Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: CIA director talks Chemtrails

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jenci's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,609
    Thanks
    4,509
    Thanked 3,469 Times in 1,294 Posts

    CIA director talks Chemtrails

    John O.Brennan talking about chemtrails or stratospheric aerosol injection.

    It appears that he is trying to sell it to us that it "may" help global warming. Maybe all those tin foil hat wearing kooks were right after all on chemtrails



  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jenci For This Useful Post:

    Harley (07-08-2016),Zook_e_Pi (11-11-2017)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks
    1,317
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 665 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    I was doing some research on Neil Degrasse Tyson this morning, just to see what this cat was about ... and also to gauge if I was being unfairly critical of his science or his methods.

    I came across this twitter feed of his:
    https://twitter.com/neiltyson?lang=en

    The first twitter at the above feed (submitted only 6 hours ago) is Tyson's reply to a follower, Madie Paisley, who posted an image of a chemtrail.

    The following is Tyson's reply:



    Note: The trail in Madie Paisley's photo is not a condensation trail because contrails are never that long, and only extend just a little bit behind the aircraft, perhaps about a dozen plane lengths. To illustrate the difference, I myself caught a chemtrail and a contrail side by side when I was mowing the grass at my home a few years ago. The difference is stark.



    So why is this celebrated astrophysicist (and system-promoted authority on all things science) ... calling Paisley's captured trail a contrail and proceeding to elucidate the circumstances for its appearance? What standard of science are we looking at here, e.g. at Tyson's twitter feed?



    Pax

    ps: FWIW, real scientists, the ones that are independent of establishment pressures and carrots, do not offer explanations until they properly investigate whatever they are supposed to be commenting on. And if they casually offer an opinion, they are quick to disclaim it as an unscientific opinion. By contrast, scientists that populate the entertainment science shows are often long on confidence and short on facts. Degrasse's opinion in this case betrays a lacking of understanding of at least two objects: chemtrails _and_ contrails. He would've been wise to reply with a simple: "I don't know, but let me find out for you (or something to that effect)."

    ps2: Alas, an enormous brain is often saddled with an enormous ego. For such a brain and ego, to admit to possession of less authority than the amount allocated for it, is a greater failure than seizing more authority than it can hold ... even when it means buckling under this extra authority sooner or later.
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 11-12-2017 at 12:16 AM.

  4. #3
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 1,235 Times in 723 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    So why is this celebrated astrophysicist (and system-promoted authority on all things science) ... calling Paisley's captured trail a contrail and proceeding to elucidate the circumstances for its appearance? What standard of science are we looking at here, e.g. at Tyson's twitter feed?
    The context is this...

    She askes this question...
    What causes a line of shadow in the sky like this? Looks like it's coming from the sun. What is it? Looks like no cloud breaks.
    Name:  DOYtgjJVAAA73Nv.jpg
Views: 20
Size:  102.4 KB

    Tyson answers...
    Looks like a condensation-trail left by a plane flying below the high cirrus clouds, with a low Sun casting an upward shadow.
    That's the context. Not Zooks poorly attempted discrediting of this Astrophysicist...And he's answered it correctly. Nowhere was chemtrail mentioned/asked or alluded too.

    I posted this yesterday and Zooks above post fits this observation.

    Forums since the beginning have been deliberately filled with nonsense, to confuse the truthseeker. Bits n bobs are on point but much is deliberate. MSM is to be taken in exactly the same way. And as you know, disinformation...that being hints of truth mixed with fabrication is and has always been the norm.
    A deliberate attempt to discredit Tyson...using an explanation of his and twisting it to justify that he is "a mainstream muppet, a pseudoscientific charlatan, and a snake-oil salesman"...not unlike Sibrel who did the same...using Nasa footage out of context, on purpose leaving out vital footage to bolster his poorly executed investigation.

    Granted the Man (Tyson) is immersed in the MS...an incredible extensive education and a brain filled with passion for all things Cosmological.

    To say he's a a pseudoscientific charlatan, and a snake-oil salesman is probably an acknowledgment of your own underachievement and underwhelming attempt at tapping into your own potential...a potential that's obvious to me, Zook.

    Here's the thing...you're very good at discrediting and denouncing anyone who operates in the mainstream that happens to voice their smarts to the world. You denounce them because they don't use their positions to discredit say 911, NASA, and other dodgy happenings. You expect Tyson to instead of answering the question (which he did) take the conversation to chemtrails...Just like you did when I posted Russel brand at a 'select committee' meeting voicing his views on drug addiction...which was an outstanding argument he put forth...all you did was denounce him for not speaking up about other conspiracies and his past youthful fopas...And I answered to you, if he had of, he would of been thrown out of the meeting and lost any opportunity to voice and make a difference in the respective area he was invited to talk on and in a select committee no less.

    Easy for you to sit behind the keyboard and denounce all and any sundry of folk who do far more for humanity than you could imagine...considering your smart, and should understand how the social fundamentals work within the world of communication and navigation of Human interaction...

    Perhaps you could use your passion for denouncification and instead take your arguments to the horse's mouth and get a firsthand account. Like visit Tyson, go visit NASA, Visit Sandy Hook and talk to the bereaved, ask them all your prudent questions.

    Seems anyone who interacts in life and holds any kind of position, by default, is unworthy of your acknowledgment and instead you go the route of crucifixion.

    I'm somewhat more forgiving of Human interactions and understand the navigation...or I could just shut the world out and voice from an isolated perspective.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-12-2017 at 01:16 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-13-2017)

  6. #4
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks
    1,317
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 665 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    in 2017, there is no excuse for any scientist, least of all a celebrated astrophysicist that has never shied from expressing an opinion against conspiratorial views of the world, to claim ignorance of chemtrails.

    As the videoclip that I personally uploaded shows, contrails and chemtrails can be distinguished by their relative lengths. Contrails dissipate. Chemtrails linger.

    Now, why do contrails dissipate? Firstly, contrails are essentially "linear cirrus clouds".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
    beginExcerpt
    Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") are line-shaped clouds produced by aircraft engine exhaust or changes in air pressure, typically at aircraft cruise altitudes several miles above the Earth's surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that exist at high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the engine exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail.[1] Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2] Contrails, and other clouds directly resulting from human activity, are collectively named homogenitus.[3]

    Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds.[1] Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere.[1] The resulting cloud forms are formally described as homomutatus,[3] and may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are suspected to have an effect on global climate.[4][5]
    end


    It's Wikipedia so take the information with a grain of salt. The first paragraph makes scientific sense. As for the second, some Wiki editor decided to insert "persist for hours" when discussing contrail duration. That is not feasible and here is why.

    Contrails are observable because they are formed in a region of the sky where the environmental conditions are not conducive to cirrus cloud formation, else we would already be seeing cirrus clouds in that region. And if there are no clouds to begin with prior to the jet exhaust, then the existing environmental conditions at that altitude favor dissipation as per the original state of that region of sky. The bogus argument made by some of the shills out there (and I've been reading their explanations) is that contrails can extend for 100's and 1000's of miles behind a jetliner. No.

    Observable contrails are created by jet exhaust; jet exhaust turns to ice crystals; ice crystals have aggregate mass, not molecular mass like aerosols and simple (or complex) gases; consequently, ice crystals have short air life.

    Ice crystals, being primarily aggregates of water molecules, fall at 9.8 meters per second squared, just like any other object with mass. Free fall time for 20,000 feet is: t = square root[2(20,000)/9.8] ~ 64 seconds. From 30,000 feet, 78 seconds. From 40,000 feet, 90 seconds.

    Jetliners seldom fly beyond 40,000. So the largest interval we have for an ice crystal to be in the air, much less "persist for hours" at high altitude is about 90 seconds. It remains at the altitude where it is formed for a fraction of that time, long enough to be part of a contrail. Let's be generous. Suppose it spends all of its allocated 90 seconds as part of the contrail. How far does a jetliner travelling at 500 mph travel in 90 seconds? Ans: 12.5 miles.

    Let's not be so generous this time. Let's say that an ice crystal only spends about 10 of those 90 seconds in the optical range where our eyes see it as part of a contrail (remember, it spends the remaining 80 seconds plunging to Earth). Now, we're only looking at the jetliner travelling 1.4 miles. If we further reduce the optical range to 5 seconds, then we have the jetliner travelling 0.7 miles. Etc. And this is what we typically see in a contrail: a jetliner with a condensation trail anywhere between 0.5 miles long to several miles long (at best).

    Ice crystals are aggregate masses and they fall to Earth at free fall speeds. Chemical gases fall, too, but because gases are molecular, their fall profile is much different than ice crystals; indeed, they exhibit real gas behavior with temperatures, pressures, and volumes involved.

    Indeed, my videoclip (whilst mowing the grass) shows clear evidence of ice crystals dissipating from the back of the jetliner contrail, at about a half-mile to a mile away. At the same time, the chemtrail next to the contrail can be seen extending across the sky for untold miles, with the plane that deposited those chemical gases nowhere to be found.

    That Degrasse Tyson calls it a condensation trail only means that he has no clue as to what a condensation trail is. More the further, that the line of shadow is such a mystery to Madie, when anyone can see that a shadow of that size and in that location requires a light source capable of managing it, e.g. a setting Sun, merely underscores that Tyson's audience is satisfied with a level of inquiry that doesn't tax anyone's science acumen. Tyson and Madie, a natural attraction between an ego and an ego enabler.

    Makes you wonder though ... of all the questions he must receive - a scientist of celebrity (if arguably of stature) - why did Tyson pick such an easy one to answer? Rhetorical question. No answer required. Heck, let me answer anyways. Because he wants to appear relevant in the discussion on chemtrails; at least, he wants to give the appearance of having participated and of having affirmed contrails. Carrots for the bunny.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 11-12-2017 at 11:30 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-13-2017)

  8. #5
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks
    1,317
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 665 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    I posted this yesterday and Zooks above post fits this observation.
    Forums since the beginning have been deliberately filled with nonsense, to confuse the truthseeker. Bits n bobs are on point but much is deliberate. MSM is to be taken in exactly the same way. And as you know, disinformation...that being hints of truth mixed with fabrication is and has always been the norm.
    A deliberate attempt to discredit Tyson...using an explanation of his and twisting it to justify that he is "a mainstream muppet, a pseudoscientific charlatan, and a snake-oil salesman"...not unlike Sibrel who did the same...using Nasa footage out of context, on purpose leaving out vital footage to bolster his poorly executed investigation.
    Not twisting, rather, pointing out his errant observation (e.g. condensation trail false identification) and exposing the surface science that is all too evident in his "teachings". The twisting is indeed yours, Ross, as you insinuate that both Sibrel and I twisted narratives (which is absurd) to paint our respective targets in a false light. Degrasse Tyson is as much a player in the deceptions and legerdemain as the astronauts in Sibrel's exposee, "Astronauts Gone Wild". To look at all the available evidence pointing at Tyson and the astronauts as system shills and think otherwise, is to radiate cognitive dissonance.

    Granted the Man (Tyson) is immersed in the MS...an incredible extensive education and a brain filled with passion for all things Cosmological.

    To say he's a a pseudoscientific charlatan, and a snake-oil salesman is probably an acknowledgment of your own underachievement and underwhelming attempt at tapping into your own potential...a potential that's obvious to me, Zook.
    My achievements are as I sought them. Tyson's achievements are as he sought them. Applying the prefix modifier "under-" to my achievements and implying the greatness of Tyson's achievements ... is your assessment of things ... and your burden to bear when the truths will out. Tyson will be eventually relegated into the dustbin of history like Kaku, Nye, David Suzuki, Chomsky, Ellsberg, Pilger, Assange, Snowden, and many many other system shills ... relegated by their lies and deceptions.

    FWIW, my potential is obvious to me as well. But that is not why I take Degrasse Tyson to task. He's being blown up by his own petards. I have no other interest in Tyson. You'll have to take my word for it, but there are far more numerous and richer observations (scientific and nonscientific) available in my own perspective of the Universe that I don't need to coat-tail it on others, far less on Tyson's perspective. But hey, if his gives you a lift up from your own perspective, more power to you and him. Your best off mingling with the Harry Houdinis, the David Copperfields, and of course, Carnac The Magnificent ... and avoiding the mettle of truthseekers. Magicians feed off cognitive dissonance, mate. They'll love your type to bits.


    Here's the thing...you're very good at discrediting and denouncing anyone who operates in the mainstream that happens to voice their smarts to the world. You denounce them because they don't use their positions to discredit say 911, NASA, and other dodgy happenings.
    Incorrect. I denounce them because they use their positions to credit false narratives of 9/11, NASA, Moon Landings, and other dodgy happenings; and directly or indirectly compound their attack on the truths with an attack on the truthseekers. If they had spoken the truth about the matter, or even remained silent for whatever reason, they wouldn't enter my radar. That you see rational approach on my part as an irrational demand on people in high positions, is more cognitive dissonance.

    You expect Tyson to instead of answering the question (which he did) take the conversation to chemtrails...Just like you did when I posted Russel brand at a 'select committee' meeting voicing his views on drug addiction...which was an outstanding argument he put forth...
    I vaguely remember Russel Brand's select committee meeting. If you could point me to it, I'm sure I supported any truthful points that he made. I'm equally sure that if he was playing out a controlled opposition pawn role, I would have detected that, too. Again, I don't recall the details of Russel Brand's meeting videoclip ... or my exact response to it. By now, I'm not exactly confident in your rendering of my response, as you've made inaccurate assumptions on my character and my purpose on these sundry forums. That said, rescue from the tribal control of this planet is not going to come from celebrities. I've seen this first hand in India, where former actors have morphed into politicians; and these politicians work for themselves and the elites and against the interests of the people, with few exceptions. No different in Canada, just less overt. They made Ronnie Raygun a president in the United States a few decades back; and the incumbent president is half-man half-cartoon and a former TV celebrity.

    Once again, in answering Madie's question, Tyson misidentified the object in front of the shadow. He's misidentified quite a few things in his tenure as Mr. Science, albeit he exhibits great form. Form over function. America promotes form over function ... which is why it's in such a sad state.

    all you did was denounce him for not speaking up about other conspiracies and his past youthful fopas...And I answered to you, if he had of, he would of been thrown out of the meeting and lost any opportunity to voice and make a difference in the respective area he was invited to talk on and in a select committee no less.
    Once again, I have doubts you are representing my response to Brand accurately. I'd like to see the link. My best guess at this point, is that I had probably seen him elsewhere playing out the role of controlled opposition; and that essentially voids his personal integrity, at least for me. The old parable of the boy who cried wolf once too many times, comes to mind. If you lose integrity, than it becomes a forever uphill climb to regain it.

    Also, the privileges of celebrities - as a rule with few exceptions - align with the top of the pyramid,where most of the privileges are. Human nature tends to pursue privileges, and when it receives them tends not to give them up. So there's nothing remarkable in that. The problem arises when celebrities use their privileges to attack the truths and truthseekers. Has Brand done that? Again, unless I see the link in question, I can't add anything to what I've already written.


    Easy for you to sit behind the keyboard and denounce all and any sundry of folk who do far more for humanity than you could imagine...considering your smart, and should understand how the social fundamentals work within the world of communication and navigation of Human interaction...

    Perhaps you could use your passion for denouncification and instead take your arguments to the horse's mouth and get a firsthand account. Like visit Tyson, go visit NASA, Visit Sandy Hook and talk to the bereaved, ask them all your prudent questions.
    Or I can study the available evidence; evidence which, in many cases, is a record of first hand grunts from the horse's mouth. I don't need to talk to John McNamara, for instance, to know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag that eventually resulted in the prosecution of the Vietnam War for geopolitical interests. I just need to read the witness testimonies, including McNamara's, and study the forensic evidence. A probability cloud eventually appears in the preponderance.


    Seems anyone who interacts in life and holds any kind of position, by default, is unworthy of your acknowledgment and instead you go the route of crucifixion.
    I'm somewhat more forgiving of Human interactions and understand the navigation...or I could just shut the world out and voice from an isolated perspective.
    Yes, it may seem that way. But all I ever encounter in these sundry forums are examples of compromised individuals, in many cases blatantly compromised individuals. Give me an example of a real McCoy, and you may be charmed by my reaction. I very much respect Pat Tillman, for example. He was an American football player who went to defend America for all the right reasons; then when he discovered the wrong reasons and the legerdemain, he was going to report it. They killed him for it. In all likelihood, Chomsky betrayed Tillman; but that's a probability and not an exact fact. Chomsky, now there's another Zionist skunk that has shaped American thought for generations.

    I also very much respect Rachel Corrie.

    I respect Bill Cooper.

    They're all heroes murdered by the tribal occupation. Indeed, I'm really only finding murdered heroes. Please show me some heroes that are alive and kicking and still fighting the good fight, and I'll be much obliged. Wait, there's one I can think of: Christopher Bollyn. So far so good. I admire his efforts in pursuit of the truth. I'm a bit disappointed in Jim Stone, but a lot of what he writes is verifiable, so I'd just throw the bathwater out in his case. Alex Jones is a fraud .. .and I had to ride the full arc of discernment to discover that fact. See, even I'm not immune to discernment issues. But I do correct my errors when I find them or when someone else points them out for me.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 11-13-2017 at 07:44 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-13-2017)

  10. #6
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 1,235 Times in 723 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Your best off mingling with the Harry Houdinis, the David Copperfields, and of course, Carnac The Magnificent ... and avoiding the mettle of truthseekers. Magicians feed off cognitive dissonance, mate. They'll love your type to bits.
    Truth is the point here Zook...You've missed the mark by a country mile in using above quote as to where I should be mingling opposed to where I actually mingle...

    It's Wikipedia so take the information with a grain of salt. The first paragraph makes scientific sense. As for the second, some Wiki editor decided to insert "persist for hours" when discussing contrail duration. That is not feasible and here is why.
    Above quote and the following explanation of yours from post #4 is categorically wrong...read on below.
    Also, not all wikipedia or related MSM is disinformation. It takes a serious amount of objectivity and unbiased approach when delving into areas we have little to zero speciality in...we live in the age of 'over-saturated disinformation' and leaves us only one option if we are seriously looking for the truth of any given topic...The Scientific approach using verifiable thorough research.

    in 2017, there is no excuse for any scientist, least of all a celebrated astrophysicist that has never shied from expressing an opinion against conspiratorial views of the world, to claim ignorance of chemtrails.

    As the videoclip that I personally uploaded shows, contrails and chemtrails can be distinguished by their relative lengths. Contrails dissipate. Chemtrails linger.
    I'm really hoping, after you read on below, that you'll retract above quoted statements. Your evaluation on Tyson regarding his description of the 'contrail' and especially your ignorance to "Contrails dissipate. Chemtrails linger". It is absolutely incorrect and if you don't acknowledge your own ignorance in this matter after reading below and doing your own 'unbiased' research then you are doing yourself a massive disservice and worse...adding to the speculative and deliberate fabrication regarding the truth behind Contrails V Chemtrails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    Looks like a condensation-trail left by a plane flying below the high cirrus clouds, with a low Sun casting an upward shadow.
    The photo provided is exactly as Tyson describes...that's my point. You've decided it's a chemtrail because you believe they don't form under a cirrus cloud...go do some deeper study, your analysis looks sound but missing out on more accurate data...in this case, data that is the most important. You've missed the mark again...

    I took offense at your denouncing Tyson as a real Scientist and calling him and others a charlatan...that is absurd and you use his above comments as proof...sorry Zook but that is wrong and below evidence should provide more than enough evidence to support what he says and my own defense of him.

    I also apologise Zook, for being blunt in my assessment of your twisting the info to suit the narrative. I'll rephrase. It's a matter of limited research using this thread as an example (in this case, chemtrails and Tyson answer) If you research more thoroughly published books on clouds, atmospheres, etc (and there's plenty that go back 60+years), you will be enlightened. Every single book on clouds for the last 60+ years says that contrails can persist for hours. Youtube and forum posts far too often offer up flawed, speculated and regurgitated 'out of context' info and or simply, under-researched evidence.

    Yes there has been many aerial spraying of aerosols going back to the 40's in many countries and there is 'weather modification' programmes...but the 'Chemtrail' conspiracy is absolutely loaded in inaccurate, purposely fabricated and outright deliberate disinformation...as I say often. Be nice if some listened for once... I hope you read above paragraph carefully...because this is my most important point.

    Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI's). As described in the OP, is not to be confused with the 'Chemtrail' debate. What the speaker says is not new to the Atmospheric Science fields and the Global Warming Data. That info is readily available and peer reviewed for citing and understanding purposes. Do I agree with it? that's another story... Cloud seeding is another area that gets tied up and confused with the 'Chemtrail' debate.

    Your own video in #2, I'm assuming you noticed what you call a chemtrail but did not see it form? where as you watched in real time the second contrail form and dissipate. What you have not allowed for is the height difference between them both. The difference in cold versus humid ratios and the difference at different heights for the 2 types of contrails as described for below. Also the possibility of 'wingtip vortices'. Hard to tell at that height. However, you've decided the left 'contrail' must be a 'Chemtrail' and used that as part of your argument...is it deliberate? No, more a matter of ignorance regarding Cloud/atmosphere and condensation trail Science. I use to think the same way...not so now.

    Here is a PDF: Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget. 1970

    http://contrailscience.com/files/197...9-27-6-937.pdf

    Name:  IMG_3428.JPG__100_RGB8__20140312_162225_20140312_162227.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  446.7 KB

    Here's an easier understanding:

    Condensation trails (Contrails)

    A paragraph from: International Cloud Atlas, World Meteorological Organization, 1975

    Contrails are clouds which form in the wake of an aircraft when the atmosphere at flying level is sufficiently cold and humid. When just formed, they have the appearance of brilliant white streaks; soon however they show pendant swellings like inverted mushrooms. Often they are short-lived, but especially when Cirrus or Cirrostratus is present, they may persist for several hours.


    Persistent trails spread progressively, frequently forming large patches of fluffy or fibrous clouds, having the apperance of Cirrus or patches of Cirrocumulus or Cirrostratus; in fact it is sometimes impossible to distinguish old contrails from these clouds. Contrails can produce halo phenomena with exceptionally pure colours.

    Here's a beauty...

    1957: Cloud Study: A pictorial Guide, page 79

    Name:  11.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  108.9 KB

    Another: 1943 -Clouds, C. J. P. Cave, page 10

    Name:  12.jpeg
Views: 14
Size:  122.3 KB

    1943 - Cloud Reading For Pilots, page 73

    Name:  123.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  75.5 KB

    Name:  10.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  236.2 KB

    From The weather Book 1997

    Name:  The Weather Book - web.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  174.5 KB

    1972: Clouds of the World, page 130

    Name:  22.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  63.1 KB

    1981: Peterson Field Guide to the Atmosphere, page 137

    Name:  23.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  59.4 KB

    1988: Exploring the Sky By Day, Page 49

    Name:  24.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  29.1 KB

    1991: National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Weather

    Name:  25.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  23.0 KB

    Just to ram home the truth that all 'contrails' do not dissipate within a short timeframe...

    WW2 Contrails over Belgium...



    And quite possibly the oldest account of a contrail on record. The article was titled "Cloud Formation by Supercharged Plane" and it appeared initially in US Air Service magazine in July 1921 and was also sampled in the Monthly Weather Review, July 1921.

    "After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with other cirrus clouds visible."

    Read bottom right paragraphs https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr...9-07-0412c.pdf


    Lastly. I've said this often...
    Unbiased, objective thorough research is paramount...The key word here is truth...I take a more careful route than I once did because I've come to understand much is tainted and far too often 'speculation' is good enough to state as truth...and that my friend is a huge disservice.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-13-2017 at 09:45 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-14-2017)

  12. #7
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks
    1,317
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 665 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Thanks for the info, Ross.

    I'll have to reassess my absolute conviction that chemtrails can be distinguished from contrails based on dissipation alone. That said, it would be prudent for the mainstream to start discussing the existence of both contrails and chemtrails, else we get a one-sided distorted view that such trails are only condensation trails and therefore not harmless or particularly noteworthy.

    As a child, I don't remember seeing that many contrail streaks in the sky over Nova Scotia. Perhaps that's because there are more flights now. What I do remember is that contrails usually dissipate quickly. Don't ever recall seeing them persist for an hour or so. They're usually gone in minutes for short trails; and in a half-hour or so for the longest ones.

    I'm not sure the explanation of cold saturated air maintaining ice crystals longer, thereby producing longer contrails versus circumstances of cold dry air in which sublimation from solid to vapor can occur producing shorter contrails ... while that makes scientific sense on the face of it, I'm still not sure that sufficiently explains things. Again, ice crystals are aggregate masses. Fine ice crystals are different from large snowflakes, the latter fluttering to the ground due to drag effects. Fine ice crystals are expected to free fall like summer rain, or hail, or ice pellets. Which then limits their time in the air, and effectively limits their time in a contrail.

    To further confuse things, the videoclip that I took showed a relatively clear sky ... no readily apparent cirrus clouds. Which means the original state of the sky was probably not conducive to the maintenance of fine ice crystals. The moving jetliner contrail demonstrates this. Yet the longer trail extended across the entire sky with no aircraft to be found. Perhaps it was there for an hour or longer. So we are either to believe that the longer trail is a chemtrail (aerosols) or a contrail (with a saturated sky)? The lack of clouds, suggests the former but we can't be sure.

    Compound that uncertainty with the certainty that they were modifying weather decades ago, and also lying about it decades to go, I'm not sure anyone has enough information to call it one way or the other. The rational position then is to remain agnostic on the explanation for contrail duration. Until someone adequately explains the physics of ice crystal free fall and how that may impact the duration of observed trails, the explanations in the old textbooks just seem one-sided and insufficient to me.

    Getting back to DeGrasse Tyson, do I own him an apology? Yes, but only if that photograph does indeed show a contrail below the cirrus clouds. It still looks like a chemtrail to me; but that's perhaps because "contrail lingering" is new information for me. I'm still not sure it is completely valid, e.g. due to the physics of ice crystal free fall. But I'll keep an open mind until more data comes in.

    As for Tyson on 9/11 or Moon landings or gun control ... and surface science, in general ... he remains guilty as charged.



    Pax

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-14-2017)

  14. #8
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 1,235 Times in 723 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    A good lesson for all of us when we're exposed to information, is to remain objective. Years back I fell for much of the info concerning 'Chemtrails', a lot being the photographs of supposed Chemtrails. As I've shown above, the Contrail information within the conspiracy circles have failed to show and identify the accurate properties that Contrails can exhibit. This led many to believe that Contrails always and only dissipate quickly. We now know that info is lacking a significant component regarding contrail properties. It's been doing the viral rounds within the ALT scene filled with inaccuracies...for over 20 years.

    I've seen, as you have, photo's showing chemical barrels and apparatus within the main cabin of commercial and Military type airliners used as evidence that these craft are fitted out and ready to administer SLAP (secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program) The photo's used were taken from testing aircraft, both commercial and military. Here is one that made the rounds and still used today as SLAP evidence...

    Name:  330px-Cabin_nose_section_of_747-8I_prototype.jpg
Views: 11
Size:  25.9 KB
    Ballast barrels in a prototype Boeing 747. Easy to find aircraft engineering spec and testings for weight and balance purposes... Photographs of flight test barrels HAVE BEEN used as evidence to show chemtrail planes and worse, past on by willing participants as describe below.

    I say again. There is public record of spraying agents from aircraft going back decades. Including here in my own country. All of these were biochemicals to control pest and disease in the natural habitat. These days it's far more regulated... back then it was done without notification or testing on Human health.

    As far as high altitude aerial spraying (SLAP) goes...I am now of the mind that much of it is fabricated.

    HAARP and the use of AERIAL particulates to modify the atmosphere is another story and needs equal amounts of investigation, but the idea of population control, purposeful contamination of the Human being lacks any credible information and instead has taken the viral route delivering misinformation and fabrication.

    The Bill Ryans of the world are sadly everywhere to be found in the ALT market with an endless supply of participants (I was one) to propagate and spread 'unreliable and or fabricated' information. I've certainly changed my approach in the last few years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    it would be prudent for the mainstream to start discussing the existence of both contrails and chemtrails, else we get a one-sided distorted view that such trails are only condensation trails and therefore not harmless or particularly noteworthy.
    Here's one paper, there are several these days.

    Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program.

    Abstract:

    SLAP is commonly referred to as 'chemtrails' or 'covert geoengineering', and has led to a number of websites purported to show evidence of widespread chemical spraying linked to negative impacts on human health and the environment. To address these claims, we surveyed two groups of experts—atmospheric chemists with expertize in condensation trails and geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution—to scientifically evaluate for the first time the claims of SLAP theorists.

    Results show that 76 of the 77 scientists (98.7%) that took part in this study said they had not encountered evidence of a SLAP, and that the data cited as evidence could be explained through other factors, including well-understood physics and chemistry associated with aircraft contrails and atmospheric aerosols. Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying program—who often reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse.

    Read full report here

    As a child, I don't remember seeing that many contrail streaks in the sky over Nova Scotia. Perhaps that's because there are more flights now.
    Over the last 40 years global air travel has almost increased eightfold: In 1974 air planes carried 421 million people globally. In 2014 this number had increased to 3,21 billion passengers. Even more today 2017.

    Report here

    I think it's worth mentioning where all this started too.

    Richard Lew Finke is the Man who is widely accepted as the one who started the theory.

    He died May 5, 2011 aged 58.
    Obituary for Richard Lew Finke. Obituary

    Richard Lew Finke, age 58, of Rushville, went home to his heavenly father on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at the Pickering House in Lancaster. Richard was a member of Fairfield Christian Church and was a founding partner of WLRY – Radio for Life.
    Chemtrail conspiracy theories began to circulate after the United States Air Force (USAF) published a 1996 report about weather modification. Following the report, in the late 1990s the USAF was accused of "spraying the U.S. population with mysterious substances" from aircraft "generating unusual contrail patterns." The theories were posted on Internet forums posted by people like Richard Finke and William Thomas; they were also discussed by late-night radio host Art Bell, starting in 1999. As the chemtrail conspiracy theory spread, federal officials were flooded with angry calls and letters.
    Richard Lew Finke, also known as "Righteous Dude" of Rushville, OH, started the chemtrails theory by posting an email: "Line In The Sky Identified" He also owned an operated a Christian Radio station.

    He joined up with another guy, Larry Wayne Harris. Finke and Larry eventually formed a "defensive biowar and disaster recovery consulting firm" called LWH consulting, which they publicized by spamming email messages during the summer of 1997 that a biological attack was imminent. No such attack ever took place, which must have been quite frustrating for these two fellows desperately seeking customers.

    In April of 1997, Larry Wayne Harris was sentenced to probation for wire fraud for his fraudulent ordering of the Bubonic Plague bacteria yersinia pestis.

    Finke appeared on Art Bell's show 1999...from there it went viral...

    Art Bell is worth a mention here too.

    In 1997 Bell was at the time America's highest-rated late-night radio talk show host, broadcast on 460 stations. At its initial peak in popularity, Coast to Coast AM was syndicated on more than 500 radio stations and claimed 15 million listeners nightly.

    Bell, is responsible for huge amount of exposure...I mention this to make clear how far back this all goes and it's history is riddled with all kinds of fabrications and misinformations along the way.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-14-2017 at 12:59 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-15-2017)

  16. #9
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,091
    Thanks
    1,317
    Thanked 1,254 Times in 665 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    To add to the database on the chemtrail phenomenon, here's an illuminating interview by James Corbett of Peter Kirby:



    Once again, I have intuitive problems with the "everything is a contrail" meme. My intuition is based on my own exposure to the physical sciences.

    In my lawnmowing video, the sky was relatively free of cirrus clouds. There are two trails, one is a short trail behind a jetliner and there is no dispute it is a condensation trail. The other extends right across the sky with no aircraft to be found.

    Here's the thing, both observed trails are in regions of the sky that do no exhibit cirrus cloud formation. They are both obviously the result of aircraft moving through that region of space. Now, if the longer semi-permanent trail is a condensation trail, then what physics allows ice crystals to hang in the air for such a long time? I estimate that it took about 5 minutes or more for the observable jetliner to come into view and to disappear out of view (some time after I stopped videotaping). Judging by its length, the longer semi-permanent trail must have taken a minimum of 5 minutes to cross the sky (from my perspective) to as much as 10 minutes.

    Now, if a jetliner did indeed deposit ice crystals from its exhaust in both cases, then those crystals could not have taken more than 2 minutes tops, to fall to the ground (if the sky was saturated and cold) ... or in the other scenario (if the sky was dry and cold and subject to sublimation), the ice crystals would have sublimated into water vapor a short time after the condensation droplets from the exhaust freezes on initial contact with the cold air. The three phases of water are essentially playing out in a region of cold air. But is this conducive to miles long condensation trails? Think about it.

    In liquid form, water droplets will free fall.

    In solid form, ice crystals will free fall (unless they are the size of large snowflakes, in which case they will fall at a slightly slower rate).

    In gaseous form, we have water vapor. Does water vapor fall? No, not in the conventional sense. It exhibits real gas behavior. But a finite amount of water vapor from an airplane is not going to be all that much, and whatever amount is released in the exhaust is not going to linger as visible water vapor (e.g. as in a cloud) in a region of sky that does not already show water vapor prior to the jetliner passing through it. If that region of sky was conducive to cloud formation, the water vapor in the atmosphere would have already exhibited some cloud structures prior to the passage of a jetliner. To wit, any added water vapor in that region will seek equilibrium with the existing water vapor in that region. And if the ratio of water vapor from the region is a million times greater than the ratio of added water vapor from the jetliner; then the equilibrium point definitely favors a push towards invisible water vapor, e.g. the steady state prior to the jetliner passing through it. Or am I missing something in my analysis?

    In summation, we have water droplets that must fall. We also have ice crystals that must fall. From the heights involved in either case, we're not talking more than 2 minutes. And we have water vapor which must quickly disappear, because we're talking about a region of space where the equilibrium doesn't originally manifest visible water vapor. (Here, imagine a situation where you breathe out warm air into a cold winter's day; does your breath linger, or does it disappear rather quickly?)

    In short, I don't see any valid arguments for long contrails in a region of sky that is relatively cloudless prior hand. My lawnmower video shows a contrail in a region of sky that is relatively cloudless; but it also shows another enormously long trail in almost the same sky that goes against my science understanding of contrails. Perhaps my science is insufficient. That said, I will not give much credence to the science of establishment scientists, because I've seen far too many instances where politics has designed their science as opposed to science designing their politics. Someone will have to show me why my science is insufficient.



    Pax

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-15-2017)

  18. #10
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,035
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 1,235 Times in 723 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    In short, I don't see any valid arguments for long contrails in a region of sky that is relatively cloudless prior hand. My lawnmower video shows a contrail in a region of sky that is relatively cloudless; but it also shows another enormously long trail in almost the same sky that goes against my science understanding of contrails. Perhaps my science is insufficient. That said, I will not give much credence to the science of establishment scientists, because I've seen far too many instances where politics has designed their science as opposed to science designing their politics. Someone will have to show me why my science is insufficient.
    What we do not know is the height of both trails. Flight altitudes would be significantly different using same airspace. Possibly as much as, or more than 5000 ft. This height difference can make a big difference in air temps, how cold (a few degrees would make a difference and a difference in moisture content). In other words, we cannot base the atmospheric chemical makeup as the same in producing an equal type of contrail. Also you don't need 'already' cirrus clouds to produce the delayed dissipation. Delayed dissipation with more contrails added, as is normal in flight paths and under the right conditions, end up looking exactly like fibrous cirrus formations.

    Also, I have limited knowledge in this Science and am learning as I go...My focused points in all above posts were more about the inaccuracies concerning contrails and a defense of Tyson's answer/description he took from the evidence he had to work with...A photograph.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-15-2017 at 11:57 AM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-16-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •