Sorry Josh, I am not here for argument I want to know why and what is being sprayed around the world, as it is.

Supersaturation of the atmosphere is impossible and not a theory. Check the science.

It would seem you believe that water detection paste is not reliable and that all the airlines and aircraft flying the world airways are in imminent danger whenever they leave the ground. That is something that should be brought to the attention of all aviation authorities, civil, military and naval, immediately.

again josh chimes in with hereward who both hypocritically pretend they dont indulge in insult.. or “abuse”

they would rather debate insults than the topic, and close down the thread because they fear they are losing the argument.

such a pretentiously haughty display - not an insult, a statement of fact.

Wayne, have you not read any of my posts? I suggest you must have misunderstood the times I have written because noting I have written coincides with your “it isn’t being done” statement.

I doubt I will continue reading this forum as it seems to be about argument and not discussion nor debate. I think it is best for people to simply believe what they believe.

“Leonard Clampett was willing to involve himself in discussion on the basis of “it isn’t being done”.  Is he still, I wonder?

Anyway, I have had some communication from Robert M. Forgette, and although I have no intention of trying to involve him in the time-wasting sado-masochism of the discussion here, perhaps there is now some hope of light being shed on the psychology of Mike Glynn, who says that Robert will “vouch for” him.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 10 - 21:38:19
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.”

I found that insults often tend to come up if factual arguments are running out.

ummmm… what is you FACTUAL argument that chemtrails dont exist again?

ohhhhh ... thats right.. that under certain rae circumstances when conditions are conducive, contrails may linger..

in other words, you ran out before you began.

Again Josh, I did ask myself and I found that I disagree with the contention that chemtrails do not exist simply from my experience and observations over many decades of professional flying in a number of different countries and internationally. I have explained before that I doubt that commercial airline aircraft are used because as an engineer and pilot I can say without fear of intelligent dissent that engineers and pilots know their aircraft well enough to detect any extra plumbing that would have to be installed. Or at least I hope they do. I have retired from active flying but still hold my ATPL and First Class Medical Certificate for it and I still have all my faculties.

As for asking “Google” I believe that can be useful but not definitive.

“The chemistry of combustion is not a matter of opinion. Ask not just Michael Glynn, ask any professional jet pilot, chemistry teacher, atmospheric scientist. Ask Google, at least.”

Leonard Clampett,

I was not referring to chemtrails in my previous post. I was referring to your claim that no water is in a jet exhaust that was not there before in the intake air.

Michal Glynn, professional jet pilot, commented:

“The chemical equation given by Josh explains it all. Kerosene and ambient oxygen in=large amounts of water and CO2 out.”

See page 4 of comments, at the bottom, “2012 07 09 - 09:52:23”.
It’s obviously not my equation ...

Are you still insisting that there is no water produced by the combustion of fuel?

Leonard, I have read all your posts, though I admit to having been disoriented by your first post and your reference to “wild theories about contrails and “chemtrails” so that I did not know initially where you were coming from. I also found myself in disagreement with your later statement that civilian airliners would not or could not be implicated in spraying. My reference to your arguing on the basis of “it isn’t being done” should have been more expressed more precisely. 

What I should have said is that you don’t seem to want to talk about geoengineering, or any of the other actual or proposed applications of spraying of particulates from aircraft, unlike me, for I entered the discussion on the basis of the argument that “the last way to understand what one is seeing in the skies is to become implicated in the contrails vs chemtrails discussion”.  That, I said, is because “the purpose of the contrails vs chemtrail discussion is to determine whether geoengineering (or some other deliberate atmospheric modification) activity is in progress .  This subject has always interested me more and my focus has always been on geoengineering and the applications of particulate spraying, along with the underlying politics. Not the physical science of contrails/chemtrails, which I cannot argue about.

The discussion you wished to have was/is precisely that proposed by Hereward and Josh: i.e. whether there can be “persistent” and/or spreading controls. What you have to say on the subject of “persistent” chemtrails seems persuasive to me. But your presumed expertise has not enabled you to be any more effective than I have been in securing what should be due acknowledgement from Hereward and Josh. What has been in progress here has been a dialogue of the deaf, whoever involves themselves with it. And the final result has been the intrusion of activists threatening cyber-“violence”.

Perhaps it is these activists’ devotion to the fetish of “freedom of speech” that leaves them with no option other than anonymous threats. They are evidently not willing to say that “freedom of speech” should be drawn into question.
 

Wayne, you should endeavour to make your posts clear.

Your post did seem to claim that I was claiming that chemtrails were not real “on the basis of “it isn’t being done” which seemed to be saying that I did not believe chemtrails were for real. A little difficult to follow that rather bland statement. I note you have expressed that you should have expressed your point more precisely. Miscommunication causes many problems all the time. Geo-engineering can be the only reason for the chemtrails as far as I can see, and I do not believe for good purposes. The wild theories I wrote of are those unaccompanied by good science or observation.

I have never insisted that no water is produced by combustion as I have made it clear how I understand combustion causes contrails. I presume you are using produced meaning to bring forth or yield. The very evidence of the making of contrails contradicts the claims about “contrails “spreading and manufacturing cloud quite simply because if there was more water than is contained in the air passing through the engine, tonnes and tonnes from one aircraft I recall reading in one post, it would certainly create large contrails rather than the thin wispy trails we see on any winter day as the upper atmosphere rarely has greater than about 70% humidity and is therefore relatively dry. There can never be more than 100% humidity in the atmosphere anyway, so those claims of supersaturation can be sorted and tossed out early.

Exhaust emissions are the same whether at ground level or high altitude because engines are manipulated, these days by computers, to produce required power at best and optimum performance for all settings under all conditions. For those who believe that there is water produced from the actual high temperature combustion process (about 700 degrees Celsius at ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature)), that is more than is contained in the intake air, I suggest talking to engineers who run jet engine test cells and ask how much water is emitted during their testing. It would be an experiment to capture the emissions and cool them to see how much water condenses out of it. Interesting. In addition it begs the question as to why we inject water methanol into the engine intake, on some aircraft, during take-off if there is water in the fuel.

Thanks for the exchange. I will sign off now as I have not been able to see anything of worth coming from this forum and argument has never achieved anything worthwhile. Only discussion will do that.

i doubt the original post was meant to provoke anything other than controversy. the blatant insulting bias was a deliberate attempt to do nothing else but generate advertising hits. ( i dont get ads.. )

this dog and pony blog struggles for relevancy and credibility with its blatant misinformation, censorship and dictatorial hypocritical nonsensical administration.. 

threatening to close the thread? lol..  you wont… youre scared!

whatcha gonna do hereward? close ALL the threads?

i appreciate the informed sensible input from different views of wayne and leonard, ive learnt a few things.. im sure if you could trust fenton with an honest vote and a poll here, the consensus would show its not unreasonable to wonder why the skies appear as they do, and to seek legitimate answers..

for myself, as a layman, i can simply call things as i see them, joshs disingenuous hall monitor annoying attitude will get from me the disrespect it deserves..

herewards censorship will result in a repeat post, which simply brings the deleted post back to prominence again.. i can play that game as long as he wants.. his pathetic threats to continue to taunt me are as laughable as this whole site having anything to do with truth.

as for cyber violence.. i appreciate that as well.. because dishonesty and blatant BS should be called out for what it is.. and for the lulz..

mike glynn… the paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks hes going to be taken out the air by some chemtrail alarmist-thug-brownshirt-fascist-blah-blah-blah.. with what? a rocket propelled boomerang? - otherwise known as the conspiracy within a conspiracy..

does quantas know such nutters are flying their planes?

none of them can offer any proof of anything they say.. 

they will call this post insulting, and abusive, simply because im critical and disagree..

it will most likely be deleted a few times, and my ip blocked again… for the umpteenth time.. 

so be it.

“documents prove that an unsuspecting public was indeed used in chemical experiments during the 1950s and 60s.  These documents disclosed experiments of chemical spraying from airplanes over several cities including Corpus Christi, Texas and fogging disbursement of chemicals targeted at Pruit-Igoe, a low cost housing project with over 10,000 occupants in St. Louis, Missouri. The government’s cover story for the experiments was using as fog as cover against communist air attack”
http://www.policymic.com/articles/18974/more-reasons-to-distrust-government-and-the-mainstream-media

http://millvalley.patch.com/articles/photo-weird-contrails-over-mill-valley#photo-12157350

Leonard Clampett said:

“I have never insisted that no water is produced by combustion.”

You keep talking about water that is contained in tiny amounts in the fuel before combustion. That’s not relevant, as aren’t the water tests for fuel. The fuel is good enough as it is.

The water in the exhaust is produced from the Hydrogen in the fuel molecules and the Oxygen from the intake air.

“the only moisture emitted from an exhaust came from the intake air and minuscule amounts of hydrogen.”

Still a miss.

The molecule mass of water is around 18 g/mol. The molecule mass of kerosene (idealized) is a little over 170 g/mol. In the combustion equation we have two kerosene in, 26 water out. The mass equivalent:

2 x 170 = 340 in, 26 * 18 = 468 out. Or 1 ton in, 1.37 tons out.

So for every ton of kerosene, 1.37 tons of water are produced. This is anything but minuscule.

I have used this molecule mass calculator:
http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/molecular/molecular-weight-calculator.htm

still have nothing to show there has never been, or there are no geoengineering programs josh, still have nothing to show there is no such thing as aerosols ever being sprayed .. still have nothing except your stupid assertion that there can be no such thing as chemtrails, because sometimes, rarely, when conditions are conducive, contrails may sometimes linger.

are you just pretending to be so stupid as to believe you can win an argument on that basis, or are you really that stupid..

youre saying theres no such thing as chemtrails. put up or shut up.

Skywatcher said:

“youre saying theres no such thing as chemtrails”

There is no evidence that any contrail is a chemtrail. As far as I know, no sample was ever taken from a trail for analysis by chemtrail promoters.

Atmospheric science explains contrails and their variations.

theres plenty of evidence of spraying activity you gormless liar.

you say theres no such thing as as chemtrails. saying that contrails exist is not evidence against chemtrails you supercilious lumpen

put up or shut up.

Last Sunday in Athens we took an interview with the Cyriot Green parliamentarian Perdikis who made the point that under the precautionary principle the onus of proof is on those who say that chemtrails don’t exist, not on those who say that chemtrails exist.

The Cypriot Greens managed to get their government to carry out tests on the content of the spraying, but they haven’t managed to get them to reveal the results.

to pretend there is nothing to be concerned about, you have to be a deceitful bastard, ( as in keep the bastards honest )or an utter moron.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/g/chemtrails

Skywatcher said:

“theres plenty of evidence of spraying activity [insult]”

Let’s look at the evidence brought forward by the ‘main’ posters in this thread:

Skywatcher’s evidence is that persistant contrail conditions are “relatively rare”, so most lingering trails must be something else. Observations and measurements are suggesting that this is not so.

Leonard Clampett’s evidence is that according to the laws of physics there can be no persistant contrail at all. He refuses to take important factors into account.

Phoenix man’s evidence seems to boil down to “bizarre and inconsistent flight paths”. It is yet unknown what that means. A pilot or an ATC operator will probably have a different view about these categories - we just don’t know.

Wayne Hall’s evidence is unknown.

A lot of circumstantial evidence was brought up in the discussion:

- Historical events showing careless or evil actions by governments and the military.

- Discussion about possible measures to counter global heating

- Patents about anything that may be related to the two previous points

- Alleged increase of certain chemical elements on the ground

None of these would convince an unbiased judge or scientist; the relation to jet trails is just an assumption.

For now, the evidence is not good enough. I don’t say this will always be the case. Every new piece brought up will have to undergo scrutiny though.

dickhead says

contrails exist, so chemtrails dont.

put up or shut up idiot.

I asked the self-appointed judge Josh Jackson to consider asking the ETC group whether they thought the moratorium on large-scale geoengineering projects (including solar radiation management)they managed to persuade the UN’s Conference on Biodiversity to pass at Nagoya in 2010 was being implemented or not.

He declined to do this, because the only argument he is equipped to handle is the contrails/chemtrails argument. He had someone willing to discuss with him on this basis, but has driven him away. Congratulations, because that is what is desired.

It is not difficult to talk to Pat Mooney on the telephone. I did so last night. I didn’t ask him the question I have invited Josh to ask him, because I am afraid that his answer might not be what I would like to hear.

Mooney is a compromised person, a “realpolitiker” who is playing a game that might help to break the deadlock that the divide-and-rule strategy of the other side has entrapped us in but which many chemtrails activists are not prepared to try to understand or forgive. Maria Heibel has taken a lot of censure from chemtrails activists for taking this interview from Mooney, given some of the things that he says.

A self-confident Josh would brandish Mooney in my face as evidence for his own, and the debunkers’, viewpoint. But it might also get him onto uncertain territory where all the parameters are not predicted and taken into account by himself and his debunker mates.

Take a look at the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JXNRB8NxD7o

“theres plenty of evidence of spraying activity [fact] you gormless liar”

Let’s look at the evidence brought forward by the ‘main’ posters in this thread:

Skywatcher’s evidence is that persistant contrail conditions are “relatively rare”, so most lingering trails must be something else. Observations and measurements are suggesting that this is not so.

pure unadulterated baseless bullshit

Leonard Clampett’s evidence is that according to the laws of physics there can be no persistant contrail at all. He refuses to take important factors into account.

Wayne Hall’s evidence is unknown.


your comprehension issues are your own problem

A lot of circumstantial evidence was brought up in the discussion:

- Historical events showing careless or evil actions by governments and the military. not circumstantial, documented proven admitted

- Discussion about possible measures to counter global heating

- Patents about anything that may be related to the two previous points - showing intent and means for fools like yourself

- Alleged increase of certain chemical elements on the ground

not alleged

None of these would convince an unbiased judge or scientist; the relation to jet trails is just an assumption.

your the one supporting the point of the article.. you and fenton say there is no such thing as chemtrails, on the basis that contrails exist.. wouldnt convince the local drunk on that evidence

put up or shut up..

who you trying to fool besides yourself.. you8 stupid smarmy pretentious hypocritical lying disingenuous turdeater