphere aviation combustion ice trail cirrus cloud”, for instance, you get an entirely different set of results.
We’re all sure of the approaching storm. The solar cycle is well understood. I’ve told you something is being done about this. HAARP has nothing to do with this. The Sun can be hundreds of times more powerful than HAARP. The scope of use doesn’t extend as far as countering a solar storm – nor could it ever.
You aren’t aware at all of anything. You do look silly contradicting thousands of clever hard-working people. Everything you have been talking about and believe about “chemtrails” is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY REAL SCIENCE. Since when was ICE pollution? When water vapor comes out of solution in the air of the stratosphere at -40 deg F and seven miles up, it materializes as PURE ICE. The initial “pollution” of the internal combustion engine becomes diluted TEN THOUSAND TIMES. That makes it quite fresh…. As I have told you previously, EVERY word you utter points in the opposite direction to TRUTH. You waste my time. Go to a library.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3V5YS7F-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1186771367&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4c14e8bcc11a5d4214e1afea2634d331
This is exactly how i use the term aerosol. You are an ass. Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: “The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.”

“Well? Facts: you can’t back such a bs statement: ‘The ice laid in what is technically known as a “persistent spreading contrail” can be ten thousand times heavier than the exhausted ice.'”

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
This reference I gave to you previously.
Page 17, second column second para: “The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gm per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”

Do you want more DIRECT CONTRADICTION, or is that enough for you? By the way “orders of magnitude” means “powers of ten”. FOUR orders is 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 10,000… Got it? Further searches along the lines I have already indicated to you will bring up further corroboration. If you have the courage to undertake it…

3 to 4 is a fair jump. would you not agree? And from a nasa science lab to boot. “ahh a thousand, ten thousand whats the diff! ”
There is ample eye witness testimony, doctor reports and interviews, lab reports, professional statements, police fireman… all leaning towards a large scale effort to prepare for the solar storms. HAARP may be a small but crucial element in this effort. To think a govt agency would state something intentionally erroneous is preposterous! ***warren commish, 911 commish *cough-cough*

It stated the facts precisely. It is YOU who pretends otherwise. It’s only one of many papers which all say similar things. Some of them are in different languages. The last time I looked there were hundreds. There’s none so blind as one who does not wish to see.
You ask for an example then give a spurious reason to dismiss it. You call BS and then weasel out.
Preparation for high solar activity is normal. Your slant on it is absurd. I’m sure you’re unaware how you’re now changing the subject. Warren Commission? Far out! Go back to school. Unless you haven’t been in the first place. And write me no more.

so you agree with Michio but not me? YES
There is absolute proof of world wide under ground construction. SO?
From Gates’ Norwegian seed cave to the Denver Airport, yet you deny this????? NO
The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
The scope of the ability of haarp includes protection from such an event. BALLS
Warren commission’s magic bullet and the 911 commission’s magic passport should raise the hackles on the most conservative of skeptics. BALLS
so you agree with Michio but not me? YES

The sun is about to do something never witnessed by modern man. BALLS
This is WHAT Michio stated, so one of your answers here is wrong, or balls is an affirmative to you. Which is it?
And as for the passport laying on the street unscathed, if you buy that then you are an idiot. there is no way a passport went through that explosion and ended up unscathed a few blocks away. no way. This, M. Atta’s passport was planted.

It’s going through an active phase so it MIGHT do something never before witnessed. That doesn’t mean it will. The way you interpret these facts is the BALLS. Same goes for the passport. You cannot conceive of it so for you it is inconceivable. While you fail to interpret these events, the REAL events are passing you by…

btw your response fits 3 of these:
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__

It would, whether or not I was a “disinformer”.
This whole approach (of yours) IS disinformation. Everything “chemtrail” is LIES AND EYE-BULGING HYPOCRISY.
You only have to visit a library to find real information.
“Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.”
This above statement is out of YOUR literature. It APPLIES TO YOU.
Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library? According to your “sources” it is often a “fact” that existing sources have been “tampered with”. Does that seem plausible to you? Each book made by the million, circulated to thousands of libraries, sold privately to hundreds of thousands of people. Each reclaimed and altered?
Every day some pathetic individual tasks me about conspiracies, smogs, fuels, contrails, 9-11, with some pet theory that seems entirely original to him. It’s not original. It’s all been done, and probably in the planning stage, by people trained and qualified and with your best interests to heart, for they have to live in your world too. They have already proved their intelligence and willingness to work hard. All you have to do is the same.
In the meantime, shut up with the crap. That worked for me, it could do so for you.

Have you noticed how your OWN information NEVER recommends you visit a library?
WTF? I started this whole thing off, asking if you, or that faith dude, if you had read Dr Eastlund, or Dr Begich or William Thomas, all available in libraries. You are an asshole, your “holier than thou” attitude would get a boot in the ass in person.

Only if I don’t smack you first. I read such technical books BEFORE Eastlund, Begich and Thomas. And I avoided being a creep too. The FACTS are holier than either of us. You’re the one who can’t deal with a technical report made by the finest scientists in their field. Learn to stand on your feet.

NO, Michio stated, “around 2012 the sun’s magnetosphere WILL flip, sending out a shockwave of radiation”, not might, or may. The unknown is the effect this will have on communications and the grid. So you are giving Mr Kaku the same “know it all” attitude. As for chemtrails, you know the causal effects pertaining to contrail formation, and could you not envision a way to increase this effect? People already have. Patents exist and have been bought by the US Navy.

ISS and Shuttle before the Sun

It won’t be doing anything it hasn’t done before “around 2012”. The reason why there will be an unknown effect of communication is that we have a higher dependency on this rather radiation-sensitive machinery known as microelectronics than we had the last time around. Any other reason you come up with will be a readout on your condition. The action of a turbofan on a low-pressure low-temperature supersaturated stratosphere could not be more extreme than it already is. Which you would understand if you have studied the subject, Which you have not. There are patents for a hotel on the Moon. Why don’t you go there? Now. While you’re there you could take a book or two… Make’em science books…

So then you do disagree with michio, man are you hard to converse with. Alter your comments and ignore facts for insults, like you are stupid, instead of saying “this is where you are wrong” type comment. I take it you did not even listen to the link of the leading physicists of our time.

The reason I am hard to converse with is that I break concepts down to their essentials where you cannot. You cannot, because you bring an agenda to the table of your own which you will support at all costs – as you have just demonstrated, for the above reasoning slipped by you as though it wasn’t there. Telling you where you are going wrong isn’t an insult. You’ll know it when I insult you. You’ll have to improve your stature first.

the navy hasn’t bought up all the moon hotel patents have they? By the time you are satisfied on this subject it will be too late. Again, insults instead of FACTS.
FYI: “…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.” That would make it modern man has never seen this occur. Of course you will bitch about the term modern man, I am referring to historic records, not evolutionary records. Oh we should check if you believe in evolution first, could be a whole can of worms with you.
Other time around? you are confusing this coming event with recorded c.m.e. events that have been witnessed. this pole shift has not been ever witnessed by a modern civilization. I am not extrapolating comments or theorizing on events, I am taking physicists words for the truth.
What i do think about is if there is proof our world leaders know about this and are doing anything to prepare/prevent or protect us from this coming solar storm. And by all accounts they are, yet you choose to insult and languish in your knowledge, acting like there is nothing in this world you don’t fully grasp. Shame.

“…that the magnetic field of the sun undergoes a drastic change every 11,500 to 12,000 years.”
Does that make the change due NOW, 500 years from NOW, or some time in-between?

I’m not about to instruct you, even if you look to me as pathetic as a goldfish that’s just flopped out of its tank. DO your own work. I had to do the same. “Modern”. LOL

See, yet again insults. Water off a ducks back, my e-asshole. You seem satiated with the power of ten in your facts, where as this one is what like 5%, Kaku and others have seen this event as happening in 2012, why do you think that could be? Our sun is acting the oddest it has since we have been observing it, yet you know better. Oh wise one!

Satiated with LOGIC, more like. You should try it some time.

there will be credible samples retrieved soon enough. You will doubt those at first as well.
one last thing: why does no one direct me to info on how the trail from a plane will thin out, width-wise, turn into virga and cover a quarter of the sky. Not one source for the science behind this, and not to mention this has only been occurring for the last 20 years or so. Pollution, perhaps. Then should this not be a wake up call to clean up our act. The tons of fuel burned daily to cart people around is mind boggling. 230 million gallons per day according to BP. Could this not be the factor increasing the so called persistent contrails?

The reasons why “no-one directed” you is that the explanation is complex. It is actually there, in the reference I gave you. In the report.
Simply speaking, it is helped by the aircraft’s wave vortex. The trails are swept up in it, turning inside out many times within it for several minutes. Vortex motion ceases some fifty miles behind the aircraft. The slight downward angle of the vortex would put that end hundreds of metres lower in the stratosphere. Trails ALWAYS fall. Also the two side-by-side trails can interfere with each other, and “link” together in what look exactly like smoke rings. This is called “the Crow Instability”.

As a consequence the underside of the trail adopts a “sawtooth” appearance. Each “tooth” is a virga. At every virga centre is a downward-moving column of air. This is where much of the ice deposition takes place. Because of the increased weight of the heavier ice particles they fall faster.
This whole process continues, falling through, until the surrounding stratospheric layer has no ice to give. As the particles fall down through the lower stratosphere they are falling into COLDER air, which supports them. The layers may be drier, so they evaporate there. (But generally the reverse is true: the layers get less capable of holding water vapor in solution as the temperature falls). It is possible that only when the ice crystals reach the warmer air beneath the tropopause, they finally evaporate. This will be normally a level surface. Hence the flat grey underside appearance you typically see. That underside will be between four and five miles high at European latitudes.

What I have written here is itself an over-simplification.
If you are really interested in knowing more, my blog offers many sources. You just have to follow the links till you get to the papers, and then look up the references the papers themselves leave. Do that for a while and you will know at least as much as I do, Maybe.

no, no, no…  you are describing a natural event, the persistent contrail.
In a week or so I will put together a video SHOWING what I am talking about. One of your cohort, jesuslives57, went through this same argument. I am referring to the complete thinning out of a trail, till it is spread wide open, filling the sky! Maybe you have never seen this occur. That would explain your position. There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor.
See, I have read up on all of this, have research atmospheric sites and have emailed meteorologist…all with no answer for my question. Most ignore, some, like you, repeat the known information, some like jl57, deny this is from planes!
I witnessed a plane over Victoria BC two summers ago. It flew directly over the city left three circular blobs, relatively small. These expanded until the sky was overcast. I phoned to get a friend to video them but no luck. These were not any way normal.

“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 x 10^4 gms per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”
This FACT is what you cannot accept. Many research papers have discovered the same basic information since 1953 when contrails were first analyzed in depth. You say “There is no reason for a normally produced contrail to act like this, without some extra factor” and I am telling you the extra factor is SUPERSATURATION. You must have seen this word before. You just DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT THIS IS. So study it. Study THE PHASES OF WATER. Use the advanced search exclusion process to find yourself some REAL TRUTH and not the lies you are accustomed to reading. You will discover SCIENCE and put away childish dreams.

why are you such an asshole? were you abused as a child? Look at the images from the 40’s of persistent contrails then look up! see the difference?
I am positive you do not know the effect I am writing about, as you are not addressing the topic.
I am professionally trained in thermodynamics, and am an adult. so you can eat your condescending attitude, shit it out and eat it again. I didn’t say I was mature. I went through some old videos, none really capture clearly what I have ONLY stated. And we must be very clear for you so you don’t dodge the point, yet again. I will post a video soon enough with your name on it, then please comment on how your non-belief in added particulate is responsible. There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.

“There are doctors on record stating they treat the symptoms of exposure to these chemicals. They must be lying, ill educated morons also.”

How do you KNOW these symptoms are the result of “exposure to these chemicals”? Is that what the doctors actually stated? Were they actually a doctor, and not a fraud like Hildegarde Staninger?
What “linkage” is there here? Did someone say they saw a trail in the sky seven miles up?
If repeating hearsay and drummed-up uneducated witness testimony and the creepiness of people like Staninger doesn’t make you a lying, ill-educated moron, than I don’t know what will. Thanks for assuming that was what I was thinking. It saved me the effort.
“I am professionally trained in thermodynamics” yes, I heard you before. I don’t believe you were “trained” at all. Shown a book and videos, and asked questions, more like.
You don’t seem open enough to thinking to be educable. I obtained my training at the National Gas Turbine Establishment in its heyday, working on and designing modifications to gas turbines and test chambers.

I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless. If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also? I guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!
I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.
and needless to say top of my class. Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to believe this effect is possible.

“One of your cohort, jesuslives57 went through this same argument.” And you call ME an asshole. JL57 and I haven’t ever exchanged more than a couple of dozen words. If you want to know who MY cohort is – it’s YOU. It’s a wonderful life…

“I have my own empirical evidence of manufactured trails, relating them to you would be pointless”
If empirical, it’s a first. Congratulations on your Nobel Prize.

“If Dr Hildegarde Staninger is such a moron, like me, why is the CDC conducting an investigation into Morgellon’s/unexplained dermopathy also?”
Because it is unexplained?

“9i guess they are full of morons too. Must be tough being so smart and trapped in that pathetic body! Well they say one is either smart or good looking, can’t have both!”
You must be REALLY good-looking! 🙂

“I do not need to prove my education to you, but I am a refrigeration mechanic, energy transfer is a large part of the training. 5 years worth.and needless to say top of my class.”
It’s a pity trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists wasn’t part of your curriculum. Perhaps if you don’t have it you cannot appreciate it.

“Your training should let you know that factors can be altered, there is ample proof to balieve this effect is possible.”
My training tells me persistent contrails exist, and things without any evidence for them need hard EVIDENCE before they are deemed to replace things which are KNOWN to exist.

If you had such evidence you would have rammed it down my throat, I’m sure. Here’s mine:
THE CLEAR INVISIBLE NATURE OF THE TRAIL “GAP” IS PROOF OF NO METALS BEING PRESENT.
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS CAN PASS THROUGH A FLAME WITHOUT COMBUSTING.
TURBOFAN ENGINES CAN PRODUCE AN ICE TRAIL 10,000 TIMES LARGER THAN THEIR ICE OF COMBUSTION.

Empirical: originating in, or based on, observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you? I gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n’easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap, typical for the angry rebuttal types is to lump all together, I suppose I think there is a problem with the water because rainbows appear in lawn sprinklers, like that dbootsthediva person. Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps. The nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.

empirical :originating in or based on observation or experience. Does this mean something else to you?
Hard evidence.

i gave you the smart/ugly thing, you always go the cheap’n’easy route?
I never claimed anything about a gap.

NO. I’m telling you the GAP proves the absence of metals.

Well now you have gone from a blanket denier to a “waiter for proof”, baby steps
It’s just my experience of waiting and being disappointed by the trite crap “revealed” to me..

the nozzles are placed, not in the combustion, but out the plane body, there are plane mechanics on record stating there are 500 gallon tanks on these planes. There are patents on aerosol delivery systems, bought up by the US navy, that detail such systems.
Apart from the fact that ANYONE could type up a shitstorm (and they do) – there’s NOTHING. The PTB have obviously had a total success there… Patents – go visit the Moon.

trusting the expertise and professionalism of thousands of atmospheric scientists
like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?
NO ORGANIC MATERIALS
who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.

like the Canadian govt scientists that have had a gag order placed on them?

No. Like the REST OF THE WORLD for SIXTY YEARS.

who said anything about organic? The last decade has brought about monumental advances in polymers.

Polymers ARE organic.

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

That’s all very stupid. Perhaps I should apply, eh? There’s enough STUPID as there is.

NOT COMING

contrails-3

“If these are CONTRAILS, then WHY are they not coming from the engines” – THEY ARE*. It takes a SPLIT SECOND for jet exhausts to cool from 1100deg C to -40deg C. That can be up to 800 feet away at operational altitude. *Except in the case of aerodynamic trails and highly-supersaturated air.

“Contrails disappear within minutes” – NO. They can disappear in SECONDS in DRY AIR, or NOT DISAPPEAR AT ALL in SATURATED AIR, or ANYTHING IN-BETWEEN.

“some are indeed contrails, but lots of them are NOT!” – If you UNDERSTAND what I have just written then you NOW KNOW THIS STATEMENT TO BE UTTERLY WRONG.

NOT HEALTHY

fitness

They are indeed not healthy, but both are fitness itself compared with science-hating conspiracy fruitloops.

Volcanic action is twenty times more dangerous than aviation combustion, works 24/7, and doesn’t worry me either, because I know that Life air-conditions it. Fresh air itself was once volcanic effluent.

Something sensible to worry about would be the removal of forests and phytoplankton, but you don’t do sensible, do you?

forest

NOTHING

(The life’s work of dbootsthediva):

“‘secret’, ‘hidden in plain sight’ weather eng HAARP” – There’s NOTHING as HIDDEN as something which DOESN’T EXIST. HAARP is a radio establishment IN THE MIDDLE OF ALASKA – A QUARTER WAY ROUND THE GLOBE.

“In the UK it’s mainly used to create the depressing uniform dull grey sky which has now become accepted as standard ‘British weather'”FALSE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY – WELL, WAY BACK TO THE SIXTIES…

“But HAARP isn’t the only thing at work here” – IT ISN’T AT WORK HERE. IF IT WORKS AT ALL IT’S LINE-OF-SIGHT.

cloudbuster

“orgonite cloudbuster” – NOR IS THIS. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE BUT FAKE.

“‘mackerel sky’ clouds just materialising out of nowhere” – NO. SUNLIGHT IS ADDING ENERGY TO THE BOUNDARY LAYER AIR, WHICH RISING, CONDENSES OUT SOME OF ITS WATER VAPOR AS CLOUD. THE EXPRESSION “MACKEREL SKIES” IS CENTURIES OLD…

“getting it in May 2006” – AND BOY YOU GOT IT.

“makes HAARP effects more obvious” – YOUR LUNACY MORE OBVIOUS…

“formation of artificial clouds” – YEAH, JUST AROUND YOU…

“prevents the grey cloud layer forming completely” – IN THE WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND…

“leaving white clouds in an obvious strange pattern” – LEAVING THEM THE WAY THEY WERE…

altocumulus

altocumulus

“There’s also a few chemtrails in the background” – OF COURSE!

“28 secs into it, did you catch a plasma EM field?” – YEP, MY $33 WEBCAM CAME WITH A CONVERSATION GENERATOR WHICH DOWNLOADS INTO PERFECT GIBBERISH

“58 secs Sensor Orb alert. and 1.01 too?” – SEE? GIBBER. GIBBER.

“Quantum Cryptography/clouds morph/smaller images/another image altogether” – GIBBER. GIBBER. GIBBER.

“tree leaves/pixels” – GIBBER. GIBBER.

“aerosol carbon coenzyme” – GIBBER “helps create” – A COSMETIC? “catalyst” – MAGIC SCIENCE WORD.

“chemtrail can expand instead of dissipating” – GIBBER!

“No stratus or cirrus cloud formations without the help of the synthetic plasma field” – ALL SINGING AND DANCING GIBBER!!!

wizard-of-oz

“We are not in Kansas anymore” DOROTHY “not real clouds” – ESSENTIALLY WRONG!

“ultrafine powders & transparent liquids of multi layered metallic silica oxides varieties, bacteria, and chemicals to create different catalysts for different cryptography effects”

magic-hat

BAGS OF MAGIC SCIENCE WORDS!

WAIT A MINUTE. CRYPTOGRAPHY IS THE WRITING OF CODES SUCH AS THE MORSE CODE AND THE DECRYPTION OF ENIGMA!

“ive seen chemtrails here in New Zealand & the exact same thing happens with the weather, what are they doing?” – I WILL DECRYPT THIS FOR YOU:  NOTHING.

NOTRAILS

Hi notrails,

The air in ANY clear blue sky ALWAYS contains WATER. It’s in the form of VAPOR. Water vapor is a CLEAR INVISIBLE GAS.

Reference to standard physical tables gives you the means to work out the ACTUAL amount of water present in a clear blue sky, and at a ground temperature of 23 deg C and a RH of 65% it works out that there’s 3,300 tons of INVISIBLE WATER VAPOR in the CLEAR air to the horizon from where you are standing.

In general, when you are looking at THE TROPOSPHERE with its blue sky with rising cumuli, it pays to remember there’s LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN WATER CONTENT between BLUE SKY and CLOUDS.

The STRATOSPHERE above ALSO contains water vapor. Its temperature just above the TROPOPAUSE is NEVER warmer than -40 deg C. Due to the INTENSE COLD and the THIN AIR, much less vapor can be held in the air, before it exhibits SATURATION or even SUPERSATURATION.

A passenger airplane at 35,000 ft and 550mph deposits its exhaust in the form of CO2 gas and ice crystals at, say,  50lb per mile. That’s about 25 lb of water per mile, laid as a “cirrus” cloud of intensely frozen ice crystals. The craft has a large wave vortex which acts as a “mixer” for the crystals and they are spread into that stratosphere’s layer.

If the RH of the layer is less than 100% then those crystals SUBLIME into water vapour, the trail DISAPPEARS, and THE LAYER’S RH RISES.

If the RH of the layer is 100%, the layer is said to be SATURATED, and the CONTRAIL PERSISTS INDEFINITELY.

If the RH of the layer is greater than 100%, the layer is said to be SUPERSATURATED, the CONTRAIL not only PERSISTS INDEFINITELY but also GAINS WEIGHT as water vapor freezes ONTO the contrail’s ice crystals. The HEAVY trail material increases its rate of descent (ice crystals are ALWAYS falling).

Now it should be OBVIOUS to you that REPEATED PASSAGES of AIRCRAFT through stratospheric layers INCREASE the RH of the layer to SATURATION, and WHEN that happens, TRAILS WILL PERSIST AND SPREAD TO FILL THE LAYER. BLUE SKIES WILL BE GONE…

SO – CHEMTRAILS ARE A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

AND THEN YOU PROJECT UPON OTHERS YOUR CONFUSION, AND YOUR HATRED.

Thanks for the imaginatively-titled cloud pictures. Always gratefully received. Your land is less of a desert than Tenerife. In fact it is very beautiful.

hawaii

You’re a lucky man. Or could be…

NUTS (TO SOMEONE WHO BLOCKED ME)

nuts

I didn’t say you were nuts, did I? Check. Thanks for not censoring me, some have. For evidence, follow a civil jet with a quick light plane trailing a fine net & capture bottle. Analyse it yourself. I never found results like the ones claimed on my engine test bed.
The annual (24/7) volcanic action of Earth’s 1500 active land volcanoes outdoes Man’s 300 million tons of jet fuel by 2000%. Life has converted it into fresh air for at least 3 billion years. Worry about the forests and phytoplankton. Whoops…

OFFICIAL (VERSION)

Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.

Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.

Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.

Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.

The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).

Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.

More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.

OGRISH

lingering contrail is not the best description” – Oh, yes it is!

A contrail will remain visible for longer with different humidity and temperature but thinning and creating cloud cover?” – Supersaturated air THICKENS the trail so much it falls as PENDULES. You have seen them…. As a trail IS ICE it IS CIRRUS CLOUD. As for filling a stratospheric layer, that’s EASY, the WAVE VORTEX supplies the energy. Some of that energy is STILL THERE half an hour later…. If you knew ANYTHING at all about the atmosphere (which you don’t) you’d pipe down… As it is you’re loudmouthing away, and I can’t stop you.

haarp2

Read the patent holders comments about the multiple uses of H.A.A.R.P.” – It’s used to HEAT a line-of-sight AREA of the ionosphere. It is less effective than my microwave is for warming my tea. It’s a research establishment studying aspects of the near-vacuum in the ionosphere. It cannot be aimed directly at your arse unless you’re flying at 110,000 ft over Alaska…. and if you were, you wouldn’t feel a thing…. being a radio establishment it has strategic possibilities, but catalyzing clouds over Europe, for instance, is not one of them. It has the “beam focussing power” of Mr. Magoo.

mr_magoo

N.A.S.A.’s comments on ozone replacement” – Go like “stop air travel and your problems will disappear (until the next volcanic eruption)”.

U.S.A.F.’s fuel additives” – Boron hydride? Nitromethane? Pfft – a few fast fighters? Solid additives to fuels would be REALLY DANGEROUS to the planes. Liquid additives couldn’t include aluminum or barium for various technical reasons. BLOOD PRODUCTS are a JOKE – surely? *(Since this I realize you were reanimating the MYTH that there is Ethylene Dibromide in JP-8). Wrong!

world wide spray programme” – Unachievable. THE WORLD IS FIFTY TIMES THE AREA OF THE UNITED STATES!

German airforce admits to mass spraying“* – A MOMENTARY CHAFF RELEASE IS NOT “MASS SPRAYING”. How is your ability to be LOGICAL? *(Since then I have discovered that this was a fraudulent mis-translation of the original German. Vicious.)

U.S. sprays radar imaging materials over Afghanistan” – Pfft. Next can please….

reports from pilots and air traffic controllers” – EVERY ONE OF THEM SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT AS TO BE A LIE. More fraud.

real events happening above us daily” – A million tons of combusted kerosine = a million tons of stratospheric ice, mostly sublimed to water vapour, is what is REALLY happening daily.

I do not deny alot of the footage and discussion on the net is ill-informed and plain wrong” – GOOD.

William Thomas’ analysis of this subject” – HAVEN’T SEEN IT. SHALL LOOK.

it is not as simple as you try to write it off as in your videos and comments” – OH, YES IT IS! My videos are MUSICAL. Shows how hard YOU research…

I can provide url’s to all this information” – Oh, God. Send them.

And a final note your formula is for carbonated water not soda pop” – Haha. True, but a damned sight closer than ANY chemtrail statement!

soda-syphon

Hahahahaha… …you all think you’re original and it’s the same old PAP! POP?

In return for wading through WT and your urls I demand you check out my blog.

There are at least SOME TRUE THINGS stated there…..

OUTSIDE IN

PAINT

paint

“aluminum, anthrax*, lupus*, fungus*, silver iodide*, barium, bacteria*, titanium” – Those marked * would be incinerated by a gas turbine. A turbofan’s exhaust is as STERILE as a hospital SURGERY. The rest you will find are COMMON INGREDIENTS OF HOUSEHOLD PAINT (Well, not the barium or silver)..

“the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly”

pollution

I’m quoting myself here. Didn’t you read it? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!

PASSION

“Admire your passion” – that’s me – passionately pissed-off by brainless panic-mongering.

“prior to 1998 are extremely rare” – Cheap video cameras were. Persistent contrails WEREN’T.

“of military origin” – Military? THEY take pictures of EVERYTHING.

“trails are spewing directly from the plane” – EASILY HAPPENS in super-saturated air. You ought to thank your lucky stars when you see that, for it means THE AIR IS VERY CLEAN.

“FAA tells contrails appear a wing-span distance from back” – That’s a ROUGH GUIDE. That distance REALLY depends on the VELOCITY of the plane and the TEMPERATURE and HUMIDITY OF THE AMBIENT AIR.

“you consider temp as well, not only humidity” – Do you think I don’t know that?

“The avg temp easily estimated even from ground temp measurement” – NO IT IS NOT. It is a ROUGH GUIDE through the TROPOSPHERE and NO GUIDE AT ALL AFTER THE TROPOPAUSE. ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THE TEMPERATURE IS NEVER WARMER THAN -40 DEG C. IT CAN BE -80 DEG C.

“ground temp of 30 C or more it is hardly likely that a plane flying low enough 2 be visible by the naked eye could produce a normal contrail” – IF IT’S ABOVE THE TROPOPAUSE THAT WON’T BE A TRUE STATEMENT, WILL IT?

“let alone a lasting plume” – In SATURATED AIR in the STRATOSPHERE there is NO WAY those ICE CRYSTALS WILL DISAPPEAR. Sunlight REFLECTS OFF them. That is WHY they are WHITE.

PENITENT (The Longest Day II)

SweetiePie
Informative hub. I learned something new.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for responding, SweetiePie!

randomlight
Nice summation; well done.

Fabrizio
Hi Bard, good article. Yes, chemitrails are real but important is detect and differe them from the common contrails. Of course, the amount of metallic matter in them is a good way for understand they are not a simple condensation.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, randomlight and Fabrizio!

Darol (cd4sunshine)
Very nicely put Bard although the small part about reference to “persistant contrails vs. Chemtrails” really makes no difference as the USAF is gonna say no matter what ya wannna callem, they have always been there and ain’t hurtin’ no one,,,,,RIGHT

Bard of Ely
I am sure you are right, Darol, but I put that in because I know Rosalind thought it was important and I was attempting to give as full a picture as possible!

shipsuperstore
Many a conspiracy at the top they will never tell us, thanks for the insight and I did see the show you referenced on Discovery. Good job.

Bard of Ely
Thank you! It was good that Discovery did a program on it and even though it didn’t really go very far it nevertheless was one of the first reports by the media to give any coverage to the subject!

Madhavi Bhatia
Dear Bard, this is a rather horrifying subject. I’ve never actually heard of this before. The only chemical trails that i”ve heard of are the ones behind jet planes and of course spills of pesticides and insecticides that are sprayed by planes on the american and russian farms. Would you please write a more encyclopedic article on this on the copper wiki. My friends and i would be extremely grateful. The site is http://www.copperwiki.org Do check out some of the articles on sunscreen and eco fibres and please do send feedback when and if you get the time. thanks

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Mhadavi, and I agree it is a “horrifying subject” and this is perhaps why some people go into denial about it and say everything is OK and it’s just vapour trails. This puzzles other people who are alarmed by what they can see in the sky and what they have found out. And these trails and skies covered in the artificial clouds they make is a new occurrence. If you look at photos from around the world from over ten years back there are normal skies with blue skies and white clouds ot perhaps grey ones but never skies streaked with trails and skies covered in whitish haze from such trails. It just doesn’t add up! When I left the Uk in 2004 the sky wasn’t covered in trails but when I went back in 2007 it was! Something has changed! If you add in the admitted reports of military chaff then of course people will be concerned. Whatever is going on it has, as you can see here, spawned a whole new terminology and a movement of people. If I can find time I will submit an article for that site so thank you for the suggestion!

Life_of_Purpose1
Bard, Great post! I have been talking to people about chemtrails quite a bit. It is about awareness and getting others informed. Most people have not even a second thought to look up and see the obvious “writing in the sky”. They are getting better and better in making them look like nice, natural whispy clouds to fool the sheeple. We notice how there will be criss crosses all over the sky one day and the next couple, none. I wonder if we will ever know the truth, what they are, why, and how do they detirme where they spray. There have been many postulations of the ominous reasons to spray of which include keeping us from evolving spiritually and acheiving enlightenment. I find it an interesting speculation as most things in this world, especially instituted by the government, do carry this side effect. Looking forward to learning and sharing more…Namaste, Dre

The How To Hub
A little timeline – I am 31 years old and have grown up in Australia. As a teenager I used to see the trails and think they were cool, you know like the air force jets with the coloured smoke displays…..my perspective as an adult is ….HORROR. What kind of world are we going to leave our future generations?

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Dre and Shaye! Dre, I have heard the points you have made but I thank you for posting them here for others to read. Shaye, I have a British friend who doesn’t accept that chemtrails are harmful but who thinks they are pretty. Personally I think, and a lot of people share this opinion, whether they are harmful or not, a sky with old-fashioned fluffy clouds that make ptictures in the sky for the mind’s eye is far superior aesthetically to a sky graffitied with lines and criss-crosses and finally a whitish haze of false cloud. And that is another part of it – weather forecasts nowadays often talk about haze and hazy conditions. We never used to have all this haze but had skies with clouds or without but not the mess that is so often there now. As Dre, has pointed out some days there is none of this and then the skies return to how they were meant to be.

Karen Ellis
We have them here in Oregon as well. It seems this is a world wide problem? On the days that chemtrails are being used, the planes criss-cross the sky and before you know it, instead of a beautiful blue-skyed day, you have complete overcast.

Bard of Ely
Yes, Karen, and the picture you describe is being reported over and over and over again and IF anyone manages to get any sort of response from anyone official they will say that what is being seen is normal and they are harmless contrails! How can it be harmless to cut out the light with such a cloud cover? Of course, it can’t! We never used to have skies like these! Thanks for posting!

The Bull
Bard, Wow…You have opened my eyes and mind at the same time… I live in the Northeast on the coast of the US…minutes from the Bush compound – Walkers point. The airspace is littered with intenational flights heading to Boston’s Logan and various NY hubs. We also maintain one of the largest US Airforce runways at Portsmouth, NH Pease Air base (only SAC refuling now). The resulting asthma, allergies, flu-like illness, respiratory and sinus problems, nose bleed, fatigue and depression, tinnitis, sight problems and inflammation of the eyes, dizziness, skin rashes, high blood pressure and pneumonia STATISTICS would be very interesting to calculate for this region. Do you have any ideas how I may find this information out statistically? The Bull

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting, Bull! I don’t personally know how you’d get such answers but I would thank that someone at the chemtrailtrackingusa forum would and what’s more the members would welcome such an idea – there is often the call there for ways of doing something that produces scientific data that can be given to the authorities and the debunkers so they can be asked to explain it! In other words we need to be able to talk their language back at them. Please consider joining and posting there if only for the one thread. The link is at the bottom of my article.

rmr
Very informative! I have been reading about contrails for years, but I have never heard them referred to as chemtrails before. I have noticed, though, that many of them do seem to have a lot more hang time lately. I live relatively close to a major airport, and have noticed that, on some days, there are upwards of 100 contrails in the sky, while on others there are only a few.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for your feedback, rmr! You have a mystery there whether they are harmless or not! Debunkers of the subject say the trails only persist in certain atmospheric conditions to which my question is why did such conditions not exist until in the last decade or so in which chemtrails have been reported? There are two airports on this island and plenty of planes in and out but mostly no chemtrails, however, when I went back to Cardiff in Wales last year the skies were covered in trails daily as was the airport there and it didn’t used to be like that!

Lou Purplefairy
Great hub Steve, and as you well know a subject close to my heart as an active campaigner for the awarenes of persistent contrails (chemtrails). We have lots and lots of PC (persistent contrails) here in Devon UK, and most ppl do not bat an eyelid at them, till I alert them to the possibility of what they actually are and how to tell them apart from real contrails. Most ppl are surprised that this subject is not covered by the media, and the intelligent ones are concerned by its conspicuous abscence, as it it not even ridiculed as a hoax in the media. I have witness chembows (as you know) sun halos and a myriad of PC’s in various formations. The freak weather we have had in economically poor areas in recent times is confirmation for me that some sort of NWO plan to eradicate “the useless eater population” is in full swing. I still do my research and blog on the matter.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for the feedback, Lou, and yes, I know you know what is going on!

JazzRoc
You may believe that chemtrails are real, O Bard, but you are wrong. You are wrong, and you cannot prove you are right. Your “proof” is that “thousands of people say so”. These people that “say so” share many, and perhaps all, of the attributes of people that believe the Earth is flat, the Sun goes round the Earth, that God made Man “in his own image” (6,000 years ago!), and we CANNOT possibly have evolved from an ape-like creature five million years ago, that we are “imbued with a soul”, and if we “please God” we will “go to Heaven” after our body dies and rots. These people are DELUDED by their own ignorance and fear. They, on the whole, suffered through their educational period (personally I found it unpleasant even while top of the a-stream in a grammar school) and never learned to respect the opinions of people more able than they were to grasp essential scientific principles. Otherwise they would, of course, believe the word of atmospheric scientists who have for decades been telling these people that persistent contrails are a natural by-product of large-scale mass air transit.
The first queries as to why the sky turned white were made in the late fifties and early sixties, so the topic is NOT exactly a new one. Even before that collisions occurred between close-flying Flying Fortress bombers on 1000-bomber daylight bombing raids on Germany between 1943 and 1945 when they too turned the skies white with the exhausts from their 18-cylinder radial engines in particularly cold and humid conditions. If a million tons of kerosine are burned daily (yes!) in the stratosphere, which is thin and cold and easily humidified with relatively small amounts of water, then large areas of the sky are going to turn WHITE. This is the “white” of ice crystals – water! The rest is fanciful paranoia, with a small amount of LIES, DECEIT and FRAUD. For that, blame Carnicom and some ignorant and some shameless YouTubers. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you were better-educated, Bard, you would be. Your activity is harming society. I have amassed quite a lot of support literature at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com and invite your response…

Bard of Ely
Thanks for posting your opinions, Jazzroc, however, I am no further convinced by your arguments!

JazzRoc
Perhaps after all you REALLY ought to read my wordpress blog. In it you will find confirmation of everything I have mentioned above, and directly-attributable quotes from specialist atmospheric scientists, graphs, details and photographs of almost all relevant material, specific proofs of chemtrailers’ fraudulent claims and blow-by-blow debunks of EVERY chemtrail claim. What more can one do, when confronted by a deluded and harmful person who is determined in his ignorance to do further harm? Well, advise you NOT to visit the US, I suppose. THERE they have the Patriot Act (which is not my idea of nice legislation!) What you are doing falls within the parameters of that act, and newly-trained and less sympathetic people there might well take it upon themselves to “educate” you, seeing as you are obviously determined never to do the job yourself.
Even in a British society noted for its tolerance of stupidity you might find that at some time in the near future (these are changing times!) your ignorant disregard of scientific principles, technocratic excellence and social decency will cause you to fall foul of the law. Don’t ever say I didn’t warn you…

Bard of Ely
JazzRoc, I have read your blog, and as it happens it is now probably being read by some freemasons – as I saw earlier that one has left a link to it and a recommendation in the Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member. I have told you that I don’t agree with you but you do not appear to be able to agree to disagree but become insulting and threatening in tone (warning me) and how you expect anyone to want to hear from you when you adopt these ways I really don’t know. However, as I have also told you, I don’t believe that this subject should all be a one-sided debate of chemtrail believers agreeing with chemtrailbelievers and on the other side the scientific debunkers all debunking – I would suggest that both sides have much to learn but they cannot do so if stuck viewpoints are held! You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it and I don’t simple as that. You don’t believe in God and I do!
I happen to agree with you that there are people who are ill and blaming chemtrails may not be ill from chemtrails but from other sources. I also agree with you that the crosses are in completely different levels of the sky and only look like crosses from down below. You see I don’t totally disagree with you but on the other hand I am convinced that chemtrails are very real and that weather modification is one definite use they are being put to, but I have told you that before.
You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean? It means that they don’t happen to agree with the official version of things perhaps – I certainly don’t! Scientists can and do lie and if you want an example, fluoride is one that springs to mind and mercury amalgam being another! There are many people active in the opposition to chemtrails who are educated to university standard eg Dr Stephen McKay whom I have mentioned in the article. I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards. Education though is often indoctrination and manipulation turning out people to carry on the system and brainwashed to believe what they are told not to think for themselves!

JazzRoc
“it is now probably being read by some freemasons” – what a horrible thought! “Universal Freemason’s message board of which I am a member” – what, another horrible thought! “insulting and threatening in tone” – without a doubt you are a fool, for you are still ever-ready to accept baseless arguments and reject the remorseless logic of mine. I advised you not to visit the US, nor Britain after 2012. Personally I’ll admit to finding it difficult to be pleasant to someone like you who is practically as dangerous as a bomb-wielding terrorist with your spreading of lies and fear. I regard you now exactly the way I regard arms dealers. You are living in a safe spot and a safe era where your wickedness is going unpunished, but that won’t last for ever. “you expect anyone to want to hear from you” – I certainly won’t lie to gain plausibility like the people YOU believe. “both sides have much to learn” – Science and the truth of Science is not a democracy. Only ONE side is utterly ignorant in this case, and it’s YOURS. You have learnt nothing and are telling lies as a consequence. “You happen to believe in science and have a lot of faith in it” – I put no FAITH in Science. That’s like putting FAITH in Mathematics. Is one FAITHFUL to LOGIC, or merely LOGICAL? “You don’t believe in God and I do!” – Which God is this? The jealous one? The one who made the Universe in six days six thousand years ago? “I am convinced that chemtrails are very real” – As real as your god, santa claus, and the tooth fairy. “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to” – Sure thing. The three million four hundred thousand tons of barium required to provide a mono-molecular coating over the whole Earth would only take eighty-five thousand tanker sorties using one and a half million tons of fuel. And, of course, next week, you’d have to repeat it, etc.
“You call people “uneducated” but what does that mean?” – It means believing “weather modification is one definite use they are being put to”. “Educated” is what I have just demonstrated to you: the ready use of mathematics and a true knowledge of the properties of the Earth to show you just what foolishness you speak. “I happen to have a BA degree, a diploma in media, 5 A-levels and 6 O-levels and that counts as educated by most people’s standards” – Hmm. And I’ve seen those standards fall year after year. By my standards you are DIM. If I were as dim as you are I’d keep my stupid mouth shut. It seems you are too dim to understand how dim you are. That IS a shame… “believe what they are told, not to think for themselves” – How ironic! Shine a light on that…ah, but your batteries are low, and your light bulb glows a faint orange… lacking scientific understanding, you cannot see how misled you have been, and how misleading and dangerous you now are.

Bard of Ely
It appears from all that that we are no longer friends seeing as you keep on insulting me and are so bigoted in your views. You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion and are another form of the thought police. Yes, I do believe people like David Icke and Clifford Carnicom whom you condemn. I have tried to present a balance of views here by letting you have your say and included them in the article above but it clearly isn’t working and maybe this is why all the chemtrail sites block you?
The Freemason who has posted your link found it here where you posted it and that is freedom of information as it should be! Seeing as you think so lowly of me now what do you make of Beck who has released a new song called Chemtrails? I applaud him for putting the subject in the mainstream world of pop music!

Eric Graudins
I’ve never heard of chemtrails. Thanks for writing this hub. JazzRoc – If your case is correct, you’ve considerably weakened it by the way you have chosen to argue your point here.

Bard of Ely
Hi Eric! Thanks for posting!

JazzRoc
Eric, my case is correct. If I were arguing with someone who simply misunderstood contrails I might be more polite, but there is more to it than that. You would do well to leaf through https://jazzroc.wordpress.com
Bard: “we are no longer friends” – that’s as it should be. You won’t find arms dealers in my list of friends either. “you keep on insulting me” – I keep on describing you as an ignorant person who is way above your head, and causing harm within our society by insisting that people you do not know are deliberately poisoning the whole of our society, using baseless assertions and faulty reasoning. You’ve GOT to be stupid, because I cannot see you as THAT intelligent and malevolent. “so bigoted in your views” – I see you’ve decided I’m not “programmed” (that’s the usual one) so I must be simply bigoted. It seems to me that you consider the understanding of science to be a form of bigotry. Well, we live in a scientific and technological world, and here we are using that very technology to conduct this argument. You are arguing with a man who has tested jet engines in their test beds, helped in the construction of the supersonic wind tunnel used to test the Concord’s engines, helped in the construction of the nuclear decanning plant in Windscale, helped in the construction of the world’s first ethernet network, and the world’s first modern electric city car. (And many other things, but that’s by-the-by). I know exactly how gas turbines work and exactly how their exhausts work in the stratosphere, and exactly how the stratosphere functions from my personal work experience. This isn’t a “view”. I can BUILD these things.
You turn up with your “fear of science”, read a whole bunch of foolish and baseless and totally inaccurate assumptions in a scientific field you don’t understand at all, and accuse INNOCENTS of attempted GENOCIDE. Who is the BIGOT here?
“You do not allow others freedom of thought and opinion” – This IS “freedom of thought and opinion”. How can your statement be correct? “are another form of the thought police” – Really! “I have tried to present a balance of views” – We aren’t talking about a “balance of views”. Science is not a “balance of views”. You’re either CORRECT or WRONG. “it clearly isn’t working” – It’s working fine from my perspective. You are doing EVIL and I’m trying to prevent you, albeit unsuccessfully so far. I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.
I’m also showing others that this ludicrous topic is opposed by scientists and other educated people. It is we who are doing things in this society, we who provide the wealth and power for travel and information systems (like this one) to the benefit of everyone. We have been able to do this by years of poorly-paid study, experiment and practice. We are professionals and deserve respect for our abilities and achievements – not this ignorant and shocking diatribe to which we are subjected.
In 1981, as our small team of electronics engineers clustered around an oscilloscope in a Wood Green laboratory which was demonstrating for the first time in the world that it was possible to send information down a wire at a rate of a hundred megabits per second (and we knew we were witnessing the start of a world revolution in information), nothing would have led me to believe that twenty-seven years later I would find myself using this fabulous system to conduct arguments about contrails with dumbed-down and deluded pseudo-scientists. How IRONIC!

Bard of Ely
“I’m trying to sting you into some feeling of remorse for what you are doing, and hoping that you might, after all, educate yourself out of your delusion.” – You are trying to tell me what to do and how to think and no one has the right to do that to anyone else! Do you send your insulting opinions to all the well known authors/speakers who believe and talk about chemtrails or do you only post your one-sided opinion and rudeness on the sites of people like me and those who post chemtrail videos? And if you feel that America and the UK would find my opinions illegal, then if you are right then it only goes to show that these countries are fascist non-democratic police states, which many believe anyway.
When we first met I thought we could get on well but clearly I was wrong. I do not like arguments and this is what this is. We had a big falling out before in which I deleted you at Myspace and swore and you have detailed that in your blog. I am not going to react with anger that way this time but as you admit here we are no longer friends I will delete you at Myspace. If Kingfisher is ever a money-making success I would see that you got your share. It seems that is all we share. I am not surprised that people at YouTube and chemtrail sites complain about you if this is an example of how you act. It is not a debate about a subject but a rude verbal assault by you who will not tolerate others having their beliefs or opinions or to post these in public
.

Eric Graudins
How timely. Tim Flannery, one of Australia’s top scientists has proposed that Global Warning could be slowed by injecting sulphur into the top levels of the atmosphere. He says that it could be put there by mixing it with jet fuel. This would be called “Global Dimming”.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for the link, Eric! Yes, I saw the news on this proposed insanity at Alex Jones’ site.

Debbie Peace love
Hi Bard Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter because he sure does sound like one to me. When they lose their arguments they resort to petty playgrond name calling and insults. Because they have lost the debate and cannot bring an intelligent debate to the table.
As you are aware I take a keen interest in chemtrails. Anyone who tells me they do not exist had better open their eyes and look up to the sky! You would have to be blind not to see them. Over here in the UK they make pretty pictures of chemtrails. We get the noughts and crosses obviously pilots having a game of tic tac toe. Well they have to dump whatever their dumping so they may of well have some fun. We get circles, loads of pretty pictures over here. Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go! Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings! Planes usually advertise who they are up in the skies.
Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems? Considering less people smoke. Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too. Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.
Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials. If they were ordinary contrails I am sure we would have had something on the media by now trying to debunk the “Chemtrail Theorists” However, their silence is deafening. Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain! Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.
Why is jazzroc so angry? If he disagrees with you on chemtrails then that is his prerogative. However, to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear. I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing. Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!
IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view. When someone throws nasty insults and name calling. Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.

Bard of Ely
Debbie, thank you very much for posting and your support on this! To be fair to Jazzroc, though he doesn’t extend much fairness to me, he does provide a lot of info in his blog, which he has provided the link for and is worth reading, however, it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject, as I have already pointed out. It is a shame that it appears that Jazzroc has got himself excluded from sites where he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails and reports of daily coverage of their skies like get reported at chemtrailtrackingusa group for example. However, it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say but just believes he is right so they must be wrong and then he wishes to impose his views on them, which I have called a bigoted approach. When they fail to accept what he says he does what he has done to me – he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting.
I think the point you raise on the media silence is a very valid one. Jazzroc would probably say the media cannot report on something that doesn’t exist but I would say the media has reported in great detail on things that don’t exist such as the weapons of mass destruction that were never found and other government lies. And if there is nothing to fear from the chemtrails then why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so? Why doesn’t Jazzroc volunteer instead of carrying on his barrage of insults and debunking posts? I would have thought the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter but they do not do so! Maybe Beck’s song Chemtrails will bring the subject into the public mainstream arena where it belongs. According to Wikipedia, his song has been played on BBC R1, which maybe the first time the BBC has used the word chemtrails. I searched their site long ago and it isn’t there, although contrails are and defined as harmless
.

JazzRoc
Debbie Peace Love: “Are you sure that Jazzroc isn’t a fox news presenter” – I’m a retired engineer living fifteen miles away from the Bard in Tenerife. Are you sure you aren’t being abusive here? “open their eyes and look up to the sky” – and you’ll see contrails. If you look at the sky you’ll see the Sun go round the Earth. Now, DOES the Sun go round the Earth? “Does not look to me as if they are planes with people on board and places to go!” – You can tell all that from seven miles beneath? You should get a job in Air Traffic Control. They need you! “Why are the planes that are chemtrailing PLAIN White with NO markings” – Your first unwittingly ignorant question. It’s a physical phenomenon called “blue light scattering”. Educate yourself. Try WIKI. “Why has there been a huge increase in breathing problems considering less people smoke?” – Because there has been a huge increase in arable farming, with new crops with new pollens, industry is still increasing using exotic materials with dangerous dusts when cutting and grinding without adequate air filtration, because urban photochemical smogs are still increasing, and finally because power stations are burning less safe materials as the world’s oil supplies dwindle. The Western diet of over-processed foods with too much meat and too little fruit, coupled with high-stress levels and poor exercise regimens and contaminated water supplies doesn’t help at all. Overall, this is an already complex intermix of factors by itself, requiring a massive statistical effort to sort out – before you come along with IMAGINARY ills. “Also this new phenomenia Morgellons? Doctors are asking this question too?” – Look it up in WIKI. In Science as a whole, FACTS are established using DUPLICATION of results and PEER REVIEW of research. This HASN’T HAPPENED WITH MORGELLONS’ CLAIMS. Ergo – it’s NOT Science and NOT TRUE. “Also this may have something to do with the honeybee’s demise too.” – May it? See above. You must remember that scientists get famous for discovering things, so the pressures are there to make these discoveries. See above. “Why does the mainstream media keep silent about chemtrials?” – They have tried it on, burnt their fingers, and won’t do it again! “Also as many people have noticed our weather is fine until the planes come and low and behold we have rain!” – Or perhaps, the humid air that creates the contrails eventually causes rain? “Oh I suppose its all coincidence. I am sorry but there are too many “Coincidences” concerning chemtrails.” – There are too many “coincidences” in the minds of those that are deluded!
“Why is jazzroc so angry?” – I should cheer when ignorant “Chicken Littles” accuse innocent people of attempted mass murder, should I? “to call you all the names he has called you shows he has something to fear.” – Of course I have something to fear! STUPIDITY is a DANGEROUS thing in a technological world! “I wish jazzroc could give us some facts and figures to why you are wrong because he proves nothing.” – I doubt whether you could appreciate proof if you met it. You need a modicum of scientific understanding which you’ve already demonstrated you don’t have. However, there’s always WIKI and my blog “Yes I understand he worked on engines big bloody deal! does not prove a thing!” – A bit more than that, dear. I’m a scientist. And an artist. And a musician. “IF you don’t want to believe what is right in front of your eyes. Then that is up to you. However, the best way to hide something is to put it in full view.” – The sun – does it ACTUALLY go round the earth? “When someone throws nasty insults and name calling.” – They need to be STOPPED! Your hypocrisy is showing! Or hadn’t you noticed that CHEMTRAILS insult hard-working, decent professional people (and anyone else who has a modicum of commonsense)? “Especially to someone who is very well read on his subject. The insult thrower is shown to be what he is. A fool.” – All that glitters is not gold. You may read, but you patently do not understand. A fool is what YOU are.
Bard: “it doesn’t satisfy me or put my worries to rest on the subject” – You demand to be spoon-fed scientific understanding, but it doesn’t come that way. You must study for years for such understanding to arrive. If you DO NOT HAVE this understanding, you will NEVER be satisfied. In the interim, perhaps you could moderate your pseudo-scientific assertions….
“he could be hearing in detail from people living with illnesses they attribute to chemtrails – it seems that he doesn’t want to listen to what others say” – I thought it was I that was the insulting person. I have read what people have said, and it is obvious that there is no direct link. We ALL breathe in a mass of dusts, pollens, viruses and bacteria with every breath we take. Our bodies have a tolerance for doing this which has been EARNED by the deaths of countless millions of our predecessors over four billion years.
“I have called a bigoted approach” – The correct approach to YOUR “chemtrail” bigotry.
“he becomes very rude, threatening and insulting” – How is it that you continually forget the nature of your claim? Why can’t you see that you ARE what you claim ME to be?
“why doesn’t the media get someone who can explain it to do so?” – Because it is too difficult and boring a job for them (they would LOSE ratings)!
“the media could call upon scientific ‘experts’ to explain the matter” – I am such an expert. How successful am I?
“contrails are defined as harmless” – And of course they are. It is YOUR BEHAVIOUR that is harmful.

Bard of Ely
Jazzroc, I will let Debbie reply to you here if she so wishes. I would ask you this: if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects? Please see: http://www.setiai.com/archives/000064.html So whether its water vapor converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through. This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!

JazzRoc
Really, Bard, I wonder what happens when you address yourself to read something! I could answer your question from my internal understanding, but just in case there was a built-in trick I addressed myself to the text in question, and found it answered your question completely!
“if what you say are harmless contrails and harmless cloud cover resulting from them cut(ting) out the sunlight getting through do you not think it is likely to affect bee navigational ability when it has been established by SETI that sunlight is the main navigation tool for the insects?” NO. Like all navigating animals on Earth, bees are NOT reliant on the visible Sun for navigation. Any such creatures that were SOLELY reliant upon the Sun would have been rendered extinct by the first large volcanic outburst or cometary impact than obscured the Sun for a sufficiently large period. And there been quite a few of these over the preceding 500,000,000 years. Bees sense the Sun, polarized light, landscape features, magnetic fields, and use two techniques of distance measurement (the latter one “optical flow” is new to me, but entirely unsurprising). What follows is a direct quote from the article: “All of these senses are redundant. That is to say, remove any one of them and the bee will probably still be able to navigate without problems. When the sun is obscured by clouds or trees, but patches of blue sky are still visible, the honey bee is able to use polarized light as a backup navigation system. The light coming directly from the sun is unpolarised. Some of this sunlight, however, is scattered by air molecules and a pattern of polarized light is set up in the sky. This pattern consists of a roughly circular set of gradients centered around the sun. The polarization is at its most intense at a 90′ angle from the sun. By detecting the polarization angle bees are able to infer the location of the sun. Exactly how they manage to do this is still unknown.”
Did you actually READ this? It ANSWERS the question you put to me! Do you know what “redundant” means in this context?
“So whether it’s water vapour converted to ice or toxic particles the result is surely the same – less light gets through.” – Here you once again demonstrate your scientific ignorance. “Toxic particles” cannot flow through the gas-turbine injectors. Injectors are hardened steel precision-ground tubes with very small internal diameters. Flow-control valves also clog if fine solids pass through them. In fact, they must both be protected by a high-capacity low-micron filter, which, of course, would stop solids. DUSTS PUT OUT ENGINES. Passenger aircraft are built down to a price by civilian businesses. Their wings contain spars, tanks and control equipment. They are built to very tight tolerances and riveted or glued down firmly. They do not have “empty spaces” and “extra pumps and nozzles” built into them for CHEMICAL ATTACK.
“Less light gets through” – It has been demonstrated by two different scientists using two different techniques in two different parts of the Earth that incident sunlight falling on the earth has been reduced by at least 15% over the last forty years. It is attributed to the industrial revolution, not just in the west, but in the middle and far east – it’s the consequence of COMBUSTION IN GENERAL. It is known that the contribution of air travel is 3% of this.
“This can be clearly seen when sun halos form as they do now we have these trails so often in the sky!” – The Sun has formed halos in the Earth’s stratosphere for four-and-a half billion years. The ice crystals that form such a halo are PURE. Any more than the single nucleating molecule at its centre (which every water droplet or ice crystal needs to form at all) and crystal formation is interfered with, and the halo effect disappears also.
You should know this, Steve, as we FREQUENTLY see halo effects round both Sun and Moon here, but NEVER when the KALIMA dust is in the sky. Hadn’t you noticed?

Bard of Ely
Yes, I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool then this could be what has messed them up and I note that they are OK here where we do not get many trails or blanket coverage with artificial cloud. Back in the UK where I went I saw trails and white cloud covering large areas made by these trails and the bees have nearly vanished so I joined the dots.
You make an excellent point about the halos and I know that they are dependent on water vapor so dust (or particles) should not produce this effect. I have to admit what you say makes sense to me on that.
If solid particles cannot go through the engines, which makes sense to me too, how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur? To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulfur (Flannery) are solids.
I assume that these substances would be sprayed from tanks with nozzles etc that you say are not in passenger planes but whilst that may well be the case, what about military planes? Surely they can have these adaptations?

JazzRoc
“I know what redundant means but was thinking that if sunlight is the main tool” – and there’s your paradox – “redundant” means “if an element is removed, the function of the remainder persists”.
“blanket coverage with artificial cloud” – All these clouds are cirrus. In supersaturated air the ice crystals of cirrus clouds, whether natural or man-made contrails, will gain weight and fall until they become diffuse clouds of water droplets (stratus) or if they reach the ground – fog. This fog, whatever its origination, is practically pure water. The impurities (and we’re talking fractions of a percent here) will be soot (from a gas turbine) or aluminum silicate (from the land) or methyl sulfide (from the sea). NONE of these will poison bees. The most likely killer of bees is a virus. The second most likely killer is a bacterium. The third most likely is a fungus. The fourth most likely is another strain of bees. Use your commonsense. Cities and industrial landscapes occupy about 2% of the Earth’s surface area – there may be cumulative effects for which they share a worldwide responsibility, like increasing proportions of carbon and sulfur dioxides in the air, but aircraft have only a 3% share in this. It is more likely that Nature itself is killing the bees.
It is very unfortunate (but obviously true) that these bee enemies are also arranged in the order of being the most difficult to discover. You have to remember (if you ever knew) that due to the incredible scales involved, finding a specific lethal bacterium on a bee might be like finding a single unknown person in a city, and that finding a single lethal virus on a bee (it might be INSIDE a bacterium!) might be like finding a single unique person on Earth – namely VERY much harder than finding a needle in a haystack – in fact well-nigh impossible.
“I joined the dots” – but only the dots you could see…”how did Teller’s sunscreen proposal work or this new madness by Prof Flannery of wanting to use sulfur” – Teller’s proposal was never answered. Flannery’s was to use rockets, but this engineer can tell you now that the whole proposal was flaky, and very much more likely to do harm than good. After all, what is acid rain? (Er – sulfur dioxide meets water – makes sulfuric acid!) How good is THAT for trees? “To my knowledge both aluminum (Teller) and sulphur (Flannery) are solids” – It isn’t impossible to turn both into organic liquids. Sulfur is fairly easy, aluminum difficult and expensive. (Barium is much more difficult and is so dense and reactive that specially-lined tanks and mechanical stirrers would be required!)
However on the scale of the Earth you can forget it. I’ve told you already that a single shot of barium for the Earth would require 3.4 million tons. That’s for a single pass… Can you envisage the US (and who else could it be?) shelling up for 85,000 KC105 tanker flights on a weekly basis, when its economy is about to go down the tubes? The whole idea is ridiculous. The surface area of the Earth is fifty times larger than the United States.
“what about military planes?” – It’s your best argument, but doesn’t pan out when you consider the logistics. See above.
You say you have read my blog. I can tell you’re not telling me the truth, for this is thoroughly answered there, and here I’m forced to repeat myself.
As I have said before, Steve, you cannot defeat me using scientific argument, because I know the science involved. If you really get down to basics (and of course you can’t!) I would fight you all the way and still end up the winner.
Your side knows this and has found other ways to defeat me – by blocking, by corruption, by fraud, by lying. But never by science. Blocking and corruption are beyond my powers to overcome, but occasionally I have defeated fraud. And lies are easy to deal with.
What I would like for you to do (apart from stopping making all these false assertions!) is come up with questions which really challenge me, and not questions which any book on atmospheric physics or topical science programme can answer.
And here is one for you. In my blog there is a link to a fascinating British invention which provides a safe, easy, cheap and reversible method of controlling and reducing Global Warming. What is it?

Bard of Ely
Tony, I have had a big realisation and not sure how I missed this apart from by association – I saw trails and white hazy skies and sun halos and my logic said the halos were caused by what was in the trails. However, because I was believing the trails were bad I was assuming the halos had to be too and had read how they are a sign in the Hopi system of the end of this system which added to my belief they are bad. But in doing this I was failing to see something I know – that halos form when there is water vapour, not when there is dust or particles. Therefore, looking at this now it means that the white trails and white artificial cloud cover would appear to be, as you and other non CT-believers have said, water vapour turning to ice crystals! This means that “chembows” would also be made of water. This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!

fant 169

JazzRoc
Crumbs, Steve. Answers like this REALLY pull the rug out from under my feet! I am so accustomed to dogged argument that I don’t really know now what to say. 🙂 Except, of course, that there is much more to this than what we have covered so far, and even if “chemtrails” don’t exist, then for sure most ills suffered by both Man and Nature are STILL down to Man!
My point all the way through my “campaign” against “chemtrails” is that WHILE “chemtrails” are the focus of attention, the REAL problems are NOT ADDRESSED.

Namely, people ARE suffering from lung and skin allergic reactions, and possibly dying. These people will be the young, the old, the poor, and people who have already been weakened by some other disease. Not having “media share”, they can slip away without causing a stir or attracting attention. Awful. And I’m fairly sure that’s happening, not from any particular facts I possess (except perhaps my own intense allergy to Britain’s summer months!), but from a half-century of experience in the ways of the world.
I have watched the quality of Britain’s air, water, and food drop decade by decade. And the quality of life! The fuddy-duddy “Empah” values, stiff-upper-lip, reserve, and artificial politeness PRESERVED a life quality we have LOST. Lack of stress! Peace!
I’m also concerned about CARS. In the sixties the Conservative transport minister Dr. Beeching removed half our rail network. This rail network was a web of railway that reached to every town and virtually every village in the country. It was a fabulous real estate asset because it was JOINED UP, and could hence be converted – perhaps into a clean and efficient tramway, or a road, or a canal, or an information highway. Or maybe left as part of a modern automatic railway. Well, once broken up and flogged off as packets of land no longer joined up, that which cost the Victorians SO much trouble was cast to the wind…
In the seventies there was the Oil Crisis, when the price of oil tripled overnight. “Now” I thought “there is bound to be a drive towards light and efficient people movers!” What did we build? 4 by 4’s, juggernauts as big and heavy as the monsters built in the US during the fifties! The SUPERMARKET “juggernauts” drove across our valleys in the eighties, removing trees and hedges and small-holdings in their factory-farming “techno-park” drive to produce consistently-sized, brightly-coloured, poisoned, tasteless “vegetable” (or “animal”) pap, leaving in their wake air filled with herbicides, pesticides, and pollens, and sordid concentration camps of bird and animal suffering. And then the cars. Without a decent railway or bus system or information system we were forced into cars. (Not you, Steve, I know.) Thousands of cars. MILLIONS of cars. On occasion the M25 was a stationary six-lane CAR PARK (with all engines running) for a HUNDRED MILES. What in God’s Name sort of LUNACY is THAT? Cars, poisoned air, poisoned water, denatured food, the mass-torture of birds and animals. Rudeness in public. Temporary and demeaning employment. Fraud in Banking and Insurance. Mortgage and Equity crises. Lying politicians. Foreign war. STRESS… BRITAIN!
Chemtrails are simply (apart from their nonexistence) SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENT.
The anti-GW invention is the salt-spray trimaran of Dr. Stephen Salter. Apart from turning the skies of the southern Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans somewhat leaden (and reducing the violence of storms in the area, and providing refuge for shipwrecked sailors) these devices do no harm whatsoever. Only five hundred of them are needed, and they can be switched off overnight if that were necessary.

Bard of Ely
Tony, please see the update I have added. I can admit I was wrong about a lot of it and felt I should make a public statement here explaining my reasoning. Thank you, because in the course of this I have understood how I was ignoring facts or overriding them due to my belief in the basic chemtrail conspiracy and my mistrust in scientists and official authorities. I would think that has happened with many of the other people who haven’t given you a chance or really read all you have had to say!

JazzRoc
“This means a lot that I have been believing was wrong!” – Steve, that was a gracious (and almost unique!) apology which temporarily took my breath away. It is unusual for a “chemtrail” adherent to back down over anything. The only previous instance I can recall was – you – about a year ago. Yet, after that, you soon got into full swing again. So may we look at your phrase “a lot that I have been believing” and pick it apart a little? Can you now be believing that yes, there ARE poisons being dispensed, but they DON’T make white lines in the sky? Perhaps you now believe that no, they CAN’T be passenger planes, but they CAN be military KC105 tankers which are NOT laying visible trails? Invisible trails of WHAT might these be? Do you know how many KC105s there are – compared with the number required to carry out Edward Teller’s proposal? (ET – the original “Strangelove”!) NOT ENOUGH. Not enough tankers, not enough fuel, not enough barium.
Did you notice the satellite image of the whole of the North Atlantic Ocean in my blog that showed contrails as a grid of white lines concentrated ONLY over the middle of the ocean (where there was a huge north-south cold front!) with virtually no contrails over the land anywhere? If they were “spraying”, WHY would that occur? Did you see the “chemtrailer” version of a (on-off) “gap” in a contrail that was patently photoshopped into existence? Did you see the Sciechimiche video claiming to be the inside of a “spraying” aircraft which was “fabricated” from a photo of the interior of the Boeing 777 Long Range Prototype, which at the time contained interconnected barrels of water (in place of the seating) for directly testing the consequences of varying its centre of gravity?
I hope you COMPLETELY understand that there is NOT A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH in ANY PART of the “chemtrail conspiracy”, and that some of the “claimants” are NOT DELUDED but actively FRAUDULENT. And “Geo-engineering” is not necessarily a dirty word…
Steve, I looked at your stop press, and it warmed my heart to see it. But it is an afterword in your Hub entitled “Are Chemtrails Real, and Contrails a Con?”, so I suppose the end results of this episode may still be deleterious, and a distraction from solving our true difficulties. I hope you will soon return to your laudable activities in the fields and woods of permaculture, wildlife, wild foods, conservation and Nature.

Bard of Ely
I will have a look at that video now! I do not claim to know how many planes the miltary has or where they hold them. I have seen the “inside a tanker” video you refer to and am well aware of the reality of that episode having been caught up in it personally online. I read a lot of the conspiracy authors and watch their lectures and the majority have included chemtrails as a reality and I find it hard to believe they are all knowingly lying, especially when I know that much of the other material covered is true. So I have to conclude they blind themselves as I have done. I have taken down my STOP CHEMTRAILS banners at Myspace because they show trails which you have convinced me are water vapour and until anyone can prove anything to the contrary I am as of now not promoting CTs as a reality. In fact when I have the time I will do a rewrite of what I have posted above here probably and stick it on Myspace. JazzRoc was he right? Yes, but nobody wanted to know!
I would much prefer to stick to things I do know about such as nature but in this case I got involved in it by seeing skies that are not as they used to be, which you have convinced me is caused by far more water being in them, and I assume this was the case when this happened before as you have detailed regarding past occurrences of persistent contrails.

JazzRoc
I notice that you’ll find on the YouTube co-display page an article by Alex Jones concerning the Sun’s role in Global Warming, where he suggests this coming Solar Cycle will show the Sun’s brightness increasing by 50%. In the 4.6 billion years (and 200 million solar cycles) since the Sun and its solar system formed, the Sun has increased its brightness by (I think) 27%. This means that the mean brightness increase of the Sun per cycle is 0.000000135%. The Sun is not yet middle-aged in terms of its own life, and is expected to burn for another 10 billion years before it dies. It is proceeding smoothly, and showing just its usual behaviour – a tiny increase every cycle. It strains credibility to believe that THIS Solar cycle brightness increase is going to be 370 BILLION times greater…
So how can Alex Jones say this? Perhaps he isn’t a scientist, but I’ve just sat down with a calculator and rattled out the figures – and you can do it too. What sort of lunacy is this? Why does it happen these days? Where is the ACTION here? What’s the REAL agenda?

Bard of Ely
I saw that video. Alex says all sorts – a lot of it right and some of it wrong and as you say he is not a scientist which he admits! He is a good showman and a very successful alternative broadcaster and many people say all sorts of things about him good and bad. I have listened to him a lot over the years but not so much in recent months although I subscribe to his blog at Myspace, and I find myself knowing AJ supporters and others who are against him.
To answer your question why this is happening – there is the conspiracy theory that would tell you it is all part of the Illuminati Great Work of Ages plan and has been designed to be like this or maybe it’s just because a vast number of people want answers and are fed up with lies from politicians, governments, world leaders, religions, scientists, global manufacturers, and the media. Alex is one of many who provide answers so he has a ready audience. People have distrust in traditional leaders and ‘experts’ and want new ones – it’s been going this way for a long time and I would personally say a lot started in the sixties when people began looking for alternative ways and wanted to change the system. It’s when I got involved.

fant 230

unknown
first off i would like to say i am new to this subject and at present not swayed either way, but i have read both sides to this argument and the continuing argument between bard and jazzroc, jazzroc by your standards i am extremely uneducated, but reading the posts here by both you and bard i am dissapointed in the way in which such an educated person argues their point, firstly it seems you pick on a sentence and then discredit it as much as possible by insulting everything it implies, it’s like reading a list of insults rather than a fair and equal argument, and no doubt you will do the same to this comment picking up on bad spelling, grammar and such saying how uneducated i am, but i am and i can admit this, also you claim to be a scientist yet your views are firmly set with no room for change, does science not show us now that the impossible is possible? does history not show us that science get’s it wrong time and time again? you are everything that is wrong with science today! science is an ever-changing and growing subject and needs open-minded people for its progression, and yes this has been a bit of a snipe at you maybe unfairly, but try looking at things from a different point of view for a change, for if there is one thing life has taught me is that there is always 2 sides to everything! and if we point blank refuse to look at one side we become lost in our own delusions.

Bard of Ely
Thanks for your thought, unknown! Perhaps JazzRoc will reply to your points?

JazzRoc
“does science not show us now that the impossible is possible?” NO. The impossible has been shown forever to be, and to have been, impossible. The Universe is consistent to the laws we have uncovered to as far as we can see, which is to a distance of thirteen and a half billion light years. There are NO other rules operating other than the ones we have uncovered – other than the rules we HAVEN’T uncovered!
“does history not show us that science gets it wrong time and time again?” YES. And THEN it gets it RIGHT. Consider how you and your mother avoided death when you were born, and all the other aspects of your material existence which “wrong” science has got “right”, and contrived to make your life OTHER than “nasty, brutish, and short”! Consider the means by which you argue here. Consider that once I worked in a team to develop this means.
“you are everything that is wrong with science today!” Well, thanks. Had I known this, perhaps I would have have NOT designed the world’s first ethernet transceiver. Perhaps PEOPLE are what’s wrong with science. Perhaps you are a victim (already) of a dumbing-down process I saw begun in the early seventies. Perhaps you are also a victim of fiscal policy (namely the total surrender of “democratic” western governments to private banking interests). But you are NO victim of mine! I have been in opposition to every wicked and deleterious policy change I’ve seen occur since I’ve ever been able to vote. That’s almost EVERY CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE. I opposed entry into the Common Market (Britain should be strong and self-sufficient and independent), I opposed the Conservative Selsdon Committee (that dumbed YOU down!), I opposed the destruction of the Engineering, Shipbuilding, Mining and Machine Tool Industries, I opposed the Falklands War, I opposed the destruction of the Coal Mines, I opposed the idea that Britain could be a Fiscal Service for the World (ridiculous!), I opposed the rapid exploitation of North Sea Gas (further destroying the mining industry), I opposed the feeding of meat to cows, I opposed the idea that GM pollinating plants merely needed a 20-yard separation (!), and I opposed entry into the Iraqi war. Then I LEFT THE COUNTRY.

I had become VERY FED UP of being ROBBED (in ALL uses of that term) CONTINUALLY over a forty-year period. Even now I am close to destitute, as employment is hard to find for a sixty-four-year-old Welshman without money or transport in a Spanish fishing resort village. But it is warm here, and I am close to my grandson, and my needs are few. I shall soon create a solar home and permaculture food garden and achieve true self-sufficiency.
“science is an ever changing and growing subject and needs open-minded people for its progression” Can’t disagree with you here! Of course, it is necessary to point out that to be “open-minded” requires that one is EDUCATED in the first place. Otherwise one merely “opens” an EMPTY mind…
“and yes this has been a bit of a snipe at you maybe un-fairly” Completely.
“but try looking at things from a different point of view for a change” Well, I’m a qualified engineer and industrial designer and practise those disciplines. Now I compose music. The idea of a “different point of view” is QUITE POPULAR with engineers, designers, musicians! It helps CREATE NEW THINGS.
“for if there is one thing life has taught me is that there is always 2 sides to everything!” Science isn’t a democratic debate. There is ONLY a CORRECT side and an INCORRECT side. Life hasn’t taught you ANYTHING, it seems…
“and if we point blank refuse to look at one side we become lost in our own delusions” No, you HOLD ONE. I’d like to point out that if I’m arguing with an American it really makes no difference – the same evil and wicked policies are maintained by both Britain and the States. If the cap fits…

unknown
ok, well you have indeed made some valid points against what i have said to you, and claiming that you are everything wrong with science today was unfair and i apologize for that comment, but to say i have been dumbed down is also a bit much, and when i talk of the impossible being possible one reference comes to mind and that is of quantum physics, but i will say thankyou for your reply and your comments and will discuss this more in due course. oh and just to clear that last part up,i am definatly not an american,i would like to say that my original comment was posted mainly for the way in which you come across, it is a little offensive in all honesty, and it bugged me, in reality i was not having ago at your abilities as a human being but more for the way that you put your point across, and somewhere in there i shall admit that i got a litte lost and sidetracked from the point i was getting at.

JazzRoc
I accept your apology. Quantum physics does at first seem as though the impossible may be possible, but there is a fantastic SCALE effect at work here. The scale of quantum physics is so small and local (and quick!) that the distances involved in organic molecules eg., from ONE peptide bond to the NEXT in a DNA molecule, become equivalent to the distances between stars. All the “magic” is taking place in a “storm” (which is not even of microscopic size!) which on the whole averages out as – “non-magic” – nothing. I am a Star Trek fan, and believe that “beam me up Scotty” (etc.) has tended to convince non-scientists that these types of events may some day be within the reach of scientists. These programmes are FANTASIES. Their “science” (in almost all cases!) is poor. One isn’t looking at a possible future – at all. It is quite wrong to mix up a blend of fear of the US govt with fanciful ideas with radio stations (HAARP), barium stearate powders (“chemtrails”), “nanotechnology”, “mindcontrol”, aliens, and what-have-you, instead of finding the real solutions to lung and skin diseases. The solutions will be found using Science, not Fantasy. In the meanwhile “chemtrails” are a harmful distraction, an additional problem.

steve
hey i’m from new zealand and they spray us here too. i know that they are definitely spraying something because you can’t turn a contrail on and off. we also see up to 4 planes spraying at once, they do a run across the city then turn around and spray again. i notice on days when they spray that all my flatmates seem to be more agitated and depressed. it seems to affect the wind. because our city usually is really windy and gets SE and N prevailing winds. but over the last 3 years the winds are coming from weird directions and it is hardly ever windy anymorei have also seen the rainbows in the fake clouds too i heard that there is a secret haarp installation here too

Bard of Ely
Steve, please have a look at contrailscience and JazzRoc’s blogs – the links are here to provide info. But basically you just seeing ice crystals forming the trails and fake cloud. They do not turn them on or off but are moving from one layer of the sky to another and if there is no water vapor present to crystallise as ice then you see no trail and it looks as if it’s turned off.
The rainbow effects are caused again by ice crystals – there are no forms of dust or particles metallic or otherwise that will cause this. It is likely that people are depressed and agitated by seeing the trails because if what they have heard about them as a danger and because it is something they have not seen until recently. However, there is nothing to fear apart from fear itself and the reason we see all these trails is because the sky has far more water in it and there are far far more planes up there
.

lynette
I am emailing you to inform you of a strike that is being organized on July 4th 2008 against the New World Order and the spraying of chemicals in our skies. I am hoping to reach as far as I can with the message that there are good people out there who really want to change things. We all need to support each other and create a the kind of world it should be. Please spread the word of change and promote this website after all this affects us all. Please visit www.freewebs.com/changetheworldforever for more info. We need to change what is happening to our world and to our skies, for the sake of ourselves and for generations to come.

MD FREE
H2O is a greenhouse gas and that cannot combat global warming. I didn’t read jazzroc’s comments and can’t help wonder if he flies the planes. Pollution does block sunlight from traveling deep into earth but I think there are better ways than pollution to stop global warming WTF!

Bard of Ely
I’m not sure who said water was combatting global warming so don’t really understand the point you are making but I am sure there are far too many planes seeing as they are causing the problem we are seeing and whilst I no longer believe that the trails and artifical clouds are toxic it is still not right at all to have all these tons of ice crystals blotting out the blue skies and sunlight! And many places could desperately use the water down here! Thanks for your feedback, MD!

MD FREE
The point I was making is frost and mist are h2o, not chemtrails. I am not saying that I believe in one side or the other on this, if you read the blog on myspace I was talking about, it was more detailed. I do think the theory falls in line with other theories that becoming more factual. At least, it is more believable than reptilian theories!

Bard of Ely
Thanks for explaining! Well, the strange thing is I am no longer a chemtrail believer after several years but I am a reptilian believer, although not so sure about the shapeshifting! I have actually just written over 3,000 words on why I believed in chemtrails and why I no longer do for another project. There was logical thought gone into both my belief and how I finally lost that belief but the most interesting part of it all for me was that when I was a chemtrail-believer I was blocking out seeing some things, which I knew. This was not logical thought but the control over my analytical mind by the belief system I had.

MD FREE
I am going to have to read your conversation with jazzroc when I have more time. I have some chemistry knowledge and would be happy to look at this as logically as possible.

Bard of Ely
MD, thanks for what you posted but for the video it is just like all the others of which I have seen hundreds. They all are claiming that the trails are chemtrails and I no longer accept that so there is nothing to fear from them for myself or others who do not believe. As for finding cures for the illnesses said to be caused by chemtrails this is an impossibility if the chemtrails do not exist and are merely ice which simply messes the sky up. The illnesses and symptoms are caused by many other things and obviously need to be cured but personally I see no point blaming the trails and I no longer do so.
BTW as an example, I have had chronic sinus problems that I believed to be caused by chemtrails. I no longer believe this and have concluded that the problem is caused by my deviated septum, which two doctors said was the reason. I have found a cure – salt water dropped down my nasal passages.

MD FREE
No big deal about the deleted posts, I didn’t feel comfortable putting the article up there. i would’ve sent a link but the profile I found it on is set to private so I do not think I could send a link. It was a lot longer of a article but I am not intent on changing your mind. The fascinating part I thought, was the evolving DNA. I started classes this week so I am becoming too busy for this subject. If I come across any proof you haven’t heard of I will send you a myspace message with a link. Lots of things can cause asthma and sinus problems, nearby trains using diesel, car pollution, airports, pollen. See you on another topic friend!

Bard of Ely
Yes, lots of things present in the modern world can and do produce symptoms like sinus problems and asthma that get blamed on chemtrails! Yes, there are all manner of theories about DNA – depends who you agree with really! Michael Tsarion says we all have alien DNA mixed with human and that is the root cause of evil in the world. It’s a good explanation. Michael doesn’t think there are any saviours for the world condition but ourselves and I am inclined to agree with him on both counts. This is our nightmare and we have to deal with it!

toxicpolarbear
hey. i hear planes at the same time every morning. I live in gwealod y garth in cardiff. we have had some really heavy downpours but i gues the rain is everywhere anyway. I have uncontrollable burny sneezing fits random spates & ive never had hayfever. Could be dust but i think i would be sneezing all of the time if was. my sleep patterns change and i feel different when i drink tap water.

Bard of Ely
I know Gwaelod y Garth very well – a beautiful place! No, rain at all here – in fact a drought! I hope the tap water doesn’t have fluoride in it like it does in many places now – a much worse threat than chemtrails, which I don’t any more believe exist! Sneezing is caused by many things and there are countless things which people are allergic to with cats, house dust mites and many types of pollen being a few. In many places people are exposed to pollens like oil seed rape that is a fairly new crop that is being cultivated on a wide scale.

Sean
If these don’t exist how come there is this chemtrail tracking site I go to that tells you when they will be here and when they won’t be here and it’s dead on 90% of the time? How would this guy know if they did not exist? I mean I think they do exist and they are up to something up there, what it is I have no clue but I have heard both sides of the argument and use common sense when I look up and I know these are different from the contrails I see on some days. Some days I see contrais and then these all over the sky. Jazzroc and his arguments are not going to sway me from these things or make it like they don’t exist, like the devil they exist and they don’t want you to know it. I am staying believing and studying these and reading about them. Some say they know some who fly and say they do spray these things and think it is for our good, some say it’s just chaff and the military does spray it to jam radar, check those out in youtube. It has been on the news in Cali as well and weather channels if you look for it, so people do know and are up on these things, not enough people but some know. BTW as for the tracking site, I would put it up but some idiot will try to get it taken down if they are with the GOVT. or looking to keep these a wrap, I think I will pass but thats NO LIE. He tells when they will be spraying, and bottom line it happens.

Bard of Ely
Please post the tracking site here! As far as I am concerened it is simple to predict when trials will occur if you know flight paths. The problem with the subject is that chemtrail believers call persistent contrails “chemtrails” and non-believers call them contrails. And it is a belief system because I am a past believer and it was very hard for JazzRoc to get me to see the logic of his arguments! I am now a non-believer. I could give you an example of predicting trails: at around 10am on Sundays in winter but not in summer a plane goes across where I live and it leaves a long lasting trail that I used to call a chemtrail. Pics I have posted of this believers call a chemtrail, as I did. But now if I see the same trail and accept it as a persistent contrail of ice crystals. Conditions have changed and we are now seeing persistent trails which we have not been used to seeing and we have been led by those propagting the chemtrail belief to call them chemtrails but they are simply long lasting trails of ice crystals I now believe.

bozena
JazzRoc is a well known DISINFORMIST. He magically appears at any discussion of atmospheric manipulation discussion and thwarts it with local fallacy pseudo-science, mostly released as countermeasures to chemtrail discussion. BEWARE!!
Bard of Ely, i still can’t believe how easily you’ve been pushed over.

Bard of Ely
As I have explained before JazzRoc is none of the things people claim he is! He is someone I know personally and have met many times and actually worked on music with as well as having enjoyed walks around the island here. But people post other opinions about him when they know nothing about him apart from the fact that he does not believe in chemtrails.
If you read what I have written you will find that my belief in the subject was already on shaky grounds when I found that the air in South Wales under “chemtrailed” skies was cleaner than usual not badly polluted. At the time I couldn’t understand this as I had been led to believe by chemtrailers that the air was being poisoned. Clearly it was not the case. I have not seen any evidence for chemtrails as a reality apart from all the videos, photos, reports etc by chemtrail believers and what I used to think were chemtrails.

I have concluded that the chemtrail belief system is a disinformation campaign itself and a very successful one.

Tremblor3.05L