Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

This is primarily a result of the lack of sufficient observations for contrail-forming environments and the inability to obtain reliable moisture measurements from rawinsonde data at contrail altitudes. For this reason, much of the previous research directed toward predicting contrail development has not utilized empirical temperature and moisture observations but instead relied mainly on physically based models that could not always be verified (Appleman 1953; Scorer and Davenport 1970; Hanson and Hanson 1995).

ams.allenpress.com...(1997)036%3C1211%3AAEMTPW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

The environmental conditions that favor contrail formation and persistence are not well understood primarily due to the limited number of empirical studies.

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JApMe..36.1211T

I find it particular fascinating that there is such a apparent dire lack of 'sufficient' observations of those rare environments and the fact that there seems to be 'few' 'empirical studies' .

Not being able to predict the occurrence of persistent contrails does not mean they don't occur

That is obviously so but we do have a date when persistent contrails become something that occurred regularly enough to investigate properly.

The environmental conditions that favor contrail formation and persistence are not well understood primarily due to the limited number of empirical studies. This study presents an empirical model to predict widespread occurrences of contrails (outbreaks), which was developed from a combination of rawinsonde temperature and GOES water vapor information. Environments containing persisting contrails were first identified on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite imagery for the United States for January and April 1987 and then analyzed in more detail using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite digital data. Adjacent clear and cloudy environments not containing contrails were identified to compare with the conditions favorable for contrail persistence. For this purpose, a predictive logistic model was developed through multiple regression analysis.The model performance was evaluated through goodness-of-fit methods and found to be statistically significant across a range of atmospheric conditions. To further evaluate the model and to demonstrate its application on a real-time basis, predictions of the probability of persisting contrails were made for a case day. Comparisons of the predictions to satellite observations of the existing conditions (using AVHRR data) demonstrate good model performance and suggest the utility of this approach for predicting persisting contrail occurrence. Implementation of this model should allow climate researchers to better quantify the influence of contrails on surface climate and natural cloud formation.

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JApMe..36.1211T

So according to this source it's not something that occurred regularly, or at all before January ( oddly specific) 1987, ( even more 'coincidentally' when the EPA first changed particle pollution specifications) and thus partly the reason why i point out that second world pictures of several mile long contrails is certainly not suspicious.

So you're saying that believing for the past few decades that contrails can spread out into cirrus sheets is a 'mistake'.

If you means the past two then know i don't as we clearly have two very different phenomenon taking place in our skies. Regular contrails simply does not contain the material required to create the cirrus sheets we are observing and those regular contrails that do seem to persist for 'very many minutes' do so when there is already cirrus 'sheets' in the area.

And that for decades the myth has been perpetuated because no-one wants to admit that somoone in 1930 got it wrong. Accounts of persistent contrails in the past are all hoaxes I suppose?

Which accounts? People keep presenting me with second world war pictures but until i see civilian airliners flying in dense formations, and then leaving relatively persistent ( many minutes) contrails more than a few times a year, that does not constitute proof towards explaining why persistent contrails lasting dozens of hours now occurs no matter the atmospheric conditions.

Here is some evidence to show that the presumption that the contrails must be natural have resulted in the required atmospheric conditions being changed so that may 'accommodate' the very clear observation of these apparent 'contrails' that don't really act like contrails.

None of the soundings show RHI > 72%, despite
the fact that the PIT rawinsonde must have passed
through contrail A on its way to the stratosphere. To
support a persistent contrail, the maximum PIT RHI from
the sonde would need to be increased by 35% or more.
Another sounding taken over western OH yielded RHI =
117% at 225 hPa. Natural cirrus clouds were passing
over the Wilmington, OH station at the time. Because it
is theorized that natural cirrus clouds can only form
adiabatically for RHI exceeding 145% or more (Sassen
and Dodd 1989), the dry bias appears to be consistent
in both clear and cloudy skies. To account for the dry
bias, a correction formula was developed by assuming
that most of contrails observed by Sassen (1997; his
Fig. 5b) should have occurred only in supersaturated
conditions. To include most of his contrail observations
above a new line representing RHI = 100%, it is
necessary to specify that RHI = 100% for the sonde
value of RH = 16% at -70°C and RHI = 100% at RH =
72% and -36°C.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

According to the classical contrail formation theory,
contrails can persist when the ambient air is supersaturated
with respect to ice (that is, the environmental
relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) is greater than
100 percent), but not with respect to water. In Sausen
et al. (1998), the use of ECMWF reanalysis data
required a contrail parameterization to compute contrail
coverage since the RHI in the ECMWF forecast model
rarely exceed 100 percent. The RUC-2 model contains
a more sophisticated cloud and moisture scheme that
allows for ice-supersaturation. Assuming that the RUC-
2 upper tropospheric moisture variables are accurate,
we can follow a much simpler statistical evaluation of
potential contrail frequency. For each 1°×1° grid
location where the criterion for persistent contrails
occurs at any level from 400 hPa to 150 hPa, a
persistence indicator value is given a value of 1. The
indicator value equals zero when none of the levels
satisfies the persistence criterion. The frequency of
potential contrail frequency over a time period becomes
simply the frequency of the persistence indicator.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

The threshold was determined by comparing the RUC RHI fields to satellite images of contrail and cirrus distributions using the RUC level having the greatest RHI values in the 150-350 hPa range. Figure 1 shows an example of contrails forming in heavy air traffic over the northeastern USA during 18 November 2001. The leading line of contrails in the Terra MODIS 11-12 µm brightness temperature difference image is located in east central Pennsylvania and New York (Fig. 1a). Contrails and cirrus cover most of the image west of that line. Comparison of the 225-hPa RHI contours (Fig. 1b) with the contrails indicate that few contrails formed over areas with RHI < 80%. This value is slightly less than the 85% found by Duda et al. (2003) for a different day. Comparison of the isolated contrails from 12 September yield a different threshold as expected since the RUC alters the humidity field from the measured values as noted earlier. Figure 2a shows a single, but broken linear contrail over Ohio and Pennsylvania at 1108 UTC, 12 September 2001. Cirrus clouds are evident
in northern and southern Ohio as well as northeastern Pennsylvania.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

The model humidity at upper levels of the atmosphere is often too low, reflecting the current biases known to exist in our measurement system. Persistent contrails require a relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) that exceeds 100%. We know that contrails are sometimes observed in areas where estimates of the RHI are less than 100%. The existence of contrails in those locations highlights the "dry-bias" in the humidity fields.

Because the input data do not perfectly characterize the meteorological conditions, the diagnoses of persistent contrail conditions are only estimates and will not detect all of the areas where persistent contrails will form and may also add areas of formation that do not exist. All estimates of persistent contrail formation conditions are based on a modified Appleman curve using three different engine propulsion efficiencies. To give some idea of where contrails may form, but are not diagnosed, we have included information about RHI for values above 70% for single-level plots.

The relative humidity data from the RUC 40km model are suspect since 18 April, 2002. Therefore, all contrail forecasts since April 18, 2002 are suspect.To obtain a better estimate of potential contrail formation, examine the 'Individual level (mb)' results. Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate. Relative humidity values above 80% are good indicators of contrails in the new RUC data. You can use any pressure level , but the large values may be too warm for contrail formation.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html

Continued

And that is what the the highly specialized, and thus more generally pretty naive, scientist of a given science establishment area does when they are forced to come up with explanations having been pressed/indoctrinated/paid to presume certain 'facts'. While we are talking about 'facts' here are some of the standards that used to 'work' towards prediction contrail persistence/formation.

To persist, contrails and cirrus require RHI > 100%. Because of negative biases in the relative humidity measured at cold temperatures (Miloshevich et al. 1999), RHI infrequently exceeds 100% in the USA radiosonde record. Furthermore, the RUC model adjusts and smoothes the RHI field so that it differs from the radiosonde measurements. While the older version of the RUC used here (discontinued 18 April 2002) yields RHI > 100% more often than the radiosondes, it is still biased low. Thus, it is necessary to increase the RHI from radiosonde measurements for T < 0°C or set an artificially low value of RHIt.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

Contrail formation typically occurs in the upper Troposphere between nine and twelve kilometers is height with temperatures ranging between -35ƒC and -55ƒC (Jensen e. al. 1998, Schrader 1997). Most contrails last on the order of seconds to a few minutes and only a small minority will last for hours as in the contrails photographed (Jensen et. al. 1998). A newly formed contrail will be approximately one kilometer wide and one-half a kilometer tall. As a contrail evolves, it grows greatly in the horizontal plane sometimes extending over 20 kilometers in width (Spinhirne et al. 1998). Examples of this horizontal evolution is shown in the photograph. Contrails can also be 100ís of kilometers long given the right atmospheric conditions and a plane on a steady course.

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form (Jenson et al. 1998). The GOES-8 satellite photographs, Figure 3 and Figure 4, taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present shows significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing a condition necessary for contrail persistence.

students.ou.edu...

Keeping these caveats in mind, the following major results have been obtained from the model simulations described in this paper.

* Long-lived contrails cannot be explained by the amount of water emitted by the aircraft. Although we have not performed a simulation in an atmosphere that is subsaturated with respect to ice, it is quite obvious (in comparing results from runs 3 and 8) that persistent contrails can only form in an atmosphere that is supersaturated with respect to ice.

ams.allenpress.com...(1998)055%3C0796:LESOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Minnus said that contrails are formed in air below -39 Celsius when the air is supersaturated with ice.

Due to the physical structure of ice, the humidity level actually has to be higher, about 150 percent humidity level, than it would be for the air to be supersaturated with water.

"The exhaust (jet engine) injects a lot of water into the air," Minnus said.

"The water droplets immediately freeze and you wind up with a contrail."

Minnus said once the contrail is formed in supersaturated air, larger ice particles become nuclei and begin to grow, collecting other ice particles from the surrounding air.

As the particles get heavier, they begin to fall out of the contrail, spreading it vertically, wind shear spreads the contrail horizontally as it continues to collect ice from the atmosphere.

www.journalnet.com...

Theory: Relative Humidity (RH) is the amount of water in the air compared to how much water the air can hold. Temperature decreases higher in the atmosphere. Colder air can hold less water than warm air. If the air holds about the same amount of water at a higher and lower level altitude, the higher altitude should have greater relative humidity, because the ratio of water to the amount the air can hold would be greater. Clouds can also effect the relative humidity readings. Clouds add moisture to the air, which increases the relative humidity. However, most clouds only reach the altitude of 18,288, so clouds should not affect the readings taken above that elevation. Clouds under 3,048 meters produce little or no precipitation, which means that they are not as dense and should have very little effect on the RH.

www.physics.umt.edu...

The conclusion of a paper might be wrong. But why would hundreds of scientists write papers describing and studying a non existent phenomena?

Because they are given grants to do extremely specific research? What would you do if you grant basically laid out what you are supposed to find evidence for? Would you refuse it and take the moral high ground on your empty stomach? Why is it surprising that having then put their name to that research that these scientist would not defend their invested standing and credibility in it's defense? How are politically processes co-opted and corrupt practices generally brough about? Do all people start out as corrupt liars or do those who control their environment bend them to such practices?

Surely they couldn't all have been on '___'?

I know that you wish to divide humanity into stupid people and intelligent people but frankly i don't require such outmoded devices to understand why some people are acting in defense in untruths.

Accept it: persistent contrails are real and have been studied for decades. Thus the idea that only started appearing in the 1990 is the real myth.

You do not have to repeat your position as i know exactly where you stand and where you will be standing when we are done here.

An expert is someone who is acknowledged as such by his peers.

So basically those who agree with you get to judge you? Nice incestuous process if i ever saw one and if we carefully considered it it's no suprise that they keep backing the wrong sets of 'facts'. Here is just a small list of why 'peer review' is a process that is DESIGNED to exclude contrary opinions and fact sets.

* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes"transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)

* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)

www.amasci.com...

[edit on 25-10-2007 by StellarX]

In 1995, a TV film was shown on both sides of the Atlantic entitled Too Close to the Sun, dealing with the highly controversial subject of cold fusion. The film was admirably balanced and included interviews with both experimenters and 'skeptics'. Halfway through, the film showed an interview subject who is a distinguished senior American physicist from an equally distinguished American research institution. There's nothing unusual about such an appearance -- except that this scientist appeared in silhouette, his identity disguised.

Remember, this was not "60 Minutes" but a science programme, and he was no Cosa Nostra bag man but a professional scientist. He was concerned that if his institution discovered he had been spending research funds on a forbidden subject like cold fusion, then his research grant, or even his tenure, might be in jeopardy.

Sadly, as explained in these pages, his fears have been fully justified by recent events:-

* Eric Laithwaite became a 'non-person' after he addressed the Royal Society on anti-gravity.
* Forrest Mims lost his Scientific American job after telling the editor he didn't believe in Darwinism.
* Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy.
Warwick Collins's biology career ended when be publicly identified a flaw in Darwinist theory.
* Robert Jahn was demoted by Princeton for investigating paranormal phenomena in the lab.
* The Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned an article criticising Darwinism but censored it following intervention by Richard Dawkins.

www.alternativescience.com...

Powered flight were considered 'impossible' by he US army ,Scientific America and a whole host of Science establishment figures.

www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p155y1977-78.pdf

The one thing the science establishment has consistently contributed to humanity is new and far more devastating weapons, while doing their best to ignore the more practical applications of such knowledge, while they went about peer reviewing each other and ensuring that those who disagreed did not easily ,or more often at all, get a chance to have their voices heard of theories seriously considered by publication.

What's the point of this straw man argument anyway? To suggest that we shouldn't listen to, or believe anything experts tell us? That the world is flat after all?

We should listen what ALL people tell us and investigate their claims according to merit and NOT their standing in some kind of formal grouping. The people who said the world was flat were part of the establishment and strangely not even the religious establishment thought this was a line they had to defend while the court scientist were advising the stake for that particular heretic.

So, because the peer review process is falwed, which should consider any research paper mentioning persistent contrails as dubious - after all, the peer review process may have missed the fact that the authors were studying an fictional non existent phenomena. Is that right?

Oh they studied something very real but were basically forced to presume that it must be natural and thus explained by involving and changing the effects of natural atmospheric forces. The peer review process is clearly flaws and that is why i am not the one maintaining that having a source from a 'official' institution/group is good enough and instead defending that parts of the published literature that is consistent and not contradictory.

And I've presented papers showing that such persistent contrails are a well discussed and observed phenomena.

I have presented sources that claims that they are neither well understood or emperically well documented with whatever data in evidence being contradictory.

I guess you're going to trust and believe your interpretation of your sources, as I will mine.

Few people have the guts to get involved in processes where their views of what is real may be questioned and changed on a daily basis so i do my best not to be too hard on people. What i may instead start doing is posting pictures as those might at least illicit responses when this much typing only serves to antagonize those who wish to claim that there is no 'evidence' for chemtrails.

Oi! I'm an amateur

My mistake! I expected that you would at least have a vested interest in this specific area.

Perhaps because those agencies, or people in them, are not so well versed in meteorology as meteorologists are - and thus made generalisations without being aware that they were slightly misleading.

They seemed pretty official to me and unless you want to try show that those statements were made in error i am going to take them for what they seem to be! It's not that i really expected to find those statements ( these things tend to get altered unless you can lay your hands on the books) but they came up during research and seem to openly contradict the recent 'many hours' mythology.

Or, in the specific cases you gave, because there was no need within the context of the subject of those webpages to explain persistent contrails.

So it's just 'coincidental' that i managed to find information that disagrees with your point of view? I suppose i'm just stupidly lucky to find actual 'evidence' for my POV!

I think they could have been worded better. But I doubt whoever wrote them ever thought they'd be used in support of chemtrails!

You may want them to have been worded differently but that isn't really evidence that any mistakes were made!

Now, let's cut to the chase Stellar:
Do you accept that persistent contrails, occasionally spreading out into sheets of cirrus cloud - as chemtrails are described as doing - have been observed, studied and photographed for several decades?

I have been wrong before, and might somehow be on the fact that such things may have occurred before under exceedingly rare conditions, but the volume of such trails today are clearly inconsistent with what we know about atmospheric conditions.

And if not, what might convince you to change your mind?

I tend to know it when i see so 'the more the better' is probably best!

Stellar

[edit on 25-10-2007 by StellarX]

Hi Stella, please excuse me if I don't respond to every point you make - you do write such long posts!

No doubts about that as evident by the introduction of the "Space preservation act of 2001" …… A previous poster mentioned that this bill was 'speculative' but since it's third incarnation it's now being co-sponsored by another 40 odd senators i don't think that can be called accurate any longer.

It failed on its 4th incarnation in 2005 and appears to have finally be dropped altogether.

we do have a date when persistent contrails become something that occurred regularly enough to investigate properly.

Yes, we do indeed. 1970

ams.allenpress.com...

One aspect of weather pollution in the atmosphere is the generation of contrails. The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long conbtrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet

That’s a pretty good description of ‘chemtrails’ …..

So according to this source it's not something that occurred regularly, or at all before January ( oddly specific) 1987, ( even more 'coincidentally' when the EPA first changed particle pollution specifications.

No, you are misunderstanding the abstract. For this research, they first identified contrails on satellite images and then analysed them in more detail. In same way that I might say I first collected fallen leaves from the park during autumn 2007 and then analysed their colour. They are not saying this was the first time such contrails had been seen

Because they are given grants to do extremely specific research? What would you do if you grant basically laid out what you are supposed to find evidence for?

Do you have any evidence that this happens in atmospheric research? My understanding is that the scientist seeks the grant for the research he is doing, not the other way around.

All the talk about peer review processes etc and how some theories get brushed under the carpet because they upset the apple cart, doesn’t get around the simple fact that persistent contrails have been observed and studied for decades.

the volume of such trails today are clearly inconsistent with what we know about atmospheric conditions.

IMHO the volume of such trails today are entirely consistent with a huge increase in commercial air traffic in the past 2 decades.

And from an observational perspective, here in the UK at least, my observations are that they are entirely consistent with what we know about atmospheric conditions. I accept we don’t know everything about why persistent contrails form – but we don’t know everything about why tornadoes form either, yet can still correctly say that their occurrence is consistent with what we know about atmospheric conditions.

Yes there is lots of research into persistent contrails and why they form – mainly prompted by climate change concerns (and also by the military who obviously would rather their aircraft didn’t give away their positions). But this in itself surely suggest that the phenomena isn’t being deliberately created and I refuse to countenance any suggestion those involved in the research are doing so just to provide a cover the world’s governments (remember, ‘chemtrails’ appear all over the world produced by all the world’s airlines: if there is a conspiracy it’s a BIG one!)


Edit: at the end of the day you believe that chemtrails are highly visible and sprayed on a regular basis all other the world. And I don't. Guess we have to agree to disagree 'cos I doubt either of us will ever persuade the other differently

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Essan]

The Space Preservation Act was written by a group that wants to completely do away with weapons of all sorts, thinking that by giving up our weapons everyone else will do the same and we'll all suddenly live in peace and harmony. The first time they tried to pass it, Denis Kuchinich (sp?) didn't even bother to READ it before he introduced it to Congress. I posted the information about the bill and the group in another thread a few months ago.

EDIT: Essan: I am going to do my best to leave the chemtrail issue alone ( god knows there are a hundred more important issues) so don't expect any more elaborate responses for a while.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Space Preservation Act was written by a group that wants to completely do away with weapons of all sorts,

Didn't know that and i suppose you have a source for the claim?

thinking that by giving up our weapons everyone else will do the same and we'll all suddenly live in peace and harmony.

Carol Rosin knows far better than that so i am not buying. What she may have intended was to prevent these secretive weapons from being abused to start wars with little or any public oversight.

The first time they tried to pass it, Denis Kuchinich (sp?) didn't even bother to READ it before he introduced it to Congress.

While that is something i can readily believe ( the first patriot act was supposedly not read by any senator) i would still like to see why you think he did not read this particular bill and if people regularly introduces bills they do not care about when they KNOW it's going nowhere.

I posted the information about the bill and the group in another thread a few months ago.

As you are the one contesting claims a link would be nice !

Stellar

[edit on 25-10-2007 by StellarX]

Oh sorry, he DID read it, but he didn't read it until AFTER it was submitted.

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: A) nullify a conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”, B) allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy, and C) 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.

The initial version of the act is the only one that makes mention of “exotic weapons systems”, listing several technologies that will be familiar to conspiracy theorists:

(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.

Yes, it even includes “extraterrestrial weapons”, meaning weapons created by aliens (or created from alien technology from crashed flying saucers at Roswell), as well as psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Yet somehow “chemtrails” gets all the attention here.

So what’s Kucinich’s involvement in this? It’s difficult to say. Kucinich is anti-war, so perhaps that’s his motivation. He does have a lot of new-age, UFO-believing, friends, but he’s also running for president. When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said

“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”

Kucinich’s motivations are perhaps revealed by his speech to the house on May 18th, 2005, introducing a newer version of the bill:

“What has happened to our country? Why are we projecting fear and paranoia to such heights? Have we so lost our way and our faith that we are prepared to transform the heavens into hell? If the kingdom and the will of God is to be done on earth as it is in heaven, what is to happen when the United States takes nuclear fire up to the gates of heaven?
“Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this nation.”

contrailscience.com...

As for introducing bills they don't care about, many congresspeople introduce bills that they know nothing about, or that they don't read first. That's the whole point of the lobbyist. The lobbyist gets them money for their campaign and in return they get special consideration to what they care about.

Bravo, and stellar job Stellarx!

By a sheer preponderance of evidence, I hereby agree with you.

The problem with those 'in the system' is that they become brainwashed into certain patterns of thinking. This is quite evident from the opposing viewpoints here which fail to convince with any persuasive data.
Contrails are their dogma, and that is where the research grant money, and salaries lie, so I would expect nothing else.

Your very lucid responses however, do convince.

I'm assuming you have no research grant money, or salary at stake?

One question the 'contrailers' fail to ever answer adequately is, how can the tropospheric conditions alter themselves so drastically, as to allow for 'contrails' to form only for a couple of hours, and only for the jets that are flying very specific patterns, which are NOT normal air traffic patterns,
and then revert to 'normal' so that all subsequent air traffic leaves no 'contrails'?
Their arguments grow thin, weak, appear disingenuous, and are tiresome.

However, Stellar you do seem to answer the hard questions.

Bravo.

reply to post by StellarX


StellarX, thank you.

That post cannot be argued with, as bad as Essan, the gov disinformation agent, wants us to believe otherwise.

Kudos.

Originally posted by stompk
reply to post by StellarX

 

StellarX, thank you.

That post cannot be argued with, as bad as Essan, the gov disinformation agent, wants us to believe otherwise.

Kudos.

My gut tells me hes not the only one operating on this site.

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.

One question the 'contrailers' fail to ever answer adequately is, how can the tropospheric conditions alter themselves so drastically, as to allow for 'contrails' to form only for a couple of hours, and only for the jets that are flying very specific patterns, which are NOT normal air traffic patterns,
and then revert to 'normal' so that all subsequent air traffic leaves no 'contrails'?

Yeah. Bit of mystery. Like the way it can be raining for 2 hours and then suddenly the sun is shining. And an hour later it's raining again! How can that happen? Must be a secret CIA operation!

But seriously, you could try looking at a few sounding to see how the atmospheric conditions change considerable from day to day and at different altitudes.

weather.uwyo.edu...

It's basic meteorology 101

Originally posted by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by stompk

That post cannot be argued with, as bad as Essan, the gov disinformation agent, wants us to believe otherwise.

Kudos.

My gut tells me hes not the only one operating on this site.

Reminds me - I must change that to read Unpaid US Govt Disinformation Agent

Meanwhile, check out this worldwide network of disinfo agents!

www.cloudappreciationsociety.org...

Originally posted by stompk
as bad as Essan, the gov disinformation agent, wants us to believe otherwise.

So, what you are saying here is that you can't counter Essans argument properly, and therefore you are resorting to cheap name calling because you don't have either the intelligence or the power of your own convictions to argue the case for "chemtrails"

See - this is the problem with this - and most other subjects on ATS right now. Its polarised. You believe one thing and anyone who disagrees with you is a "disinformation agent".

Let see you put in the time and effort in proving that these things are actually happening, based on solid science and not idiots posting pictures of things they don't understand.

Your only contribution to the conversation has been to make assinine comments and apply a label.

Originally posted by Essan

Reminds me - I must change that to read Unpaid US Govt Disinformation Agent

Wow - I knew the British agent exchange programs were abusive but unpaid - that's harsh. Hopefully you at least get your expenses paid.

You should get your supervisor to reapply to exchange you through the State Department, I'm pretty sure they'll pay you something, you must have been farmed out to CIA, the cheapskates.

OK, now it's getting obvious.

Um, could someone explain how they keep f-18's and other military fighting aircraft from leaving contrails, since this would be a dead giveaway.

We seem to be accepting the info that contrails can occur at all altitudes, which is almost impossible, according to physics. A little fact that seems to be easily overlooked

The efforts gone into debunking this is just as suspicious as the activity itself.

As for where do I live. I tell you exactly. Steamboat Springs, CO, USA

Right below the Storm Peak Laboratory located on public ground permitted for use by the ski area.

You should especially appreciate the picture of the contrail/chemtrail in the 1982 picture of the lab. Is this a coincedence, or are they picturing the lab with it's consequent experiment in the background.

1982, was the year my father suddenly got cancer and died. Coincedence?

There are no coincedences.

They've been experimenting with this since 1979. Now, a bunch of people just 60 miles south of here have Whooping Cough.

Weren't we vaccinated for that.

OK.

Current temp in Steamboat right now.
45.1f @ 10,500 ft elevation.
34% humidity
Source

and the skies look like this.

and this

< br />
and this

< br />
Persistant contrails...Pfft.

Originally posted by stompk
OK, now it's getting obvious.

Um, could someone explain how they keep f-18's and other military fighting aircraft from leaving contrails, since this would be a dead giveaway.

That's why the military have an interest in being able to predict when contrails will occur

We seem to be accepting the info that contrails can occur at all altitudes, which is almost impossible, according to physics. A little fact that seems to be easily overlooked

According to atmospheric physics, contrails can occur at all altitudes - even at sea level. All depends on temp and humidity. You're most likely to get sea level contrails in Antarctica (if aircraft flew at sea level in Antarctica

The efforts gone into debunking this is just as suspicious as the activity itself.

The efforts gone into trying to convince people something like persistent contrails are suspicious is, well, even more suspicious. Why? What is the motive?

1982, was the year my father suddenly got cancer and died. Coincedence?

Sorry to hear that. But I can prove that a lot of people who died in 1996 saw a rainbow beforehand .... coincidence?

There are no coincedences.

I think there are ....

They've been experimenting with this since 1979. Now, a bunch of people just 60 miles south of here have Whooping Cough.

Weren't we vaccinated for that.

I have no idea. But persistent contrails have been studied seriously since at least 1970 - but they only became chemtrails in the mid 1990s. So how does a local outbreak of whooping cough fit in with that? If chemtrails are responsible shoudn't there be millions suffering across N America and Europe?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


What do we do to prove chemtrails are real? Sure you can come up with a million reasons why jets leave a trail behind them, becasue we know jets are real and there are documents to prove it. If chemtrails are real the documents are not public, but confidential so you can't prove their existance with anythign other than photos and video.

Want photos and video? Google chemtrails. You will find thousands of photos and multimedia evidence showing real to life chemtrails (nobody wastes time with CG on this topic).

And yes I do believe your all monsters who star this man. Whether you believe in it or not, if it's real your supporting false information. Wouldn't you rather be prepared then ignorant?

Originally posted by stompk
OK, now it's getting obvious.

Um, could someone explain how they keep f-18's and other military fighting aircraft from leaving contrails, since this would be a dead giveaway.

Military Jets make contrails all the time. This links to a photo of two F-15's intercepting two Mig 29 fighters during an exercise. It shows both short and long contrails above cloud level



The military does take steps to reduce contrails. Lockheed Martin used a special additive called "Panther Piss" to disappate the contrails made by the SR-71, whilst the F-117 used muffled exhausts and quartz heat dissapation tiling to reduce its infra red signature and attempt to make it less visible from the ground.

We seem to be accepting the info that contrails can occur at all altitudes, which is almost impossible, according to physics. A little fact that seems to be easily overlooked

How has it been overlooked? Anywhere a cloud can form its possible to get a contrail.

The efforts gone into debunking this is just as suspicious as the activity itself.

Thats just so much BS. What you are basically saying is that you have a completely closed mind to any attempts to educate people on atmospheric phenomena, and you are sitting there with your hands over your ears screaming "La la la" at the top of your voice because what people are telling you doesn't suit your theory.

As for where do I live. I tell you exactly. Steamboat Springs, CO, USA

Heres an idea. get a map, and draw lines between cities. See how many flight paths you are probably under. I'm looking at Google Maps right now and its a simple case of joinging the dots because - unless there is an airspace restriction - planes tend to fly in straight lines along the shortest route to their destination.

They've been experimenting with this since 1979. Now, a bunch of people just 60 miles south of here have Whooping Cough.

Weren't we vaccinated for that.

You weren't? I was. Don't they have proper vaccination programmes in the US?

[edit on 26/1007/07 by neformore]

[edit on 26/1007/07 by neformore]

The mean hourly, monthly, and annual frequencies of daytime contrail occurrence are
estimated using 2 yr of observations from surface observers at military installations scattered over the continental
United States. During both years, persistent contrails are most prevalent in the winter and early spring and are
seen least often during the summer. They co-occur with cirrus clouds 85% of the time. The annual mean persistent
contrail frequencies in unobscured skies dropped from 0.152 during 1993–94 to 0.124 in 1998–99 despite a rise
in air traffic

Source

According to this two year study performed by Nasa, contrails occur on average,

1/10% of the time, usually in the winter, um, cause it's colder.

So, for every 10,000 flight, 10 should produce contrails, maybe.

Essan, if the barometer is dropping, and humidity rising, forecast rain.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by stompk]

[edit on 26-10-2007 by stompk]