A conspiracy is not needed here. Yes, it’s about science and reason.
By Josh on 2012 06 04 - 07:04:22

Josh, Yes, science and reason. Further down you convince me of either your delinquency or attempt to be a disinformationist. Either way you fail. Let me explain in simple terms. Weather balloons cannot report Dew Point because they use unsophisticated Sonde instruments that do not record wet and dry bulb temperatures. They would need to differentiate between the two as they ascend at quite a rate. Go to an airport and watch them as they rapidly ascend to altitudes. Pressure and temperature must be combined with moisture content to determine humidity unless, as at ground level, you have a wet bulb and a dry bulb thermometer to determine the difference. It is the interpretation, by weather forecasters, of the data returned that estimates humidity in the upper levels. Weather forecasting is an art not a complete science and that is why it is called forecasting, because it is based upon interpretation, expectation and estimation.

I suggest that you should not argue when you have no facts. The direction of the chemtrails from our home is directly to the east not the west. The sun rises every morning over the house directly across the street in the photograph. You could not possibly correctly estimate the direction as you can see by the shadow that the sun was directly overhead. The chemtrail aircraft passed by about twenty minutes prior to the photographs being taken and were from approximately east of north heading west of south. Moreton Bay does not even come into the picture here. If you check the Instrument Navigation Charts for the immediate Brisbane area you will see there are no airways using that azimuth.

Another suggestion I offer is that you should not try to make such definite statements as though you know and are trying to advise or teach. Does not do much for your image. My opinions stand as I was on the spot old son.

Leonard Clampett said:

“The calculations for upper air humidity are done by weather forecasters”

Weather balloons are reporting back the dew point depending on altitude (pressure level). They show how variable the humidity can be in the atmosphere - without any visible indications.

Consider the Skew-T diagram created by the balloon launched from Brisbane airport, around the time you took the photos:
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=pac&TYPE=GIF:SKEWT&YEAR=2012&MONTH=11&FROM=2700&TO=2700&STNM=94578&REPLOT=1

The left graph line indicates the dew point, with quite extreme jumps.

Note that these are not the conditions that your contrails met. I estimate the distance from your place to Brisbane airport to be around 7 miles. You observed them in this direction (roughly to the west), so according to my previous post their position must have been over the open sea, even beyond Moreton Island.

This is at least 25 miles from the balloon launch, and they were probably created hours before.

The problem with the balloon sounding is that they are retrieving but one single local probe in the complex and variable vastness of the atmosphere.

They can give us a glimpse of this complexity though which should caution us to trust our limited senses too far.

Leonard Clampett said:

“If the chemtrail had been at the altitude you would like it to be we would not have been able to see the detail of it which, as you should know, will never show up in a photograph except in a close-up.”

If this is the base of your altitude estimate, it is not very convincing, don’t you think so?

The amount of visible details of any object depends on its size as well as its distance.

As you say, the altitude of the contrail could have been 70000 ft or anything else. Why not 30000 ft?

Leonard Clampett said:

“Weather balloons cannot report Dew Point”

Would you believe me after looking at the textual representation of the graph?
Brisbane soundings 2012-11-27 00:00h UTC

See the fourth column.

Leonard Clampett also said:

“The direction of the chemtrails from our home is directly to the east not the west”

You are correct, I confused East and West. Apart from that, the logic stands unchanged. If the contrails were at normal trail altitude (on or above 30000 ft), their distance from your spot was at or above 35 miles.
If they were on 10000 ft, their distance would have been a third, roughly 12 miles.

So it all boils down to their actual altitude, which can hardly be determined reliably by the level of details visible to an observer ...

Leonard, I have looked at your chemtrails photos and I can see absolutely nothing in those photos that supports your bald assertion that they are at a height of 10,000 feet.

I also note that you dodged Josh’s critique with nonsense statements like this:

Your opinion here seems not likely to mean much as you were most certainly not on the spot.

So, let me get this straight.. according to you anyone who was “not on the spot” is not qualified to have an opinion?

If so, then why do you maintain the pretence of a debate?

Is this just the coinage of your brain?

Hereward,

The first casualty of war is truth. It seems that the first casualty on this web-site is also truth. My “bald” assertion, as you term it, came from our observations on-the-spot and experience over some 50 years on my part. Whereas Josh made some claims from a web-site that does give some clues about triangulation, but also points out that to find altitude from an angle above an horizon you must also know the distance to the object of your scrutiny. Josh simply took a guess and claimed that the chemtrails in the photographs were at 30,000 feet with no substantive evidence on his part save perhaps information from a, perhaps somewhat dubious, web-site. There are three parts to the equation, and from two your can find the third. From Josh’s own words his estimate could have been that the chemtrails were at any altitude on a line to infinity. Not knowing the altitude, as he was not here where we saw the detail of the clarity of the chemtrail and were able to closely estimate its altitude from the reality of it, and the distance to it being a few suburbs away, clearly Josh was not able to estimate the altitude at all except by his view of the images. As you should know, to give clarity in a photograph one would have to use a telephoto lens which would put the veracity of the image in question, so a simple digital camera with wide-angle was used to approximate actuality. Results are far better from observation and experience than from sitting at a computer “researching” on the Internet and pretending to be an “expert” on a matter.

Here we can see where Josh got his “estimate” of the altitude of the chemtrails in my photographs.

**********************************************************************
http://contrailscience.com/how-far-away-is-that-contrail/
Contrails typically form above 30,000 feet, or around six to eight miles straight up. It’s quite hard to judge exactly how high it is, unless you know what type of plane it is. But assuming six miles is a pretty safe bet.

So if we assume it’s at least six miles above the ground, then all we need to do to find out how far away it is is to measure the angle of elevation. It’s quite a common child’s math problem, but usually applied the other way around, to measure the height of things if we know how far away they are.
**********************************************************************

Common child’s math problems. Really? Notice the assumptions made? The site then goes on to describe how you can use plane trigonometry to discover the altitude of the object. Why, if you and Josh are to be pedantic about this matter, do you not use spherical trigonometry, instead of plane trigonometry or simple goniometry, unless of course you belong to the Flat Earth Society, to be absolutely accurate? Apart from that, the author is quite wrong in claiming that 6 miles equates to 30,000 feet because 6 miles is 36,480 feet and 30,000 feet is 4.93 miles and I would have thought that to set up a web-site claiming to educate people it would be a good idea to get details right prior to publishing.

Further;
**********************************************************************
To measure the height …
So it’s a real simple bit of maths, height = distance * tan(angle).

But of course if you know the height, then you can calculate the distance = height * (1 / tan(angle)).

Now most planes leaving contrails cruise at between 30,000 and 45,000. 6 miles is 30,000 feet, so it’s a pretty safe assumption that any contrail you see is at 6 miles or above. So for the purposes of calculating the distance, let’s just assume it’s six miles high. At worst we will underestimate. Here’s what the figures work out as for various angles from the horizon:........
**********************************************************************

Now the constant assertions that contrails are usually formed at above 30,000 feet tells us that chemtrails that are laid at altitudes as low are 10,000 feet cannot be contrails. Why the insistence by many that the laws of thermodynamics are terribly flexible beyond belief is really quite puzzling.

For Josh, the chemtrails in question, at about 10 degrees above the horizon, at 10,000 feet in altitude, work out to be 9.32 nautical miles (17.16 kilometres) away to the East.

A couple of questions for you Hereward. What altitude do you think the chemtrails are in my photographs, and is your agenda to discover the truth or just attempt to debunk the chemtrail claims?

A simple question, if you were at the South Pole, at any time of a year, with only a magnetic compass, and had to go to Sydney, Australia, which way would you head?

And to think that I thought this blog was about “truth” news.

For some strange reason I received the following from the webmaster but cannot see it on the blog. Just to quickly answer before I rush out to paint the town red. Firstly, th clouds “developing” as you claim were minor and dissipated within less than an hour after the chemtrails were sprayed.

As weather observers we do make judgements regardless of whether or not you think it possible.

What I said was nobody operates in controlled airspace without a clearance from Air Traffic Control to do so, and as you appear not to have any training, qualifications or experience in aviating, you would not know the severe penalties for breaching controlled airspace. And I can tell by looking at an aircraft flying in controlled airspace if it is there and it would have to have a clearance to be there so you must be saying, and it must be, that it is operating, as it sprays a chemtrail, with the sanction of a government agency namely CASA the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

For further detail you can look up the TAC (Terminal Area Chart) for the Brisbane terminal area and note that there is only one published inbound track to the Brisbane VOR from just east of north and it is from Honiara with the inbound track being 190 degrees magnetic, or the 010 radial of Brisbane VOR and the inbound jets from Honiara terminate at Brisbane and do not overfly to the Laravale VOR on the outbound 183 radial of the Brisbane VOR. The aircraft, two of, which laid the chemtrails in my photographs came from the NNE and flew outbound SSW.

Chemtrails, and at 10,000 feet, yes, no doubt in my mind because they could not have been contrails.

Responses have been added to the entry you subscribed to at: TNA News

The title of the entry is:
Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?

You can see the comments at the following URL:
http://www.truthnews.com.au/news/story/contrails_dissipate_quickly_whereas_chemtrails_linger/

Leonard Clampett said:

“with the otherwise clear blue sky and low humidity there was no contrail (condensation trail) and most certainly no ability for a contrail to be voluminous and last for many kilometres across the sky”

I don’t think it’s possible to make that judgement just by looking.
Under the conditions of that moment, Cumulus clouds (also from condensation) were developing.

It may be possible to make a good guess about the base of Cumulus clouds because we know how they are supposed to look and because the shadows on their surface are clearly defining their shape.

The same can’t be said about Cirrus clouds or contrails, no matter the amount of experience. A contrail may seem low if it has spread considerably.
In fact, the process of spreading itself may appear like “sinking”, because size increase is associated with “coming closer” in our mind.

You said:
“nobody, neither civil or military, can operate in controlled airspace”

Except planes that have gotten permission to do so and are under ATC control. Again, you can’t tell by just looking.

Josh, you should note that I did not write what you claim i.e.

“As you say, the altitude of the contrail could have been 70000 ft or anything else. Why not 30000 ft?” By Josh on 2012 11 29 - 20:10:57

I wrote the question I asked you below and did not say that the chemtrail could have been at 70,000 feet. Note the question mark which is indicative of a question asked of you, not a statement. You should at least read what you comment upon.

“We were three observers. It seems that, according to the web-site you mentioned, the chemtrail could have been at any point along the infinity line at an altitude corresponding. So, could it have been at 70,000 feet? Detail does not show at distance.”

I relly believe that this blog is only for the purpose of carrying on argument and not searching for any truth.

Leonard, your whole argument about the altitude of the contrail seems to boil down to these assertions:

1) you have 50 years experience observing contrails
2) your on the spot observation overrides the photographic evidence

Now, the first assertion is just an appeal to authority and as such is a classical logical fallacy - so I will disregard it immediately. (More information on logical fallacies can be found here).

As for the 2nd assertion, first you advanced a photo as evidence for your case, then, when that evidence did not stand up to scrutiny, you “moved the goal posts” by claiming that your “on-the-spot” observations supercede the photographic evidence:

...we saw the detail of the clarity of the chemtrail and were able to closely estimate its altitude from the reality of it, and the distance to it being a few suburbs away.

I think you’re playing games Leonard. You seem quite intelligent. I think you know what you’re doing. It’s pretty low.

I note for the record and for readers to this page that you have flatly refused to come on my show to debate this topic.

Leonard Clampett said:

“Josh simply took a guess and claimed that the chemtrails in the photographs were at 30,000 feet with no substantive evidence on his part”

You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post.

I did not claim a certain altitude. I was referring to your assumption that these trails were directly over Brisbane airport.

Now, the likelyhood of a contrail forming below 30000 ft or so is very low. So if one accepts the fact that these were normal contrails (I understand very well that you don’t), the minimum horizontal distance to the observer can be calculated.

You on the other hand have made the claim that the trails were definitely at 10000 feet. Your evidence is “level of visible details”.

Again, the amount of visible details of any object depends on its size as well as its distance.

You will need a better argument why you are assuming the unlikely over the likely.

As to your 50 years of experience, allow me the remark that you may have missed some of the more recent steps of progress in science and technology.
Are you still insisting that there is no such thing as supersaturation
or dew point reporting from radio sondes?

Leonard Clampett said:

“as you appear not to have any training, qualifications or experience in aviating, you would not know the severe penalties for breaching controlled airspace.”

I have a glider licence and I’m working on the one for TMG. I have done the same meteorology and air traffic rules exams as my fellow powered pilots.

But this is beside the point. Even at 10000 feet, you may get permission to cross an airport area if you ask. It’s up to the controller.
At 30000 feet, you are always in controlled airspace, as you certainly know.

Anyway, all your reasoning is based on your altitude estimation:

You insist you could tell the trails were on 10000 feet, ergo they must have been chemical spraying, ergo they were in the airspace above Brisbane airport, ergo they were sprayed with consent of whatever authority.

What do you think was the altitude of the Cirrocumulus clouds visible close to the upper right edge of your third picture?

Hereward Fenton, Hereward Fenton, Hereward Fenton, and Josh anonymous,

Take a look at the following video, but I strongly suggest that you don’t if you think a few facts will get in the way of the “truth” as you see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xx-STEA-Vqo&noredirect=1

Hereward, you may remove my log-in details as I see no point in attempting to converse with people who are unable to discuss and have an agenda only to try to debunk something that has been occurring since the 1960’s.

Have a great time sitting at your computers pretending to be “experts”  on a subject about which you have had no experience.

You have exposed yourself Hereward Fenton, as wanting to be exactly the same as mainstream media. No matter who makes any claim of any kind, there are always those who will disagree, and there will always be those like yourselves, who are unable to let go of their belief and accept what is real, even when it is before your very eyes.

Josh anonymous, having done the meteorology examination (although I note you don’t claim to have passed it) equal to a Private Pilot Licence, come back and try a discussion after you have done both Commercial and Airline Transport meteorology examinations. Then you will be able to say you have learned something.

Hereward Fenton, I would not be party to your “show”, as that is what it is for, just a show, and your intent is obviously to attempt to maintain your claim that there are no chemtrails being sprayed across the globe, as they have been for over 40 years, and appears to outsiders to be a stunt for whatever purpose you have in mind. That is not called debate or even discussion. It is a deceitful act of pretence.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I note for the record and for readers to this page that you have flatly refused to come on my show to debate this topic.

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 01 - 17:19:43
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Leonard Clampett said:

“Take a look at the following video, but I strongly suggest that you don’t if you think a few facts will get in the way of the ‘truth’ as you see it.”

This video has already been debunked, I won’t start all over again:
Thread at the Metabunk forum

You also said:

“there will always be those like yourselves, who are unable to let go of their belief and accept what is real, even when it is before your very eyes.”

I am accepting what is real.

The atmospheric soundings retrieved with weather balloons are real.
They show that the variability of the atmospheric humidity is real.

It’s real that one tonne of jet fuel generates 1.3 tonnes of water when burned.

Supersaturation is a reality and can cause persisting contrails even without other clouds present. Real scientists don’t have any doubt about this.

It does not require any belief to accept persistant contrails with all their varying appearances as normal and part of the reality.

On the other hand: someone claiming that all these things are not real can be expected to provide some very convincing evidence.
Otherwise it’s indeed just a matter of belief.

Josh Anonymous, Verily forsooth, gadzooks and odd bodkins, see what my good friend came across after perusing the faux web-site “Truth News”.

Truth News Australia
@truthnewsoz
Boldly venturing beyond the spin, deception and propaganda of mainstream media.
Sydney · http://www.truthnews.com.au

After getting that I just had to return to see whatever else you and Hereward are offering to the viewers as entertainment today. I can’t pass up the chance of a good laugh at any time and that was funnier than the day that granny got her rather ample backside jammed in the seat of the old long drop dunny, but talk of long drops probably goes back too far for you two to even know about.

As you and Hereward consider yourselves to above others in your self aggrandised knowledge platform, and as neither of you seem to have ventured into the upper atmosphere, let alone the real world of actual reporting of truth, pray tell, which of the authors-unknown-to-you web-sites have attempted in vain to debunk the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=78rKNoR4T0w

Just a snippet, a tad, of information for you and Hereward. A discussion between myself and some other pilots, all of who would have personally spent more time in the air, at the controls, than you have been breathing, according to your self claimed offerings, resolved that the pair of you are either simply pushing your misconceived beliefs or are practising disinformationists, but the general consensus is that you would not be clever enough to be disinformationists so you must be simple and clinging to your ill-informed beliefs.

As to aircraft operating in controlled airspace sans a clearance, note that the culprit aircraft are not visible to the local area radar except perhaps as a small indiscernible blip because they are not operating transponders. This also means that none of the aircraft concerned could be properly utilising their TCAS and only visual flight could save them from a collision. TCAS being the on-board Collision Avoidance System. Air Safety par excellence, oui?

Note in the video, about the 6 minute mark, that a couple of the chemtrail spraying aircraft are not emitting anything from the engine exhausts, but the spraying is clear to see.

Just some info for you pair regarding the Brisbane chemtrail spraying operation shown in my photographs. The Brisbane International Airport Control Zone extends from ground level to 3,500 feet. From the boundary of that Zone to 12 nautical miles the controlled airspace limits are 1,000 feet to FL200 (Flight Level 200 which is 20,000 feet above the altimeter setting of 1013.2 Mb/hPa - Millibars/Hectopascals). From 12 nautical miles to 15 nautical miles the limits are 2,000 feet to FL200. From 15 nautical miles to 30 nautical miles the limits are 4,500 to FL200, all based on the BIA (Brisbane International Airport) reference point. Our home at Enoggera is within 10 nautical miles of the BIA and regardless of your thoughts, from your geographical location, wherever you hide it, about the location of the chemtrails shown in my photographs, the facts are clear and laid down. Until you come up with something concrete that demonstrates that there is no chemtrail spraying across the globe, the evidence stands as fact as non-rebuttal is silence, and silence is consent.

Hereward and Josh. And now for something different, the bullshit surrounding 9-11. I remember posting this back in about 2002 and it has popped up on a web-site after a search. I wonder if you two apply the same critical criterion to the 9-11 events as you do to chemtrails, or do you agree with the corrupt US Administration as well on this?

Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

The Communications Officer
IFALPA

Dear Sir,

Having retired for some few years, and with time on my hands, I have
been trying to unravel the events of September 11 2001.

Most intriguing of all is the claims regarding American Airlines flight 77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon building.

An examination of the photographs released by the authorities, taken by a security camera outside the pentagon, allegedly showing an aircraft approaching and hitting the building, appear to have been manipulated with regard to the time frame.

The claimed aircraft in the first photograph is most certainly not a
large civil airline aircraft but appears to be more like a cruise
missile.

The authorities claim that the four photographs released were taken
4/100ths of a second apart.

The problem with that claim is that if it were so, the four photographs would show only the approach and not the collision because the aircraft concerned could not have moved far enough in 4/100ths of a second to hit the building.

Given the following;

Boeing 757 is 155 feet long and 44 feet high at the top of the
tailplane.

Assume 450 knots. If the aircraft appeared in the first photograph, then it would advanced 30.4 feet, or about 1/5th of the length of the
fuselage, in 4/100ths of a second. There would have been no explosion as the aircraft would not have reached the building by that time.

450 knots by 6080 feet divided by 60 minutes divided by 60 seconds
divided by 100 by 4/100ths equals 30.4 feet traveled in 4/100ths of a
second. i.e. approximately 1/5th of the length of the fuselage.
At 550 knots the aircraft would have advanced 37.15 feet and
at 650 knots would have advanced 43.91 feet.

At any of the above speeds the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon between the first and fourth photographs. Even a subsonic missile could not have reached the building in that time and if it was a missile at supersonic speed the sonic boom would have been heard by all in the vicinity.

The time recorded for the photographs is nowhere near 9 am local time of the alleged event.

The aircraft would not have been a blur on the film it would have loomed large.

The wreckage shown as claimed to have come from the 757 appears to be
either an engine cowl or large fairing of some kind from a much smaller craft, perhaps a cruise missile. Indeed the blur in the first photograph looks suspiciously like a cruise missile in shape.

According to the measurements shown on the site the tail of a 757, at 44 feet, would have been about two thirds of the way up the building, 71 feet, in aspect.

There would have been identifiable wreckage at the crash site regardless of the intensity of the fire. An aircraft hitting a mountain in cruise always leaves wreckage, particularly from the empennage (tail section) and that is why the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) are mounted in that area. There would have been less longitudinal compression of the wreckage (if you can find it, and in 35 years in the aviation industry, and seeing numerous crash sites, I have never heard of an aircraft completely dissolving following a crash) in comparison to hitting a mountain as mountains are scandalously solid compared to man-made structures like concrete buildings.

Has American Airlines confirmed conclusively that they lost two aircraft on that day?

Has the FDR or CVR from American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 been recovered?

What were the serial numbers and registration designations of the four
crashed aircraft?

Does Boeing throw any light on the subject of the four aircraft as to
their serial numbers?

Which insurance company/ies paid out on the hull of AA 77?

Is it proven that four aircraft crashed or went missing on September 11 2001?

Did two flight crews from each of American Airlines and United Airlines die that day?

What were their names? The pilots/flight attendants unions should be
able to confirm this.

Has anybody confirmed the existence of the American Airlines aircraft
that has been reported sitting at an airport in Manitoba since early
September, under heavy US military guard?

Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (Retired)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[020320]

I have been reading a few postings with interest.
Some of a few facts that have been missing from a lot of these
discussions is that, for instance in the Pentagon matter, should a
number of things happen in a 757, certain other things happen
automatically.

In all civil Transport Category aircraft, whenever the aircraft is put
into certain configurations, all kinds of warning and override systems
operate. These are mandatory requirements and all checked pre-flight
before every flight to ensure their operation. This is why civil
aviation has such a high safety standard and performance.
Fly too slow without flap and leading edge high-lift devices extended or with the landing gear retracted and the computer system will advance the thrust levers to ensure the aircraft maintains sufficient flying speed.
Fly too low without having the aircraft in the landing configuration
(i.e. gear and flaps down) and the Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.
One problem with the theories of the control of the aircraft being taken over by external sources, such as in “Global Hawk”, is that pilots are trained to deal with all probable emergencies and have various ways in which they can disable electrical systems and/or redirect power supplies by pulling circuit breakers and fuses. Loss of control over flight management systems is a probable emergency pilots are trained for. I seriously doubt that an aircraft would be approved to fly if the crew could not maintain on-board control of the aircraft in the event of electrical system/computer malfunction except in extreme circumstances such as complete loss of all electrical and hydraulic power. If an external source took control it would have to do so through the aircraft’s own systems and the pilots would know their systems were still capable of operation and could isolate the problem.
Most pilots are critical analysts who realize they may have to deal with very unusual circumstances at some time, and know their aircraft systems back to front so they can take care of such events.
A pilot without many years of experience on a type will not know the
minor intricacies of how to deal with system problems.
Flying a 757 at high speed close enough to the ground to collide with
the Pentagon building, without knowing how to disable the aircraft
systems, is quite laughable. To do it and hit the building with any
accuracy would take a pilot trained on and experienced on the type. 300 tonnes of inertia has to be controlled in anticipation, at high speed.
In the WTC events the only system that would warn of the approaching
towers would be the GPWS and that could be disabled with the pulling of a circuit breaker. The pilots may not have bothered disabling it because it would have only sounded for a few seconds at the most just prior to collision. The aircraft would otherwise be in normal flight according to the systems, flying straight and level or manoeuvring at high speed.
Amateur pilots hitting the WTC? Possible. Amateur pilots flying a 757 at high speed into the Pentagon building? Not likely and highly improbable.

Leonard W. Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (retired)
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Leonard, you said:

Until you come up with something concrete that demonstrates that there is no chemtrail spraying across the globe, the evidence stands as fact as non-rebuttal is silence, and silence is consent.

Here you have expressed another logical fallacy, known as “shifting the burden of proof”:

Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
- source

I have noticed that chemtrail theorists continually use this kind of flawed reasoning when they argue their case. It is puzzling.

Dear oh dear Hereward, your ignorance of the law and Maxims of same are shining through. I suppose you did a Google search to find something that fits your claim. Right?

How about “•Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probatio. The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies.”

and as you and Josh affirm that chemtrails do not exist you must demonstrate the proof of your claim. I do not deny that chemtrails exist and you and your sidekick, Josh, do. Over to you.

I accept your claim on proof of claim as I have no need to pursue a claim of right as chemtrails are available for sighting every day.

Your great problem is that it is not possible to prove a negative averment.

Best of luck old son.

Another good adage to remember is “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging lest you become lost in it.”

This is my blood sport, discussing matters of great import with those who come to a battle of wits totally unarmed, such as Josh and your good self. Some play football but I choose discussion as words are the path to real truth.

Leonard, you said:

Until you come up with something concrete that demonstrates that there is no chemtrail spraying across the globe, the evidence stands as fact as non-rebuttal is silence, and silence is consent.

Here you have expressed another logical fallacy, known as “shifting the burden of proof”:

Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
- source

I have noticed that chemtrail theorists continually use this kind of flawed reasoning when they argue their case. It is puzzling.

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 12 03 - 12:24:31
From the entry ‘Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?’.

Leonard Clampett,

again: what do you think was the altitude of the Cirrocumulus clouds visible close to the upper right edge of your third picture?

Were they above the contrails? Or just closer to you?

Josh Anonymous,

This is becoming fun, duelling with slow people.

Do you even know what CC are? Have you ever flown through CC? Would you expect turbulence when flying through CC? Would you expect airframe icing in CC? Rime or clear ice? How are they formed and what are they composed of? Google it boy or get an experienced buddy to help you find the answer.

As I wrote when I posted the part about the photographs, the fair weather CU were at about 8,000 feet and the chemtrails were at about 10,000 by observation, by three people, of detail in three dimensions, not two. The CC, and the prefix “Cirro” should give you the clues about their altitude, were well above the chemtrails and therefore well above the fair weather CU.

Take a look at these videos;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=78rKNoR4T0w
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xx-STEA-
Vqo&noredirect=1

and remember you are obviously out of your depth.

You do not seem to comprehend that supersaturation cannot occur, as it is physically impossible, in the free atmosphere, because you cannot pressurise the free atmosphere. The best way to understand supersaturation is to understand that a soda syphon, pressurised with carbon dioxide gas for the serving of mixed drinks, an inert gas that is 1.5 times heavier than air (the main reason why the claims about global warming, claiming that carbon dioxide, CO2, permeates the atmosphere excel in pure bullshit) is pressurised with CO2 as are carbonated soft drinks. The term “carbonated” should give you a clue or two.

You really should consider stopping your attempts to convince others that chemtrails do not exist, as the evidence outweighs your puny offerings. However, keep coming back for more if you are insistent, and ask for assistance at any time, but my best advice to you is to actually consider discussing this with myself and others on this faux web-site, rather than attempting to convince others of your oracle like abilities, which, sadly seem to be lacking.

As you would like us to believe that you know quite a bit about aviation and meteorology, can you tell me what you think when I tell you that I have seen air? I mean actually seen the air outside an aircraft window. Not an illusion, but the actual air flowing over the wing. Other captains have seen the same so it is not an unknown phenomena.

Best of luck in your endeavours, but don’t try to con me, I have a built-in bullshit detector that works very well.

Leonard Clampett said:

“the prefix ‘Cirro’ should give you the clues about their altitude”

So, with Cirrocumulus, you determine the altitude by taking into account the well known facts about this type of cloud.

Why are you not doing likewise with contrails?

You also said:

“the chemtrails were at about 10,000 by observation, by three people, of detail in three dimensions, not two.”

It’s not possible to get a three-dimensional view of an object in this distance. The parallaxe as seen by bare eyes is too small (eye distance ranges from 2-3 inches). That’s why you need triangulation.

You simply cannot determine the distance of a remote object that you don’t know the size of.

You can determine the altitude of a jet if you take a picture with a known (and sufficient) zoom factor, and you know the type of aircraft:
http://contrailscience.com/measuring-the-height-of-contrails/

Leonard Clampett said:

“can you tell me what you think when I tell you that I have seen air? I mean actually seen the air outside an aircraft window. Not an illusion, but the actual air flowing over the wing.”

Sounds like aerodynamic trailing to me. I have seen it several times when sitting in an airliner during final approach, mostly when the flaps were out and the weather was humid.

I’ve also seen it occasionally on the wingtop of my glider, also in wet/humid conditions.

Sudden pressure changes along the wing profile may cause spontaneous condensation. This can make for some beautiful trails:

http://www.google.com/search?q=aerodynamic+contrails&hl=en&tbm=isch

Good one Josh, you keep digging yourself further in with each response and somewhere down the track you will make the realisation of how juvenile your claims really are. Lets dispense with a couple of your claims. Firstly you seem to very slow because you haven’t yet picked up that I was writing about a chemtrail, not a contrail and applied the well known facts, it’s just that these facts are either not known to you or you simply ignore them.

Secondly you seem to be confused about parallax (there is no “e” on the end) error. There is no such error involved in this exercise, i.e. because it does not involve the angles required for that description, and for a surprise bit of enlightenment for you, our eyes are stereoscopic and we use the same principle in range finding equipment. Triangulation is used for exact measurement and that cannot be done from a two dimensional photograph, you can only estimate, and with a whole lot less accuracy that we three did on the day in question.

“You simply cannot determine the distance of a remote object that you don’t know the size of.” This little gem of yours is just plain ordinary, unsophisticated bullshit of the truly common kind and you know it.

As for your next posting, what a crock you have presented here. You should read what people write before commenting so foolishly. I wrote that I have seen the air, not condensate in the air, but the air itself. I am reasonably sure that you have never been at FL280 (28,000 feet) cruising at a Mach number in your glider. The flowery bits about “beautiful” trails kind of enhance your innocence somewhat as cruising at 28,000 feet on a day clear of cloud does not induce any kind of airframe “trails” close to the aircraft.

I suggest you stop trying to prove to yourself, and us, that you are an aviation guru of some kind, and get into some proper discussion and dispense totally with the bullshit, both you and Hereward.

********************
Josh said:
“On the other hand: someone claiming that all these things are not real can be expected to provide some very convincing evidence.
Otherwise it’s indeed just a matter of belief.”
********************

So let me remind you that claiming that chemtrails are not real falls within the parameters of your statement here.

Cheers Josh,
Have a great day sitting at your computer pretending to be clever.