1963 - A color guide to Clouds (contrails)

[Truthseeker191]

I think people need to learn about aviation & contrails before jumping onboard the chemtrails bandwagon. The idea that contrails can't persist for long periods of time is ridiculous. They are basically just like clouds after all

[TIX74]

I Think this book is faked....why the right pages are light blue and pictures on them seems to be attached with glue on the page? MMMMhh... suspect!!

[junkrocker]

i love the people who say" i remember from when I was a kid)

i remember a lot of stuff when AI was a kid...doesn't mean it was 100% true.

could you see any "child" today taking his backyardigans backpack out to the park and getting out his thomas the train pencil and book, and documenting the skies....lol

i remember from when i was a kid....you MUST laugh at yourself for such a silly remark

[CTYForg]

my chemtrails NEVER dissapate/evaporate...sorry.

There is more than just water in em.

[stopchemtrails]

interesting that they did that back in the 60's... i bet there are a few more books out there, wonder what the news was reporting any strange changes at the time, or if people remember any changes in the skies then.

[Epoxynous]

The point is that these are just contrails, both now and in the 1960s.

If it has always been like this, then why do you think it is "strange"

[ogrishTWO]

Western Canada bc and alberta. Summer months vapor trails never lasted more than a few minutes. And there were plenty of them. Now i see trails up and down the coast not on commercial routes, feather out and fill our sky. This pattern is evident over most cities. Yes more planes but should simple thin vapor trails show up on reflectivity satellite images? chaff certainly does, and trails can be seen all over the states on nws weather mosaic's site.

[Epoxynous]

You said "Summer months vapor trails never lasted more than a few minutes" - so does that mean when you were young you saw spreading contrails in the winter?

What route do you see trails on that you don't think is a commercial route?

Can you message me a link to the site that shows trails on radar?

[ogrishTWO]

never spreading...lingering. as a child I noticed they were always relatively uniform in width (little widening) ...as opposed to now.

[Epoxynous]

But other people did notice them spread. Other people also did not, for example:

"[Sen. Gordon Allott, R-Colo] said hed lived in Colorado all his life without ever seeing jet contrails form clouds" (March 11, 1971 Missouri Mexico Ledger)

So, back in 1971, some people also had failed to notice this happening, but some people had noticed it.

What if you were simply one of the people who did not notice spreading contrails until recently?

[ogrishTWO]

because I already stated i was an avid plane/sky watcher my entire life(ish)

[Epoxynous]

What routes do the planes fly on that you don't think are commercial routes?

[ogrishTWO]

I fyour wildest imagination you can't see how contrails could be made "sturdier", more persistant, larger? No? well if you know how EVERY raindrop, hailstone and snowflake ever in the history of such things come into existance then you know how this is done. Not one operson concerned about skyobscuration thinks CONtrails are not a natural by- product/event of air travel. But any aware observational person over the age of thirty knows there is a difference, not in volume but quality.

[Epoxynous]

They could be made larger (on average) by using high-bypass engines, such as came into use over the last 20 years.

If there's a difference, they why do they look the same as in the old photos?

[ogrishTWO]

having been a plane enthusiast for most of my 42 years I beg to differ with you. The contrails of today are remarkably different. Until the last 10 years+/- the contrails NEVER feathered out to cover the entire sky. NEVER!

You put so much effort in the denial yet not once have I heard you comment on how CONTRAILS do not exist! The process that forms them is called deposition or desublimation, not condensation. Semantics....yes, but true? also yes.

[Epoxynous]

Not semantics, etymology. Not all words are precise scientific descriptions of the things they name.

So you never remember seeing contrails spreading out to cover they sky. Yet there is lots of reports of this happening. Do you think those reports are fake? Is the Encyclopedia Brittanica fake?

[ogrishTWO]

etymology is word origins while semantics is mis worded....i am right. my point being semantics refers to a misused word while etymology would be its alteration over time....we still mean condensation trail when contrail is used it is NOT condensation. Are you stating then there is no difference in CONtrails from say 30 years ago? The spreading out in long "stringy" lines. I have seen blue skies completely blotted out by airplane travel.

[ogrishTWO]

natural effect or not this must be addressed. the weather changes due to them!!! From my own empirical data. Full blue, clear day on a lake with family. Back and forth they covered the sky. A plane flew down the only blue strip completely blocking out the sun and within 15 min we had to get off the lake due to the temp drop and wind increase. It is a sign of the times when we feel even the clouds are against us!

[Epoxynous]

You said "I have seen blue skies completely blotted out by airplane travel."

As have others, long ago:

"These contrails gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet of cirrus cloud " (Arcadia Tribune, April 29, 1970)

"In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted" (The News, Frederick, MD, March 7, 1944)

So what has changed?

[ogrishTWO]

once... not almost every day. There is a difference in the lasting effect. Any observant person knows this. I have seen a single trail spread- width wise- to cover 1/4 of the sky . Polymers and nano particle technology has grown leaps and bounds in the last 2 decades and will be the major push in modern materials. We are talking about a govt that ok'ed spraying ddt on school children. what qualms would they have dumping anything to meet their agenda

[Epoxynous]

How many days is "almost every day"? 90% 50%?

Now, what evidence do you have of this percentage? Have you checked the sky every day for a year?

In 1970, this spreading was described as being "often". Here in Los Angeles we only see it in the winter - I'd say well under 10% of days have significant spread.

Canada is colder, so you probably see a lot more than me. Did you always live in Canada?

[ogrishTWO]

I have travelled around na a bit. I have seen lingering vapor trails in Alberta in 80F+ low humidity days. There are many videos showing persistant trails in australia in the dry heat, arizona new mexico. There is enough evidence of a scientific push into weather modification and the us govt spends 100 of millions on controlling the weather every year.

[Epoxynous]

So, at the time in your past when you don't remember these spreading contrails being so frequent, where were you living then?

[ogrishTWO]

misnomers fall into the semantics category!

[barubba]

ahaha Epoxynous, you are very funny

try again stupid military disinfo

[Epoxynous]

The book is real. Better start preparing for that possibility.

[barubba]

try again stupid disinfo

[Epoxynous]

Wake up! Think for yourself barubba.

Who has had the most influence on your thoughts? And why do you trust them? Do your own research.

Specifically, look in any old book about clouds, and you'll get the same info on contrails.

Have you looked?

[barubba]

Epoxynous this is a fake-video!!!

questo video è un fake colossale!!!

shame on you dinsinfo!!!!

vergogna disinformatore venduto!!

[Epoxynous]

Now, what on earth makes you think it's fake?

It's a real book from 1963. Look it up!

[buio20]

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupe­r fake!!!

stop chemtrails, now!!

[kashpd]

ma tornatene da stakkino e vibraminkia XD

[buio20]

questa è l'intelligenza, complimenti

non fatecelo mai dimenticare!!!

[Epoxynous]

Why do you think this is fake?  It's a book I own. You can check it on the Internet.

[buio20]

the book is clearly counterfeited

we can easily notice glue and recent pictures

"distrail" is a recent neologism, infact it didn't exist in 1963

[Epoxynous]

If it were real, then would you change your thinking regarding contrails at all?

What do you mean by "recent pictures"?

The term "distrail" (which does not even appear in this video, so why mention it) has been around since the 50s, try a dated search in google books.

[buio20]

I'm sorry but you won't convince me. I often watch the sky and i remember how it was a few years ago

[Epoxynous]

So even if the book were real it would make no difference to you?

[buio20]

the book is not real at all. it's saturday night! have fun with some friends

[Epoxynous]

Saturday afternoon here :)

My question was IF if were real, would it make any difference to you?

[buio20]

yes, of course.

[Epoxynous]

Good, shows you have a rational mind.

Now, what would it take to convince you this were not fake? You must admit at least that such a named book exists, and was published in 1963, just by googling the ISBNs: 0080103758 (HB) and 008010374X (PB), or do a google book search for "colour guide to clouds".

So you think I made a fake page with the text, and posted in some modern photos? Same as with the 1972 book? Which TankerEnemy has a copy of, with the same photos?

[buio20]

the only thing i believe in is that chemtrails are real, and every day chemical planes fill the atmosphere with bario and aluminum

[Epoxynous]

And you believe this because other people have told you this?

Why do you believe them? Have you done your own research? Have you looked into the science behind contrails? Have you looked at any of the hundreds of books and papers and photos that show contrails persisting in exactly the same way as the book in this video describes?

You cast out all of science, and instead believe the theories of a few men on the internet?

[buio20]

of course, remember galileo, how was the epilogue?

who was telling the truth?

[Epoxynous]

Okay, so you've done your own research?

Tell me then, how much barium should be in ground water or in the air, and how much was found in the samples tested? How about aluminum?

[buio20]

take care, bye!!

[Epoxynous]

Think for yourself Buio. Don't believe everything people of like mind tell you. Consider other voices from time to time.

[TIX74]

@buio20 ..and that this book in this video is fake!

[Epoxynous]

And, do you think I also faked the contrails on the poster in the 1959 episode of the Twilight Zone "Where is Everybody".

Youtube hSdA3aAFyTs  at 3:30

Or see contrailscience for some higher resolution images.

[buio20]

watch the videos on my channel...what do you think about it?

[Epoxynous]

"Spray On" shows a plane flying from a region where contrails do not form, to a region where they do. Probably regions of differing humidity.

"Quelle strane X" shows one plane leaving a contrail flying across (probably above) another older contrail that is breaking up in high level winds.

"Fermiamoli" is mostly close-ups of various planes leaving contrails.

What do you think is odd about ANY of those videos?

[buio20]

mauhauhauah!! I've listened too much. thank you for your answers.

[Epoxynous]

Are you worried you might change your mind?

[buio20]

the problem is that the media agree with the army. and the global population suffers biological and chemical tests from years. the only fear i have in that in the judgment day

nobody will know what is going to happen

[Epoxynous]

There is no censorship on the internet (see: Rense, Carnicom, etc), so why don't you think the "chemtrail" story gets any traction?

[buio20]

it's not question of censorship. this is hypnotising people with programs and lies that move away from the truth, and givin only news approved by who has the power

[ogrishTWO]

no censorship????? you don't believe this tripe?

[Epoxynous]

What site is censored? Rense? Carnicom? William Thomas? Chemtrail Central? CoastToCoast? Have any of these sites been censored?

[ogrishTWO]

this one!!!

[Epoxynous]

What has been censored? Have your videos been censored? Is there any such video available elsewhere on the internet that is not available here?

[ogrishTWO]

I had two pages on hear stolen. then removed. I wrote for help at the security on youtube to no avail. Others report removal and alteration of views and ratings.

[Epoxynous]

It's a free site that lets you post videos, they get millions of videos. There are bound to be problems.

Post the video again, it will stay up.  The point is that you can say anything you like. If you have evidence, then you can post it. Nobody posts this evidence.

[ogrishTWO]

the vids are re-posted, thanks. although if it happens again I have cleaned up my hard drive and they are gone now. But nbd.

AJ got 100000 hits in a few days on an anti obama vid then maybe 100 over the next few weeks? a little odd. If you don't think there is internet censorship you are falling into the category of the orgone gun people....nutty!

[Epoxynous]

My point is that you CAN post anything you want on the internet. Just set up a site, even a free Wordpress blog, and post whatever you like.

Do you have any information that you've been unable to get out to the public?

[ogrishTWO]

no. I am stating that there is net censorship on the whole, not on me.

some subjects searched are prone to encounter dead links and although explainable are suspicious in nature. ie h.a.a.r.p.

[Epoxynous]

All subjects have dead links, that's just the way of the internet.

Why does Jeff Rense not get censored?

WHO is getting censored? Who claims they are censored?

[jackson32]

"I don't doubt more people will be coming forward as time progresses. And "evidence""

Well if you could tell me even a few people in positions of authority (ie. someone who actually would actually know and has something to lose by coming forward) or even a little evidence that would be peachy.

I never hear any of you people actually show any believable evidence, if you had any you would show it. Chemtrails are a joke.

[jackson32]

As far as I know the incidences you allude to did not happen that much. If this was going on we would have heard of this many times, not just mainly 40 years ago.

Another problem is that if these chemtrails did actually affect everyone, the ruling elite who were in charge of it would also be poisoned, and they would not go for that.

And where are all the people coming forward saying there is a large scale program, not just an alleged incident hear or there?

[jackson32]

I consider Epoxynous to have completely won his debate with academianon.

Epoxynous keeps on asking for evidence, and academianon keeps on not being able to give credible evidence, because I don't think there is any.

When you have a theory about something you have to prove it with evidence. It's called science.

People who believe in chemtrails have no hard evidence, just gut feelings, impressions, anecdotal evidence, and other "evidence" that on closer examintion is not evidence at all.

[2giveup]

i will email all the links you want that prove the spraying of aerosols or should i say nano particles..and i can show the delivery systems diagrams actuall photos..what you want be specific or i will just deny it like EPO

[jackson32]

There are a number of problems with the chemtrail theory;

A large number of people directly involved in it have not come forward. Or at the very least a few credible witnesses.

The chemicals would have to be impossibly potent considering the astronomically small percentage of the total atmosphere that they make up.

There are numerous logical problems, one being that contrails DO produce the effects that we observe. Funny that there is not one instant of a truly different "chemtrail".

[Epoxynous]

So, if you've been watching them, what about them suggests they are deliberately creating cloud cover - as opposed to just regular traffic creating cloud cover as a natural byproduct of jet travel.

You know this kind of thing (contrails forming cloud cover) was a common sight in 1970. Do you think it's deliberately been going on that long?

[GenCrazyIvan]

not to mention during WWII.

[Epoxynous]

Contrails ARE clouds. They don't create clouds, they are clouds.

"No evidence" means there is no reason to believe a theory. Yet you DO believe your theory. Why? Do you have any evidence?

By that, I mean evidence that contrails are being used DELIBERATELY to alter the climate.

Of course they MIGHT be, but if there is no evidence that they are, then why do you believe it?

[Epoxynous]

I refute it because there is no evidence that "deliberate geo-engineering" is taking place.

It's easy to say "oh, the government MUST be doing such-and-such, because I think they have good reason to do it", but do you have any evidence that they ACTUALLY ARE doing it?

Do you have any evidence that contrails are anything other than the condensation of normal aircraft exhaust?

Do you have any evidence that the clouds cover formed is DELIBERATE?

You don't have any evidence. Why do you believe?

[Epoxynous]

Sure, I'd consider it if there were any evidence.

Low altitude spraying of invisible tracer agents 40 years ago does not really relate in any way to high altitude trails that look exactly like contrails, but some people say they are "chemtrails".

What, exactly, is the evidence?

[lelandshane]

haa haa your tarded or a spook i work in this field look under mikon machine we are a defence contractor and that is all u will ever find on mikon machinning co. ever heard of skunk works!

[Epoxynous]

If you work in a skunk works project in "this field", then why are you posting here? Isn't that against your contract?

[xBiscuitPowerx]

Furthermore:

I'll go kick his ass if he helps produce this shit.

[xBiscuitPowerx]

What kind of douche-bag shit is this? A government shill reading his little disinfo book... How sweet.

[Epoxynous]

It's an explanation of persistent contrails from 1963 - this proves that "chemtrails" are a hoax.

[xBiscuitPowerx]

Oh, really.. So do your little story books also prove that Jack was nimble, jack was quick, and he jumped over the candle stick?

[Epoxynous]

Your main problem is that the book is little? I have big books as well, see my video "Chemtrails in 1972",

watch?v=B2ChFjtW1Cc

I've also got several other books, newspapers and scientific papers.

What evidence do you have? Where is your science?

[xBiscuitPowerx]

We have tons of evidence, you have a book that was created after chemtrails were created..

So it proves nothing.

[Airclot]

THEN SHOW THE TONS OF EVIDENCE! Words are nothing without action you ignorant fool!

(This was in reply to someone. Great video. Chemtrail believers are just unreasonable)

[xBiscuitPowerx]

You live in a fantasy world.. And you're shilling for a government that wants to enslave and, or kill your children.

[Epoxynous]

I live in a world based on science and critical thinking.

You, it seems, do not trust science or reason. That's unfortunate, as you will be forced to live in what Sagan calls "The Demon Haunted World" - look it up, and if you ever feel like trying to understand the other side of the argument, that's a very good book to start with.

[xBiscuitPowerx]

You're talking about reason!?

Give me a break, you're the most unreasonable excuse for a man I've ever had the unfortunate displeasure of conversing with.

[Airclot]

YOU are unreasonable. He has provided names of books that clearly state contrails have been around since forever, and all you can muster is that you "remember" them to be smaller?

[xBiscuitPowerx]

And please explain to us how a short clip of some guy reading government issued propaganda constitutes as science?

Also, you could try to explain why, if these are a natural occurrence, they have just within the past 10 years become an extremely common one?

[Epoxynous]

You just said chemtrails were created before 1963, and now you say it's in the last 10 years?

Spreading contrails have been as common as jets. There are more jets now. But you are also noticing them more BECAUSE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THEM!

[xBiscuitPowerx]

In the past 10 years they have just become common.. Learn to read you fuck wit.

[jaxen112]

Rain-making link to killer floods -bbc Thursday, 30 August, 2001

"Ninety million tonnes of water swept down the narrow valley into Lynmouth on 15 August, 1952, destroying whole buildings. Now, a BBC investigation has confirmed that secret experiments were causing heavy rainfall."

[Epoxynous]

What does rain making in 1952 have to do with contrails?

Contails are made of ice. They don't make rain.

[jaxen112]

I concur, hence the need for a chemical additive of some sort in order to create said rain, obviously being done in 1952 and likely thought up even much earlier (hitler?) so your old books written by a dead shady govt. operative isn't convincing. of all the debunking you perform, please explain to the audience how contrails form and expand at what appears to be no higher then 10,000ft.

[jaxen112]

"evidence for most people to understand that this is perfectly natural."

man I wish I could buy this, but maybe I'm not getting enough fluoride in my water .. my entire life under the NY/NJ flight patterns and the skies have never looked so strange. I had to come to the internet to try and figure out why the skies looked like this and now I wish I never noticed.

[Epoxynous]

If you live near the NY/NJ airports then please note that traffic to and from those airports will not make contrails, as they are too low when coming in to land, and taking off.

What you are seeing is planes flying high overhead, between other non-local airports.

[JD420JD420JD]

The same evidence you ask for of others to prove to you the existence of chemtrails, is what you should be asked for to disprove them. All you prove in this video is that these types of operations have been going on for a long time. Have you ever heard of dis-information, well often times, like in Nazi Germany, false information blinds the masses. This same type of dis-information is helping to shape the US to become the next Nazi Germany. The elite thanks you for your help in creating it!!

[Epoxynous]

Well, I've provided evidence of these trails from 1963. I think that will be quite enough evidence for most people to understand that this is perfectly natural.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?

[bzor]

how is showing a book from the 60's with an explanation of contrails in it "disinformation"? I'm as pissed as anyone about losing our blue skies to heightened plane congestion but to say it's a vast conspiracy trying to kill us is a but much, no?

[xBiscuitPowerx]

Worshiping a giant owl statue and making mock human sacrifices while dressed in robes is a bit much, no?

Your logic is extremely flawed..

[bzor]

these comments look like someone debating religion, as happens when people want to believe in something that has little to no proof.. so bush is a reptile too, right?

[lichtengel60]

Merry meet  Sky Watcher

great info

Blessings to u all

[eversincealways]

Traditional Cloud Seeding has been in practice since the mid-1940s so I would imagine this book could have been authored after the first aerosol operations. ;-]

Anyway the text clearly says that CONTRAILS EVAPORATE. CHEMTRAILS DO NOT EVAPORATE because they contain a large amount of particulate matter, barium, aerosols, etc.

[Epoxynous]

Contrails (which look nothing like "traditional cloud seeding") often evaporate after several hours. That's what the (1963) book says, and that's what the "chemtrailers" say they do not.

Read the text, contrails:

"SPREAD OUT OVER THE SKY"

"OFTEN MAY LAST FOR SEVERAL HOURS"

[eversincealways]

Why are you reiterating my point? I said it better and in more succinct fashion.

[Epoxynous]

There's no practical difference between "lasting for several hours" and "not evaporating", either way, the trail will be spread over the sky by the wind.

So, how can you tell the difference? If a "chemtrail" says up for several hours, and spreads over the sky, then how can you tell it is not a contrail?

[eversincealways]

Is there not?

Chemtrails are an established delivery system. You can't doubt their existence when they have been mentioned by congress.

[Epoxynous]

Mentioned along with "extraterrestial weapons", and "tectonic weapons". All manner of things have been "mentioned" in drafts of congressional bills, from aliens of angels - this is not proof that they exist. Do you know who actually wrote that bill?

Where is the delivery system established? Send me a link and I'll check it out.

Again though, how can YOU tell the difference? Have you ever even seen a chemtrail? Do you have photos or videos? How could you distinguish it from a contrail?

[eversincealways]

The differences are subtle but the easiest way to spot a chemtrail is by the distance at which it 'forms'.

[Epoxynous]

The distance at which contrails form varies based on the speed of the aircraft, the engine characteristics, the throttle setting, the temperature and the humidity. It can be anything from zero to a couple of plane lengths. I have photos if you'd like to see them.

What distance does a "chemtrail" form at?

[eversincealways]

Distance, as in: length --they are huge. These things have to be many hundreds of feet wide and as much as a mile in length. I've seen normal contrails developing at the same time and same altitude as chemtrails operations and it makes for quite a striking visual.

The government has admitted to secretly conducting hundreds of chemical and biological tests on hundreds of thousands of people.

There are hundreds of papers available regarding aerosols, weather control and more, why not read one?

[Epoxynous]

Why would they not be huge? The first account of a persisting contrail from Macready's flight in 1921 said:

"The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long."

That's just from a little plane, so it's hardly surprising that a 747 would leave an enormous contrail cloud behind it.

[eversincealways]

This argument fails to prove that contrails can't be modified as a delivery system or that hardware isn't able to emulate the aesthetic evidence.

[Epoxynous]

But you were saying that chemtrails were different to contrails. Are you now saying there is no visible difference?

[eversincealways]

Epoxy PMed me his thoughts on who wrote that bill. As it turns out, I know a lot about the authors and it's lifecycle than he did.

[Epoxynous]

What's to know beyond a passing mention of chemtrails in a bill to ban space based weapons, written by UFO enthusiasts? You can read more details on contrailscience, but I'd be happy to hear anything you feel is lacking there.

And while you are at it, what's the visible difference between a chemtrail and a contrail?

None?

[eversincealways]

You're looking for a specific answer to a question people are learning why to ask.

A quick search of Google would reveal 100s of scientific papers on weather manipulation of many flavors.

[Epoxynous]

Weather manipulation has been around since the 1940s, out in the open. Ski resorts use it, water authorities use it, farmers use it. They have used it for decades.

What are you actually claiming? Just that there *might* be *something* going on? Can you be more specific as to what you are claiming, and what evidence you have?

[eversincealways]

I'm not going to type your Google entries for you. Be ignorant or be educated --the choice is yours.

Trying to embarrass me into wasting my time pasting links doesn't make the obvious any less obvious.

[Epoxynous]

No need to be embarrassed, we all make mistakes.

[eversincealways]

Proof positive: this video posting

[Epoxynous]

The videos is just of a book from 1963 that describes how contrails can last a long time. I posted it because SOME chemtrailers claim that contrails cannot last for hours.

So what's the mistake?

[eversincealways]

Whether you've debunked chemtrails or not, this book plays no role.

[Epoxynous]

This book answers a very specific point, that I explained above.  Some people claim there were no persistent spreading trails before 1998. This book proves that there were.

I understand it might not impact YOUR interpretation of the world, but it does directly address the claims of some other people.

[eversincealways]

Perhaps but your book fails to mention that contrails are a rare occurrence. That's why one can observe contrails, plans with no trails to speak of and chemtrails in the same airspace. Contrails don't occur readily.

[Epoxynous]

So they why in this 1970 article, did they write:

"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet."

"familiar sight"

"often"

Hardly sounds like a rare occurrence.

Do you have any evidence, like a science book, that supports your theory that contrails are rare?

[eversincealways]

You're using 'familiar sight' and 'often' out of context to gear the debate towards semantics.

Not to mention you're thumping literature that is 40 years out of date.

[Epoxynous]

Well, how about the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud."

[eversincealways]

That's much better, thanks for seeing things my way. Encyclopedia Brittanica says verbatim that contrails are 'sometimes observed'. Notice how I didn't have to manipulate the words out of their context to support my point.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, Brittanica isn't a credible source in academia.

[Epoxynous]

:)

"Sometimes observed" is not the same as "rare".

So I take it you accept that:

"When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud"

?

[eversincealways]

I don't normally resort to insults but my gut instinct was spot-on in this instance; most pointless poster ever.

I never said I don't accept these things. Your style of argument hinges on making as many physical, aesthetic comparisons between two items as possible as if that somehow negates one or the other's existence. There are many things in life that look alike on the outside but upon intimate investigation reveal completely different innards.

[Epoxynous]

But you have no evidence that suggests they are different, so why do you believe they are different?

Do you actually even believe in "chemtrails" at all? On what basis?

[eversincealways]

You believe they are not different --that doesn't reflect anything on what I believe.

On that note, it's been real, it's been fun but it hasn't been real fun.

[eversincealways]

The gentleman you simply dismissed as a UFO Enthusiast was ICIS Co-Director Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, a graduate of Yale Law School and former futurist at Stanford Research Institute. He has been general counsel to the NYC Environmental Protection Administration and environmental consultant to the Ford Foundation. Mr. Webre was delegate to the UNISPACE Outer Space conference, and NGO representative at the United Nations.

There were roughly 50 other individuals involved including 250 NGO

[Epoxynous]

I'm not dismissing him as a UFO enthusiast. I'm saying that he IS a UFO enthusiast, which explains the text of HR2977.

What do you think "chemtrails" are?

[eversincealways]

Barium and stuff.

[Epoxynous]

But you have no evidence of barium. So why do you think this?

[eversincealways]

There's huge evidence of barium. It has even been publicly reported in the mainstream media.

[Epoxynous]

You mean like the KSLA report that only found 1/20th of the EPA limit of barium in water that some guy collected in a bowl on his pickup truck over several weeks? That evidence?

google barium+contrails and read the contrailscience report.

Or you mean Sue Millar and Rense, where they only found 1/100th the EPA limit?

No? Then which report are you referring to?

Barium is naturally occurring, as a salt, and is found in the ground everywhere.

[eversincealways]

You are really good at finding one example for every 100 examples published every few months in scientific journals. I can't converse with you if you insist on remaining in the dark on information that is readily available.

[Epoxynous]

What information? You can't give me one link? If there are "hundreds", then why is it that if I search Google Scholar, for barium+contrail, then I don't find ANY article that suggests Barium is being sprayed from aircraft.

If the evidence is there, point to it.

[eversincealways]

Because there are no papers published in peer-reviewed papers discussing those two subjects. Use your common sense, sir.

[Epoxynous]

So what are these hundreds of report that you refer to? I'm beginning to think you are just making this up.

[Epoxynous]

Oh wait, I see what you are doing - there are hundreds of papers on "weather control", and "aerosols".

So this mean that chemtrails are real? That the government is spraying barium?

Seems like a rather large leap. Don't you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE?

[MoJoSB]

I've been watching the sky and the weather the last few days and have not seen any activity. The weather has been warmer and it seems like there is a connection... So it could be you are correct... However, I still think there is more trails than I've seen in my life time and I'm not done looking but I wanted you to know, you could very well be correct...

[Epoxynous]

Thank you for letting me know.

There are some more trails now than ten years ago, because there is more air traffic at that altitude. But the biggest variations comes with the weather. You know how last year it hardly rained at all, but this year it is raining a lot (already 3x last season). Contail conditions can vary as well from year to year.

[MoJoSB]

Again, you might just be right but my distrust for the government goes very deep. Anyway, if I was going to spray anything, what a great cover, contrails... I'll see what else I find and let everyone know.

[DontSprayMeBro]

interesting book from 1963, just about at the beginning of the space program...Hmmmmmmmmm,

[Epoxynous]

Okay, so let's say "chemtrails" are a secret world government program dating back to before 1963, and continued for 45 years for some reason.

Then what about the reports from 1944?

And what about 1921?

Contrails have always persisted and spread.

[DontSprayMeBro]

epoxynous. one of the authors of the book you show died in 1962, Dr. Harry Wexler. Harvard grad, MIT professor, special areas include satellites for weather prediction and joint participation with Russia. wexler headed the scientific services division of the u.s. weather bureau. the book is early propaganda for weather modification.

[Epoxynous]

The book credits him as "The late Dr. Harry Wexler". Books are actually written BEFORE they are published.

[DontSprayMeBro]

dr. harry wexler, co-author of the book...died in '62. in 1944 he was the first air force officer, and person, to fly directly into a hurricane. Harvard, MIT, joint weather sats with Russia, head of u.s. weather bureau scientific studies division.

spooky guy that author of your pamphlet...

[Epoxynous]

So why is everyone saying chemtrails started in 1999?

And what about 1921? Was that early propaganda?

[DontSprayMeBro]

i think the exhaust from the old jennys was pretty bad. like the 64 pontiac with an oil leaking engine going down the road throwing smoke for miles. by the way, we would pull that car over, ticket the driver as a gross polluter and send the car to the crusher. why should we feel any differently about what these planes are doing?

[Epoxynous]

Contrails are not smoke. They are water. Frozen water. All they do is mess up the sky with more cloud cover.

Contrails are man made clouds, the same now as in 1921.

[spinkyboo]

Is there jet fuel residue or any other residue in the "frozen water" contrail? Could a blue sky completely covered by manmade clouds be hazardous to our health in some way?

[Epoxynous]

It's basically the same as car exhaust.

Whether you can see the exhaust or not depends on the humidity and temperature at that altitude. The amount of pollution is exactly the same regardless of how long the contrails stay visible.

That's because the visible part is just water.

[PlaneTrailEnquiry]

how very wrong. Persistant trails are SIGHT POLLUTION is it a human right to be able to have the sunshine on your town - IT SHOULD BE. what about the environmental effect of persistant chemtrails? REGARDLESS - its the flurry of irregular air activity that lay X's # // patterns. the horizontal breaks & colours, THE 'CHEMBOWS' - the ufo/orbs? I have no doubt that contrails have existed since jet engines this is not my question! I thank you for your serious non ridicule stance as seen here.

[DontSprayMeBro]

o.k. epoxynous

[MoJoSB]

Can I just take a guess here... You think Oswald did it, right? I bet you also believe 19 guys with box cutters befuddled the whole US military or that buildings just collapse do to fire?

[Epoxynous]

Your questions contain false assumptions. But yes, I agree with the general findings of the 9/11 commission report.

And not because of some misplace trust in the government either. I think this administration is pathetic. I believe these are the most likely explanations because that's what the evidence, and the science, indicates.

I'm not going to recycle 9/11 theories and rebuttals, but I'd be happy to talk about contrails.

[MoJoSB]

Nope, didn't want to discuss 9/11... Just wanted to get an idea of the kind of person you are and the way you think and I think I got my answer...

[MoJoSB]

I guess my last comment didn't post but No need to go into 9/11... You keep debunkin and I'll keep my tin foil hat.

[Epoxynous]

It's not a contest.

Books from the past that talk about contrails ALL describe how they persist and spread. Photos look the same then as now, eyewitness account match. There have even been many newspaper accounts from the 1950s of people thinking that contrails were something odd, and being scared of them. The same things are true today.

[MoJoSB]

I guess you win then... A few books from the past with a couple of pictures in it ends the debate.

I'll put away my tin foil hat, join society and become a Marine.