Michael J. Murphy Admits Persistent Contrails Exist. Can't tell the difference.

[Mick]

Michael J. Murphy, in his film What in the World Are They Spraying, claims that "normal" contrails are always short and dissipate quickly, and that's how you can tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails. But science and history tell us that contrails can persist and spread for hours.

In this clip from a Q&A session at San Diegans for 9/11 truth, Michael Murphy is asked abut this distinction.

He now admits that persistent contrails exist.

So how can you tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail (which is what the questioner wanted to know, so she could explain it to people)? According to MJM, you can't tell the difference unless you chemically analyze it.

At 1:25, MJM:

"Persistent contrails are just natural contrails, they do not contain the high amounts of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other fall-out that matches geoengineering and numerous patents exactly. So with that being said, a persistent contrail is a contrail that lasts a little bit longer, and they have been seen as far back as World War Two."

He then goes on to say that the conditions for persistent contrails are "rare" (but does not define how rare). But the point is made. He can't tell what is a chemtrail, and what is a persistent contrail. He just think's there's more persistent contrails than there should be.

So, Michael J. Murphy, will you now issue a correction to your claims that you can tell the VISUAL difference between a contrail and a "chemtrail"? Or at least issue a clarification?

What IS the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail?

[firepilot]

This is going to cause some hurt for the chemmies. Every time one of them brings up the canard about contrails only lasting a few seconds, we can bring out this quote. Wonder if Aircrap will put this one up!

He has really put himself into a box now I think. How are they going to deal with one of their own, saying contrails can persist and that they have since WW2 (and before actually). Maybe Jay got through to him, or MJM spent some time reading postings here or Contrail Science.

Now that I have listened to it more though, he is claiming WW2 contrails were at low elevations, and that todays aircraft fly in the stratosphere, and there is not enough humidity up there to have persistent contrails. Still utterly wrong, and aircraft like B-17s could and did fly in stratosphere. Nor does he understand relative humidity, and how vapor pressure is affected by altitude.

[Mick]

Yes, that was rather odd, saying "low altitude". That would imply all the short-hop commuter planes in europe should be leaving persistent contrails.

Notice he does not answer the question. She wants to know how to tell the difference so that she might able to not be poo-pooed. I don't think he's helped her.

[firepilot]

Yes, that was rather odd, saying "low altitude". That would imply all the short-hop commuter planes in europe should be leaving persistent contrails.

Notice he does not answer the question. She wants to know how to tell the difference so that she might able to not be poo-pooed. I don't think he's helped her.

When you think about it, his whole answer was entirely flawed. If humidity decreases with altitude, then the best chance for cloud would be at ground elevation, and clouds decrease in likelyhood as you went up in altitude. Obviously not correct, since clouds are usually at some altitude above the ground

But, then again MJM did leave off the word "Relative" in front of humidity, which makes all the difference in the world. Now, was it intentional, or was it a lack of knowledge of a very basic principle.

[Jay Reynolds]

With this evasive political response, Michael J. Murphy has indeed boxed himself in. Perhaps he had an honest moment or is implementing an exit strategy. The end result is that he could not tell that particular woman what he has been saying thus far, and he cannot go back and un-ring this particular bell.
Thanks, Mick!

[Jay Reynolds]

Holy smokes, some chemtrail believer just asked Michael J. Murphy what this video is all about on his facebook page.
What to do, Michael, what to do........?

[firepilot]

Funny how the backpedaling has started though. Now apparently they claim to have always said there can be persistent contrails.
Maybe its just my fuzzy memory, but it just seems that the lynchpin of their chemtrail conspiracy, was that contrail can not persist, at least according to them.
Now all of a sudden they can.

Of course in that video, MJM finds a new route, claiming that fallout from some trails matches what was proposed or was in patents.

[MikeC]

Perhaps best get some screen shots of their pages claiming the old story before they disappear??!!

[firepilot]

Wouldnt be the first time that chemmies changed their story. Will Thomas is the obvious example, like how Jay has mentioned Will claiming KC-135s spraying from booms, even at low level, and that he had photos to prove it. None of those ever came up. And then he claimed to have lab reports, if people will only pick up the tab for them. Not that there were any such lab reports, and he admitted to that.

Carnicom now claims that he doesn't use the term chemtrails. Well he does not, anymore. He did for a long time though, before changing to "Aerosol crimes". Interestingly enough, there is no more actual carnicom.com website, it now redirects to his "Carnicom Institute", which is does ask for money and volunteers for. Wonder if he would want people with actual aviation knowledge. Doubt it.

I do wonder though if those two friends who supposedly handle donations for Willl Thomas for people, I mean victims, to pay to restore his boat, (and who nominated him for that position he is running for )actually know about his fast and loose history with the truth, and money. Between asking for money to do a collecting flight, that never happpened, and supposedly getting paid $7000 dollars to speak in Aspen and leaving them quite unsatisfied, he has a bit of history.

[PCWilliams]

May i plug my video again? It just seems so appropriate!

[Stupid]

He said:
"....but where they (are) spraying, is up in the stratosphere...and there's very rarely much of any humidity up in those areas, and you will not get persistent contrails, in there."

True enough (depending on the amount), but what if on the occasion there IS enough humidity ? Isn't this when we see persistent contrails ?
He uses the word "rarely"...and that may indeed be the case. Because that would explain why we don't see persistent contrails -- all-the-time.
....and if you factor the amount of daily flights in the stratosphere, and the earth's global weather....there's bound to be many areas with "enough humidity" to create persistent contrails.
This is what's being reported as "chemtrails" or just contrails.
There are little-to-no reports of "planes with no contrails".

[Mick]

Yes, I think "rarely" is going to be the next thing he's going to have to explain. How rare? How do you know it's rare? Why is it rare?

Why do we get cirrus clouds so often, when ice supersaturation is so rare?

[Stupid]

It's like when you see a dedicated forum for software, or other product.
Rarely do you see a positive review of a product. You mostly see negative reviews or problems with the product.
Rarely do people post positive comments, because it's already working for them as it was advertized ....so why post anything, but problems ?

[Jay Reynolds]

I really like this video, so I'm re-posting it lest it get forgotten.

[PCWilliams]

I really like this video, so I'm re-posting it lest it get forgotten.

As a reminder i uploaded a very high quality copy of this video and a link to the 1905 book "Cloud Studies" at: http://tinyurl.com/7ezxt5n

If you have the means of posting videos (like on a youtube account) i invite everybody to download the HQ copy and repost this video. So far the high quality copy has been downloaded over 100 times.

Judging by the hate mail i get, it's an effective video.