Home » chemtrails » Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

Brief Summary:
  • Samples of water were collected in August 2007, in Stamps Arkansas, by leaving some bowls outside for a month
  • The resultant dirty water was tested by KSLA and was found to have the same amount of barium in it as most municipal tap water.
  • The reporter misunderstood the results, and said there was a lot of Barium
  • The reporter now admits he was mistaken, and that he found no evidence for chemtrails

 

ksla-jar.jpg

Some conspiracy theorists think that persistent spreading contrails indicate some kind of deliberate aerial spraying, probably by the government. They speculate as to what could be in these trails, and one of the most common things they claim is barium.

Some people are so obsessed by this idea that they have rainwater tested to see if it has barium in it. They usually find some, and then trumpet this as evidence that their theory is correct.

Unfortunately they are wrong. I’ll explain why, but first, some basic science.

What is Barium?

Barium is a metal, like calcium. You never find it in its metal form (outside of a lab), as it oxidizes rapidly in the air. Instead you’ll find compounds, usually barium sulfate or barium carbonate. Barium compounds are used in the plastics, rubber, electronics and textile industries, in ceramic glazes and enamels, in glass-making, brick-making and paper-making, as a lubricant additive, in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, in case-hardening of steel and in the oil and gas industry as a wetting agent for drilling mud. Barium in water comes primarily from natural sources as it is present as a trace element in both igneous and sedimentary rocks. Barium is generally present in air in particulate form as a result of industrial emissions, particularly from combustion of coal and diesel oil and waste incineration.

µ and Parts Per …

When you measure the concentration of a substance in water, you can express it in various ways. You have to pay attention to units when converting from one way to another.

A liter of water weighs 1 kilogram, which is 1000 grams.

A milligram is 1/1000th (a thousandth) of a gram. 1mg = 1 milligram = 0.001g

A microgram is 1/1000000 (a millionth) of a gram. 1ug = 1µg = 1 microgram

Note that last line, because it’s important. The symbol µ is the greek letter “mu”. In measuring, it’s used to mean “micro”, or “millionth”. (To type µ, hold down the Alt key, type 230 on the numeric keypad, and then release the Alt key). Since it’s difficult to type, it’s often written using the letter “u”. Make sure you understand the difference between a milligram (mg, 1/1000th or a gram) and a microgram (µg, ug, 1/1000000th of a gram). A milligram is thousandth, not a millionth. It’s a little confusing sometimes.

A microgram is a millionth of a gram, so it’s a billionth of a kilogram. Since there are 1000 grams in a kilogram, and 1,000,000 micrograms in a gram, there are 1,000,000,000 µg in a kilogram. All this is basic high school science.

Concentration in water is measured as ppm, ppb, g/L, mg/L, µg/L. These are parts per million, parts per billion, grams per liter, milligrams per liter and micrograms per liter. We can convert between these easily:
1 ppm = 1 mg/L = 1000 ppb = 1000 µg/L
1 ppb = 1 µg/L = 0.001 ppm = 0.001 mg/L
(remember that 1 Liter is 1000 grams, so 1 mg in one liter is a thousandth of a gram in one thousand grams, or 1 part in a million).

Chemtrail claims

This video is very popular right now. Claiming that water was analyzed and found to have barium in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

airteamimagescom.jpgThe video was taken in Stamps, Arkansas, which is not entirely surprising as that’s in a region of the US the might be renamed “Contrail Alley”. It’s at the intersection of the cross country routes between the West Coast, and the major airport in Atlanta, Orlando and Jacksonville. Stamps is midway between the two major regional VORs (Texarkana and El Dorado), right next to the major East-West airway Victor V278, and on the edge of a MOA that traffic has to skirt occasionally. It’s also directly below the Atlanta to Dallas, San Antonio to New York and Houston to Chicago flight routes. On just ONE of these routes (Atlanta to Dallas) there is a scheduled commuter flight, directly overhead, at contrail altitude every 15 minutes! The same frequency of flights is found on the Houston-Chicago route, which crosses at right angles almost exactly overhead. Hence, when the weather is right, it is inevitable that you will see contrails in a grid pattern, “a giant checkerboard”. See this Google Earth file: airlines-over-stamps.kmz

ksla-jar2.jpgBut back to the video. It shows a jar of dirty water (collected 9/1/2007), which was collected by Bill Nichols. He’s posted some comments on the YouTube video describing how he collected the water:

it was rainwater. i collected it in two separate bowls on the hood of a pickup truck in my backyard. we are 25 miles from the nearest interstate. this is a very poor county, the only industry is chickens, logging , farming, a little oil—no coal burners or anything like that. i wasn’t looking for attention. i was looking for answers, ksla said they would pay to get it tested. i dropped it off, and they asked my opinion

i put 2 clean bowls there specifically because i wanted to catch what was falling. i don’t recall exactly when i put the bowls there, but they were there for about a month before i contacted ksla. the goo that i caught was full of barium. have a cool day!

Pause for a second, and consider if you left a bowl out for the month of August in rural Arkansas, what would you expect to find in it after a month? Some dirty water? Perhaps a little dust? What’s dust made of outdoor? Dirt, dried topsoil. What would you expect to find in the dirt in Arkansas – one of the richest sources of barium in the US? You’d expect a bit of Barium – but did they actually find any more than you’d get in tap water?

This dirty water was tested, the test results are available in full here. You can also see the results in the video, at around 00:55 to 00:59. Here they are pieced together.

ksla-test-results.jpg

And just to be clear, here’s a closeup of the results, and the units:

ksla-test-results2.jpg

That’s quite straightforward right? Barium found at 68.8 µg/L. That’s 68.8 parts per billion. Now listen to the audio at that precise point (also transcribed on the KSLA web site):

“The results: a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm), more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA”.

Immediately you can see something is wrong here. it’s 68.8, not 6.8, and it’s not parts per million, it’s parts per billion. So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million.

And what of “three times the toxic level set by the EPA”? They are referring to the EPA Limits, as quoted by the CDC:

“The EPA has set a limit of 2.0 milligrams of barium per liter of drinking water (2.0 mg/L), which is the same as 2 ppm [parts per million].”

So the EPA limit is 2 ppm (2000 µg/L), and the tests actually found 0.0688 ppm (68.8 µg/L), just 3.4% of the allowable limit.

That limit’s not really a “toxic level” either. There’s no evidence that it would be toxic even at that level (which, remember, is 29 times higher than what was actually found). The world health organization has set a drinking water level of 7 ppm after doing studies into the health effects of barium.

Barium has always been in water

The WHO also reported on the barium levels in drinking water (meaning, from a tap, not some dirty puddle) and they found:

In a study of water supplies of cities in the USA, a median value of 43 μg/litre was reported; in 94% of all determinations, the concentrations found were below 100µg/litre (IPCS, 1990)

So the average was 43 µg/L, but most were below 100µg/L. This means the amount of Barium found in this supposed chemtrail residue was about the same as was found in the municipal water supplies in the US, back in 1990. This is pretty low, it varies with geography based on the type of rocks in the aquifer. In Tuscany, Italy, the Barium in drinking water was around 1000µg/L (1ppm), high, but still within safe limits.

The amount of barium will also vary based on the weather. Very heavy rains will leach more barium out into the groundwater. So you’d expect more barium after very rainy seasons. This is actually what you find if you look at the historical records in California (which has very uneven annual rainfall). You see spikes in barium whenever there is a wet year after a dry year. Recent years like these are 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2004 (2001 and 2003 also spiked to a lesser extent). The expected peaks were confirmed by the results of Rosalind Peterson at California Skywatch.

So what’s going on here? Chemtrail theorists are constantly claiming that “chemtrails” are made of barium, and that it’s affecting our health. But whenever water is tested, it is found to have perfectly normal levels of barium, which vary as expected based on the rainfall. In the cases where they claim it’s got an unusual amount, this is just a misunderstanding of the units and limits involved.

Yes, there is barium in the drinking water, there always has been, and always will be. Trace amounts, mostly from the environment and some industrial pollution. It’s a very small amount, and not dangerous. There is no evidence to suggest it has anything to do with “chemtrails.”

Update #1: 5/2/2009

Jeff Ferrall, the reporter in the story now says:

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/comment-page-8/#comment-23164

Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.

My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.

I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy.

There’s also a mention of this story In Skeptical Enquirer magazine:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/curious_contrails_death_from_the_sky/

Update#2: 3/14/2010

More people make the same mistake.  This time someone in Austrailia, and the story was picked up by a Los Angeles environmentalist.   Again mg is confused with µg, making the results 1000 times as high:

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d13-video-White-Clouds-of-Death-Aussie-exposes-geoengineered-chemtrail-contents?#comments

976 thoughts on “Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

  1. PAUL says:

    On a final note, I would be willing to accept that this is a weather modification operation to avert the harmful effects of global warming (or to perhaps re-seed the ozone)… and that the sickness caused by heavy metals are a by-product and not the primary goal. I don’t want to believe that any government (even ours in the US, as corrupt as it is) would EVER commit such a large-scale act that would compromise the health and livelihood of the entire population. But perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my behalf.

    May peace, love, and truth be the way.

  2. rudedog says:

    John M,
    You’re ignorance is so typical. Conspiracy theorist? How original. If you are going to resort to name calling try coming up with something that has some sting to it. I too am amazed by your ability to diagnose paranoia and psychological disorders. Please correct me if I am wrong John M. A person that you have never had any contact with or have never even heard of for that matter, describes something that has happened right in front of his eyes and it just doesn’t seem right to him for various reasons and his description of his experience defies what your brain perceives as logical, so the only logical conclusion must be that he is a paranoid conspiracy theorist that dwells in such dark places as conspiracy theory circles, has a psychological disorder and is the result of a failing education system or a combination of the three. Wow! You really have mastered the ‘tool of logic’ as you put it. Now that you have blown my cover by exposing my subculture of the scammers, I am going to miss out on all of the benefits that I would have gained from that. John M., the voice of peace and reason.
    I am curious about those people ‘on the fence’. What exactly is it that uncinus is saving them from? Falling off of the fence? Congratulations John M. You are a true soldier in the battle to rid the world of illogical creatures and irrational scamming subcultures that have emerged from the failing education system. Go get em soldier! Make uncinus proud! He has several other followers just like you, so you should fit right in.
    CleansedEyes,
    In times like this, it helps to be reminded by people like John M. how blessed we really are. To have a mind capable of thinking independently as opposed to thinking what someone tells you to think or what you have been programmed to think. It is really sad that such an immoral crime against humanity can take place in plain sight and so many people can remain oblivious to it. That has got to be the perfect crime.

    Here is a link that can provide some useful information on the subject contrails and other types of trails that jets leave behind: http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Chemtrails.shtml
    Of course, as John M. says, “The tool of logic is absolutely useless in the face of such illogical creatures. You can use sound reasoning and scientific proof all day long, but at the end of that day they will believe whatever it is they choose to believe, regardless of input”. So true.

  3. Paul, people get tired and have poorer health as they get older. Most people accept this as part of the aging process. Some people refuse to accept they they would not be as vital at 27 as they were at 17, and try to ascribe it to some outside force. Ask some 17 year-olds how they feel. Your social group is simply getting older.

    You said “Their exhaust trail doesn’t evaporate quickly like the typical commercial aircraft” – but how exactly do you know what the trail from a “typical commercial aircraft” should do? I’ve given lots of references that say it can hang around for hours, that it can spread, and that it can seem to drip or fall downwards. Can you give a reference other than personal memory that says otherwise?

    Halo’s around the sun have always been seen. You see them when there are lots of contrails because the conditions for halos around the sun to form are THE SAME as conditions for lots of contrails to form – i.e. lots of moisture in the upper atmosphere in very cold air.

    Here’s two photos of halos from 1905:
    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925/photo#5236028940756356514
    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925/photo#5236029022370280258

    If you are genuine about your enthusiasm for the scientific method, then perhaps we could for a while focus on this one thing – the halos around the sun that you feel are so unnatural. Can you clearly say what is a natural halo, and what is an unnatural halo? Can you give any reference to show the difference? Keep in mind you only noticed halos two months ago.

    Here’s a couple of reference to start:
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/circular.htm
    http://images.google.com/images?q=solar halo

  4. SR1419 says:

    RudeDog-

    How can you expect people to believe that you are logical and rational when you base your “science” on something that “just doesn’t seem right”.

    Is it at all possible that your perception is inaccurate? That your knowledge of the science involved in contrail formation and persistence is inadequate for you to be making definitive statements about what it “seems”?

    You claim to be an independent thinker and yet simply regurgitate what the likes of Will Thomas tell you…How is that independent?

    Do you have any knowledge of fall rates and dispersal theory?

    Do you really think that taking samples on the ground is an definitive method for sampling contrails contents?

    Do you really thing you can judge altitude of plane with the naked eye when it is 5-10 miles away?

    Are you aware of all the suppositions and speculation in your comments that are devoid of any fact or proof?

    If some contrails do, in fact, persist, spread out and cover the sky in a thin cirrus cloud…as has been observed for over 50 years…how do stand on the ground and look up and think you can determine what you see in the sky in NOT a contrail?

    …independent- sure….Logical…no.

  5. CleansedEyes says:

    SR141, logic would dictate that the best way to handle C02 emissions would be to eliminate anything that emits carbon, including human beings. There has to be “feeling” to your thoughts or else you would agree with the spraying programme… oh, yeah, sorry.

    SR1419 wrote: “How can you expect people to believe that you are logical and rational when you base your “science” on something that “just doesn’t seem right”.”

    We are not basing our ‘“science” on something that “just doesn’t feel right”’, we are identifying something as strange related to our lifetime’s experience of living under the sky. What is happening in recent years is such a dramatic change that one has to be unconscious of reality not to notice. If one places their hand on a hot stove they don’t need to read a science book or ask an expert to realize it’s prudent to take their hand off the hot stove. Their senses tell them, y’see? More about the science comment later…

    Paul, I completely concur, your words only being reinforced by John M. trying the tenuous trick of mixing intelligence with sweeping ridicule, amounting the subject to an “irrational paranoia” of the “Conspiracy Theorist” [his capitals], with no education – and a psychological disorder to boot! How logical and scientific is that?!

    As you well know, John M., “Conspiracy Theorist” is a term put out by counter-intelligence to ridicule any researcher who strays beyond the party line. Social studies have shown that humans are essentially social animals who want to belong to a group, and given the choice, on-the-whole people will choose the group seen to be most highly-esteemed (this is why people from all over the world support Manchester United, to be associated with success themselves), so your labeling one group with all the negative social traits imaginable is just an old attempt to get the “on the fence” masses to choose the group without those labels. Marketing techniques aren’t welcome here.

    This is the reason I return to this thread like a fly to shhhhhh: the worry that people “on the fence” as John M. puts it will be swayed by these bullying tactics, and will not investigate “BS” [bullshit] in “dark places” (again, as he scientifically puts it), as if it’s a mycology study!

    I do hope newcomers to the subject will note how unfair and illogical the comments directed to the concerned individuals have been, blatantly out of line with “Contrail Science”, as this site is called.

    European Aviator wrote: “Wake up, dumbasses!!! The entire world is laughing at your claims…”

    Ask yourself why anybody would laugh at people getting ill and wary about the safety of their loved ones? Even if those people were mistaken, in what way would that raise a chuckle?

    As has already been stated and admitted in this thread, even authorities admit engine emissions cause climate change and health problems. Why is that so dumb funny, European Aviator?!

    John M wrote: “The tool of logic is absolutely useless in the face of such illogical creatures. You can use sound reasoning and scientific proof all day long, but at the end of that day they will believe whatever it is they choose to believe, regardless of input.”

    That accusation could equally be directed to the other side. (I really don’t like this ‘side’ conflict that is being created by the name-calling and ridicule… an attempt to provoke, I’m sure, which I will not acquiesce to.) You see, whatever input we give you: persistent trails below low cloud in hot non-humid weather, you believe whatever YOU choose, and tell us what we saw even though you weren’t there. Illogical creatures? Case in point.

    Uncinus, to suggest that our illnesses come from aging ignites rage. Is it normal to have arthritis and M.E.-like symptoms at 30 years of age?! Is it normal for people to have simultaneous nosebleeds? Is it normal that adults are suddenly getting asthma, children have old-age diseases, doctors are being taught in medical school that 1 in every 2 people will get cancer…?! I know from my own clinic that respiratory illnesses are through the roof.

    So, Uncinus, let’s get this straight…

    You said what is happening isn’t bad for health. I then provided information proving authorities think otherwise, and you then quibbled over whether contrails are to blame or the fuel – which matters not to me; what is important is the effect it’s having on people. (In any case, the ‘contrails’ effect on the sky leads to climate change which affects health, so your distinction is a moot point.)

    You also repeatedly rebuked people’s experiences of seeing aircraft emit a trail in hot non-humid weather beneath low-level cloud and said that we were all wrong and you were right: it COULDN’T have been a contrail because as you said, “Persistent contrails do NOT appear in hot non-humid weather below 10,000 feet. You are mistaken. You are seeing contrails that are at normal cruising altitudes of above 30,000 feet.”

    After a 3 minute search I then provided you with footage of that very thing, which you then revealed was an “aerodynamic contrail”. Why didn’t you say we were seeing “aerodynamic contrails” before now instead of rubbishing everybody’s ability to perceive what’s in front of them?

    You say aerodynamic contrails are “made of water droplets (which also then freeze to spherical ice drops)”. How do they freeze when low down and in hot Summer weather?

    Nevertheless, even “aerodynamic contrails” which you say need high humidity to form, still doesn’t explain 365-days-a-year persistent contrails below low clouds! As rudedog said, this is something you just won’t address: you simply deny without any authority to do so.

    SR1419 asked: “Is it at all possible that your perception is inaccurate?”

    I would say that it is highly unlikely that millions of people, from all walks of life from all around the world, have suddenly lost the ability to perceive the same specific thing at the same time – don’t you?

    Uncinus, you asked Paul: “…how exactly do you know what the trail from a “typical commercial aircraft” should do?”

    Answer: MEMORY, EXPERIENCE, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT CONDENSATION DOES NOT FORM BELOW 10,000 FEET IN NON-HUMID HOT WEATHER. You’ve been told that umpteen times already. You can also compare the commercial planes with the white or grey planes with no markings or windows’ trails to see the difference. As you know.

    Furthermore, Uncinus, I don’t understand your point about cloud-seeding. The man said:

    “Most of the watersheds of the Sierra Nevada are cloud-seeded by someone [or some One].”

    They seed clouds by dispersing chemicals (not contrails) into the atmosphere, and here is an admission that the weather is being manipulated over the Sierra Nevada region to the extent that “most” of the watersheds are cloud-seeded. An admission of chemicals dispersed to directly effect the climate! That is what we’ve been saying all along!

    SR1419 wrote: “If some contrails do, in fact, persist, spread out and cover the sky in a thin cirrus cloud…as has been observed for over 50 years…how do stand on the ground and look up and think you can determine what you see in the sky in NOT a contrail?”

    I couldn’t let that slip. If contrails have always spread to cover the sky so that the sun is blocked out, why haven’t I seen it before a few years ago? What about millions of others? And why do the persistent trails only come from UNMARKED JETS?

    Anyway Uncinus, thank you for providing NASA images to prove how wrong my perception is. Would it also be possible to send me the plans to my house so I don’t keep bumping into things? Cheers.

  6. CleansedEyes, I’ve got a question for you. If cloud seeding over the Sierra Nevada is so prevalent, then why can’t you find any photos of cloud seeding over the Sierra Nevada?

    The answer, of course, is that cloud seeding happens IN CLOUDS.

    So given that, what does cloud seeding have to do with contrails? Remember the question is not “is the weather being manipulated”, as everyone admits that cloud seeding takes place. The question is really “are those long persistent trails in the sky anything other than normal contrails”.

    I’m sorry about the confusion between exhaust contrails and aerodynamic contrails. I assumed you were talking about exhaust contrails because that’s generally what is discussed here. I did not realize that some people were actually talking about aerodynamic contrails.

    To clarify, aerodynamic contrails only require high humidity to form, they do not require freezing temperatures, and can form as liquid water rather than ice. So when low down and in warmer air, they obviously would not freeze. The contrail in your video is most likely this kind of contrail.

    You ask

    I couldn’t let that slip. If contrails have always spread to cover the sky so that the sun is blocked out, why haven’t I seen it before a few years ago? What about millions of others? And why do the persistent trails only come from UNMARKED JETS?

    You did not notice it before a few years ago. Now before you retort, let me ask you this: Is there anyone who has NOT noticed it yet? Quite obviously yes, there are many people who don’t pay much attention to contrails. Take Paul, for example, who until TWO MONTHS ago, did not notice halos around the sun. This is not unusual, not does it reflect poorly upon Paul’s or your own observational skills. I myself did not notice halos around the sun until about 15 years ago. I noticed a contrail edge shadow only 10 years ago. But now I see both all the time. Is this because there are more? No – it’s because now I’m a lot more interested in these things, and I actually look for them, and pay attention to them when I see them.

    Finally what makes you think that persistent trails only come from unmarked jets?

  7. CleansedEyes says:

    “…cloud seeding happens IN CLOUDS.”

    And when there aren’t any clouds, the planes start spray-painting so there are.

    First you said we were wrong and that it is impossible for us to be seeing trails in the conditions we specified, then when I proved you wrong you said it was an “aerodynamic contrail, which is made of water droplets (which also then freeze to spherical ice drops)”.

    When questioned how they could freeze in hot temperatures, you changed your explanation again to: “aerodynamic contrails only require high humidity to form, they do not require freezing temperatures, and can form as liquid water rather than ice”.

    Which begs the question, if “aerodynamic contrails” require a high moisture level to occur, why are they seen over hot, arid places that are stricken with drought?

    You see, this is getting us nowhere.

    Your argument that nothing out of the ordinary could be happening because many people have failed to acknowledge it in itself fails to acknowledge the fact that most people are domesticated to fit into an unnatural system of money, debt and slavery, which they unthinkingly accept as natural, and – what’s more – think that they’re free (there’s the kicker). They have been indoctrinated and inoculated since birth to believe that experts are here to care for them and make sure their children are safe. People are under what Huxley called “scientific indoctrination” fed to them by the “dominant minority”, whereby the commoners’ reasoning skills have been handed over to people like you.

    It is a miracle if just ONE of the serfs, such as me or others (whom have been constantly bombarded throughout their lifetime with proven age-old scientific formulae) could break free to perceive for themselves.

    “Finally what makes you think that persistent trails only come from unmarked jets?”

    I have a super zoom on my camera. They’re SHAPED like jets anyway and have no windows or markings, whereas the commercial planes do have markings as well as windows since the passengers might get uppity if treated like cargo. Then again they do allow customs to treat them like cattle, so who knows?

    Despite my lengthy contribution I’m reticent to post here, providing you with intelligence to counter, bringing your work to you on a plate, but…here’s one for you… Every day – EVERY DAY where I live ends up with the sky being white. Instead of blue, for the last two years, EVERY DAY, the sky is white – sometimes blinding, and the Sun through the haze looks distorted like looking through a plastic bag. Why?

    And what about the illnesses? All-year-round allergies that make people have simultaneous nosebleeds, joint and muscle pain, excruciating headaches – all linked to the “persistent”, “aerodynamic” trails that blanket the sky. You account that to allergies. All year round allergies affecting everyone at the same time, even though they were never allergic before. Sounds like we’re allergic to the chemicals in the spray, doesn’t it?

  8. I said that exhaust contrails would not form that low (not explicitly, and I’ve apologized for that)

    I then said that the contrails in the video were aerodynamic contrails. I said they could freeze. They do, if the temperature is low enough. But they can also stay as liquid water. I was attempting to describe how they formed as droplets, instead of crystals.

    It seems that your big thing is that people disagree with your interpretation of what you see. This begs the question: why don’t you post photos or video of what you see? A photo of your “unmarked jet” (remember, most jets do not have markings on their underside – which is all that is visible at 30,000 feet).

    I don’t think that Huxley used the term “scientific indoctrination”, NWO theorist Alan Watts does use it a lot, sometimes in reference to Huxley – but if you want to use quotes from authority, you’d better have a reference.

    So the sky is white at the end of the day for the last two years. As opposed to what? The sky is always white at dusk due to moisture and dust. Do you have some before and after timestamped photos? Look, this photo was taken in 1911, nearly 100 years ago.

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-2156.jpg

    Or any of these:

    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/architecture.html

    What has changed?

    Illnesses I cannot comment on. But how on earth are you connecting illnesses to contrails? Why not car exhaust? Something in the water? Electromagnetic radiation? Cell Phones? Fertilizers? Why pick contrails? What is the link?

  9. SR1419 says:

    Cleanseye-

    You said:

    “…If contrails have always spread to cover the sky so that the sun is blocked out, why haven’t I seen it before a few years ago? What about millions of others? And why do the persistent trails only come from UNMARKED JETS?”

    First of all- the sun is not “blocked out” by contrails….diffused yes, blocked out no.

    Secondly, You have to ask yourself why you haven’t seen it before…Paul didn’t notice until 2 months ago…other “chemtrail” believers didn’t notice it until 10 years ago…

    The fact remains that persistent contrails that spread out into a hazy cirrus cloud did exist before you noticed them….they existed 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago….just the photos on this site should prove that…but the 100s of scientific, peer reviewed papers from atmospheric scientists from around the world dating back 50 years are also ample proof that persistent contrails existed long before you noticed them.

    Are you denying the existence of persistent contrails prior to you noticing them??

    Chances are if you hadn’t read about it on the internet you still would not have noticed.

    As for observations, I have seen plenty of persistent contrails come from all types of planes…marked and “unmarked”. Although, when the plane is 5-7 miles away or more, I have a hard time believing anyone can truly distinguish exactly what type of plane they are looking at- even with a zoom lens.

    As for “millions of others”…can you please specify where you are able to accurately determine the number of “others” who believe that what they see in the sky is clandestine, global, spraying operation of unknown origin and intent??

    As for “illnesses”? how do you definitively determine that they are “linked” to contrails- You see a trail in the sky and then see if people around you are sick?? That does not “seem” very scientific. I have never felt any illness from contrails…nor has anyone I know…

    Do you have specific knowledge regarding the high altitude dispersal of particulate matter…or the fall rates of particulate matter. Are you aware that what you see in the sky above you will not fall down directly on you but instead drift for 100s and 1000s of mile before- if ever- falling to the ground?

    Do you see how correlating illness with trails in the sky is nothing more than a leap of faith at this point?

  10. CleansedEyes says:

    Sorry for the slip, I’m reading Brave New World Revisited so had Huxley on my brain (help!). I meant Bertrand Russell, although Huxley has spoken along the same lines.

    “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy.

    “…Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” (Quotes from The Impact of Science On Society by Bertrand Russell.)

    Another apt quote from Bertie: “The belief that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.”

    Hence this site and all the ridicule thrown at people like me. Snow IS white, but it can also be muddied and trampled upon.

    Uncinus, if “aerodynamic contrails” don’t need to freeze, how do they remain persistent? Why are cirrus clouds made by planes seen EVERY day of the year? Answer THAT one.

    Today I’m particularly annoyed at having seen a giant V in the sky, followed by parallel-flying jets leaving the most bizarre looking ‘clouds’. I was wondering why I was feeling a bit off and sneezing so much, then there they were.

    It would be different if you were clueless, but that’s not the case at all. You KNOW what’s happening and yet you defend it. I can’t tell you how uncomfortable that makes me corresponding with you. I only do so because, as I have stated, my worry is that young people are growing up never knowing what un-manipulated weather is like, and so have no frame reference of what is normal. On top of that there are propaganda merchants such as yourself telling people all is as it has always been when it blatantly is NOT!

    You wrote: “So the sky is white at the end of the day for the last two years. As opposed to what? The sky is always white at dusk due to moisture and dust.”

    When I said every day ends up with the sky being white, I didn’t necessarily mean at the end of the day. In fact usually the day starts clear, then the planes spray clouds so that the whole sky goes bright white in the morning or afternoon (although it can happen later too).

    “As opposed to what?” – As opposed to my lifetime’s experience. To discount experience as unimportant would also discount our lives, for they are by nature experiential. And to question my interpretation when you weren’t there, and when your explanations of persistent or aerodynamic contrails don’t account for them occurring in all weather conditions 365 days a year, is a “leap of faith”, as SR1419 calls it, so right back atcha.

    SR1419, you asked: “Are you denying the existence of persistent contrails prior to you noticing them??”
    A deep philosophical question… does ANYTHING exist until we perceive it?… My argument is that it is not normal for the skies over my house to be overcast EVERY day because of aircraft emissions. Whether they existed in the past is irrelevant here: what is important is that experts say the conditions for persistent or aerodynamic contrails occur only about 15% of the time over the British Isles, yet they are appearing every day in every climate – which then clouds over. So the contrail argument doesn’t make sense. Not to mention the flightpaths. I tell ya, those airforce boys are really making your job difficult.

    SR1419: “Chances are if you hadn’t read about it on the internet you still would not have noticed.”
    I don’t even have the Internet. I’m staying at a friend’s while they’re away, and in a week or so I won’t have any access at all, so these wild assumptions are attempts to diminish a proper argument. I could assume many things about you, but I’m not the type, and I could be wrong like you were.

    “I have never felt any illness from contrails…nor has anyone I know…”
    Nor have I. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are another issue.

    “Do you have specific knowledge regarding the high altitude dispersal of particulate matter…or the fall rates of particulate matter. Are you aware that what you see in the sky above you will not fall down directly on you but instead drift for 100s and 1000s of mile before- if ever- falling to the ground?”

    Send off for the Ministry of Defence papers released under the Freedom of Information Act, regarding the chemical and biological weapons ‘trials’ in the UK from 1940-1979. There you will find the DATA of dispersal rates. It was found some micro-organisms dispersed only ten miles. What is more, it doesn’t matter if this sprayed material falls to the ground or not for some applications: in fact the desire would be to keep the material in the air, not on the ground, for electromagnetic and other uses. You KNOW all this.

    “Do you see how correlating illness with trails in the sky is nothing more than a leap of faith at this point?”

    Again, your saying what I am seeing are contrails despite conditions making that conclusion unscientific is a HUGE leap of faith on your part. Remember I didn’t say the illnesses definitely are the cause of the trails, I said the symptoms make it very very likely that the problem is airborne contamination, and since a lot of people suffering are linking their illnesses to the appearance of the never-before-experienced ‘contrail’ behaviour (whether or not they have the Internet, me being an example), this subject should be top of the list to investigate. However, your stance of not even considering it reeks something rotten.

    “As for “millions of others”…can you please specify where you are able to accurately determine the number of “others” who believe that what they see in the sky is clandestine, global, spraying operation of unknown origin and intent??”

    The hits on the Internet, the amount of people documenting and sharing evidence, reports from contacts, regional petitions, etc. I know there has to be AT LEAST 2 million people aware and VERY concerned at what is happening. This is worldwide remember. It is in fact quite a small number considering.

  11. Uncinus, if “aerodynamic contrails” don’t need to freeze, how do they remain persistent? Why are cirrus clouds made by planes seen EVERY day of the year? Answer THAT one.

    How do clouds remain persistent? You know that a low level cloud is a suspension of liquid water droplets? An aerodynamic contrail is the same thing, and so it will persist as long as a cloud will do in the same situation.

    Cirrus clouds made by planes every day. I love in Los Angeles, and contrails are actually quite rare in the summer months. It has to do with the local climate. Some places have a lot more contrails. I doubt it’s EVERY day, but I don’t see why some places would not have a lot of contrails. Can you tell me approximately where you live, and I’ll have a look at the weather patterns.

    Unfortunately the fact the 2,000,000 people are “aware” of something does not mean that your theory is correct. 31% of people believe in Astrology – does this mean that the positions of the stars and the planets can predict your future? Hits on the internet?

    What you need is actual scientific evidence. You claim to have seen things – but you are unable to provide photos or videos. You say the sky is white now, where before it was blue – but again there’s no before-and-after photos.

    Most telling, when asked why hardly anyone has noticed these changes, you say that everyone else has been brainwashed, or is in on the conspiracy. This is not really a reasonable explanation. 1,000,000 scientists have been brainwashed or are in on the conspiracy? All the scientists in every other country in the world have been brainwashed, or are in on the conspiracy?

    Even if we are generous with your numbers, accepting your figures, and applying it only to the US, then 2 Million is 1% of the adult population. So you are saying that 198,000,000 people have been brainwashed, or are in on the conspiracy. Let’s say that 8,000,000 people are in on the conspiracy. Hence you are saying that 190 million people have been brainwashed to not notice that the sky has changed color, and that contrails now last a long time, whereas before they did not.

    Now out of those 8,000,000 people who are in on the conspiracy, exactly how many have leaked information about it on the internet?

    None.

    And of the 190,000,000 people who have been brainwashed – how exactly do you brainwash 190,000,000 people?

    Think about it for a while. Do you actually see any censorship of free ideas here? Is it even possible to censor ideas? You are quite free to say anything you want. You can publish a book on ANY topic. You can set up a blog FOR FREE that is accessible to the entire western world. Lots of sites are available that have been publishing these theories for over ten years. Have they been shut down? Have they been censored? Have they been interfered with in any way?

    So we somehow have this perfect conspiracy of 8,000,000 people who never squeal, and have managed to perfectly brainwashed 190,000,000 people, and there’s 2,000,000 people who have figured out something is going on (but nobody from within the conspiracy)?

    No, sorry, that’s not what’s going on. There is no conspiracy. There is no brainwashing. There are no “chemtrails”. I know this because:

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

  12. rudedog says:

    Uncinus,
    You say:

    “Most telling, when asked why hardly anyone has noticed these changes, you say that everyone else has been brainwashed, or is in on the conspiracy. This is not really a reasonable explanation. 1,000,000 scientists have been brainwashed or are in on the conspiracy? All the scientists in every other country in the world have been brainwashed, or are in on the conspiracy?”

    There you go with the conspiracy thing again. What conspiracy? Your attempts to validate your hypothetical explanations by linking ‘conspiracy’ to anyone that does not conform to your manipulated science, is another perfect example of your efforts to let the people know that they will also be labeled as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ if they dare voice their concerns about the abnormal events they have witnessed.

    So far, I have not seen any evidence from any of the concerned people that want REAL answers to their questions, that they subscribe to any conspiracy. Nor have I seen any evidence that your ‘contrail science’ proves that what I and many others have witnessed, is what you say it is. You continue to carry on telling people that they are not seeing anything unusual when they know that they are, even though you have no evidence or reason to believe that they are lying. You want people to believe that they were mistaken and that they have perceived it inaccurately. Based on what? Some science that says it could have been something else?

    Your ‘contrail science’ logic is the equivalent of someone describing to you that they have seen an animal that they know is not a dog but it looks similar to a dog because it is covered with hair and walks on 4 legs but it does not resemble any dogs that they have ever encountered their entire lives. Then, you explain to them that their perception was wrong because dogs have 4 legs and are covered with hair, therefore it had to be a dog, even though dogs are uncommon in this area. It could not have possibly been anything other than a dog, in spite of what you may think you saw with your own eyes. And if you don’t believe me, here is a link to a picture of a dog that looks like the one you described as proof that it was a dog that you saw.

    I personally have been an avid sky watcher for more than 40 years. I have also lived in many states with many different weather patterns. These man made clouds in the sky are not something that I am suddenly noticing now because I am suddenly paying more attention to them. I am voicing my concern over this matter because it is not something that has always been there. I have also stated that on days when the sky is saturated and thick with the stuff, there is an unusually high number of jets flying overhead and almost all of them leaving a thick spreading trail behind them, no matter what the weather conditions are, even when it is 115 degrees with no humidity, which is common in the summer months where I live. On the contrary, on the days when we are given a break from it, air traffic resumes as normal which is hardly noticeable and the jets that do pass overhead on those days, rarely, if at all, leave a contrail. In addition, there is a distinct difference in the sound of the engines of the commercial aircraft and the jets that leave the trails behind them that I have described. I have also noted the same distinction that many others have, that they are white and unmarked as opposed to the ‘normal’ commercial air traffic which have markings. I have also mentioned the spikes in health problems that correlate to abnormal trails left behind by jets as have others that live no where near me. They describe the same symptoms, which is hardly a coincidence that they correlate to the air assaults.

    The fact that you have no sympathy or compassion for these people and wont even accept the possibility that what they are saying could have any validity to it, and to go even farther as to tell them that they are part of some kind of conspiracy and to devote the amount of time and resources that you do towards making sure that no one takes their concerns seriously, is reason in itself to be concerned. For someone who claims to do this for fun because you are an amateur aviator and are just interested in clouds, why is your primary purpose of this website devoted to discrediting anyone that claims to have seen trails left behind by jets that are not contrails? Where is the science behind telling someone that they are not seeing what they claim to be seeing just because something else may exist that looks similar to it and that you can link them to a web page that has a picture of a contrail?

    Books and pictures mean nothing coming from someone that was not there, when he tries to prove otherwise to someone who was there. What it boils down to is, you expect people to believe you instead of their own physical experience because you have evidence that persistent contrails exist. That does not in any way prove that you are right and they are wrong, for whatever reason it is that you feel you must do so.

    Some of your explanations are borderline insulting. Especially when you tell people that they just haven’t been paying attention before now. The difference between me and you is that I have opened my eyes to the possibility of it being explained by contrails but logic, visual perception and a lifetime of experience tells me that it is something else. Not to mention all of the side effects that coincide with them. You, on the other hand, refuse to open your one track mind to the possibility of it being anything other than contrails, under any circumstance, weather condition, etc. When I say ‘YOU’, I am also talking about everyone else here that is promoting your twisted agenda like SR1419.

    Uncinus, your participation in this makes you a responsible party of the results, with blood on your hands. The question is: Do you really think that you are not expendable too? Probably not, judging by the arrogance that you have demonstrated so far.

  13. rudedog says:

    One more note to SR1419,
    In response to your remark about the thoughts of Will Thomas, I have been ‘regurgitating’ those very thoughts for quite some time now. I just recently came upon that document by him that happened to regurgitate alot of my thoughts, so I thought it would be a good link to refer to, since I rarely refer to any links at all but am always being asked to. Prior to that, I had no idea who Will Thomas was. Nice try anyway.

    Here is a question for you:
    If you told me that you were struck by lightning and I told you that you are wrong and what you perceived as lightning was actually a high voltage power line falling down and striking you on the head and I can prove it by showing you scientific evidence with pictures to prove it to you because the results would be just as you described, would you feel resentment or would you believe me and my evidence over your own personal experience? Remember, I have textbooks, encyclopedias and pictures to prove it was a power line that struck you.

  14. rudedog says:

    SR1419 continued…
    My point is:
    The fact that you do not have any scientific knowledge about lightning conductivity or its physical properties or how it behaves, does not mean that you were not struck by lightning.

  15. I’m sorry rudedog, but you say:

    Uncinus, your participation in this makes you a responsible party of the results, with blood on your hands. The question is: Do you really think that you are not expendable too? Probably not, judging by the arrogance that you have demonstrated so far.

    and you also say

    There you go with the conspiracy thing again. What conspiracy?

    If you don’t think I’m part of a conspiracy to cover up something, then what does the first paragraph mean? Whose blood is on my hands? Who else is party to the results? To who am I expendable? If people are secretly spraying stuff into the air that makes people ill, and then covering this up, then how is this not a conspiracy? Are SR1419 and I not (in your mind) “conspiring” to lie about what is really going on? How else could you characteristic it.

    Also, I’m VERY open to the possibility of what you see being things other than contrails. You’ll note I already changed my opinion from regular (exhaust) contrails to aerodynamic contrails. If you provide ANY evidence at all, then I’ll happily reconsider. I certainly accept the possibility. I’m not denying what you saw IN ANY WAY. I’m simply offering an explanation that seems to fit the scientific facts best.

  16. rudedog says:

    uncinus,
    If you are not denying what I have seen IN ANY WAY, then explain the following quote that was posted by you on 8/19/08:

    “Persistent contrails do NOT appear in hot non-humid weather below 10,000 feet. You are mistaken. You are seeing contrails that are at normal cruising altitudes of above 30,000 feet.”

    It is not the first time you have flip-flopped with your explanations. You changed your opinion from regular (exhaust) contrails to aerodynamic contrails because CleansedEyes called you on it. You had no choice.

    As usual, you pick a couple of selected statements for your rebutal, but never seem to answer the question that everyone wants to know. Why are you so dedicated to discrediting anyones account of what they have personally experienced. You have an entire website that was created for that sole purpose, event though you have no possible way of knowing if their statements are true. All you have is some documentation that you claim proves that persistent or lingering contrails can exist under certain environmental conditions. I will ask you the same thing I asked SR1419 since you neglected to post it. However, you did post the continued… part of it where I begin with “My point is”. Was that just an oversight or selective moderating?
    For those who are scratching their heads wondering what my point was about, here is the original question that should have been posted before it:

    “If you were to tell me that you have been struck by lightning, and I were to reply by telling you that you are mistaken, what you perceived as being struck by lightning was actually a high voltage power line that had come loose and struck you on the head and I can prove it to you by refering you to some scientific documentation that explains how a high voltage power line striking you on the top of the head would create the experience of making you think you were struck by lightning, therefore it could not have been lightning that struck you on the head because it had to be a high voltage power line.”

    My point is:
    The fact that you do not have any scientific knowledge about lightning conductivity or its physical properties or how it behaves, does not mean that you were not struck by lightning.

  17. When was the other time I flip-flopped?

    Anyway, it was not a flip-flop – it was a clarification. I was originally referring to exhaust contrails. Because I though that’s what we were discussing. When I saw the video I saw they were actually aerodynamic contrails (although it is not clear how persistent they are).

    I really don’t think that everyone wants to know “why are you so dedicated to discrediting anyones account of what they have personally experienced”. For a start it implies that I’m all about discrediting people, when what I’m about is providing scientific explanations for their observations. Secondly – the reason I have this site is very mundane – I’m a pilot, I’m interested in the weather, and I’m interested in unusual theories like chemtrails. So I write about them. Because I find it interesting.

    Now, your analogy:

    “If you were to tell me that you have been struck by lightning, and I were to reply by telling you that you are mistaken, what you perceived as being struck by lightning was actually a high voltage power line that had come loose and struck you on the head and I can prove it to you by refering you to some scientific documentation that explains how a high voltage power line striking you on the top of the head would create the experience of making you think you were struck by lightning, therefore it could not have been lightning that struck you on the head because it had to be a high voltage power line.”

    If I were struck by a power line, then there would be some evidence – the power line would be dangling, and I would have been found underneath it. If I had been struck by lightening, then there would have been evidence of that too – an electrical storm in the area, a clap of thunder. Either way, I would go with what the evidence indicated.

    So, what are you claiming, and what is your evidence?

  18. SR1419 says:

    Cleaneye-

    no one has ridiculed you…or called you names…simply contested your arguments. You are the one is has stooped to ad hominem attacks with “twisted agenda” and by claiming my beliefs are “insulting”. I do not believe you are correct in your assumptions and assertions. That does not make me closed minded. I have looked into this topic for several years…the more I look the less evidence I find that anything other than supersaturated persistent contrails are causing the paranoia of the internet masses.

    You said: “does ANYTHING exist until we perceive it?” That is obfuscation. I know THINGS do exist prior to me perceiving them…I am not that self centered to think otherwise.

    If you want to claim that perception is so open to the vagaries of the mind, then you have to be open to the possibility that your “visual perception” might be wrong.

    The fact remains…contrails that persist and spread out and cover the sky in a thin haze of cirrus clouds existed long before you “perceived” them…

    …and thus, this comment: “since a lot of people suffering are linking their illnesses to the appearance of the never-before-experienced ‘contrail’ behaviour”- is open to significant skepticism because of the fact that the contrail behavior HAS been happening before…despite their (and your) lack of perception.

    You want to talk about perception??

    this comment: “In addition, there is a distinct difference in the sound of the engines of the commercial aircraft and the jets that leave the trails behind them that I have described. I have also noted the same distinction that many others have, that they are white and unmarked as opposed to the ‘normal’ commercial air traffic which have markings. I have also mentioned the spikes in health problems that correlate to abnormal trails left behind by jets as have others that live no where near me. They describe the same symptoms, which is hardly a coincidence that they correlate to the air assaults.”

    …that is all about perception…your perceive a difference in the sound of engines…I do not.

    You perceive that you can discern the type of plane from 5-10 miles away…I am skeptical that you can…Why can’t “unmarked” planes leave persistent contrails too? Are they immune to the science of the atmosphere?

    You make correlations that I have never experienced. You make these despite being well read and thus hopefully smart enough to know that correlation does not equal causation.

    The fact remains that “chemtrail” believers suggest that the most compelling evidence for a clandestine, global “spraying” operation of unknown origin and intent is the behavior of the trails themselves and that this behavior is recent in origin…

    …this belief is in spite of the fact that it has been proven by scientists from around the world who have studied and written peer-reviewed papers over the last 50 years on the subject that NORMAL PERSISTENT CONTRAIL behavior is identical to that of supposed “chemtrails”.

    ….and you wonder why I am skeptical.

  19. SR1419 says:

    Rudedog…

    You say; “You continue to carry on telling people that they are not seeing anything unusual when they know that they are”

    When people describe what they believe is a “chemtrail”, they describe a contrail (or multiple trails) that persists, spreads out and covers the sky in a haze.

    Given the FACT that supersaturated persistent contrails behave in exactly that manner and often occur in clusters…and have been observed doing so since at least the 1940s…it would be a fallacy to then describe that behavior as unusual.

    Regardless of “unmarked” planes or flight paths…the behavior of the trail is identical in description.

    Getting struck by lightening and getting struck by a powerline are not identical in empirical nature. Persistent contrails and “chemtrails” are identical in observed behavior.

    I believe that most people do not KNOW what they see in the sky…but rather believe. Most people are completely ignorant of contrail behavior. They have no real knowledge of the science behind aircraft plumes or condensation nuclei. Most are utterly oblivious to the physics of cirrus clouds. They clueless to all the variables that go into any given trail- from the ambient humidity, to the altitude, the speed of the plane, the type of engine or even the mix of fuel. Instead they cling to the mistaken belief that all contrails dissipate in a few seconds or minutes at most….and that anything that persists is a “chemtrail”.

    That belief is simply false.

    This ignorance is what they base their assumptions and speculation on and thus is a poor foundation for critical thinking.

    For instance- a lot of “chemtrail” believers point to “heavy spraying” right before a weather system comes in…and yet this is one of the most likely times the atmosphere would be supersaturated relative to ice and thus a very likely time of persistent contrails to have an outbreak. Their ignorance of the science leaves them vulnerable to making unwarranted and highly dubious speculations about that which they are observing.

    The extrapolation of contrails overhead to health effects on the ground is an even more dubious proposition. Wild speculation based on what at best can be considered anecdotal evidence and is more likely just hearsay….and all based on incorrect assumptions about the atmosphere and the behavior of contrails in the first place.

    …and you wonder why I am skeptical.

  20. CleansedEyes says:

    Hey again. I must plan my Saturdays better… :0)

    SR1419, I think you’re confusing me with rudedog – I didn’t say “insulting”. How insulting! There you go. :0/

    I’m pleased to hear you’re skeptical. Best way to be. It was the insults and equating the subject to fantasy or the product of a psychological disorder (said by some) that I found… “insulting”. Heck, maybe I should’ve said it earlier too.

    The “does anything exist until we perceive it” comment wasn’t intended as obfuscation, it was tongue-in-cheek facetiousness, a little gentle ribbing to lighten things a bit. Worked for me.

    SR1419: “If you want to claim that perception is so open to the vagaries of the mind, then you have to be open to the possibility that your “visual perception” might be wrong.”

    I am open to that. I learned that very thing very young when looking at a drinking straw through a glass of water. It seemed to… BEND out of shape… but when I took the straw out the water it was straight again. Incredible stuff. My visual perception’s OK in that I haven’t been run down by a bus yet… By the way, my username is CleansedEyes, not CleanEye – they’re both working fine, honest. ;0) My point is that people noticing the same thing as weird at the same time from all across the world makes it likely that they’re not ALL wrong, wouldn’t you say? I’m not saying they’re right, but there is enough likelihood to make it the top priority to investigate. A start would be to send a plane up and collect some of the ‘weird cloud’ material left by the jets in question. You’re a pilot, Uncinus – why not do that for us and your site please? I’ll come to L.A. for the ride and hold the jar if you like?

    SR1419, the last question for me is answered next; the rest of your questions are for rudedog, I’m not sure if you addressed them to me or not…?

    You say: “Why can’t “unmarked” planes leave persistent contrails too? Are they immune to the science of the atmosphere?”

    Unmarked planes DO leave the persistent trails – that’s what we’re talking about! Do you mean why do commercial planes rarely leave persistent trails? If persistent contrails have always occurred as you say, the reason that hardly anyone notices them (apart from the pier-reviewed ya-de-ya-de-yah) could be because they require very specific conditions to occur, and so happen very infrequently. The chemtrail spraying, however goes on just about if not every day where I live.

    Which brings me to your last comment: “NORMAL PERSISTENT CONTRAIL behavior is identical to that of supposed “chemtrails””.

    Then why are they seen in every condition – as rudedog says, in 115 degrees desert heat where there are no clouds? How could a contrail persist in such conditions?… Because I’m skeptical about that.

    Uncinus, you wrote: “How do clouds remain persistent? You know that a low level cloud is a suspension of liquid water droplets? An aerodynamic contrail is the same thing, and so it will persist as long as a cloud will do in the same situation.”

    A low level cloud is a suspension of liquid water droplets, but they are suspended and made persistent by adhering to condensation nuclei, are they not, as well as requiring 70% or above relative humidity? Regardless of that, you didn’t answer the question: if what we are seeing are persistent and aerodynamic contrails which only occur in very specific conditions, why are they seen in EVERY condition? That really is the heart of the matter, as science can’t account condensation as the explanation. This is the reason, coupled with associated health problems, that makes people think they aren’t contrails. I really don’t understand after so much communication that we’re going over the same old ground. Every post from me is just a repeat of what I said before, and before then – but you still say ‘contrails’ without explanation.

    To equate the trails we are seeing with astrology is stretching things somewhat, don’t you think? Again sending real concerns into outer space.

    Uncinus wrote: “Most telling, when asked why hardly anyone has noticed these changes, you say that everyone else has been brainwashed, or is in on the conspiracy. This is not really a reasonable explanation. 1,000,000 scientists have been brainwashed or are in on the conspiracy? All the scientists in every other country in the world have been brainwashed, or are in on the conspiracy?”

    C’mon, I didn’t say that. I only brought up the point about education and scientific funding because you implied that not many people being aware about chemtrails negates the subject’s veracity, whereas I agree with Gandhi’s comment that the truth is still the truth even if you’re in a minority of one (which I’m not, there are millions, as I’ve said).

    I obviously can’t speak for rudedog, but my discomfiture with “conspiracy” lies with it being a provocative term loaded with negative connotations of fantasy, “dark places” (as has already been mentioned), and even the Easter Bunny, apparently, according to Chemtrails Are Fake! When one hears the word “conspiracy” the next word associated with it is “nut”, as the two words have gone together for that very reason: to assassinate the characters of those trying to share intelligence that could potentially blow the cover of clandestine operations.

    We must remember that the OFFICIAL story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory: that Osama bin Laden conspired with those involved in the attacks. By that reasoning does that make those in government, including the US president, conspiracy theorists? They’ve even followed up on these conspiracy theories as reason to invade and slaughter innocent people.

    I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that most people are brainwashed whereas I am not. It’s been argued that if people weren’t moderately suggestible society couldn’t function. What I am saying is most people are decent-minded and feel empathy towards others (they get upset if they upset somebody else, etc.). They couldn’t even contemplate an organized group would spray the populace with stuff that destroys their mental and physical well-being, as well as environment – because most people aren’t psychopaths and trust those in charge not to be either. Add to that how people walk by in the street, looking DOWN at their phones, tunnel-visioned by necessity just to keep their heads above in this increasingly expensive farce – they certainly don’t pay attention to the sky – and why should they? Why should anyone expect such evil to be directed at them and their families?

    The “brainwashed” as you put it simply means there are skills to be learned and some programming to overcome, as well as much historical research to be done. I am not doubting anyone’s ability here: it simply boils down to an issue of trust and deliberate mis-education.

    For the scientists, it comes down to funding and legislation: speak out and you get your funding cut and maybe thrown in jail for breeching national security. There are a number of scientists from environmental sectors very aware and concerned about the change in our atmosphere due to the strange trails. My friends even have the correspondence. These letters have a disclaimer as a footnote saying the information is for the recipient only and can’t be shared, so I can’t disclose names, but probably organizations, if pressed, I’d have to check. Isn’t Clifford Carnicom a scientist?

    To say that scientists’ silence on the chemtrail issue means they are in on a conspiracy is illogical thinking. Think of the global warming debate. All we get to hear is repetition after repetition of the same agenda, though there are LOADS of scientists who think it’s a crock for political purposes. It’s even been admitted by the Club of Rome. The one time scientists spoke out against CO2 causing global warming (Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle), the programme was reprimanded by Ofcom! It’s the same with the chemtrail/contrail debate.

    Rudedog was right to pull you up when you said: “…I’m VERY open to the possibility of what you see being things other than contrails… I certainly accept the possibility. I’m not denying what you saw IN ANY WAY,” by reminding you that you previously rubbished my interpretation by saying: “Persistent contrails do NOT appear in hot non-humid weather below 10,000 feet. You are mistaken. You are seeing contrails that are at normal cruising altitudes of above 30,000 feet.”

    May I ask, Uncinus, what would you consider evidence, specifically? It’d be helpful to know so I can go about finding evidence that exactly matches your requirement. So far your denial of people’s experiences does make me wonder about your agenda. In that regard, yes, that WOULD be a conspiracy: your conspiring to falsify the truth. Or else you just get off on denying people’s interpretations. These are the suppositions that logic draws me to, as it isn’t logical for you to tell me my interpretation of what I see is inaccurate but yours is correct when you weren’t even there to see it – you see?

    “Can you tell me approximately where you live, and I’ll have a look at the weather patterns.”

    When my worries about your deviant nature are dispelled I’ll send you my actual address and we can have slumber parties and reminisce about the old times you used to argue that chemtrails were contrails before I provided the conclusive evidence. We’ll laugh about how stubborn and arrogant you were to deny people’s interpretations of what they saw, and even at one point brought up astrology. It’ll be a hoot. :0)

  21. What would I consider evidence? I presume you mean of your specific claims? Let’s look at the main thing you seem to be saying – compacted here from your post:

    Which brings me to your last comment: “NORMAL PERSISTENT CONTRAIL behavior is identical to that of supposed “chemtrails””.

    Then why are they seen in every condition – as rudedog says, in 115 degrees desert heat where there are no clouds? How could a contrail persist in such conditions?…
    […]
    if what we are seeing are persistent and aerodynamic contrails which only occur in very specific conditions, why are they seen in EVERY condition? That really is the heart of the matter, as science can’t account condensation as the explanation.

    Let’s simplify this to a hypothesis:

    “long lasting trails are occurring in air that would not support a persistent contrail”

    Is that okay? Feel free to modify it. The point is to narrow down where the disagreement is.

    If that what your hypothesis is, then I’d ask for the evidence that supports it. Rather specifically I would ask for facts and numbers:

    A) How long did the trail last?
    B) What altitude was the trail at
    (you’d also need to state how it was measured. An approximate altitude from being below a specific cloud type would be fine, actual measurements would be best).
    C) What was the temperature at that altitude?
    D) What was the humidity at that altitude?
    E) Where was the trail
    F) What date and time did the trail occur at?

    What would I consider evidence? Ideally accurate and verifiable measurements of the above. Video or photos would be useful, but a detailed eyewitness account would be a start.

    What do you have?

  22. CleansedEyes says:

    Hi Uncinus,

    You wrote: “Let’s simplify this to a hypothesis: “long lasting trails are occurring in air that would not support a persistent contrail”. Is that okay? Feel free to modify it. The point is to narrow down where the disagreement is.”

    That hypothesis is right on. There are other behavioural factors and effects too, but that is the crux. Agreed.

    Many thanks for listing accepted evidence. I’ll just go through the list if that’s OK and raise a few questions which will help me obtain the data you’re looking for…

    “A) How long did the trail last?” – Timestamped cameras will help us here. Can be done.

    “B) What altitude was the trail at” (also stating the methods of measurement) – This can be done, as you say, and as I have been doing, by relating the trails to cloud types, and maybe the measurement advice you gave in an earlier post which I still need to look through.

    “C) What was the temperature at that altitude?” – This is a tricky one for me in that I’m not sure how to get temperature readings at specific altitudes. May I ask for some advice regarding this point please?

    “D) What was the humidity at that altitude?” – Same again for this one, need a little advice about how to go about getting this data.

    “E) Where was the trail” – This means the location, doesn’t it, like if it happened where you are, you’d put L.A. for (E)?

    “F) What date and time did the trail occur at?” – That’s OK too.

    All of the above is fine except (C) and (D), which I just need a little clarification about please.

    In addition to this data collecting, I’ve written to everywhere I can think of for times and flightpaths of planes over a specific area in the UK, but haven’t got anywhere. Do you know where I could acquire that information? Everyone tells me the Civil Aviation Authority or Department for Transport should have everything I’m after, but they always refuse. Any help with this info is greatly appreciated.

    Cheers :0)

  23. Getting the weather aloft can be a bit tricky. To get the weather on the ground is very simple – you just measure it with a thermometer and an humidity meter. But to get an accurate reading of the temperature and humidity at 10,000 feet, you’d need to have a thermometer at 10,000 feet. So a lot of what you get are just estimates.

    At the very least, you should see what the reading are at ground level. Here’s a useful site:

    http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/HOBBIES/aviation.asp

    Just click where you are on the map. This will give you ground level figures for Temperature and RH (Relative Humidity). If you have nothing else, those are figures to start with.

    Temperature aloft is reasonably consistent relative to the temperature on the ground. The rate at which temperature changes as you climb is called the “lapse rate”. This varies, but you can use the standard of 6.49C per 1000m (or 3.56F per 1000 feet, or 1.98C per 1000 feet, depending on what units you prefer).

    So, if it’s 60F at sea level, then :
    at 30,000 feet, that’s 60 – (3.56*30) = -46.8F
    at 10,000 feet, that’s 60 – (5.56*10) = 4.4F (17 degrees below freezing)

    Unfortunately, it’s not so simple for humidity. Humidity can vary greatly from one altitude to another, and not always in the same direction (although generally it gets lower as you get higher). Humidity is usually measured with a weather balloon. You can get these sounding here:

    http://www.weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

    Try, for example, TBY (Tampa Bay) in Florida:

    RH is around 100% at ground level, then drops to 75 at 1000M, then back 96 at 2100M, then oscillates a lot, then falls to near zero at 5400M, and then is back at 86 at 7789M.

    From that site you can get the UK soundings by clicking on “Europe”, then on the station you want, here’s Nottingham Note humidity initially rises, then drops, then rises again. You can also get graphs, although they are a little hard to read.

    Note also these stations are about 300 miles apart, and interpolating results between then is not going to be very accurate.

    I’m afraid I don’t know where you can get UK flight data. It’s all freely available in the US though.

  24. rudedog says:

    CleansedEyes,

    In reply to your request for information regarding the role of temperature, humidity and altitude in the formation of contrails, the following link may be helpful. It describes a method to determine the formation of contrails through proper analysis of temperature, humidity, pressure and altitude. It is titled: ‘CONTRAIL COMPUTATION ON THE SKEW T DIAGRAM’
    http://www.tpub.com/weather3/6a-26.htm

    Also, I have recently started to compile flight data of all comercial aircraft that pass over Redding, Ca. I have reference to 2 links that may provide you with the flight data you seek. The first link provides real time live tracking of commercial airlines and provides a snapshot of current airplane activity, with the option to view the results by airport location, by airline company or by type of aircraft. The second link is an index of route maps for all of the major airlines, detailing the flight paths, departure times and arrival times for all of their scheduled flights. It has a link to european flight data. A quick and simple registration on the first site proved worthwhile by providing me access to more data. May only be for USA though. I’ll let you know if I find more for your area.
    http://flightaware.com/live/
    http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/USA/index.shtml

    On another note, the Sunday local newspaper where I live included a full page ad which was paid for by a local citizen. It is a follow up on a recent session with the Shasta County board of Supervisors which allowed local citizens to voice their concerns about the aircraft emmissions and the related health issues, poor air quality, toxic levels of heavy metals in our environment etc. The publication revealed the test results of the water, soil and snow samples that were taken recently. Tests were performed by Basic Labs, inc. in Redding, Ca., which is state certified. The results are as follows:

    Water sample from Lake Shasta, Pit River Arm = 4,610,000 ppb aluminum. (4,610 times the maximum contaminant level for aluminum in drinking water for Ca.)

    A pond located in a remote location in a forested area away from highways, industry etc. tested ‘0’ for aluminum 1 1/2 years ago when it was filled. After only 1 1/2 years of exposure to the atmosphere the pond tested at 375,000 ppb for aluminum. (375 times the MCL)

    A recent snowpack sample from Mt. Shasta tested at 61,100 ppb (61 times the MCL)
    A rain test taken in Shasta County in May of ’08 was hundreds of times the range of ‘normal’ for aluminum.

    Numerous studies have connected aluminum exposure to neurological damage and could account for the alarming increase of Alzheimers and many other diseases in this area, including asthma and other respiratory issues. I personally contribute it to the spontaneous nose bleeds that I frequently get, as do many other people that I know. We never had these issues before the skies started changing. It is also harmful to the plants and trees by changing ph levels in the soil, which would account for the alarming rate of trees that are dying in this area. I personally have only a few trees left out of over 100 large healthy trees less than 10 years ago. Mostly large pines and oak trees.
    The recent fires in this part of the state are the worst we have ever seen and were started by a record number of lightning strikes from a storm that didn’t produce any rain. It has become increasingly common here to receive no rain from storm clouds that were predicted to dump rain.
    The increased conductivity of the atmosphere which also coincides with the increase of metalic particles would also acount for the increased frequency and intensity of the lightning strikes.
    Whatever the purpose of the spraying is, the results of it have definitely modified the weather in northern California, and not in a good way.
    More and more people are starting to open their eyes in this area and are taking notice of the unusual activity in the sky and noticing that it is anything but normal. Sometimes the jets that leave trails behind lay it on so thick and the air gets so saturated all the way to ground level that it would take complete ignorance not to notice it. People are so caught up in their overstressed daily lives these days to even bother to stop and smell the roses and look around them, but after I point it out to them while it is happening, almost everyone says they cant believe how obvious it is if you just take the time to look up. Of course, nothing I have said means anything to people like uncinus because he has created a website for the sole purpose of debunking anyone that does not subscribe to his contrail theory. Yes it is only a contrail theory because he can not prove that any of the people are mistaken about their eyewittness accounts. Yet uncinus will insinuate that he knows that all of the people are mistaken about what they have seen. The worlds biggest coincidence! The fact that he has come up with a scientific analogy that would enable a contrail to form and persist under certain conditions, means it must be concluded that all of the aerosols in the atmosphere are persistent contrails under any circumstance and regardless if the conditions are favorable or not. And to prove his point even further, uncinus will tell you that your perception of your experience is wrong about what you claim you have seen because because he can show you a picture of a jet making a persistent contrail. None of the so called proof has anything to do with the trails left behind by these mysterious jets that the concerned citizens are complaining about. How many people have to get sick? What would an acceptable death toll be in order for you to consider it as evidence of a toxic environment? How many more people have to voice their concerns about the quality of air and drinking water and the unhealthy and increasing levels of contaminants in our environment before you will stop at your attempts to debunk their every effort to investigate the cause in order to find a solution to the problem. When will you except the possibility that millions of people from around the world really do know what they are talking about when they explain that what they are wittnessing and describe how it does not compare to anything they can refer to as being ‘normal’ throughout their entire life experiences? You see, the concerns of the people are ligitimate. What is the purpose for websites like this that promote the idea that if you speak about the atrocity that is taking place, you must be some kind of conspiracy theorist or someone that lacks education. What do the growing masses of concerned people from around the world possibly have to gain by expressing their concerns about something that is destroying our very existence? Nothing! What do you have to gain by deliberate effort to prevent their concerns from being taken serioulsy and insisting that all of their eyewittness accounts are simply jet contrails and nothing else? An assertion that you have no way of verifying. Your whole contrail theory is based soley on your assumption that all of these people are simply mistaken about the experiences that they have described. A more appropriate name for your website would be ‘Theory based on Contrail Science’

  25. Rudedog, I applaud your investigatory efforts. Careful observation and accurate records are the way to show if something is really going on or not.

    I must caution you on contrail forecasting though. There are several models that are used, and none of them have particularly good accuracy. The most difficult thing is generally measuring the humidity in the region the contrail occurs. But either way, the important thing would be to get your figures first, and then they can be analyzed later.

    Flightaware is great this is the link for Redding:

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KRDD

    Clicking on the map in the top left gives a view of the air traffic around Redding. It’s clear why you get a lot of contrails there. Lots of high altitude planes within 40 miles of Redding. Mostly flying North/South, and not along a particular flight path either. That would account for the “grid” pattern even without wind. You’ll get an occasional East/West flight to Hawaii and further places.

    The test results you list are interesting. Do you have the actual report? Or a copy of the ad? I’m afraid I find some of the results rather unlikely, and I’ll explain why:

    Water sample from Lake Shasta, Pit River Arm = 4,610,000 ppb aluminum. (4,610 times the maximum contaminant level for aluminum in drinking water for Ca.)

    That’s a very high level. So high that if it were true, then Shasta could not be used as a drinking water source. It’s also basically impossible. The level of aluminum in Shasta drinking water (direct from the lake) was 65 ppb in 2003. Here’s the report:

    http://www.ci.shasta-lake.ca.us/departments/watertreatment/CCR%202008.pdf

    Now you say it’s 4,610,000 ppb. A very large increase. But is such a number even possible? 4,610,000 ppb is 0.461% aluminum. Now, the capacity of Lake Shasta is 5.7 billion cubic meters. It’s rather low now, so let’s say it’s 2 billion cubic meters of water. Now if 0.461% of that is aluminum, then that’s 4,610,000 cubic meters of aluminum that have been added to the lake in the last five years.

    A cubic meter of aluminum weighs 2,700 kg. So that’s 12,447,000,000 kg of aluminum, or about 13 million tons of aluminum. The largest freighters flying (like the 777) have a payload of about 100 tons. So that would be 124,700 fully loaded flight of JUST ALUMINUM. Or 68 flight per day, every day, for five years. Just over the Mt Shasta catchment area.

    Imagine the logistics of that. 68 flights a day, each with 100 metric tons of aluminum, every day for five years.

    How much would that cost? Well aluminum is $2751/ton on the open market right now. So that’s $275,000 per flight just for the metal. Then the cost of flying a large jet like that is around $50,000 for a very short flight. Then you’ve got other costs, loading, personnel, etc. Let’s say around $350,000 per flight.

    So then 68 flights per day is about $24 Million per day, or $8.6 Billion per year. Or $43 Billion over five years.

    And that’s just for the aluminum. And that’s just for one corner of the US, much less than 1%. Extend it over the whole US, and it’s at least 100 times bigger, or at least $4.3 Trillion. Just for the aluminum!!!

    Do you know what the budget for the entire US government is? It’s $2.7 Trillion. You are basically claiming that they spend more on spreading aluminum than on defense.

    So I think you can see why people might be a little skeptical of these test results, and perhaps ask for more information as to how the samples were gathered.

  26. That’s a bit too much math there, but I want to make one more point:

    There is nothing connecting contrails to aluminum levels.

    You’ve got two totally seperate issues here:

    1) persistent and spreading contrails, which you think are persisting and spreading more than they used to.

    2) Suspected high levels of aluminum in drinking water

    Now what links the two. Why does one cause the other?

    Why even BOTHER with the contrails? The real problem is the poisoning of the water supply. Why not focus on that. It would be VERY easy to prove. Just test some drinking water, document how the samples were gathered, and POST THE LAB RESULTS.

    Nobody has ever done this and shown high levels of aluminum.

  27. CleansedEyes says:

    Rudedog, thank you very much for the information and links, I’ll get my friend to sign up when he gets back.

    Uncinus, thank you for the links and measuring advice, I’ll incorporate it into my data-collecting from now on. I do think though, if we’re being scientific, you should take up rudedog’s suggestion to change the site name to Theory Based On Contrail Science.

    The fact still remains however that contrails and chemtrails are easy to tell apart by anyone who pays attention, and they really require no measuring or any other data, not just because they are seen in conditions impossible for condensation to form (according to NASA, the Met Office, the CAA, memory, experience, et al), but because of their patterns, behaviour and detrimental effect on the climate and health (aaaaaatchoooooooooooo!!!!). It really is simplicity itself. You can even compare the unmarked spraying planes to the normal commercial planes just by the logos on their tails.

    Surely the best evidence would be to fly up and collect the material in question for analysis? Uncinus, you say you’re a pilot – for the benefit of ‘contrail science’ why don’t you fly up and get it? I’ve been saving locally to do this for years, and here you are with a flying license! Seriously, haven’t you thought of doing that? If not, and now you have – please do so.

    In fairness I can see that this thread has moved on somewhat from the out-and-out ridicule thrown at those aware of the spraying programme by the ‘contrail science’ posse, but it must be noted that the ridicule has only lessened because rudedog and I exposed those particular countering techniques for what they are. When the emperor’s shown to have no clothes, he covers his…

    I can also see an improvement in your stance, Uncinus, saying you are now open to the possibility that what people are seeing is NOT condensation, rather than denying people’s interpretation of their own experience whilst offering yours as fact, as was the technique before you were called on it.

    But we’re still in the excruciating position of your knowing what a contrail is, ipso facto what a chemtrail is: it can’t be any other way. Even saying that you’re open to the possibility of chemtrails’ existence still means YOU ARE LYING by saying you have no knowledge of them. If you truly are a pilot, and know the science behind contrail formation, YOU – PERSONALLY – would ALREADY KNOW CHEMTRAILS EXIST. And if you had a conscience or empathy with your fellow man you would be doing your best to stop the spraying as soon as is humanly possible rather than feigning ignorance (though I don’t think all of your ignorance is feigned by any means). I can accept an everyday Joe not noticing the difference (only when I’m being very lenient), but not you. This is the part where Poirot’s moustache would start twitching.

    Mon amis, Uncinus, you said as part of the data collecting that an eyewitness account could help, yet our accounts were rubbished and associated with psychological disorders whilst being told by YOU what WE witnessed. So why the sudden change?

    I would like to question further errors I believe you have made…

    In post 26, you wrote: “So, clouds are aerosols, normal, everyday clouds. Also contrails are aerosols.”

    I agree that clouds are aerosols, technically speaking. Their condensation nuclei makes them so. Contrails, on the other hand, are not aerosols. Contrails are ice crystals made of frozen water vapour. Your saying contrails are aerosols is like saying rain or hailstone is an aerosol (liquid or solids in a gas – the gas being the atmosphere).

    I would also like to challenge some of your assertions by comparing what you said with official information.

    You wrote: “Cloud seeding is controversial – but mostly because nobody is even sure if it actually works. Since they did not know what the rainfall was going to be, their claims are rather dubious. Some people think it actually has zero net effect.”

    Compare and contrast the above statement with a BBC radio programme called Tidal Waves As Weapons from August 2004, in which the radio presenter spoke to one of the CONTRIBUTORS of the OWNING THE WEATHER document:

    (Capitals are mine.)

    Presenter: “A major research paper compiled in America in 1996 highlighted all sorts of ideas on how best to harness the rain, wind, sea and sun TO DEVESTATE AN ENEMY. Either by BOGGING HIM DOWN WITH ARTIFICIAL THUNDERSTORMS, DROWNING HIM WITH MAN-MADE TIDAL WAVES, OR FREEZING HIM BY BLOTTING OUT THE SUN. The project was called ‘Owning the Weather’; it’s message: WHOEVER OWNS THE WEATHER OWNS THE WORLD.”

    Presenter (cont’d): ”One of the contributors to the research documents was Colonel William B. Shields… So I asked him with tongue firmly in cheek whether he should now try making clouds.”

    Shields: “Well actually the technology to do that exists today, there has been research that has PROVEN this; one of the things mentioned in our paper has to do with the ‘CARBON black’, where if you can develop little bits of carbon on a microscopic scale, a CARBON DUST if you will, you can disperse these – with the right conditions – ideally over a body of water necessary to develop the kind of airflow that actually generates clouds and increases the moisture content.

    [Talk about carbon emissions! – CleansedEyes]
    [The above quote also could explain why planes are spraying over puffy clouds – “a body of water necessary” – CleansedEyes]

    Presenter: “So we already have technology not only to make it rain but to make clouds in the first place?”

    Shields: “THAT’S CORRECT, YES..”

    So, who are we to believe? Uncinus or one of the actual contributors to the official document?

    There was also a BBC Radio 4 programme called The Day They Made It Rain which detailed the Ministry of Defence documents of rain-making attempts in 1952, the results of which washed away the village of Lynmouth, England, killing 35 people. The comments in the programme also reinforce the reasons behind my THEORY (see, I can say it) why the Summer floods of 2007 occurred (and which Gordon Brown associated with the 1952 floods too), just by monitoring the spraying here where I live:

    Presenter: “So even experiments carried out as far away as London or Yorkshire could have influenced the weather over Lynmouth. Our meteorologist pondered over these papers carefully.”

    Meteorologist: “I suppose its –uh – alarming when you have an area of science that you know something about and you see that there are documents which are top secret.”

    Official documents prove the goal was to harness the weather as a weapon to create all of the weather chaos we’ve seen in recent times: hurricanes, lightning strikes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and official documents prove that weather weapons were fully functional in the 1970s (Weather Warfare Treaty signed at the UN). It is OLD TECHNOLOGY.

    You only have to look out your window to see it’s happening today – and it is. Unbelievable in its scale, planning and organization. Moralistic relativism goes out the window here. The evil is so invasive, and ‘in your face’ that some people need to take a step back and look in the mirror just to see it.

    Even after all these years the horror of it all hasn’t sunk in and I don’t think it ever will… it’s inconceivable that it’s actually happening.

    And yet it is. :0(

  28. I do think though, if we’re being scientific, you should take up rudedog’s suggestion to change the site name to Theory Based On Contrail Science.

    Science is all about theory. Science is the process by which we create theories that best explain what we observe. So I think “contrail science” covers it quite well – this sit is ABOUT the science of contrails. Do me a favor, and read the introductory paragraph to the Wikipedia article on science and tell me again why I should change the name.

    The fact still remains however that contrails and chemtrails are easy to tell apart by anyone who pays attention, and they really require no measuring or any other data, not just because they are seen in conditions impossible for condensation to form (according to NASA, the Met Office, the CAA, memory, experience, et al), but because of their patterns, behaviour and detrimental effect on the climate and health (aaaaaatchoooooooooooo!!!!). It really is simplicity itself. You can even compare the unmarked spraying planes to the normal commercial planes just by the logos on their tails.

    So why exactly can’t you say WHAT the difference is? Why can’t you product a “contrail vs. chemtrail” chart? Why can’t you provide a simple list of actual differences? Why are there NO photos of “unmarked” planes.

    Surely the best evidence would be to fly up and collect the material in question for analysis? Uncinus, you say you’re a pilot – for the benefit of ‘contrail science’ why don’t you fly up and get it? I’ve been saving locally to do this for years, and here you are with a flying license! Seriously, haven’t you thought of doing that? If not, and now you have – please do so.

    Because I fly in small Piper planes, unpressurized. I’m a recreational pilot. The highest I’ve flown was 10,000 feet. Contrails form at 30,000 feet. In the years I’ve been flying I’ve never seen any contrails at anywhere near the level I fly at. They have all been way up in the sky, where you would expect them to be.

    I agree that clouds are aerosols, technically speaking. Their condensation nuclei makes them so. Contrails, on the other hand, are not aerosols. Contrails are ice crystals made of frozen water vapour. Your saying contrails are aerosols is like saying rain or hailstone is an aerosol (liquid or solids in a gas – the gas being the atmosphere).

    Here’s a quote from the dictionary:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aerosol

    aero·sol – noun – 1: a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas

    But that not really the point. The point is that CONTRAILS are the same as the CLOUDS at the same altitude. At the altitude that contrails usually form these, are cirrus clouds. Both contrails and cirrus clouds are “ice crystals made of frozen water vapour” – exactly the same. In fact, when contrails spread out, they are refered to as “contrail cirrus”. Try a google search for that:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22contrail+cirrus%22

    So, contrails are clouds. Therefore, contrails last as long as clouds last.

  29. SR1419 says:

    Cleansedeyes-

    You say:

    “The fact still remains however that contrails and chemtrails are easy to tell apart by anyone who pays attention, and they really require no measuring or any other data, not just because they are seen in conditions impossible for condensation to form (according to NASA, the Met Office, the CAA, memory, experience, et al), but because of their patterns, behaviour and detrimental effect on the climate and health (aaaaaatchoooooooooooo!!!!). It really is simplicity itself. You can even compare the unmarked spraying planes to the normal commercial planes just by the logos on their tails.”

    This statement is really scary in its ignorance…and is why I feel so compelled to respond…

    The fact still remains that the behavior of supposed “chemtrails” – persisting, spreading out, merging, promoting the creation of cirrus clouds…IS IDENTICAL to that of the known behavior of persistent contrails….

    How do you reconcile that??? How do you just explain it away with a sneeze??

    You cannot stand on the ground, look up and determine what the air temperature is at any given spot in the atmosphere, or the relative humidity NOR the level of ice saturation- or even the altitude (conditions on the ground have no bearing on conditions at 30k feet)…To attempt to do so will only lead you to draw inaccurate conclusions based on inaccurate assumptions…How terribly poor judgement to think that is a critical analysis of events. Its really disheartening to think that this is how you think.

    Oh thats right! no measurements are needed according to you- you can base your conclusions on memory and condensation “experience”….just exactly how are the behavior of chemtrails different than persistent contrails again?? …please explain the difference without mentioning any measurements (altitude, temp, et al)

    CE- why cannot a plane which is “umarked” (or is it that you just can’t see the marking from 10 miles away with the glare of the sun bouncing off the plane?) – why can’t an “unmarked” plane leave a persistent contrail?? not a “chemtrail” – just a normal benign intent persistent contrail?? That logic (or lack thereof) is a recipe for failure. Simply because you cannot see any markings you then draw the conclusion that it is spraying something. Do you claim that is a logical conclusion?

    Patterns?? …a “grid” pattern?? why cannot intersecting flight paths have multiple persistent contrails?? where is the logic in believing that any discernible “pattern” must be the result of deliberate spraying??? Why cannot a plane leaving a persistent contrail fly through a patch of air that is not supersaturated with respect to ice- This is a logical explanation of the “turning on and off of the sprayer” claims people make.

    Are you aware that 2 planes can fly through the exact same space of atmosphere and one can leave a persistent trail and one can leave nothing?? Are you truly aware of all the myriad variables that go into any given trail???

    Effects on climate and health….?? This is where your speculation just runs so completely overboard as to be really scary….someone sneezes and this is “proof” that it must be “chemtrails”- never mind all the pollutants and contaminants that are known to exist and are in much closer proximity…it must be the trails in the sky that I see and do not understand…

    I live in an area (NorCal) – close to Rdog- that is supposedly “sprayed heavily”…absolutely no illnesses to report from around me, not me, not my neighbors, no increase in emergency room visits with people claiming respiratory illnesses…This is anecodotal to be sure…but is equal in its value as any claim you make about about the people around you.

    Contradictory evidence which should make you reevaluate your conclusions.

    I you wonder why I am skeptical.

    PS: This website is labeled correctly – it is about the science of contrails. The fact that supersaturated persistent contrails last for hours and days, spread out into hazy sheets of cirrus clouds and encourage the growth of additional cirrus clouds is not a theory. It is a proven, verifiable fact that has been known for 50+ years.

    The fact that people who are ignorant of this – then look to the sky and claim they see a “chemtrail” is what needs to be questioned.

  30. CleansedEyes says:

    Hi Uncinus,

    I admit I was stoopid to pedantically argue over petty matters in the same post that provided important information.

    Just so you know, I didn’t really expect you to change the site domain name, I said that as light-hearted ribbing since we’re collecting all this scientific data to prove what’s obvious. My attempts at humour haven’t translated well so I’ll try to stop.

    Uncinus wrote: “So why exactly can’t you say WHAT the difference is?”

    National security.

    Wait a sec… we CAN and HAVE explained the differences. That’s all we’ve done. I misunderstand.

    “Why can’t you provide a simple list of actual differences?”

    Rudedog wrote:
    “contrails don’t make people sick. chemtrails do.
    contrails don’t leave sticky residue. chemtrails do.
    contrails don’t fill the air with fibers. chemtrails do.
    contrails don’t have a distinct chemical smell. chemtrails do.
    Unlike you, I can also tell the difference visually. Especially when they are observed side by side.”

    There’s other differences stated in this thread too. If you want I can go through them all and list again?

    Fair enough about your flying below the required height for contrail formation, although if you ever want to do some low-flying over my town you would see chemtrails at 10,000 feet and below.
    Is it possible to post pictures here? I can show you what I mean.

    Also, do you know how much it would cost (thereabouts) to hire a plane that goes to contrail height for, say, half a day?

    As I’ve said, I regret quibbling over the petty semantics, including contrails versus clouds, so I apologise for bringing it up here, and agree to disagree. My teaching is that contrails and clouds are based on entirely different physical principles.

    The important points, which were overshadowed by the above trivia (sorry about that) were the Owning the Weather contributor admitting that it is PROVEN that clouds can be made where there are none and that rain can be created too, with the aim of devastating target populations and controlling the world. He who controls the weather controls all life on the planet. Uncinus, you said that the technology is unproven and many think it has no effect. But here’s the contributor saying it’s proven. What now?

    The MoD papers about Lynmouth also backed up the theory behind my accurate prediction of the UK summer floods of 2007. Is this all just coincidence?

    Is it really all just a coincidence that the military have technology to control the weather and create such phenomena as tsunamis, floods, droughts, hurricanes, lightning strikes, etc – and that the ‘Premier ThinkTank’, the Club of Rome, admitted they decided in the 1970s that they would use the weather as the universal threat to unite all countries under a one-world totalitarian system – and we are seeing all the weather chaos now, backed up by the political-media mantra repeating over and over that we, the public, are to blame for the weather (carbon footprint, global tax, etc.) and must have our property and resources confiscated, as we, Joe public, are the enemy of Mother Earth and therefore can’t be trusted… Is it really all just a coincidence that everything somehow magically falls in line with published official documents?

  31. CleansedEyes says:

    Also, while I’m here, are aircraft emissions regulated by the Montreal Protocol? If not, what organization would deal with complaints of aircraft emissions? Every authority in the UK couldn’t be more unhelpful: denial and refusal to look at footage. Thanks.

  32. CleansedEyes, I see you talking about two things here: (A) Trails that you claim are different to contrails, and (B) Extreme Weather Modification.

    Even if I were to grant the rather extreme claims you make regarding weather modification, I still don’t see what this has to do with the trails?

    I understand that you bring up these theories about, say, the Club of Rome, as some kind of explanation as to why there are odd trails. That’s fine. The theory you use is not important.

    What IS important here is actually demonstrating that there are in fact some odd trails (that are not contrails). I’ll freely accept all your stuff about weather weapons and elite conspiracies if you can actually show me some odd trails that are not contrails.

    Photos would be great. You can’t post photos in the comments, but you can post them on say PhotoBucket or Picasa, and just post a link. Or you can email the photos, and I’ll put them up here somewhere.

    As for Rudedogs list, I’d accept “chemtrails fill the air with fibers”, if someone could actually show this was happening (and explain why nobody notices). People make mistakes, like these cottonwood seeds:
    http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2690.html?theme=light

    Really the most interesting thing is:

    Unlike you, I can also tell the difference visually. Especially when they are observed side by side

    So I’d invite you or rudedog to explain how to tell the difference. Not the difference between a short lived contrail and a persistent contrail, but the difference between a persistent contrail, and a chemtrail. Photos or video would work best.

  33. Renting a plane that could go high enough would probably cost you at least $1000 per hour, and probably more like $2-3000/hour. Then what are you going to do? You can’t exactly stick your hand out the window at 30,000 feet.

    If though, as you say, you commonly have odd trails at 10,000 feet, then you can actually just stick your hand out the window (although, it’s going to be rather uncomfortable). Just rent say, a Cirrus SR-22 ($250 per hour), or even a Piper or Cessna ($100-$150 per hour). You can probably get a pilot for free. Just find someone doing instrument training, and tell them you’ll pay (or go dutch) for the plane rental for a cross-country flight if you can come along as passenger. Pilot training for IFR need to log a lot of hours of regular flying just to get IFR certified, so they do boring cross-country flights, which can get expensive.

    Actually, that’s all in the US – I’m not sure how it would work in the UK.

    I’m not sure how you’d go about sampling things. But I’d encourage you to at least fly up to 10,000 feet and see how things look from there.

    I don’t know who you’d go to about aircraft emissions. However, I feel you need to get some better evidence of harmful emissions first, if you wish to be taken seriously.

  34. CleansedEyes says:

    Hi SR1419,

    I was writing when you posted so missed your comments.

    You wrote: “The fact still remains that the behavior of supposed “chemtrails” – persisting, spreading out, merging, promoting the creation of cirrus clouds…IS IDENTICAL to that of the known behavior of persistent contrails….”

    I don’t agree with the behavioural similarities but for the sake of argument I will. No matter, condensation trails can’t persist in 115 degrees heat, can they? Or below 10,000 feet in hot, non-humid weather? In what way are they identical? With that reckoning I imagine you would pick up a piece of dog dirt from the ground thinking it was a chocolate bar. You don’t normally find chocolate bars in those conditions (on the ground), but it’s brown and long, it looks like a chocolate bar… why, it must be a chocolate bar – chomp!

    “This statement is really scary in its ignorance.”

    Please bear in mind that I was simply underlining the point how simple it is without the need for scientific measuring equipment to distinguish contrails from chemtrails. What part of that is scary and what part is ignorant?

    “No measurements are needed according to you.”

    That is not true at all. I do use scientific methods, which all back up the hypothesis that what is being sprayed isn’t water vapour. Sorry if what I wrote was confusing. Previous posts of mine state that it’s because of science that we know the differences. The sentence expressed which you were compelled to address was just saying how simple the trails are to tell apart by sight alone. See?

    I try not to be snotty so don’t explain anything with a sneeze. I mentioned the sneezing to underline yet another difference: chemtrails make people very ill; contrails don’t.

    Sorry to hear I disheartened you, SR1419. At least you acknowledge having a heart, which is a start ;0)

    “Why can’t an “unmarked” plane leave a persistent contrail?? not a “chemtrail” – just a normal benign intent persistent contrail?? That logic (or lack thereof) is a recipe for failure. Simply because you cannot see any markings you then draw the conclusion that it is spraying something. Do you claim that is a logical conclusion?”

    Don’t you think it’s odd that the commercial, logo-tailed planes have never been seen by me to leave a persistent contrail (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just going by my experience, and by all accounts they occur very rarely if at all), yet the wild-flying unmarked planes’ trails cloud the sky in minutes? Just ONE trail from these planes can spread to cover the entire sky! Is it logical to assume the composition of the very different trails from different planes have the same composition, as you are stating? The sky is overcast every day now where I live and has been for 2 years because of ‘persistent contrails’. Wouldn’t I have remembered it always being overcast throughout my lifetime?

    “Patterns?? …a “grid” pattern?? why cannot intersecting flight paths have multiple persistent contrails??”

    You know as well as I that the patterns are very specific, and that the planes switch their trails on and off and do U-turns to make them. If they are not switching their trails on and off, as you say, then why do the planes loop back to fly through the same supersaturated icy part of the sky? Why do trails join up dead on the line and start and stop exactly touching ends then stopping?

    “Are you truly aware of all the myriad variables that go into any given trail???”

    Yes.

    “Effects on climate and health….?? This is where your speculation just runs so completely overboard as to be really scary….someone sneezes and this is “proof” that it must be “chemtrails”- never mind all the pollutants and contaminants that are known to exist and are in much closer proximity…it must be the trails in the sky that I see and do not understand…”

    As I’ve said before, it’s not just sneezing, it’s nosebleeds, muscle tremors, stiffness, pain, earache, lethargy, lapses of concentration, flu-like symptoms that last all year round and worsen every heavy spray day, itchy eyes, runny nose, hacking cough, tight breathing… plus a stroke and heart attack from two different memebrs of my family in the same week of ridiculous spraying that made everyone sick to their stomachs.

    …Don’t you think these symptoms point to airborne contamination? That it should at least be investigated, and that millions of people making the same connection might not all be deluded liars?

    “I live in an area (NorCal) – close to Rdog- that is supposedly “sprayed heavily”…absolutely no illnesses to report from around me, not me, not my neighbors, no increase in emergency room visits with people claiming respiratory illnesses…This is anecodotal to be sure…but is equal in its value as any claim you make about about the people around you.”

    That’s fair enough. Experiential reports are valid though not proof in themselves, as we’ve cleared. It will be interesting to put rudedog’s local assessment next to yours.

    I welcome your skepticism and questioning, SR1419. The truth invites investigation.

    Sorry to read I really scared you, SR1419. Hope you’re OK now.

  35. I don’t agree with the behavioural similarities but for the sake of argument I will. No matter, condensation trails can’t persist in 115 degrees heat, can they? Or below 10,000 feet in hot, non-humid weather? In what way are they identical?

    Condensation trails can persist at 36,000 feet if it’s 115 degrees on the ground, since the temperature at that altitude will be around -40.

    But I think the meat of your claim is:

    “Persistent trails regularly occur below 10,000 feet in hot, non-humid weather”.

    All you have to do is demonstrate this. Photos?

  36. SR1419 says:

    Cleansedeye-

    You wrote: “Don’t you think it’s odd that the commercial, logo-tailed planes have never been seen by me to leave a persistent contrail (I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just going by my experience, and by all accounts they occur very rarely if at all)”

    Yes, it is quite odd given the fact that has been happening for over 50 years…and the fact that it is quite common. By “all” accounts??? Whose accounts? The numerous scientific papers written in the last 50 years regarding persistent contrails would beg to differ. These “accounts” suggest that it is quite common. Conditions ripe for persistent contrails have been estimated to occur as much as 40% of the time in some parts of the globe during portions of the year. Other estimates have said that 50% of all flts create trails that last 2hours or more.

    I truly doubt that you have been seeing persistent trails daily for 2 years and not single one was caused by a commercial airplane….highly illogical given the amount of commercial air traffic over your head. That would also imply that you visibly and unmistakably identify every plane that leaves a trail over you and have done so for the last 2 years- everyday. Again, highly improbable.

    See here for detailed analysis:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/098/mwr-098-10-0745.pdf.

    http://www.earthscape.org/r2/ams/vol78_97/bams_78_09_1885.pdf.

    http://tinyurl.com/66qouz

    http://tinyurl.com/6dphju

    (the paper linked above is from 1986 and explicitly states “contrails frequently spread” )

    http://tinyurl.com/2mubr5

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000JD900533.shtml

    (this paper discusses how different airplanes effect the evolution of the contrail)

    All of these “accounts” suggest or even prove that persistent contrails happen quite frequently…in direct contradiction to your belief. If you were me, who would you believe?

    I have been an avid contrail watcher for the last 5 years…and I have never seen any “fibers”, “sticky residue”, discernible “smell”….nothing…all all the while supposedly being in a heavy “spray zone”.

    Claiming people are getting sick from “chemtrails” is pure, unadulterated speculation. Plain and simple- speculation- without a shred of evidence…attributing stroke and heart attacks??? complete speculation…What about all the time people had strokes and heart attacks before “chemtrails”?? what caused them then?…and how can you determine that these were a direct result of some nefarious, global “spraying” campaign of unknown origin and intent??

    You can’t.

    Strokes and heart attacks DO NOT, in fact, point to airborne contamination…it is a speculative correlation on your part that lacks scientific or logical merit.

    …of course, this is not even touching the aspect of physics relating to the dispersal of particles small enough to be aerosolized and that the likelihood of anything falling on you from a trail overhead is extremely small if not impossible. If it is persisting and spreading…it is not falling…and is entirely at the mercy of the winds aloft…and thus makes it a highly ineffective delivery method for any kind of airborne contaminant.

  37. CleansedEyes says:

    Transcript from Manx Radio (the Isle of Man) 7th October 2003:

    Interviewer: “The Americans are intentionally spraying chemicals on us out of high-altitude jet planes – that’s the amazing claim being made by a number of Internet websites. Chemtrails, as they’re called, are alleged to be a result of a 1994 US plan to seed the atmosphere with reflective aluminium oxide in an attempt to reduce global warming; other sources suggest that they’re actually to do with a top secret experimental military radio system. Michael Irving from Ramsey contacted Manx Radio to express his concern, and says that chemtrails could be responsible for many modern ailments. “

    Michael: “Various countries around the world people are noticing that the effluent of planes – the contrail – is not disappearing like it used to, but is lingering in the sky, falling in altitude, and then you get a criss-cross of what we used to call contrails – which shouldn’t happen because contrails are meant to be ice crystals and they’re meant to evaporate, so something is coming down to ground level.

    Interviewer: “Couldn’t this just be the toilet systems in airliners that are sort of throwing stuff out that’s atomizing in the atmosphere?”

    Michael: “Normal contrails – the tiny particles, the product of combustion – they’re very minute as they come out the jet engine, and ice crystals which is then the much larger part form around them and they melt very quickly as they fall, so we get a minute dust that doesn’t bother anybody, in the normal contrail fashion. Now this is… I don’t know if people have noticed the sort of whitish deposits on their cars. In America people are looking at that and they’re saying that this whitish deposit is a chemical substance.”

    Interviewer: “Has it actually been analyzed?”

    Michael: “There’s a lot of analysis that talks about aluminium and barium, neither of which are – y’know, we gave up aluminium pans a long time ago, but apparently we’re all breathing it in now. And barium is not a good substance to be breathing in.”

    Interviewer: ”The theory is that somebody is spreading these chemtrails on purpose… And you think that this might be linked with increases in things like respiratory conditions, pneumonia, influenza, viruses and allergies?”

    Michael: “Yes. Well, the first spraying was noticed in California around about ’91-92… I think possibly there was a similar effect in England. And can I mention that there’s another aspect to this: that the quality of jet fuel round about ten years ago was allowed to degrade to include a pesticide-type content that had been previously… banned. So it might be this pesticide thing in the jet fuel that’s having a bad effect or – because there’s a lot of evidence that there is a particular chemical substance that’s actually being sprayed by planes, and there’s a lot of energy, vitality associated with that – y’know, you’re always trying to get your immune system going, trying to get a better state of health and it never seems to clear up. And I think there are more conditions now of allergy, pneumonia, viruses, flu, sensitivity of skin, eyes, sometimes when you come in…”

    Interviewer: “I can’t imagine any reason that any government – and I assume it would be at a governmental level – would do this, but do you think that maybe it’s something to do with global warming and trying to control the weather?”

    Michael: “I’ve just seen so much evidence that something is coming from planes that’s not good for us, and it should be stopped.”

  38. Well, yes, that’s a nice summary of the chemtrails theory from back in 2004, but what’s your point CleansedEyes? Are you saying this is some kind of evidence of something? A simple retelling of the same story by “Michael Irving from Ramsey” is only evidence that there is a story.

    Where are the photos? Where is the actual evidence?

  39. CleansedEyes says:

    Hi Uncinus, my previous post was just an example of a chemtrail report discussing the same claims I am making – not exactly an eye-witness report, but I thought it wouldn’t do any harm to post here. My time on the Internet’s running out so have been busy and haven’t addressed some points yet. I’ll try before my time’s up (Sunday).

    The cottonwood seed explanation still has me chuckling. I suppose that’s why the latin name is Populus deltoides – because it’s sprayed over the populace. So, OK, all we need is a chainsaw. If only there were some trees about here…

    Uncinus wote: “Condensation trails can persist at 36,000 feet if it’s 115 degrees on the ground, since the temperature at that altitude will be around -40.”

    Not intentionally quibbling or nuthin’ but the Met Office in England says that -40 degrees is required for contrail formation; PERSISTENT trails need -53 degrees or below, as well as high humidity, and particles (condensation nuclei) from the air for the water to adhere to – according to them.

    A condensation trail could NOT persist in non-humid, cloudless, 115 degrees whether. You see contrails are made of ice – which MELTS!

  40. CleansedEyes says:

    The Devil truly is in the detail, eh?

    You see how foolish I’ve been to get stuck on the thread of a spy-der’s web?

    Arguing over chemtrails and contrails is analogous to arguing over what make of gun shot you, rather than addressing the pressing concern: you’ve been shot! It doesn’t matter what we label these things; What you call contrails and I call chemtrails – regardless of what type of plane emitted them – are having the EFFECT of clouding up the sky every day where I and others live, and we’re getting very ill, with symptoms pointing toward airborne pollution. That’s all that is important: the effect on health and climate.

    About the photos and videos… I’ve already posted a lot of footage elsewhere but am reluctant to here: as I’ve said before, it’s bringing you intelligence on a plate. I’d rather provide the info to people without an editing agenda and access to the official Memory Hole, ta.

    It occurs to me that rudedog and I are the only ones keeping this thread alive. So if we stop, hopefully so will this thread.

  41. So where does the met office say they need -53 (and it that C or F) to persist? Seems like everywhere else says it’s about -40F for PERSISTENT contrails. See NASA, for example, page 13 of this presentation shows the cut off at -36C

    http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/aviation05downloads/Minnis.pdf

    Some things the Met office does say:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/publications/clouds/special/

    CONDENSATION TRAILS (contrails) form in the wake of aircraft when the air is sufficiently cold and humid. They are often short-lived (top photograph), but, especially when cirrus and cirrostratus are present, they may spread out and persist for several hours (bottom photograph). Persistent trails are reported by using the CH code figure most appropriate; sometimes it is impossible to distinguish between old trails and cloud. They may produce halo phenomena with exceptionally pure colours. Over Great Britain they rarely form below 28,000 ft in summer and 20,000 ft in winter. They may cast shadows on thin clouds beneath them. A series of such shadows may be the only indication that there is more than one layer of cloud present.

    I take it you agree with that?

    Now, you said:

    A condensation trail could NOT persist in non-humid, cloudless, 115 degrees weather. You see contrails are made of ice – which MELTS!

    Obviously ice melts at 115 degrees F, and just as obviously ice does NOT melt at -40F. When it is 115F on the ground, it is -40F at 36,000 feet. So even if “the weather” was 115F, that’s got nothing to do with contrails at 36,000 feet or above.

  42. Arguing over chemtrails and contrails is analogous to arguing over what make of gun shot you, rather than addressing the pressing concern: you’ve been shot! It doesn’t matter what we label these things; What you call contrails and I call chemtrails – regardless of what type of plane emitted them – are having the EFFECT of clouding up the sky every day where I and others live, and we’re getting very ill, with symptoms pointing toward airborne pollution. That’s all that is important: the effect on health and climate.

    Entirely untrue. You’ve been claiming all along that they are NOT contrails. So you can’t turn around and then say it makes no difference. The only thing I’ve been saying is that what people call “chemtrails” are actually contrails – a normal byproduct of normal aviation.

    So, do you now accept that “chemtrails” are contrails? That they are not being deliberately sprayed?

  43. SR1419 says:

    Cleaneye-

    …seems like your knowledge of contrail and atmospheric physics still needs some work…I encourage you study this term: “ice supersaturation” – a quick google search of that will provide you with a wealth of data regarding this phenomena and its relation to cirrus clouds and persistent contrails…

    …and then you will understand that the condensation nuclei in contrails is provided by the soot being expelled from the exhaust of the plane…

    …and that this ice supersaturation often occurs in clear air- ie; cloudless skies…

    …and that the ice particles that grow from the contrail initiation often induce other ice particles to grow where there were none before…eventually creating a sheet of cirrus-like cloud…

    if you posted picture elsewhere…why not provide the link? …and when did you post them as this is supposedly your first time on the internet…?

    …and just exactly how does a stroke or heart attack point to airborne contaminants again?

    Just wondering…

  44. jazzroc says:

    “It occurs to me that rudedog and I are the only ones keeping this thread alive. So if we stop, hopefully so will this thread.”

    Very true. That would be a shame, not because you’re in any way correct, but because it’s a very interesting subject.

    Atmospheric science has advanced amazingly over the last hundred years, but that’s not to say that there isn’t anything left to discover – the Earth’s a very large planet, and the atmosphere has still many misunderstood and also still many unknown properties.

    Running through this thread, for instance, has been a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of the atmosphere as a whole.

    It has four elements to it:

    1. The unique nature of WATER (you’d think by NOW we’d understand this – but we don’t!) It has the highest specific heat of ANY substance. It has unique and special properties: supercooling, superheating, supersaturation, a strong surface tension, and is a good solvent for many chemical compounds. It’s rather like quantum physics: if you think you know it – you don’t.

    2. The Ocean is THE foundation for all the higher atmospheres. Covering 70% of the Earth’s surface, it is the “heat engine” that drives all atmospheric movement, by evaporating water, and enabling a massive exchange of heat from the Earth to the atmosphere.

    3. The TROPOSPHERE is what we normally regard as “the atmosphere”, but it is merely the intermediary “boundary layer” of the Earth (albeit holding the majority of the air by mass). It is UNSTABLE and TURBULENT, warmest close to the Earth’s surface, cooling to -40/-80 at the tropopause. It looks BLUE and dotted with WHITE clouds to us, and we normally assume it to be the atmosphere – but it’s NOT. The tropopause (the coldest part of Earth’s atmosphere marks the transition to the stratosphere. There is little to no connection or exchange between the troposphere and stratosphere across the tropopause: basically these two “spheres” DO NOT MIX – except by normal gaseous (laminar) diffusion.

    4. The STRATOSPHERE lies above the tropopause, and behaves in an entirely different manner to the troposphere: it is COLDEST at its base (the tropopause) and gets WARMER with increasing altitude. It is consequently LAYERED, and STABLE. That’s not to say it’s MOTIONLESS: far from it. Layer boundaries are almost friction-free, and consequently the layers (you can imagine them like smooth, fast-flowing, Yangtse rivers) slither over each other continuously and easily for thousands of miles (pilots call them jet streams). The stratosphere (and every layer within it) is predominantly TRANSPARENT, although layer eddies and ripples are frequently marked by cirrus clouds. Each layer characteristically has its own particular humidity level, because it is stable in the first place, and the laminar, almost frictionless boundaries DO NOT ALLOW much water vapour exchange. In fact this “sphere” is characterized by its marked lack of water exchange, as well as its normally high transparency.

    These science FACTS have set the stage for this thread. Think about them…

    http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/outlaw%20jazzblog%201/fant222.jpg

  45. CleansedEyes says:

    I posted all my stuff over a 3 week period, and today it’s time to say goodbye. (Blub.)

    Uncinus wrote: “So, do you now accept that “chemtrails” are contrails? That they are not being deliberately sprayed?”

    It’s good to end with a little humour, so thanks for that.

    To you and yours (whoever the **** they are).

    It’s been… well, it’s been.

    And now I’ve gone.

  46. rudedog says:

    Uncinus, SR1419, Jazzroc and whoever,
    Just curious what your official responses are to this video. It appears to have all of the things that you claim have never been presented to support the ‘non-contrail’ possibility as an explaination for the dissapearance of our once clear, deep blue skies, that anyone without ADD can remember vividly.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmYyvk9Lp-A

    The scientific approach has been used and provides plenty of data to back it up.
    It discusses the process of the media blackout and the organized effort to coverup or debunk any mention of it. This website is no exception, in fact, it is a prime example of the level of determination there is to cover it up.
    The descriptions of my personal experiences which I have posted on this thread are repeated in this video and are nearly identical in every way. In addition, there are a countless number of concerned people from around the world with similar accounts of their own experiences.
    In particular, I can hardly wait to hear your attempts to debunk some of these points in the video:

    ..The fact that the sky is littered with persistent, expanding trails and a jet can pass by, which is not spraying anything, can leave a normal contrail consistent with the weather conditions.

    ..The numerous graphicly detailed and discusting images of the sky that you insultingly dismiss as ‘normal’ and ‘nothing unusual’. Surely you cant be serious. Perhaps you are counting on the effects of the aluminum and various unidentifiable biological substances to have rendered people brain dead enough to actually take you seriously.

    ..The refusal of the EPA to test or even aknowledge the samples of the airborne material that is prevalent in the air immediatly following these immoral air assaults that are taking place around the globe. I have used the method for viewing the fibrous material by blocking all but the corona of the sun to reveal it. It works quite well.

    ..The scientific data in regards to the physics of contrails and their properties, which has as much if not more credibility than anything you have provided or have to say about it. Also, until proven otherwise, it pretty much debunks you as a debunker.

    I could go on and on about the inconsistencies of your explainations regarding the onslaught of jets that are now leaving trails behind them like never before but I dont need to. I see that most of my arguments are reinforced by the producer of ‘Aerosol Crimes’.
    If you were to sincerely watch the entire video without bias (which I dont think is possible considering the purpose of this website), then say that there is still no reason to be concerned or to question YOUR interpretation of trails in our skies, then you will have revealed yourself for what you truly are.

    CleansedEyes,
    It occured to me also a while back that we are only feeding this monster by keeping this thread alive. I have been giving them (whoever they are) exactly what they want. A reason to post more lies and deception by providing a post to respond to. A platform to reassure others that they too will be mocked and ridiculed if they dare to express their own concerns about the horror that is taking place right in front of our faces.
    It is clearly obvious that no other reasonable explaination will ever be accepted as an alternative possibility to the official line of this website, that all trails left behind by aircraft in the sky are simply contrails, no matter what the weather conditions are or what the circumstances are or no matter how many people from around the world insist they are experiencing the same horrible thing and know that they are not imagining it. It is beyond belief how far they will go to make sure that no one believes the accounts of all of these concerned people when you consider the fact that nothing has ever been presented as proof that we are NOT seeing and experiencing exactly what we attest to. The idea that the proof is in the ‘contrail science’ proves absolutely nothing. All it does is assume that every incident ever reported is nothing other than contrails. Why? because contrails are the result of jets that happen to be flying at a time when conditions happen to be favorable for contrails to form. (altitude+humidity+pressure+temperature). The idea that every documented incident of this tragedy have all been under conditions when all of the factors were within the parameters that allow contrails to exist, is perposterous. This stance only exaggerates the seriousness of the situation and reassures me that it is happening and it is bigger than me and you. Over and over all you hear is ‘just show me some proof like photos or test samples or anything’. Why? Because he has a database of information related to contrails ready to be manipulated and taylored to form a so called scientific explaination why we are not actually having these experiences. There are two questions that remain, that uncinus has not provided an answer to:

    ..How can he possibly know more about a persons visual and physical experience than that person, when he was not present to experience it and see it himself?

    ..What makes him so determined to make sure that anyone that speaks of that experience is not to be believed, even though he has never known that person, nor has that person ever given him a reason to believe he is telling a lie.

    I concur with you CleansedEyes, that participating in this charade is only providing them with information that they would not otherwise have. More data to process, and a platform to sow their seeds of deciept into the deteriorating brains of the unsuspecting population. The thought that anyone could have so little compassion for their fellow man by spraying them like insects is the ultimate display of power and corruption with no moral boundries. So on that note, I too will no longer contribute to the evilness by participating in this massacre on humanity. Take care CleansedEyes. The rest of you…… well, soon you will be exposed for what you really are and all of the people that you have made fools out of will just have to deal with the humiliation. For me, my energy can be put to much better use than wasting it here where it will never be allowed to be received without bias, a hidden agenda and moderated by someone who’s undeniable purpose is to spread dissinformation to a public that is ready and willing to believe it simply because the truth is inconcievable and way too much for the average brain to process and accept as reality. Rudedog signing off from here, but not from the cause.

  47. That video is not very scientific at all, it simply repeats the old myth that “normal” contrails cannot persist very long. And says (04:18):

    “It is known now the the persistent trails that form the subject of this film are primarily solid in nature and origin, and that they are NOT predominantly water vapor”

    The entire video simply ignores the vast amount of scientific research into contrail formation, and ignores all the historical evidence that contrails have actually always been able to spread out and cover they sky.

    It offers NO evidence to explain why contrails should behave differently to clouds at the same altitude.

    and, rudedog, you said:

    The idea that every documented incident of this tragedy have all been under conditions when all of the factors were within the parameters that allow contrails to exist, is perposterous.

    Why exactly is it preposterous? Even if the condition only happen 1% of the time, why is it odd that you only see contrails when the conditions are right?

    You say you don’t want to give me evidence because I’ll just use a scientific explanation to explain why it is not good evidence.

    In that, you are entirely correct.

  48. JazzRoc says:

    I couldn’t believe my eyes…

    “It is known now the the persistent trails that form the subject of this film are primarily solid in nature and origin, and that they are NOT predominantly water vapor”

    An outright lie. Not only that, but a lie that can be discovered by one’s FIRST action, which would be to type “contrail” into one’s search engine.

    In a moment:

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

    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074829

    Or you could type “atmospheric research” into one’s search engine.

    “Concentration, sources and ozone formation potential of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during ozone episode”
    “Aerosol remote sensing over land: A comparison of satellite retrievals using different algorithms and instruments”
    “Storm water pollution in the urban environment of Genoa, Italy”
    “Characterization of urban aerosol in Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil”
    “Nitrite in dew, fog, cloud and rain water: An indicator for heterogeneous processes on surfaces”
    “The chemistry of the severe acidic precipitation in Shanghai, China”
    “Spectral aerosol optical properties from AERONET Sun-photometric measurements over West Africa”
    “State-of-the-art on power line de-icing”
    “Assessing the role of ammonia in sulfur transformation and deposition in China”
    “Study of the chemical elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in atmospheric particles of PM”1″0 and PM”2″.”5 in the urban and rural areas of South Brazil”
    “Determination of fleet hourly emission and on-road vehicle emission factor using integrated monitoring and modeling approach”
    “Trace elements in daily collected aerosol: Level characterization and source identification in a four-year study”
    “Seasonal transport patterns of intense Saharan dust events at the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa”
    “Processing of atmospheric organic matter by California radiation fogs”

    Etc, etc.

    Any such set of papers on atmospheric science (you can find many hundreds of papers like these) will confirm to you by correlation with that first simple (and accurate) contrail definition that Carnicom is diametrically incorrect in his above claim.

    But it doesn’t seem like you took that first step, and certainly not the second… Why?

  49. Zret says:

    Chemtrails are real and are harmful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  50. The Truth Revealer says:

    If you pay attention, these aircraft will turn the chemtrails on and off, so this is absolutely NOT normal activity depending on the weather conditions. Whoever wrote this article needs to wake up! Start taking Bentonite, garlic, flax, and vitamins people, or you will become very sick from this deliberate poisoning of the people. It’s obvious to the wise. The people that think chemtrails are normal need to do some research. If you think chemtrails are harmless, you are either part of the chemtrail distribution project or you are just plain uninformed or dumbed-down so much that you cannot recognize that this isn’t normal. Wake up and take action before the whole world is sickened and dies off. This is BLACK OP ATTACKS PEOPLE. Make some noise to these criminal deciders that think they can kill people without accountability. It’s time we take our world back from the crooked killers.

  51. Areyoukiddingme? says:

    Wow,

    People are really stupid. To think that someone would even have to go to such lengths to debunk an obviously false assertion is frightening.

    I’ve got a conspiracy theory for you: The CIA is saturating the internet with false conspiracy theories in order to distract people from the real issues.

    First I’d like to point out that the notion of spraying any kind of agent from those altitudes is ludicrous. You cannot predict where the agent will land or in what concentrations. If indeed the government was stupid enough to start randomly spraying its populace with some mystery substance, don’t you think they’d at least do it in a manner that guaranteed its arrival at any given location? Seriously, something sprayed at 30,000 feet is just as likely to wind up in the ocean as it is your drinking water.

    If they really wanted to fill you with some sort of mind control agent, or mysterious illness causing substance, why wouldn’t they just put it in our water or our food? Why the hell would they try an aerosol spray that is just as likely to “poison” their own children as it is the fish?

    I hate to say it, but you folks who believe this crap are seriously deficient in critical thinking skills. This is partially evidenced by the fact that so few of you can string together a grammatically correct sentence.

    But hey, you folks have never been ones to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, so I have some good news for you. Mulder and Scully are on the case, and the smoking man is running scared.

    Give me a fucking break.

  52. Nik says:

    Are you kidding me, you make some interesting points. People who believe in conspiracy theories must be really stupid. Er hang on…the CIA are saturating the internet to distract us from the real truth!!!

    Not all of us believe that chemtrails/contrails are necessarily there to KILL THE MASSES! Perhaps it is weather modification, perhaps it is a new method of radar communication, who knows what it really is? I am not making assumptions or claiming I know the answers, but what I do know is that this weather changing persistent contrail/chemtrail skyline “appears” strange to me and thousands (perhaps millions) of others.

    Asking questions is not a crime and discussing theories is actually quite an adult thing to do. Come join us, and perhaps even bring along some of your CIA theories – they sound great!

  53. Areyoukiddingme? says:

    If you missed my sarcasm, perhaps the chemtrails are working!

  54. Haha, now this is funny says:

    Wow, I think any reasonable, LOGICAL, human with an ounce of thought and rationalization know that chemtrails are REAL…Research it, it’s UNDENIABLE use the google…but I guess the sheep will always be sheep here in America.

  55. If it’s so undeniable, then why are you having such problems convincing people?

  56. rudedog says:

    For those of you that still believe that chemtrails are a hoax concocted by people labeled as “conspiracy theorists” because their claims do not conform to the mainstream propaganda that your mind has been programmed to accept as the truth and reality, the following links provide sufficient evidence that proves otherwise. Of course, there are those of you that there are simply no hope for and will never believe that it is really happening because it is much more comfortable to remain in your world and believing the lies of dis-info angents like uncinus that tell you that all chemtrails are merely contrails. When uncinus tells you what to think it takes all of the fear out of actually having to deal with reality. In case you haven’t noticed, all of the links that uncinus refers you to as his so called proof that all chemtrail claims are actually contrails, are links to information that has been manufactured by the same entities that are orchestrating massive cover-up campaign. NASA, NOAH, Encyclopedea Brittanica etc… His argument is that chemtrail claims are made by people with wrong perceptions and false memories and tries to convince them that they are not seeing what they actually claim they are seeing because they are really seeing what uncinus tells them they are seeing.
    The chemtrail operation is being conducted under the topic of ‘geoengineering’. The following links provide more than enough information to prove that the spraying operation is a reality and it is a massive operation on a global scale. Of course, uncinus will try to contradict it with another ridiculous reason why you should not believe it, but the fact is, these are all official documents that have been published as the result of extensive studies involving climate forcing by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere and detailed descriptions of the suggested methods to accomplish it, including distribution through the use of aircraft to disperse the materials to form a cirrus cloud layer, which is precisely what is being described by millions of wittnesses worldwide.

    Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project
    http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two

    “The planet needs a sunscreen”
    http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

    Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (very extensive)
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm

    This link is a gold mine of information consisting of 121 seperate documents on the subject of climate forcing by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to counter the effects of global warming.
    http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

    Particularly interesting links found in the above link include:
    -The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent experiment
    -Radiative forcing of climate change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change
    -Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol. 20
    -Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and Climate
    -Sensitivities of the radiative forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols
    -Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina
    -Residence times of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere
    -The effects of particulates from solid rocket motors fired in space

    ANOTHER INTERESTING READ:
    http://members.aol.com/doewatch/chemtrails.html

    Dont be ignorant. Dont let others tell you what to think. Think for yourself.

  57. Jules says:

    Hi Uncinus
    Just like to say you have an excellent website here and that you are doing a sterling job in trying to educate people in the science behind contrail formation. I have had a life long interest in aviation ever since I was a kid. I can always remember aircraft leaving long contrails streaking across the sky. I used to love looking at aircraft with my telescope to see if I could tell what airline or aircraft type it was. I was always on the lookout for contrails as it made it a lot easier to spot aircraft flying overhead.
    I now work in the aviation industry for a ground handling company at Heathrow airport in London. I just wish I could take one of these chemtrail people to work one day and show them round a 747, I would love to ask them where exactly are with supposed to put all the thousands of gallons of deadly chem. I dread to think how dangerously overweight and out of trim these aircraft must be when taking off because we never factor in all the extra weight of deadly barium and chemicals when load planning LOL!
    I found this website that you might find interesting it has some great closeup pictures of aircraft leaving contrails.
    http://www.skystef.be/index.html
    http://www.skystef.be/aircraft-pictures.htm
    Keep up the good work
    thanks
    jules

  58. rudedog says:

    Jules (uncinus),
    is that the best you can do to counter my previous post that links to actual evidence of climate forcing by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere using aircraft to simulate contrails? You can post pictures all day and claim them to be some sort of exotic contrail, but the evidence speaks for itself. You can see for yourself by investigating the links that I posted, or you can choose to be ignorant and keep pretending that it is all a hoax concocted by a vast network of conspiracy theorists that are conspiring on a global level to convince people of something that they made up. You see, there would be no purpose for a conspiracy like that. On the other hand, there would be a great interest to the perpetrators of the spraying to cover up their dirty deeds by discrediting all claims to chemtrails and spreading disinformation. After all, if it were to become known to the public that this is going on covertly people might get a little upset.

  59. Thanks Jules, and thanks for the links, very nice photos there – some quite useful.

  60. rudedog, Jules is not me.

    Your links provide proof that people are thinking about injecting stuff into the atmosphere. It provides no evidence at all that they are actually doing it.

    Chemtrails are not a hoax, there’s no conspiracy here. Chemtrails are simply a mistake – people see contrails and they think they are not normal contrails. That’s all there is to it.

    If you’d like to provide evidence that your links are somehow connected to the odd contrails that people are reporting, then I’d be very happy to see it.

  61. rudedog says:

    uncinus,
    perhaps you would like to provide evidence that your links are actually odd contrails and not the chemtrails that people are reporting. I would like to see you prove that. It is not as simple as you would like to make people believe by saying:
    “people see contrails and they think they are not normal contrails. That’s all there is to it.”

    If that were all there is to it then it would be a closed case. On the contrary, the number of concerned people that know what they are seeing is growing every day and are angry that they are being treated like lab rats. Anyone that is actually serious about knowing the truth can find it in the links that I posted by taking the time to read the documents. Those are just a few of many links that I could post that clearly details climate forcing by injecting the atmosphere with aerosols. If there is nothing to it, explain why multiple government sponsered agencies have spent millions of dollars on research resulting in a countless number of published documents detailing why climate forcing is innevitable and describing which methods are the most practicle in terms of effectiveness and financial cost towards achieving the goal. Some of the studies also explain the damaging effects that will result on the environment and the toll on human lives that will result, but are considered to be an acceptable consequence. How can you continue your lies in the face of such overwhelming evidence uncinus? Read the articles. If you need more I can fill up a whole webpage with links that provide what you say does not exist. As far as your pictures go that you claim are merely odd contrails, I could just as easily say that you are mistaken and those are actually chemtrails. You haven’t provide one shred of evidence to prove that they are merely contrails and not chemtrails.
    The article by Jim Phelps, who was the government whistleblower at Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory explains the origin of chemtrails and the subsequent systematic campaign to cover it up afterwards. How much more documented evidence do you want? It is available. Just let me know. You are also not fooling anyone with post by ‘Jules’ following my post prior to that, as an attempt to distract from the evidence. Get real.

  62. Well, I’m not concerned here on if there is an operation to alter the atmosphere. I don’t think that there is an evidence that there is such and operation, but let’s leave that aside.

    The question here is: are there any strange trails in the sky?

    Do you have any evidence that any trails seen in the sky are actually not explainable as contrails?

    If so, what is the evidence? Because they look like contrails to ALL THE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD (barring about, say, six, but then you can always find 0.001% of the scientists to agree with ANYTHING).

  63. rudedog says:

    Uncinus,
    You say:
    “Well, I’m not concerned here on if there is an operation to alter the atmosphere. I don’t think that there is an evidence that there is such and operation, but let’s leave that aside.”

    You would be concerned if you were an advocate for the people and not a debunker. I am not surprised that you want to leave the subject aside, because there IS evidence of such an operation. You just dont want to see it. If you cant find it in the links that I provided then you just aren’t looking at all of the documents thoroughly. I am not talking out of my ass. I knew what to expect from you because I know what your purpose is here. That is why I have done my homework and have come prepared to provide even more evidence if necessary, but what is the point if you are just going to keep ignoring it.

    You say:
    “Do you have any evidence that any trails seen in the sky are actually not explainable as contrails?”

    Absolutely. I have the evidence and it is in your preferred scientific format, which seems to be the only way you will accept any information to be legitimate. You want to avoid the subject of climate forcing but in the same post you say:

    “If so, what is the evidence? Because they look like contrails to ALL THE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD”

    Well, isn’t that the heart of the matter? Does that include all of the scientists involved in the research on climate forcing with atmospheric aerosols that have resulted in hundreds of data model tools to use for determining the most cost effective and efficient method to distribute the aluminum and barium dust (amongst other things)? To determine what is necessary in order to sustain the concentration level in the upper atmosphere that is required to achieve the desired effect? Avoiding this vast amount of scientific data and asking “what is the evidence?” demonstrates your determination to never admit that you are wrong under any circumstances. You say that they all look like contrails. Well, to the untrained eye they probably do. I have studied them extensively and have explained the differences here in the past but it is pointless to repeat myself over and over. There are plenty of people that know exactly what I am talking about. Looking like a contrail does not necessarily make it a contrail. The point is, if they didn’t look like contrails then it wouldn’t be such a mystery would it? Perhaps that was one of the deciding factors for using aircraft as the means to release the particles because it could easily be debunked by having NASA, NOAA and various other government agencies feed the public full of crap in the form of false and manipulated scientific data. I can’t forget to mention the contribution from the Encyclopedia Brittanica which is one of your favorite references as your so called proof that all trails are contrails. You say that all chemtrail claims are contrails that have been misinterpreted and then you attempt to reinforce that claim by requesting evidence that proves otherwise. That is no different than me saying that the pictures you refer to as contrails are actually chemtrails but you are mistaken because they look similar to contrails and if you have evidence that proves that they are contrails then where is it?

  64. Jules says:

    Hi rudedog
    My previous post was actually for uncinus’s benefit, hence the “hi uncinus” at the top of the comment. Sorry if you misunderstood but it was not an attempt to counter your previous post.
    Also I did not claim the pictures in the links to be “some sort of exotic contrail” I said “found this website that you might find interesting it has some great close up pictures of aircraft leaving contrails.”
    I do have a question for you though.
    Is chemtrailing done by:
    A) Military aircraft?
    or
    B) Civilian aircraft?

    Also if you are able to get your hands on a decent pair of binoculars or a telescope. Next time you see aircraft leaving what you would call a “chemtrails” Take a look. Maybe make a report of what you see, (aircraft type, airline markings etc)
    Iet us know what you see.
    Or even better if you are able to get a good camera with a telephoto lens (a 300mm – 500mm lens should be adequate) Take some pictures of chemtrail aircraft and post a link to them on here that would be great. I would be very interested to see a picture of a chemtrail tanker.

  65. So, rudedog, when you say:

    Perhaps that was one of the deciding factors for using aircraft as the means to release the particles because it could easily be debunked by having NASA, NOAA and various other government agencies feed the public full of crap in the form of false and manipulated scientific data. I can’t forget to mention the contribution from the Encyclopedia Brittanica which is one of your favorite references as your so called proof that all trails are contrails.

    You think that this quote, from the Encylopedia Britannica:
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/623212/vapour-trail

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

    Is “false and manipulated scientific data”?

    How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?

  66. Ross says:

    rudedog

    About those links you gave;

    “Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project”
    http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html
    A law journal article over 11 years old that says regulation is not enough to fix the climate; we have to do something more effective. It is a position paper and not evidence of anything other that people are thinking about something.

    “The planet needs a sunscreen”
    http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html
    That old chestnut. The chemtrailer’s favourite “proof” that this is the origin of what is going on now. Sorry. He suggested that this need to be done high in the STRATOSPHERE. Well, that is not where all the “chemtrailing” is apparently taking place – in the troposphere, and often low in the troposphere (we are told).

    “Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (very extensive)”
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
    Nothing in there about injecting the atmosphere with aerosols. Read the summaries.

    “This This link is a gold mine of information consisting of 121 seperate documents …”
    http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
    None of the documents there are about intentionally changing the climate by injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.
    I think you misunderstand the term “radiative forcing” and “aerosol forcing”. They certainly do not mean that anyone is forcing anything in the usual sense. You should research what it does mean.

    “ANOTHER INTERESTING READ:”
    http://members.aol.com/doewatch/chemtrails.html
    Jim Phelps! A ficticious character from “Mission: Impossible”. You may be too young to remember.
    Ken Adachi, the editor of educate-yourself.org, and hero of the chemtrailers, doesn’t think much of “DOE Watch”.
    see http://educate-yourself.org/lte/jimphelpschemtrailarticle15apr05.shtml

  67. rudedog says:

    Ross,
    Regarding:

    “ANOTHER INTERESTING READ:”
    http://members.aol.com/doewatch/chemtrails.html
    Jim Phelps! A ficticious character from “Mission: Impossible”. You may be too young to remember.
    Ken Adachi, the editor of educate-yourself.org, and hero of the chemtrailers, doesn’t think much of “DOE Watch”

    Approaching 50 I remember the ficticious Jim Phelps from Mission Impossible quite well. It was one of my favorite t.v. shows.
    My question to you is: What does that have to do with the non-fictional Jim Phelps once employed by the DOE? You talk about dis-info! That statement tells me everything about you that I need to know.
    As for the comments about the links, I will post more in the future and hopefully you will read them next time before posting your dis-info remarks.

    Anyone that has not read the information, I suggest you do before taking Ross’s statements for granted.
    I suggest that people do their homework before jumping to conclusions or people like Ross will end up making you look like a fool. Stay tuned. I have more proof on the way.

    A note to uncinus,
    Re: the comment on Encyclopedia Brittanica,
    That was a mistake on my part and I retract my statement. I should not have included that in my references. I apologize. However, they should also include a reference to chemtrails since they do exist according to the material found in my previous links. All you have to do is read it, unlike Ross.

  68. Ross says:

    rudedog

    You said, “You talk about dis-info!” I did not mention it anywhere. Everything I wrote in the post you are referring to is correct and verifiable (except the one about your age).

    And what do you mean “more proof”? You have not provided any proof so far.

    I am eagerly awaiting for you to cite even one document that says that the climate is being intentionally forced by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere.

  69. DOGISMYTH says:

    AUTHOR – You are so full of crap. First, I would like to point out that the results of the lab testing could be the results of the extracts. Extracts are a concentrated solution of the sample that are prepared prior to analysis. So your point that they are wrong in their reporting is still an open question until you SEE ALL THE DATA! Sorry, I worked in a testing laboratory for 8 years….how about you AUTHOR??

    The other reason i know you are full of shit is from simple observance of the skies. I have been trained as a scientist (toxicology) for many years, so I am unusually keen in observing differences, patterns and the like. In Ohio where I reside, there are some days where the sky is perfectly clear, and air traffic can be seen….with normal CONtrails. All day!! Imagine that AUTHOR, an entire day (sometimes as many as three days) without a single CHEMtrail in the air. I can see the planes. I can see the dissipating contrails. But no persistent puffy expanding trail as I see on other days. These unusual sprayings in my area appear to be on a 3-day schedule. The spraying lasts for 3 days, and then no spraying occurs. Its difficult to make an accurate judgment on this since some days are overcast, and others days I am working ;<[

    I am 52. I was raised in St. Louis. I never recall seeing such streaks in the sky when I was a child. Ever.

    Why now? A new fuel? Has the gov found a new way of disposing of corporate waste? (fluoride comes to mind now). I bet the AUTHOR even believes that fluoride is good for us. Protect us from global warming (naw…the gov doesn’t really care about crap like that even tho they propose a carbon tax)?

    Who knows what the hell it is. One thing for sure. The AUTHOR is either an amateur in research, or a shill, or both.

    AUTHOR, you call this site contrail science, but I see zero science being offered by you, or any independent testing or analysis. So I believe you will convince about 10% of the site visitors with your bullcrap, and the others will think the same that I do. You’re lying.

  70. DOGISMYTH says:

    oh by the way….do you really think the temperature at 30,000 to 40,000 feet will change that drastically (in a high pressure zone) within a few days? a few weeks? throughout the season? Do you realize how cold it is at this altitude? There is no water per se. You have either sublimation, or frozen droplets.

    So when you say that the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail is the fluctuating temp of this altitude zone…you are full of crap. The temp would have nothing to do with an ever expanding cloud of ice particles (which should sublime) which would essentially become invisible (to the naked eye) due to dilution.

    And yes I know about the jet stream. But if the temperature of this stream was as erratic as some of your guests have suggested, we would have enormous weather problems down below (know what happens when cold air meets hot air–same concept).

  71. Dogismyth, if the results were, as you suggest, the results of testing a concentrated solution, then that would simply mean that the true results were even less than the results posted – and hence even vastly less toxic than has been suggested. So what’s your point?

    And yes, I do realize how cold it is at that altitude, very cold, like -40 or so – so, yes, there is no liquid water there, just vapor and ice. Contrails are made of ice.

    Perhaps you could also explain why a cloud of ice particles would become invisible by dilution? Why would the particles move away from one another?

  72. rudedog says:

    Ross,
    You failed to answer my question:
    What does the ficticious Jim Phelps have to do with the non-fictional Jim Phelps once employed by the DOE?

  73. Ross says:

    Hello DOGISMYTH,
    You may be a scientist and be unusually keen in observing differences, patterns and the like. What I would question is your interpretation of your observations.

    I draw your attention to this paper; “Calculations of Aircraft Contrail Formation Critical Temperatures” published in Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 36, Issue 12 (December 1997) by Mark L. Schrader (Air Weather Service, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0450&volume=036&issue=12&page=1725
    It describes the thermodynamics concerning the formation of contrails and how to calculate the atmospheric conditions in which they occur.

    This paper is also instructive and explains how contrails change into cirrus clouds.
    “On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds” by F. Schröder and B. Kärcher (and others)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(2000)057%3C0464%3AOTTOCI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    Here is an extract from the introduction.
    “Aircraft exhaust may trigger cloud formation in two ways, either directly or indirectly. In the direct case, a contrail forms immediately behind the aircraft. This requires a special thermodynamic state of the atmosphere, especially low (< 230K, < -43C) temperatures at typical flight altitudes (about 250 hPa, 35000 ft) (e.g., Schumann 1996). After a short (about 1 s) initial growth stage (Kärcher et al. 1996), the contrail will evaporate within tens of seconds if the air is dry. In contrast, contrail growth will continue in background air that is supersaturated with respect to ice. Eventually, the line-shaped contrail may transform into a cirrus cloud, as demonstrated by satellite observations (Schumann and Wendling 1990; Minnis et al. 1998; Mannstein et al. 1999). The indirect way can occur when aging aircraft exhaust, consisting of an internal mixture of black carbon soot and liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals and, hence, the formation of cirrus clouds, where no cloud would have formed in absence of aircraft (Jensen and Toon 1997; DeMott et al. 1997; Kärcher et al. 1998). This may occur when aircraft exhaust particles have an increased ice-forming ability compared to background particles.”

    When you see CONtrails, you are seeing the direct case in dry air. When you see what you call CHEMtrails, you are seeing the direct case when the background air is supersaturated with respect to ice. Eventually, the line-shaped contrail transforms into a cirrus cloud when it is stretched by wind shear.

    Chemtrails are an Internet myth, and scientists (especially) should not allow themselves to be misled by it.

  74. Jim Phelps seems to be a real person who worked for the DOE 20 years ago.

    http://members.aol.com/magnu96196/Whistleblowing.html

    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/searchresults.jsp?Author=“Phelps,%20J.E.”

    But unfortunately, being real does not give his claims any credence. He has no evidence, and even most of the chemtrail community see his claims of having invented chemtrails as being rather without merit.

  75. TonyB says:

    LOL, I stopped reading around post #50 where you insist old photos, eye witness reports, and old articles are solid evidence… Now, I realize I am not going to prove anything in the next few minutes… at least not to anyone who thinks the government is still for the good of the people; I may, in fact, sound quite crazy to some readers. Take as an example 11 September, 2001. I find it a good reference point here for a number of reasons: The three days before, three days after, and three days of grounded US flights is a primary resource in the study of contrail or chemtrail effects. It demonstrates the government policy to cover up, deny, suppress, and fabricate things. It verifies governmental complete control over major media. And it shows how ridiculously easy it is to fabricate photos and videos.

    I’ll start of simple with a study published some 16 years ago, and paid for with tax dollars. You can find it here http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309043867 “The panel believes that a systematic implementation of the complete set of low-cost options described in Chapter 9 is appropriate. The panel concludes that options requiring great expenses are not justified at this time.” (72) “The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter. Despite their theoretical potential, there is convincing evidence that the stratospheric particle options contribute to depletion of the ozone layer. The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms. The panel recommends that research projects be undertaken to improve understanding of both the potential of these options to offset global warming and their possible side effects.” (82)

    No no, I’ll do it for you “This is not a recommendation for implementing these options at this time.” (82, end of that paragraph) Ha! Your smoking gun… but that was ’92 when very few scientists were willing to propose anthropogenic global warming as science. Also note the last sentence I quote in the above paragraph. What is the cheapest, most effective, and most direct way to research something as large as geoengineering? It would probably be actively testing it in the field. Before you answer my next questions, I suggest you read that entire linked text.

    Do you believe that nothing proposed in there constitutes what some may consider ‘chemtrails?’ I don’t care to read it again, but it does SPECIFICALLY mention using both commercial and private aircraft for aerosol and particulate matter deposition in the atmosphere. (I am blanking on atmospheric terminology…) And suggests high level (stratospheric?) deployment as ideal but cost prohibitive but lower level (tropospheric?) distribution is one of the most cost effective strategies due to immense current air traffic mitigating costs, despite the potential need for daily re-distribution and private tanker aircraft flying specifically for that purpose. The study also suggests ‘shelling’ aluminum oxide powder using naval ships and burning either sulfur enriched coal or specific sulfate compounds (to counter acidification) aboard watercraft in the ocean as cost effect measures because the ocean(s) absorb a huge amount of solar radiation (sunlight.) Does that sound at all like increasing the clouds produced over sea which you conclude can not be related to the ‘chemtrail’ phenomenon?

    But that has nothing at all to do with a terrorist attack (which, BTW, pales in comparison to atrocities officially conducted by the US, and denounced by the global community [in one case by a U.N. resolution vetoed by U.S.(A.) ] So, who destroyed the World Trade Center or why I won’t speculate on. I’ll simply provide some facts and data… some of which is speculative and some of which is irrefutable.

    1) Demonstration of US policy to cover-up, fabricate, and suppress evidence; essentially it shows the overt willingness of at least the Bush administration to lie. The official story is, of course, that two planes were flown into the two towers, a third into the pentagon, and a fourth into a field in SW Pennsylvania (which happens to be around where I live.) This is where you get to call me crazy ;-p The PA crash site has a few issues in that there was no plane wreckage found, nor any bodies, and eye witness accounts neither saw nor heard a commercial airliner. No roaring jet engines as the plane ‘crashed’ a very short distance from Shanksville. Now of course we’re told there were witnesses and all the bodies were accounted for, but look at everything from that very day… The fire chief was one of the first on scene and reported only hearing an explosion. Furthermore, he as well as the rest of the fire dept., in an interview done the same day, claimed there was no evidence of a large plane, no large debris, no bodies, and only a few small fires despite approx 6,000-8,000 gallons of fuel which would have been on board. News teams quickly covered the scene showing essentially nothing. Further review of USGS satellite imagery shows that a majority of the ‘impact crater’ was there in 1998. The coroner on the day of the crash quotes to a media camera [roughly] ‘I stopped being a coroner after 10 minutes, there weren’t any bodies.’ He later claims to have found and identified all persons aboard flight 93. To top things off, an unidentified plane landed in Cleveland at 10:45AM and the Cleveland airport was evacuated due to a pilot reporting a bomb on board. The only other commercial crash known to produce such little debris, inconsistent impact and damage patterns, was the one that ‘hit’ the pentagon. So let’s move on… pure and simple… the path that plane would have flown is all but impossible, especially without being seen or heard by drivers on a highway that would have been cleared by a few feet to be consistent with the official trajectory. And again, there were no bodies, no large plane pieces, no major fire, and a lack of damage to the grounds and building (apparently the fire vaporized aluminum while leaving bodies found days later and flew inches above the grass with no wings or tail damaging the building.) The photographic and eye-witness accounts of both simply do not provide enough evidence to convince any intelligent human being that large aircraft with thousands of gallons of fuel had crashed there had it not been portrayed with the destruction of the twin towers and media certainty (a few days later.) On another note, the evidence is overwhelming that bombs were used in the attack on those two buildings. Virtually every media affiliate (probably every) reported live that they were hearing secondary explosions. Hundreds of eye witness accounts, including 503 rescue workers, insist that bombs were found inside the buildings. Police and fire crews were evacuating themselves after finding explosives on multiple levels in both buildings. Video clearly shows detonations, the towers were designed to withstand a larger plane impact than it was hit with, no large steel structure has ever collapsed from fire or structural damage high up, yet all accounts by the government deny the possibility of any other explosives; the investigation (which began more than a year later) did not even entertain the possibility despite overwhelming evidence. Ok, so let’s postulate that millions of people are wrong and the official story of that entire day are true…

    2) Governmental control of the media. It is well documented fact that most local media, including major network affiliates, were blacked out and unable to broadcast live. This is generally believed to be accidental because most local broadcasters had antennae on top of the WTC towers. It fails to explain why cable was blocked and replaced with feeds from corporate headquarters. The few local broadcasters still ‘on air’ were also playing corporate feeds… back up antennae were on the Empire State Building. On the day of the 11th only 2 angles of the second crash were shown ‘live.’ (live is virtually always on a delay.) ABC was the only network to not do a cut scene for the impact, despite that feed being fed to most other networks. Fox had it’s own chopper on scene and only had a close-up showing the explosion barely visible in the bottom left corner. The ABC source has someone on scene via phone who clearly says it wasn’t a plane, just an explosion; numerous other sources confirm the lack of a plane until a few hours afterward. MSNBC shows the same shot as ABC, at least the identical angle, but with a much smaller aircraft and even comments that it didn’t look like a large plane. It has a very clear backdrop of the river before the shot switches to the plane and it instantly becomes the oddly blue haze. Later footage from the blacked out NY local stations show a little smudge coming in but have a key difference in that the background behind the towers is clear (whereas all the original ‘live’ footage is blue haze.) WB, also not live at the time, shows a very small plane (again with a hazed backdrop) which the reported thinks is a police helicopter before it hits. Subsequent footage shown 10 minutes to a few days later have many, many angles with even more inconsistencies and anomalies. It just happens that FEMA and the US Military were able to set up a Control Center within minutes of the first attack despite NYC’s Emergency Operations Center being vacant for unknown reasons.
    So that’s all crazy talk right? The media didn’t cover the 2005 NYC protests, ignore petitions with more than 2 million signatures, refuse to air testimony of US Senators and Congressmen who claim at the very least there was a large scale US Govt coverup, and countless other events have been lost to Americans while the world outside of Western Civilization laughs at U.S. There’s also reports (unfortunately unverifiable as the only reminents are on YouTube) that the BBC accidentally reported the collapse of building 7 roughly 20 minutes before it fell.

    So here’s something easily verified… Christie Todd Whitman said that the air around ground zero was safe, that no special precautions were necessary. Two years later, it was revealed that the White House had forced the Environmental Protection Agency to suppress an initial assessment that the air was deadly. How many lives were shortened as a result? What does this tell us about the government’s willingness to sacrifice Americans on behalf of corporate interests?

    I’m almost done 😉

    C) It’s ridiculously easy to fake photo and video evidence. This is all the proof needed to substantiate my final claim… so say they’re fake… that still proves my point.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2V6vysmPSU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFDz-vHqPG0&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibtV8yITqa4&feature=related

    Basically what I’ve done is shown I have a paranoid personality to discredit myself on my geoengineering claims. However, I believe there is enough substantiated documentation (not included in my post as it is already too long) that the government is more than willing to kill it’s own civilians for whatever cause they deem acceptable. Search for American biological and chemical weapons testing and you’ll find the US acknowledges conducting tests on unknowing citizens through at least the late 1970’s. Also, govt sponsored research suggests that ‘chemtrails’ is a cost effective measure to fight global warming if it works as theorized. Every US Administration has lied multiple times to the American populous, and it’s safe to assume that confirmed lies represent only a fraction of total deceit. There is even a US law allowing the testing of technologies of any kind on civilians as long as it’s intended purpose is “research.” Only recently was that law amended to include informing the public prior to testing; but again I think it’s safe to say that addition was purely political and is not enforced. You can debate the media control, but not the ease of which media can be manipulated. There is also no valid argument that video from all major networks was unadulterated, though you could claim at least some are real.

    Have a nice day! And keep telling yourself the government would never do such things, history speaks for itself ;-p

  76. SR1419 says:

    Tony…

    Its not that the government Wouldn’t do something like this…its just that there is no proof.

    Its pretty simple really. People claim contrails that persist and spread out into a thin haze are really “chemtrails”…

    …which is odd because contrails that persist and spread out into thin sheets of cirrus clouds have been observed and studied by atmospheric scientists for over 50 years.

    Thus, the “proof” of “chemtrails” really isn’t…it is a misinterpretation of contrail behavior propagated by the internet and its propensity of its users to disregard fact and accept myth as fact…with no consequence for error.

    The peer-reviewed papers on contrail behavior from the 1970s are not fake. The photos published in the 1960s and 1970s are not fake…unless they were faked at the time of publishing.

    Moreover, you neglected to deal with the fact that this is supposedly a Global campaign with “chemtrails” being “sprayed” around the world…which puts your theory into an even more dubious light.

    Alas, your long winded posts says almost nothing of contrails or “chemtrails” …the basic jist is the Government is bad therefore “chemtrails” must be real.

    Not a very convincing argument.

    PS: As for your assertion that no plane debris were found at the pentagon or in Shanksville- you are completely ignorant of the reality- which is typical of the internet, unfortunately.

    See here for plenty of plane debris ( I am sure you will assert all the photos are faked…whatever!): scroll down for photos.

    http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

    PPS: Sorry Uncinus for the off topic aside.

  77. TonyB says:

    meh, I have a final thought. Regardless of their composition and whether they are persistent or not, I feel the term ‘chemtrail’ more accurately defines what any jet contrail is. They are unnaturally formed by depositing particulate matter (whether from typical jet fuel exhaust or an alternate source) into the atmosphere. Thus, they leave behind a trail of chemicals that otherwise would not be there even when no contrail is visible.

  78. TonyB, it seems like you don’t actually know how a contrail forms – contrails are made from FROZEN WATER. Now, water is a chemical, so if you want to start calling them chemtrails, then go ahead – but they are still contrails, and all you are doing is confusing the subject.

    I’m afraid your 9/11 theories also are lacking in science. The videos at the end lack an understanding of long distance filming- the effect of the intervening atmosphere, and compressed perspective. The Flight 93 theories lack an understanding of what happens to the human body when it’s inside a plane that hits the ground at 563 mph. You know the largest body part found by the coroner was “a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached”?

    Normally I’d avoid this off-topic subject matter, but it’s illustrative of the lack of actual science and evidence in the chemtrail theory. You can quote all the speculative think-tank documents you like, but there are no documents that say that anyone is doing any large scale spraying, or even planning to do so.

    Most importantly – there’s no evidence that any large scale spraying is actually happening. You’d think that if there were millions of gallons of stuff being sprayed into the atmosphere in an operation involving hundreds of thousands of people EVERY DAY, then there would be some evidence. But no – the “chemtrail” photos look like contrail photos. “Chemtrails” act like contrails. There is NOTHING to suggest they are not contrails.

  79. James says:

    …no large plane pieces, no major fire, and a lack of damage to the grounds and building (apparently the fire vaporized aluminum while leaving bodies found days later and flew inches above the grass with no wings or tail damaging the building.) The photographic and eye-witness accounts of both simply do not provide enough evidence to convince any intelligent human being that large aircraft with thousands of gallons of fuel had crashed…

    Even contributors over at Rense.com believe that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. Photos and evidence…

    http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

  80. TonyB says:

    You’re right, I don’t say anything about a massive campaign… I attempted to say that denouncing their existence all together is not a logical conclusion. I haven’t seen convincing evidence that there is a large scale effort, especially one designed to poison people. And I’m sorry that NASA lied to me about how contrails form… I guess that just shows I shouldn’t trust the government?

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

    “Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
    The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. ”

    As far as the video editing goes, buildings don’t switch sides of the street… they just don’t ;-p And close ups of certain shots are shown with and without a plane, in one example I didn’t list the author has the plane fly in from the front and explode, reset, fly in from the back with an identical explosion. My point there is CGI imagery is available in a quality that amateurs can reproduce those images with no problem and network media has better software and hardware than an average semi-skilled video editor. But as far as atmospheric and perspective properties, some of those feeds were shown in replay with different images within 2 minutes of the ‘live’ view. That, unfortunately, is easily verified by watching video from a number of the major networks or any number of non-conspiracy related archives.

    Apparently you have never been to the crash site of flight 93. Minimum estimates are 6,000 gal of jet fuel remaining, some a good bit higher. Yet 2 minutes later there is at most a few small fires? You’re right, I’ve never seen a plane hit the ground at 563mph in a straight vertical dive, nor have I seen what that does to the bodies… nor did any of the (now called) first responders on the scene… they combed the woods and fields a long time before federal investigators got on scene… oddly enough the feds found debris that nobody local did, and then took it to a location considered one of the most secure storage facilities in the world. Compare this plane wreck to several others. Try turkish airline 981, a DC-10 which I believe is similar to the Boeing? (I don’t know enough about the difference) and the official crash story almost mirrors the flight 93 crash… That crashed at 500mph in a nose dive. Try looking at the data as if you never heard the official version.

    And you’re right, there’s only 1 picture in the entire page that shows something resembling a plane part in context with the Pentagon. And if I accept the rest of them as being inside the pentagon, that makes 4 pieces of things the slightly resemble aircraft parts from the inside the Pentagon. But watch the video as it’s burning… NBC and FOX reporters both initially covered the pentagon and plainly state there are no apparent plane pieces in the surrounding yard (and scan the scene with video.) As for eye witness accounts, you’ll find it difficult to find a non military employee who made statements before Sept. 12 that they saw a large passenger jet. Again, several thousand gallons of fuel without a major fire? Fires the burned hot enough and long enough to drop 2 steel buildings by heating them from the top down? Did you witness the Pentagon site on Sept. 11? Ok, at least at the Pentagon there was a fire to put out… it just didn’t happen to burn much except an entire plane…

    And if you want to claim that 503 of the surviving rescue workers made up the bomb blasts to cope with 343 of their brothers dying go ahead.

  81. TonyB says:

    You can delete my 9/11 stuff, but tell me why NASA lies on their contrail education web page please?

  82. I’m not going to get into 9/11 conspiracy theory. You can take that elsewhere – there are lots of sites that would be happy to debate it. If you would like to comment here, I’d appreciate it if you would stick to the subject – contrails, and the proposed “chemtrail’ theory. If you can link 9/11 to contrails, then fine, but otherwise, I’m not interested.

    Now, I’m not sure exactly what you were getting at, but I suspect you don’t think that “contrails are made of water” gels with

    “Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
    The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. ”

    My pont is that contrails are basically water in the exact same way that clouds are basically water. Sure the aerosols emitted play a part, but there are already particulates in the air and if the exhaust were pure water (as will be the case with Hydrogen powered jets) then the end result would be little different.

    So, contrails ARE made of water. Just like clouds. Some people look up and see contrails and think it’s some horrible pollution – but really it’s exactly the same as car exhaust – but because it’s so cold you can see it.

  83. Explain EXACTLY what the lie is, and how you know it is a lie.

  84. TonyB says:

    This is senseless, you say I’m wrong for stating they are made from plane exhaust which doesn’t exist naturally because they are water, and since water’s a chemical that could be my rationale? That’s what you said, is it not?

    “TonyB, it seems like you don’t actually know how a contrail forms – contrails are made from FROZEN WATER. Now, water is a chemical, so if you want to start calling them chemtrails, then go ahead”

    I then present NASA’s version that they need the aerosol/particulates to form… So you say I don’t know how they form, and then say the above quote? Refer to my initial statement you comment on:

    “They are unnaturally formed by depositing particulate matter (whether from typical jet fuel exhaust or an alternate source) into the atmosphere. Thus, they leave behind a trail of chemicals that otherwise would not be there even when no contrail is visible.” That last sentence, read it a few times… obviously, if I’m saying jets leave a trail of chemicals whether or not it forms a contrail I have some grasp of what I’m talking about. You go on to say (which I would have ignored if not for your last statement) essentially that the only chemical in a contrail in H20. Easily referenced by “Now, water is a chemical, so if you want to start calling them chemtrails[…]” Apparently you have no clue…

  85. This is senseless, you say I’m wrong for stating they are made from plane exhaust which doesn’t exist naturally because they are water, and since water’s a chemical that could be my rationale? That’s what you said, is it not?

    It would probably be more useful if you could just cut and paste what I said, rather than paraphrasing it.

    I did not say you are wrong about contrails being made from plane exhaust. I just said they are made from water. Water is the second largest component of plane exhaust. When you burn 1 Kg of aviation fuel, you get 1.26 gallons of water, plus 3.15 kg of carbon dioxide and some small amounts of other gases and particulates. (Ref: International Panel on Climate Change))

    What you see (when you see a contrail) is the cloud of frozen water vapor. I was simply trying to clarify this – and to make sure people understood that contrails were just water, and not a trail of noxious chemicals (at least, no more that the trail behind a car exhaust).

    Now, the term “chemtrail” has, for the last ten years, been used to describe something that is DIFFERENT to contrails. That the whole point of the chemtrail theory. So when you say “I feel the term ‘chemtrail’ more accurately defines what any jet contrail is.” Then you are talking about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to the established chemtrail theory. You seem simply to be saying that jets cause pollution, which is not something that I, or anyone else, would disagree with.

    So, if you think that all contrails are chemtrails, then what exactly are you arguing about?

  86. rudedog says:

    Ross says:
    “Chemtrails are an Internet myth, and scientists (especially) should not allow themselves to be misled by it.”

    It appears that you are one of the fortunate few that have never had to deal with the ‘reality’ of being treated like a lab rat Ross. Therefore, it is not your fault that you do not have a clue, which means you are not even qualified to give an opinion on chemtrails. That being the case, try speaking for yourself from now on because it is rather insulting when you speak for the millions of us that ARE aware of our environment. Just yesterday one of those ‘internet myths’ slowly sank to the ground near my house. I watched the clouds form from the trails left behind by the unusually high number of jets crossing the sky. They didn’t form into cirrus like clouds that you seem to think is imminent after every contrail that comes out of the back of a jet. These were anything BUT condensated water or ice crystals. Eventually, the sky looked like a scene from a bad science fiction movie. Now, assuming these clouds were formed from contrails and I am misinterpreting what is being projected into my eyeballs as you would like me to believe, why are they slowly sinking to the ground and not dissapating or evaporating like water vapor would on a warm sunny day like yesterday? Why do they look like freaks and not like clouds? Why are they always accompanied by the white ‘floaties’ in the air? If you dont know what the floaties are, you can view them by blocking the sun out except for the corona. This provides the necessary amount of light without the danger of looking directly into the suns rays. Of course, I’m sure you have some sort of NASA sponsored explaination as to how a contrail cloud can fall all the way to the ground on a hot day with no humidity to speak of. Or, there is the other explaination when all else fails. Just call me a liar or a nut job or just tell me that I didn’t actually see any of that. That one always makes a good argument, especially since I was the actual wittness and you were not anywhere near me when it occurred right in front of my perfectly clear eyes in a perfectly clear head.
    By the way, today we are blessed with clear skies so far and coincidently, only a few jets have passed overhead. None of which has left a persistent ‘contrail’, in fact, no contrails and the weather is a duplicate of yesterdays weather conditions. I am so confused Ross, how can that be?

    O.K. your turn. Go ahead and explain to all of the good people that all I saw yesterday were simply contrails and nothing else. Then all the little lab rats can continue about their business resting assured that nothing sinister is going because ross and uncinus and sr1419 and the rest of you traitors to the people say so.

    Now that these things are in the school textbooks being taught to our next generation that they are just contrails that come in all shapes and sizes etc…., all you have to do is hope you can continue your campaign of dis-information for about 10 more years without the truth being exposed because after that it will all be normal and not so obvious like it is now. What an evil way to make a living. Good day.

    Ross, should you choose to accept this mission, in the event that you are captured we will not acknowledge your existence etc…etc…etc….
    This tape will self destruct in 10 seconds. Good luck Ross.

  87. TonyB says:

    >>>>>>>CUT AND PASTED FROM REPLY 185<<<<<<>>>>>>CUT AND PASTED FROM REPLY 185<<<<<<<

    That is EXACTLY what I said in that post… I said that I personally feel chemtail is a better word to describe any jet contrail… can you not get from that – that I don’t believe in the mass conspiracy that all contrails are a toxic dump on the global population, and that I think most of them are ‘normal’ exhaust freezing?

    Established chemtail theory – there are a number of them, many don’t agree with their prevalence, content, intent, or distribution method (public vs private vehicles.) Thus, you can’t contain ‘chemtrail theory’ as you would ‘theory of relativity’ because it is not a general consensus theory provided by one or a small group of people. Yes, there are several factors that link most theories together… but may I point out that some theorists do ONLY believe a small number of chemtrails exist and that these in particular are bioweaponry testing? And yes, most chemtrail theory does believe that it is a large scale operation, probably worldwide, and that a majority of persistent trails in the sky are not from normal jet engine exhaust.

  88. TonyB says:

    Wow, you edited out my quote because I over highlighted that it was a cut and past quote?

    Learn some real science before you continue preaching… also, if you’re an American citizen you have a legal requirement and moral responsibility to show exactly where you are editing my posts. Fortunately, you there is no such requirement to say why.

  89. Tony I only edit posts to remove abusive language, or repetitive text. There is a problem with WordPress (the software I use for this site) where if you use angled brackets (“<” & “>”) it can interpret them with HTML tags (like “<a>”), and if it’s not a valid tag, then it can remove a section of the post. Judging by the dangling <<<<<<<<< in your post, I suspect that's what happened.

  90. But back on topic – I’m a little confused, if you think that chemtrails are contrails (which is what I think), then what exactly are you disagreeing with here? Are actually claiming something odd is going on, or are you just concerned about pollution from jet exhaust?

  91. TonyB says:

    I can accept the > < theory… you also deleted my questions on how you know what happens as a plane impacts banked 90 to the side and down 40 at 563mph.

    As for your question, I am not much concerned about jet pollution… I was (as you know from the parts you deleted) a bit upset that you were claiming my ignorance about contrails because I stated they leave a chemical trail regardless of origin. Again, you said “TonyB, it seems like you don’t actually know how a contrail forms – contrails are made from FROZEN WATER. Now, water is a chemical, so if you want to start calling them chemtrails, then go ahead” and subsequently “It would probably be more useful if you could just cut and paste what I said, rather than paraphrasing it.” which I did immediately after the paraphrase, which was my interpretation of your text.

    Clarification and answer – I do not think most contrails are chemtrails in the typical sense of the word; I think chemtrail more accurately describes a contrail due to it being filled with pollutants (and yes – similar to, but not exactly the same as automotive pollutants.) I do feel there is enough circumstantial evidence that some of what is seen in the sky is related to a typical idea of a chemtrail. I have not done enough research into pre 1990 trails to conclude many or most contrails are chemtrails. I also feel there is some evidence of chemtrails in the form of advanced cloud seeding after reading here, NASA, and a few other sites. Though not enough that I’m a full chemtrail believe by your definition.

    I watched recently what I feel is very odd. Two aircraft running very close and parallel to eachother in the sky, swiftly followed by a 3rd parallel to the first 2 and a 4th slanted about 45deg. missing (IMO) the 3rd plane by 2 seconds at most, I thought they were going to collide at first… three lines running W to E and the last running NW to SE roughly (see diagram below.) Winds at that altitude were roughly north based on how the trails moved. Based on their size they were either lower than normal or quad+ engine planes (or sprayers) as they left wider initial trails than normal for my area, a short distance north of Pittsburgh, PA and about an hour from PIT (intl airport.) What was odd is that my understanding is they shouldn’t produce a somewhat large, thick, and slightly dark cloud – it looked like a rain cloud after 90mins or so. The other thing that struck me as odd was the path of one of the first two planes… I believe I read planes usually raise or lower altitude to avoid turbulence? Do they also change direction? The path doesn’t make sense to me. Finally, I checked ever 5-15 minutes or so and watched the pattern grow into a cloud. Rather than a typical thin spreading they combined and thickened. Things to note: there were similar clouds (to the one that I believe formed from the trails) a few miles north. The south had a few small, thin clouds in the distance and the east, west, and immediate area were very clear. Wind at ground level was light and variable (but I do live in essentially a small valley with hills to the west (maybe +75-100′ and ~1 mile away) and east (+25-50′ and 300 yards away.) Ground temp was in the low 70’s and initial time was around 1030 EDT. Also, the ends of the trails seemed to either dissipate or converge towards the center (probably dissipate.)

    Theories are –
    1) I was at a weak front and the close proximity to eachother and the more moist air caused an anomaly which allowed them to ‘seed’ a non-cirrus type cloud.
    2) They were intentional weather manipulation – chemtrails by consensus definition.
    3) My 3 dogs were barking abnormally more than usual, the sequence and frequency of the sound waves provided energy to melt and refreeze the ice in such a manner that the trails lowered altitude until naturally melting and being in close proximity, formed a cloud. (they were barking at people they don’t usually see at the shale mine behind my house)

    1 straight W to E
    2
    3 15-30 sec later, first 2 still visible though distant)
    4 came at very similar time to 3)

    ........4...................................
    .........4..................................
    ..........4.................................
    ..-3333333343333333333333333333333333333-...
    ————————————4——————————————————————————————–
    11111111111114111111111111111111111111111111
    —————————————-4—————————————————————————————
    ...-222222222224222222222222222222222222-...
    .–2-............4......................–2-..
    2-...............4.......................-2.
    ..................4.......................–2
    ...................4........................
    
  92. TonyB says:

    “Water is the second largest component of plane exhaust. When you burn 1 Kg of aviation fuel, you get 1.26 gallons of water, plus 3.15 kg of carbon dioxide and some small amounts of other gases and particulates.”

    1.26 gallons of water weighs more than 3.15kg of carbon dioxide.

    1 gal water = 3.8 liters, 1.26gal = 4.8L

    1L of water = 1kg in mass, therefore 1.26 gallons of water would be 4.8kg

    However, I remember from my Process Materials Balance (chem/bio engineering class) that CO2 should be produced more in most combustions of hydrocarbons. Could you mean 1.26 liters of water? Or is jet fuel very different from gasoline? (you’re not referring to hydrazine are you?)

  93. Sorry, I got the units confused. They should all be Kg (1.26 Kg of water, which, as you point out, is 1.26 liters – but I’m keeping it all in mass, as volume units don’t work well for gas 🙂

    Here’s the figures from the reference I gave, with some commentary on the ambient levels.

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/Climate/ipcc/aviation/022.htm

    Carbon dioxide CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are easily the most abundant products of jet fuel combustion (emission indices for CO2 and H2O are 3.15 kg/kg fuel burned and 1.26 kg/kg fuel, respectively). However, both species have significant natural background levels in the UT and the LS (Schumann, 1994; WMO-UNEP, 1995). and neither current aircraft emission rates nor likely future subsonic emission rates will affect the ambient levels by more than a few percent.

  94. Thanks for the clarification on your beliefs regarding chemtrails, I think I understand now.

    Regarding your four contrail event describe above (I fixed your diagram – you can use <pre> then </pre> tags to make a font fixed width). Yes, planes usually change altitude to avoid turbulance (unless they are heading straight for storm cells, when they might go around). Changes in direction are usually to maintain traffic separation- not so much to avoid hitting other planes (although that’s the end result) but to keep the minimum legal distance away from other planes. It’s quite possible that this is what has happened here. Alternatively, it could simply be a navigation change. ATC sometimes vectors people around to different holding points – and sometimes corporate jets change destination in mid flight.

    To get a perspective on the range of flight movements above you, try this:

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KPIT

    Click on the blue map with the little planes in the top right, and it will open a larger view of the airspace over your region.

    Focus on the green planes. Those are the ones that are overflying the region, and so more likely to leave contrails. The first number on the second line of the info next to the planes is the altitude in 100s of feet (so 340 is 34,000 feet).

    It’s pretty much live, so if you do see something odd, you may well be able to figure out what plane it was from this view.

    I can’t tell much about the contrails from your description without photos. Dark contrails are usually dark because they are in shadow. With the trails being W-E, it’s possible they were self-shadowing. But again, I can’t really comment without photos. Maybe you could find a photo on the web that looks like what you saw?

  95. TonyB says:

    The map is both interesting and scary ;-p It’s very interesting in how it shows the paths and altitude of a ton of air traffic. (BTW ty for fixing my graphic) However, it’s as daunting as the satellite over florida contrails… Scale back to the national view and the entire eastern seaboard lights up with red dots… a good part of the gulf coast and pacific coast is covered with air traffic as well. I have some low quality pics on my cell phone, I just need to pull them off (I’d rather not email them to myself b/c I don’t have a data plan and 1c per kb adds up…) My phone takes a microSD card and I have one somewhere… I hope they’re the right pics too…

  96. TonyB says:

    That software is very nice, but does it track everything? Unless I have a 50+ mile visibility tonight it accounts for 5 of 8 (maybe 9, wasn’t sure if I counted one twice when it hid behind a tree so I assume I did.) in a 5 minute period. There’s not any local flights listed (WBTP) yet I watched a small plane circle twice when I was checking the accuracy of the flight data? Likely a police vehicle, or do small craft not register?

    The Altitude portion and plane type will be really useful, no need to guess altitude when it’s given to you most of the time. So if I see something like 220 for the altitude I can assume it shouldn’t be making any contrails? I should have pics tomorrow, if I can’t find my card I know a few people who have some.

  97. It won’t get small planes. Many small planes just fly VFR (Visual Flight Rules), and don’t have Flight Following , meaning ATC does not track them by tail number. Even with flight following, I’m not sure if they get into this tracking system – they just get handed from one ATC to another.

    It should get all jet powered planes though, they all fly IFR on registered flight plans.

    A lot of the small planes you will see will simply be flight training and pleasure flights. There’s not a lot of other use for them. Where I live, half the planes I see are planes at 1400 feet flying the pattern for SMO. Then the other half is in/out from LAX. Then there’s 10% overhead traffic. (Yeah, I know, 110% 🙂

  98. judy says:

    I stumbled upon the above site by accident and learned what I’ve really been seeing for years.
    I remember real clouds, I’m not young.
    And three weeks after visiting the site, the spraying of 3 days occurred in my state, rural, country, with no air traffic visible.
    BUT, after over 3,100 hours of no air traffic visibility(about 4 months) the perfect conditions occurred to see the jets for 9 hours only???
    What a crock of BS.

  99. TonyB says:

    I have some pics up at [EDIT: Photos re-hosted here:]
    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/TonyB#

    I missed a lot in the series of pics, but enough that you can see what I was trying to explain. Feel free to put them up here.

  100. Thanks for the photos Tony, I put them up on Picasa (Picasa is a very convenient place to store photos for free). These are the photos that go with this comment:

    http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/#comment-4884

    The photos are dated 10/11 (Oct 11th) 2008. They show three contrails that persist and spread out. They were taken “a short distance north of Pittsburgh, PA”. The timestamp is around noon, which is good, as that’s around the time the MODIS satellite photos are taken. Here’s the photo for that day:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_GSFC.2008285.terra.1km
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_GSFC.2008285.aqua.1km

    Pittsburg is in the upper left. You should also look at the highest resolution version of the photos:
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_GSFC.2008285.terra.250m
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_GSFC.2008285.aqua.250m

    And look at the large scale images, which show the large surrounding weather.
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA4.2008285.terra.1km
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA4.2008285.aqua.1km

    What I see here is a band of moisture, indicated by the clouds. I see a few contrails crossing it. The scattered natured of the clouds near you indicate that there’s not that much moisture, and the altitude when conditions are favorable is fairly narrow – which is why you only get a few contrails.

    So, now you’ve see these satellite photos. Do you still think there is something unusual in your photos?

Comments are closed.