<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cirrus Uncinus and Contrails</title>
	<atom:link href="http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/</link>
	<description>The Science and Pseudoscience of Contrails and Chemtrails</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stars15k</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-28027</link>
		<dc:creator>Stars15k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-28027</guid>
		<description>N. Eyes, 
1) As Uncinus points out, the rep himself didn&#039;t write the bill, nor read it until too late.  
2)  &quot;Chemtrails&quot; (if they existed) are not in space (at least literally).  They are atmospheric, therefore their mention in the bill is moot. 
3)  By giving the &quot;they are mentioned, therefore they must be real&quot; angle on &quot;chemtrails&quot;, you would have to give the same weight to all weaponry mentioned.  Therefore you would have to believe that all weapons mentioned are real, feasible, and USED now.  I would think the disclosure that &quot;extraterrestrial&quot; weapons existed and are being used to be a much better, more important story than the spraying of some as yet unproven chemicals into the atmosphere for an as yet unknown reason, don&#039;t you?  Haven&#039;t seen that on the web or History Channel mockumentory yet.  Have you?
4)  The bill, didn&#039;t make it to the floor, therefore really doesn&#039;t mean a single thing except that our elected officials should start reading anything before they sign and put their name to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>N. Eyes,<br />
1) As Uncinus points out, the rep himself didn&#8217;t write the bill, nor read it until too late.<br />
2)  &#8220;Chemtrails&#8221; (if they existed) are not in space (at least literally).  They are atmospheric, therefore their mention in the bill is moot.<br />
3)  By giving the &#8220;they are mentioned, therefore they must be real&#8221; angle on &#8220;chemtrails&#8221;, you would have to give the same weight to all weaponry mentioned.  Therefore you would have to believe that all weapons mentioned are real, feasible, and USED now.  I would think the disclosure that &#8220;extraterrestrial&#8221; weapons existed and are being used to be a much better, more important story than the spraying of some as yet unproven chemicals into the atmosphere for an as yet unknown reason, don&#8217;t you?  Haven&#8217;t seen that on the web or History Channel mockumentory yet.  Have you?<br />
4)  The bill, didn&#8217;t make it to the floor, therefore really doesn&#8217;t mean a single thing except that our elected officials should start reading anything before they sign and put their name to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncinus</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-27989</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncinus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-27989</guid>
		<description>Google it indeed:

http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

&lt;blockquote&gt;
One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that current presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.

So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:

   1. Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
   2. Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
   3. Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google it indeed:</p>
<p><a href="http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/" rel="nofollow">http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/</a></p>
<blockquote><p>
One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that current presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.</p>
<p>So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:</p>
<p>   1. Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”<br />
   2. Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy<br />
   3. Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.</p>
<p>They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NorthernEyes</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-27987</link>
		<dc:creator>NorthernEyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-27987</guid>
		<description>HR 2977
[...]
(2)(A) The terms `weapon&#039; and `weapons system&#039; mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems&#039; includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

Woops. I guess chemtrails do exist. They attempted to bury this boldly worded bill, but the internet has a great memory. Google it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HR 2977<br />
[...]<br />
(2)(A) The terms `weapon&#8217; and `weapons system&#8217; mean a device capable of any of the following:</p>
<p>(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by&#8211;</p>
<p>(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;</p>
<p>(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;</p>
<p>(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or</p>
<p>(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.</p>
<p>(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)&#8211;</p>
<p>(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);</p>
<p>(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or</p>
<p>(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.</p>
<p>(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as&#8211;</p>
<p>(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;</p>
<p>(ii) chemtrails;</p>
<p>(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;</p>
<p>(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;</p>
<p>(v) laser weapons systems;</p>
<p>(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and</p>
<p>(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.</p>
<p>(C) The term `exotic weapons systems&#8217; includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.</p>
<p>Woops. I guess chemtrails do exist. They attempted to bury this boldly worded bill, but the internet has a great memory. Google it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncinus</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25937</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncinus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25937</guid>
		<description>Internet info is obviously not always of the best quality.  But Google is quite handy for finding the relative frequency of word usage.   

&quot;Chemtrails&quot; &lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; be in quotes because the usage has not been well defined, and is often applied to things that are obviously contrails.   Much like you would put &quot;UFO&quot; in quotes when talking about something that has actually been shown not to be a UFO, like:  The &quot;UFO&quot; was subsequently shown to be an errant garbage bag, blown by the wind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Internet info is obviously not always of the best quality.  But Google is quite handy for finding the relative frequency of word usage.   </p>
<p>&#8220;Chemtrails&#8221; <i>should</i> be in quotes because the usage has not been well defined, and is often applied to things that are obviously contrails.   Much like you would put &#8220;UFO&#8221; in quotes when talking about something that has actually been shown not to be a UFO, like:  The &#8220;UFO&#8221; was subsequently shown to be an errant garbage bag, blown by the wind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stars15k</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25935</link>
		<dc:creator>stars15k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25935</guid>
		<description>Uncinus, isn&#039;t education by the internet  how we all got here?  And we&#039;ve all seen some pretty &#039;good&#039; examples of it&#039;s efficacy.  
I do agree with Sun, although I don&#039;t always follow it.  Kind of like my diet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uncinus, isn&#8217;t education by the internet  how we all got here?  And we&#8217;ve all seen some pretty &#8216;good&#8217; examples of it&#8217;s efficacy.<br />
I do agree with Sun, although I don&#8217;t always follow it.  Kind of like my diet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncinus</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25879</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncinus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25879</guid>
		<description>Hopefully we don&#039;t whip out the &quot;argument by quality of grammar&quot; now :)

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haloes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Halo&lt;/a&gt; can be pluralized halos or haloes.  &quot;Halos&quot; is more commonly found on the internet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hopefully we don&#8217;t whip out the &#8220;argument by quality of grammar&#8221; now <img src='http://contrailscience.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haloes" rel="nofollow">Halo</a> can be pluralized halos or haloes.  &#8220;Halos&#8221; is more commonly found on the internet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JazzRoc</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25877</link>
		<dc:creator>JazzRoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25877</guid>
		<description>Suntour:&lt;blockquote&gt;I like to put “chemtrail” in quotations when using the word, because not using them makes me feel as if I’m validating the term.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Funny, that&#039;s EXACTLY the way I feel about that.

Maybe I&#039;m anal, Wickid, but I believe the plural of &quot;halo&quot; is &quot;haloes&quot;.

And while I&#039;m having fun, the genitive &quot;its&quot; has NO apostrophe, &quot;it&#039;s&quot; is the shortened form of &quot;it is&quot;.

Boy, does that make me feel better! (Just watch it, Uncinus!) :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suntour:<br />
<blockquote>I like to put “chemtrail” in quotations when using the word, because not using them makes me feel as if I’m validating the term.</p></blockquote>
<p>Funny, that&#8217;s EXACTLY the way I feel about that.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;m anal, Wickid, but I believe the plural of &#8220;halo&#8221; is &#8220;haloes&#8221;.</p>
<p>And while I&#8217;m having fun, the genitive &#8220;its&#8221; has NO apostrophe, &#8220;it&#8217;s&#8221; is the shortened form of &#8220;it is&#8221;.</p>
<p>Boy, does that make me feel better! (Just watch it, Uncinus!) <img src='http://contrailscience.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suntour</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25860</link>
		<dc:creator>Suntour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:42:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25860</guid>
		<description>Excellent information Wickid, thanks for posting.  I like to put &quot;chemtrail&quot; in quotations when using the word, because not using them makes me feel as if I&#039;m validating the term.  But that&#039;s just me, your points all stand as very solid with or without the quotes.

Mr Suntour</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent information Wickid, thanks for posting.  I like to put &#8220;chemtrail&#8221; in quotations when using the word, because not using them makes me feel as if I&#8217;m validating the term.  But that&#8217;s just me, your points all stand as very solid with or without the quotes.</p>
<p>Mr Suntour</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wickid</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-25844</link>
		<dc:creator>Wickid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-25844</guid>
		<description>Just a little thing on the Cirrus clouds. The mares tails usually form in Jet streams which are associated with frontal systems. They bring moist cold air from behind the cold front up to the front of the warm front which form the frontal system. These high altitude cirrus precede the approaching warm front by about a day. The wisps blow up at the turbulent edges of the jet streams.  

Its not surprising to see persisting contrails in these conditions. There are cold humid conditions up there. This also explains the story about rain and halos round the sun following heavy chemtrail activity. There is a warm front approaching which usually brings thick cirro-stratus cloud which can give halo&#039;s around the sun and moon. This might look like the trail are spreading but its actual the front most clouds of the warm front approaching. After that the clouds thicken and it begins to rain. Which support the cloud seeding theory. 

Furthermore, Jet pilots love to fly trough jetsteams because they blow them on there way saving a lot of fuel. That means there are often contrails running trough the jetstream. The turbulent air in there makes the contrail spread out, causing the mares tails to form.

I see a lot of people commenting this stuff and telling me that every time they see persisting contrails preceding halo&#039;s around the sun and moon and then it rain the next day. Its actually just normal weather systems passing over them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a little thing on the Cirrus clouds. The mares tails usually form in Jet streams which are associated with frontal systems. They bring moist cold air from behind the cold front up to the front of the warm front which form the frontal system. These high altitude cirrus precede the approaching warm front by about a day. The wisps blow up at the turbulent edges of the jet streams.  </p>
<p>Its not surprising to see persisting contrails in these conditions. There are cold humid conditions up there. This also explains the story about rain and halos round the sun following heavy chemtrail activity. There is a warm front approaching which usually brings thick cirro-stratus cloud which can give halo&#8217;s around the sun and moon. This might look like the trail are spreading but its actual the front most clouds of the warm front approaching. After that the clouds thicken and it begins to rain. Which support the cloud seeding theory. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Jet pilots love to fly trough jetsteams because they blow them on there way saving a lot of fuel. That means there are often contrails running trough the jetstream. The turbulent air in there makes the contrail spread out, causing the mares tails to form.</p>
<p>I see a lot of people commenting this stuff and telling me that every time they see persisting contrails preceding halo&#8217;s around the sun and moon and then it rain the next day. Its actually just normal weather systems passing over them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JazzRoc</title>
		<link>http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/#comment-22906</link>
		<dc:creator>JazzRoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contrailscience.com/?p=328#comment-22906</guid>
		<description>Uncinus: &lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;This is one the problems that besets “chemtrail” observers, they can’t really tell what direction things are going in from the ground.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Nor can they tell foreshortening, nor can they tell altitude. The lower atmosphere is seen to the horizon, whereas the upper atmosphere is seen to a hundred miles.

Chemtrails in a humid stratosphere will grow from span-width to a kilometre deep and several kilometres across and greater as the aircraft&#039;s wave vortex continues to stir the mix - there may be, after all, sixteen tons of ice for every kilometer of trail.

This can easily give the impression that the far end of the trail drops, as the atmosphere seven miles up curves down to the horizon a hundred miles beyond the horizon&#039;s cut-off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uncinus:<br />
<blockquote>&#8220;This is one the problems that besets “chemtrail” observers, they can’t really tell what direction things are going in from the ground.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Nor can they tell foreshortening, nor can they tell altitude. The lower atmosphere is seen to the horizon, whereas the upper atmosphere is seen to a hundred miles.</p>
<p>Chemtrails in a humid stratosphere will grow from span-width to a kilometre deep and several kilometres across and greater as the aircraft&#8217;s wave vortex continues to stir the mix &#8211; there may be, after all, sixteen tons of ice for every kilometer of trail.</p>
<p>This can easily give the impression that the far end of the trail drops, as the atmosphere seven miles up curves down to the horizon a hundred miles beyond the horizon&#8217;s cut-off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
