I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[MikeC]

I note how LHO's argument is no longer about whether chemtrails exist, but whether there are differences between aviation induced clouds and "natural" clouds.

I take some heart from this - LHO is now using science instead of hearsay - that is a great improvement.

As a result of that paradigm shift he also apparently believes that man-made global warming exists and that aviation pollution is part of the problem - as indicated by the science.

It is heartening to see that discussions on here can persuade people away from quasi-religious belief in chemtrail woo to actually examining and questioning scientific evidence.

[George B]

MICK, . . . how about a look at this . . . what do you think??


(http://www.pr-inside.com/jutta-schmi...t-r1824354.htm)

JuttaSchmitt // 'Solar Radiation Management' or Manhattan Project 2.0?

Considering that the late Edward Teller,father of the Hydrogen Bomb and first-hand expert of the EMP effects thatresult upon their detonation in space, who in the late nineties and asmentioned earlier, doubted that global warming is anthropogenic (caused byhumans) and who even questioned global warming as such, nevertheless suggestedthat the Earth needed a 'sunscreen,' purpose for which he had a specificmixture of metals and chemicals developed at National Livermore Laboratoriesfor the massive injection into the stratosphere to 'cool' the earth with a'sheet of superfine, reflective mesh,' the following questions / hypothesisarise for further, urgent investigation and research:

1. Is 'Solar Radiation Management' or 'Solar Radiance Engineering' -- supposedlydesigned to mitigate the effects of global warming -- a smokescreen for thegeneral world public behind which another objective is being pursued, that hasnothing to do with 'global warming'?

2. Has the massive blasting of metallicparticles into the stratosphere been designed to create and uphold a permanent'metallic shield' in the form of a 'superfine mesh' as suggested by Teller, tobuild the equivalent of a huge kind of 'Faraday Cage' over certainregions of the Earth in order to protect semiconductor technology from beingrendered useless by major, natural or man-made, nuclear and/or non-nuclear,electromagnetic pulse events?

3. Is the bringing-out and upholding of this superfine mesh of metallicparticles coupled with HAARP technologies, and if so, in which way?

4. Other than shielding technology,which military applications derive from a superfine mesh of metallic particlesin the stratosphere, that have electrically-conductive properties?

5. Considering that until now the vast part of experimental injection ofparticles into the stratosphere seems to have taken place above NATO countries(16), could it be derived from this that NATO is actively-preemptivelypreparing for nuclear or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse events?

6. Are we seeing version 2.0 of the Manhattan Project, this time entrusted withthe mission to develop a large-scale shield to fend off the devastating effectsof Electromagnetic Pulses, employing thousands of scientists, experts,technicians, military and civil personnel without them knowing what purposethey are working for, by keeping information deliberately fragmented andseparate?

[George B]

[George B]

Solar Shield--Protecting the North AmericanPower Grid

(http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...t_solarshield/)

A new NASA project called "SolarShield" could help keep the lights on.
"Solar Shield is a new and experimentalforecasting system for the North American power grid," explains projectleader Antti Pulkkinen, a Catholic University of America research associateworking at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe we can zero inon specific transformers and predict which of them are going to be hit hardestby a space weather event."

NASA's Solar Shield to ProtectPower Grids From Sun Storms
(http://www.space.com/9484-nasa-solar...un-storms.html)
by Nola Redd,SPACE.com Contributor
Date: 08November 2010 Time: 07:05 AM ET

NASA hasdevised a new tool in the battle against massive eruptions from the sun: anearly warning system to protect electrical grids on Earth from extremelypowerful solar storms.
The newproject, called Solar Shield, is designed to predict the severity of powerful sun storms at specific locations onEarth to help power companies plan responses and limit the potential damage totheir equipment.

[MikeC]

More George spam - solarshield is a tool for predicting trouble allowing potentially vulnerable parts of the network to be taken down voluntarily and avoid damage - nothing to do with mythical chemtrails -

That is why a node-by-node forecast of geomagnetic currents is potentially so valuable. During extreme storms, engineers could safeguard the most endangered transformers by disconnecting them from the grid. That itself could cause a blackout, but only temporarily. Transformers protected in this way would be available again for normal operations when the storm is over.

[Mick]

MICK, . . . how about a look at this . . . what do you think??

I think it's meaningless speculation based on no evidence, and several clearly false observations, such as:

Solar Radiation Management by 'injection of sulfate or other materials into the stratosphere' as proposed by the working agenda of the past Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies and as seen, photographed, filmed, documented, studied and analyzed during years by ordinary citizens, environmental activists, air traffic controllers, radar technicians, alternative journalists, meteorologists, chemists and physicians, has been occurring over North America and Europe since the nineties.

You know that is nonsense.

[firepilot]

I think it's meaningless speculation based on no evidence, and several clearly false observations, such as:



You know that is nonsense.

Of course, but when has George actually read his own sources? He has a propensity to absolutely not read his sources or to understand them. Now he posts a link of standard chemmie garbage boilerplate on a PR site, when he insists that he does not toe the standard chemmie line about contrails anyways.

[George B]

I was hoping someone would comment on the faraday cage concept since EMP from natural solar storms and human EMP weapons are a real threat to national security and the power grid. . .I have found no evidence on how this could work but find the concept fascinating. . . That is why I posted the above. . . I have had a hard time posting and editing because the server continues to "be too busy" and the "reply with quotes" does not work for me most of the time . . I run out of time to clearly represent my posts. . . .I have to hit and run. . . .

[Noble1965]

I was hoping someone would comment on the faraday cage concept since EMP from natural solar storms and human EMP weapons are a real threat to national security and the power grid. . .I have found no evidence on how this could work but find the concept fascinating. . . That is why I posted the above. . . I have had a hard time posting and editing because the server continues to "be too busy" and the "reply with quotes" does not work for me most of the time . . I run out of time to clearly represent my posts. . . .I have to hit and run. . . .

So, you are purposely posting things you don't believe, as part of your evidence that chemtrails are real?!

That IS fascinating!

[lee h oswald]

1. Wait, first you say a contrail is a cloud, and now you are saying they are different?

2. Engine exhaust contrails require the same momentary circumstances as clouds to form (RH > 100%), but they form at lower ambient humidities. Is that the difference you are referring to, or did you have something else in mind?

1. There you go 'misreading' what I wrote again. For a bright bloke you do it quite a lot. The list you refer to was to illustrate all the different names you use to describe what other people might call 'chemtrails'. And, if you read other stuff I've written then you'll understand that the issue people have is the behaviour of these trails (expansion to create artificial cloud cover), their relatively recent proliferation, the absence of any meaningful debate about it.

2. Did I have another difference between clouds and contrails in order to establish once and for all that contrails are not clouds? One might refer to a contrail as a cloud as one would a cloud of flys, or a cloud of smoke - neither of these is a cloud, strictly speaking. The word 'cloud' is used as a figure.
The main difference is this - one is an adiabatic cooling process, and the other is an adiabatic and isobaric mixing process. The important elements of contrail formation are the characteristics (temperature and RH) of the two air masses being mixed, and the pressure at which this happens. So it's not quite the same as for clouds. The commonality is phase changes of water. They are similar but distinct.

[George B]

So, you are purposely posting things you don't believe, as part of your evidence that chemtrails are real?!

That IS fascinating!

No, I research on my own I don't have the luxury to get input from others about sometimes difficult issues and concepts . . . I have not found much regarding this particular concept and was seeking some discussion . .

[lee h oswald]

I note how LHO's argument is no longer about whether chemtrails exist, but whether there are differences between aviation induced clouds and "natural" clouds.

I take some heart from this - LHO is now using science instead of hearsay - that is a great improvement.

As a result of that paradigm shift he also apparently believes that man-made global warming exists and that aviation pollution is part of the problem - as indicated by the science.

It is heartening to see that discussions on here can persuade people away from quasi-religious belief in chemtrail woo to actually examining and questioning scientific evidence.

Funnily enough Mike, I reckon you'd be a good bloke to have a beer with.

I answered your first statement just above. I don't know why you believe I've changed my position, I haven't at all. I don't know where I 'used' any 'hearsay'. I really don't have any religious or quasi-religious beliefs I'm aware of and if we had that beer you'd probably soon recognise that.. I think what's happening is that you are getting to understand my angle better (and I don't mean that in a snide way at all). Have a look at what I said back at the start:

Some anecdotal evidence: For the last three days, and nights - including today, which is Sunday, and Sunday is usually MUCH quieter in terms of air traffic (there are rules on this in my part of the world), the sky where I live has been completely obliterated by the spreading emissions of aircraft. Layer upon layer, on what started as a RELATIVELY blue sky has now removed all but the smallest trace of what could be called 'blue'. Set this against the data - again - I've done it here previously, but got an answer that the methods are not reliable - it's better to look at satellite images, so I've been told - so I've done both. I've done all this many times - you know: look outside, observe what is happening; look at the data, note it; look at the satellite, note it. This is quite scientific, isn't it? Taking readings, making observations, noting conditions and results - it's almost exactly like, er, science - or isn't it?? answers please.
Now, there's a location within twenty miles of where I live that, twice a day, collects radiosonde data - I didn't invent it, but it's one of the best tools we have for this purpose). The latest figures in the relevant altitude range go like this: at 8754m alt (28888ft) it reads -39.1deg C, the RH is 21%; at 11,960m (39470ft) temp is -62.3degC and the RH is 39%. This 39% represents the highest rh reading in the range of commercial aircraft operation - the average RH over this range, yes I have calculated it, is 28%. This does not converge with what is clear to anyone with eyes to see - the sky is completely covered with spreading aircraft emissions.
If, as you claim, this is down to the prevailing conditions (here not borne out by the data) coupled to the extra water vapour from more aircraft and their cooler engines, then surely it would be very easy for the meteorological people to predict when aircraft emissions are going to form cloud cover and then they would forecast it and that it's harmless and nothing to be concerned about etc. But, for some reason, er, they don't. Why do you think that is? Are clouds not relevant to the weather? Or its forecasting? Why do they say nothing about this? Don't worry, it's just harmless water vapour crystallizing at temperatures...etc etc. Three days of artificial cloud cover over my head and the met people say NOTHING. Why is that?

.......

So, to be taken seriously evidence must be logical, thought out, presented clearly and concisely (conciseness is not, actually, a requisite of a scientific argument, often quite the opposite - convoluted and complex are many theories: or am I wrong about that too?), be based on understood and interdependent laws of physics....hold on, so everything is physics? If I read your statement right, I think you'll find you're wrong - it appears to me there are many facets to this argument, among them are political, psychological, empirical, historical, economic, geographical, physical, theoretical...etc. Tell it to Galileo, forced to end his work by The Inquisition on pain of death. Science has been considered heresy when pushed too far ahead of the 'mainstream' curve: historical precedent, another facet to the argument.
There's some data, presented openly above - no doubt you'll find a fault in it that refutes the facts and reinforces your belief - which is what we are reduced to - belief.

I take heart as well that at least one of you is beginning to understand (a bit) what I'm saying.

[Mick]

1. There you go 'misreading' what I wrote again. For a bright bloke you do it quite a lot. The list you refer to was to illustrate all the different names you use to describe what other people might call 'chemtrails'. And, if you read other stuff I've written then you'll understand that the issue people have is the behaviour of these trails (expansion to create artificial cloud cover), their relatively recent proliferation, the absence of any meaningful debate about it.

Well, you concluded that list with "names for something that already has one: cloud.", so what was I misreading?

2. Did I have another difference between clouds and contrails in order to establish once and for all that contrails are not clouds? One might refer to a contrail as a cloud as one would a cloud of flys, or a cloud of smoke - neither of these is a cloud, strictly speaking. The word 'cloud' is used as a figure.

A contrail is a cloud of ice crystals, a cirrus cloud is a cloud of ice crystals. We are not talking about clouds of flies or sand. We are talking about clouds of the exact same substance.

The main difference is this - one is an adiabatic cooling process, and the other is an adiabatic and isobaric mixing process. The important elements of contrail formation are the characteristics (temperature and RH) of the two air masses being mixed, and the pressure at which this happens. So it's not quite the same as for clouds. The commonality is phase changes of water. They are similar but distinct.

(Explanation for anyone following: adiabatic cooling is reduction in temperature of a gas when its pressure drops. Simply put, as warm moist air rises, it's pressure drops with altitude, and so it cools. The same thing happens on a much faster and more violent scale with the hot moist air from jet exhaust. Isobaric mixing is just the mixing of two volumes of air at constant pressure. After the jet exhaust has expanded to match the ambient pressure, it continues to turbulently mix with the surrounding ambient air until it reaches the same ambient temperature and humidity. There's also isobaric cooling, which is when an air mass cools via radiation.)

Isobaric mixing is a part some natural cloud formation processes, mostly fog type clouds though. But anywhere there is turbulence (which is basically everywhere, to some degree) there will be some isobaric mixing.

But yes, they form differently. One is formed from the mixing humid air shot out the back of a jet engine at 5000 mph, at 3000 degrees. Obviously they differ in their initial circumstances. But the end result is about the same.

I'm really not sure what your problem is here? You just don't like the word "cloud" being used for contrails, because it's not official terminology? Fine, let's call them contrails. But what about aviation induced cloudiness? Is there no point at which the contrail cloud of ice crystals could now be considered a cloud cloud of ice crystals? Are you just complaining about terminology? What's your point?

[SR1419]

...surely it would be very easy for the meteorological people to predict when aircraft emissions are going to form cloud cover and then they would forecast it .

It would only as easy and successful as it is it make any weather forecast- which is to say not always accurate...

and yet "they" do make contrail forecasts...

http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-...=33&cmd=latest

It is possible that contrails are not part of typical weather forecasts because they just don't effect weather on the ground as much as say wind, temp, and precip do....predicting mostly sunny skies into hazy contrail cirrus isn't a large factor in most folks daily lives...only hyper observant folks who study the skies vigilantly

[Noble1965]

No, I research on my own I don't have the luxury to get input from others about sometimes difficult issues and concepts . . . I have not found much regarding this particular concept and was seeking some discussion . .

But..it has nothing to do with the thread though...right?

Please continue trying to explain why you think there is an "aerosol injection program"...THAT is fascinating.

[Noble1965]

hearsay...not heresy!

Cripes!

[MikeC]

Some anecdotal evidence:

Like I said - hearsay.

sorry to see you're backsliding already - oh well...perhaps it's part of a slow process.

[lee h oswald]

Like I said - hearsay.

sorry to see you're backsliding already - oh well...perhaps it's part of a slow process.

No - empiricism actually.

Backsliding? I've been consistent throughout, and just presented some evidence for that. It's your reading of the situation that's awry. And yes, your processing is slow.

[George B]

There is no evidence that the trails we see behind jet engines are "intentional".

But..it has nothing to do with the thread though...right?

Please continue trying to explain why you think there is an "aerosol injection program"...THAT is fascinating.

On the contrary, it is relevant. . . Metallic particulate and aerosols may be able to alter electromagnetic energy. . . For example chaff was used experimentally by the Forest service to limit lightning strikes and reduce forest fires. . . Chaff has been known to short out electronic grid ground components and weapons were developed and used in the gulf war to supress electrical generation stations . . .what if smaller nano particle size aluminum aerosols were injected into the stratosphere for dual purposes. . . Albedo effect and supressing EMP. . . I know about the albedo effect but don't know how it could scatter, dissipate or shield ground assets from natural or man made EMP . . .

[George B]

No - empiricism actually.

Backsliding? I've been consistent throughout, and just presented some evidence for that. It's your reading of the situation that's awry. And yes, your processing is slow.

lee h oswald . . . I think the clouds you are pointing out are significant and there has been zero superficial or practical mitigation process attempted . . . I ask the question . . . Why? What do you think? There is tons of research and papers on this issue . . . they don't even provide cameras so the flight crews would know they are leaving a persistent trail or a laser indicator for example . . . what would it hurt . . . ?

[George B]

No - empiricism actually.

Backsliding? I've been consistent throughout, and just presented some evidence for that. It's your reading of the situation that's awry. And yes, your processing is slow.

The new world . . . visual use of the 'clouds' as backdrops for ads . . .

[Noble1965]

On the contrary, it is relevant. . . Metallic particulate and aerosols may be able to alter electromagnetic energy. . . For example chaff was used experimentally by the Forest service to limit lightning strikes and reduce forest fires. . . Chaff has been known to short out electronic grid ground components and weapons were developed and used in the gulf war to supress electrical generation stations . . .what if smaller nano particle size aluminum aerosols were injected into the stratosphere for dual purposes. . . Albedo effect and supressing EMP. . . I know about the albedo effect but don't know how it could scatter, dissipate or shield ground assets from natural or man made EMP . . .

There is no evidence that there is any appreciable amount of "metal particles" associated with the the trails. Just that from friction...Nothing intentional.

Chaff has NOTHING to do with any trails....and isn't used all that often. Just during military exercises and during war time...even then, we have such an advantage, it's barely used.

Your "what ifs" don't interest me. I'm interested in what IS! There is no evidence that anything is being placed into the atmosphere for ANY "purpose"!~

You have an interesting imagination.

[George B]

There is no evidence that there is any appreciable amount of "metal particles" associated with the the trails. Just that from friction...Nothing intentional.

Chaff has NOTHING to do with any trails....and isn't used all that often. Just during military exercises and during war time...even then, we have such an advantage, it's barely used.

Your "what ifs" don't interest me. I'm interested in what IS! There is no evidence that anything is being placed into the atmosphere for ANY "purpose"!~

You have an interesting imagination.

So you don't think the power grid is vulnerable to catastrophic failure . . . ? You think our government has set on its hands for months and years without testing prevention or neutralization technologies? . . . the threat from human enemies is just as real as solar storms . . .

[Noble1965]

The new world . . . visual use of the 'clouds' as backdrops for ads . . .

Only because the add is pointing out a few conspiracy theories..

OMG!!! What's in the sprinklers!!!

Barium and aluminum?!?

[Noble1965]

So you don't think the power grid is vulnerable to catastrophic failure . . . ? You think our government has set on its hands for months and years without testing prevention or neutralization technologies? . . . the threat from human enemies is just as real as solar storms . . .

Where did I say that the "grid isn't vulnerable to catastrophic failure"?! Where did I write that "our government has set on its hands for months and years without testing prevention or neutralization technologies?"

What "threat" are you talking about that has anything to do with the trails in the sky?!~

Geez George...you sure are reaching today...and every other day...

[George B]

Where did I say that the "grid isn't vulnerable to catastrophic failure"?! Where did I write that "our government has set on its hands for months and years without testing prevention or neutralization technologies?"

What "threat" are you talking about that has anything to do with the trails in the sky?!~

Geez George...you sure are reaching today...and every other day...

You don't think an atmospheric solution (neutralization or dissipation) to a EMP surge is possible? or has been proposed or experimented with . . . ?

[SR1419]

The new world . . . visual use of the 'clouds' as backdrops for ads . . .

Same as the Old World:

http://contrailscience.com/twilight-zone-contrails/


and another:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49502995517@N01/433032511

[Noble1965]

You don't think an atmospheric solution (neutralization or dissipation) to a EMP surge is possible? or has been proposed or experimented with . . . ?

Again, I said nothing of the sort. Please stop putting words in my mouth (hand),

But, it is improbable...and unsupported with any evidence that it's actually occurring. Just because something is proposed/experimented with...doesn't mean it's implemented. Could you get back on topic and please provide evidence of an aerosol program?

[Noble1965]

Same as the Old World:

http://contrailscience.com/twilight-zone-contrails/

and another:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49502995517@N01/433032511

OMG! Chemtrails in 1959!!!! And 1962!!!!

[George B]

Same as the Old World:

http://contrailscience.com/twilight-zone-contrails/

and another:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49502995517@N01/433032511

http://www.1000pictures.com/aircraft/bomber/index.htm

B-52 North Pole - a B-52 bomber seen from high above as it flies over the North Pole which is lit from the side by winter sun. USAF picture by Kevin Bishop, 1024x768

Seems you just don't know when contrails are going to appear . . . but we now see them all the time . . . funny all these pictures of B1s and B52s in Alaska and North Pole and all and no contrails . . . except one set of wing tip vortices and one pale contrail in the distance on one . . .

[MikeC]

No - empiricism actually.

And that is not exclusive of hearsay.

Backsliding? I've been consistent throughout, and just presented some evidence for that.

And where did I say that you ahdnt' presented evidence??

I have pointed out your (temporary) increase in use of factual, verifiable evidence over hearsay evidence.

And then noted that you had returned to using hearsay.

So yeah - your backsliding from using verifiable evidence.

It's your reading of the situation that's awry. And yes, your processing is slow.

Ah...more backsliding - this time away from the subject and attacking the person.

Oh well.......I guess you're still the same ol' after all,.

Shame.

[Mick]

I'm thinking this thread is about done. George, I think we get that you are saying that if you connect all the dots, and add in your life experience, then you think there is something going on, maybe involving spraying.

But it's rather pointless having a thread that simply meanders across the chemtrail "evidence" space, with you simply pointing at each thing and saying maybe it means something, maybe not, but there sure are a lot of things.

Start a more focussed thread if you like. But this one is over.

[Mick]

Final posts please.

[Noble1965]

Final posts please.

Thanks for the opportunity. But, there is nothing I could write which would make any difference.

I think the thread ran it's course, and has accomplished as much as any other thread about "chemtrails" has, anywhere at any time.

[SR1419]

Alas- I have no summation...just tireless debunking and perspective giving

. . . but we now see them all the time . . . funny all these pictures of B1s and B52s in Alaska and North Pole and all and no contrails . . .

I did want to address this...I am sure you were exaggerating and/or it was a figure of speech- but is messaging of your beliefs and indication or your mind set- when in fact the statement is not even close to being true. I live in the one of the most heavily air trafficked parts of the world and I do not see contrails "all the time"....I literally go days and days without seeing any...and I am a diligent sky watcher and contrail spotter much to my GF's chagrin.



Also...not the north pole but here is a persistent ground contrail from a plane at the south pole- scroll to the 5:00 mark to see it take off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtISR1_OzSQ

[George B]

Final Summation:

1) Chemtrail Advocates feel they have something to say about the state of the world . . . that there are unexplained things being done without their knowledge, in secret, to accomplish things they may or may not agree with . . .

2) IMO these Advocates are correct . . . Why? . . . it is a combination of history, capability, opportunity, available technology, budget and motive. . .

3) Motive is the need for institutions and people in power to use technology, weapons, or countermeasures to gain power or defend against things feared for decades . . . a clear indication is the existence of treaties and laws passed years ago to try to limit such activities feared by Chemtrails advocates . . . i.e. the use of weather and/or climate modification as a weapon . . . or to protect the authorities from civil or criminal liability . . .

4) Covert operations by their nature make it difficult to collect evidence on, and proved or deduce procedure, process and technology . . By definition, if Chemtrails exist, they are a covert operation . . .

5) Empirical data is most difficult because we are dealing with . . .
a. the entire biosphere and atmosphere which has an almost infinite number of potential contamination sources . . .
b. the Advocates have no organization, budget, or significant scientific expertise to call on for assistance
c. no mainstream scientist would want their name associated with a Conspiracy group
d. there are pre-existing mainstream explanations for all the phenomenon Advocates could possibly collect to prove their point . . .

6) Many of the strategies Chemtrail Advocates point toward are strategies commonly discussed in Scientific Symposia, Research Papers, in the News, and in the public domain . . . the only question is . . . what of this scientific speculation . . . and has anyone acted on them in secrecy ??????

7) Finally, like many things in life . . . we survive by the use of intuition as well scientifically validated data . . . when one does not have data, one is forced to use circumstantial evidence, inference, intuition, and conditioning . . . it is a valid method . . . just not a method appreciated by the consensus of opinion on this Forum . . .

[Mick]

Alrighty. If anyone wants to address any of George's points from his diagrams and summation, I'd appreciate it if you could start a thread per-point, so we can maintain focus.

George's point that the weight of the evidence has convinced him, has been fully made here, I think.