Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:03 pm Post Subject:
Sure is Hector! It shows after a day and a half of heavy Chem activity that the sky is hazy and abnormal. Not as it was when I was a young thing... Ahhhhhh those were the days!
Lovely clear blue and no mysterious muck in our skies.
I don't think the video shows that.
How about this: Even after 2 days of persistent contrails, all of which have blown (or are blowing) away towards the east, hazy and abnormal looking (but still natural) cirrus blows in from the west. This is nothing to do with the contrails we have seen forming (here) in the last 2 days, and it does not look like it evolved from persistent contrails that formed further west (from here).
Regardless of what you see, magical1, that is what the video shows; and more besides ...
Persistent contrails move off their original position carried by the wind.
The wind contorts and spreads persistent contrails the same way it does other cirrus cloud.
Multiple contrails are produced by multiple aircraft.
Different aircraft use the same flight path again and again. If the aircraft transit at more or less the same interval, it is not hard to see how this would result in more or less evenly spaced parallel lines.
Flight paths may cross more or less at right angles. If the wind is at an angle to both, it is not hard to see how a "grid" pattern of persistent contrails could be formed.
Some flight paths are used more than others.
On the same day ephemeral (short) and persistent contrails can be formed in the same sky.
Persistent contrails appear to be more common when there is already some cirrus present.
All this takes place at high altitude.
These aircraft must be traveling at different altitudes or there would be nasty accidents where the flight paths cross, and on paths where there are flights in both directions. If the 'contrail' explanation is to be accepted, this helps to explain the different behavior of ephemeral and persistent contrails where they appear in the same part of the sky at the same time.
The persistent contrails do not seem to be descending to any extent (for example to the ground in the vicinity where they formed).
This does not look like a organised spraying operation. It looks like jet aircraft going about their normal business.
In Wellington yesterday, we had a lovely clear blue sky, just like, I suppose, when you were a young thing. Those days (clear blue sky) aren't over.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:10 pm Post Subject:
Hector , you get 10 points for persistence, in the face of insurmountable odds
Take a trip over here, you can stay with us for a couple of nights, you won't need your sounding gear, you can use our binocs and telescope, and you will see , almost for certain, that the explanations you have just given, for the umpteenth time, do not fit the easily observable facts
because you or the NZ taxpayer will have to pay the fare, we will provide the wine, and i can assure you, it will be good
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:19 pm Post Subject:
OK, Ross, I'm sure I don't have to say this, I'm certain that your natural gentlemanly instincts will have brought this into instant clear perspective already,........ that is , that now that you have graciously accepted , in principle, our noble offer of hospitality in the name of science and the human race, you won't be proselytising for the cause of the dubious "persistent contrails", or in any way interfering in our sincere and admittedly difficult job of assessing the implications of what we are seeing in the skies, until you have been here and had a look
I haven't accepted your offer of hospitality, not even in principle. I said I would consider it when I am next in Vic or NSW. Since I am in neither state just now, nor plan to be, I'm not even considering it.
I am not attempting to convert people to another opinion about persistent contrails; it's not like it's a religion or something. I am suggesting that there is an alternative explanation, one that is verifiable by accessible observations every day, some of which you can make yourself.
I am not interfering in anyone else's job of advancing the "spray" explanation. Go for it, I say. It ("It's a spray operation!") is a difficult stand to take. If there was a grain of plausibility I would lend a hand; I'm that kind of person. There isn't so I don't.
The Clausius-Clapyron equation (which governs saturation vapour pressure over water and ice) works just as well everywhere; and I can see what happens to the cirrus cloud from here in Wellington.
I don't see anything with which to either agree or decline.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1001
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:04 pm Post Subject:
Hector said
Quote:
I am not interfering in anyone else's job of advancing the "spray" explanation. Go for it, I say. It ("It's a spray operation!") is a difficult stand to take. If there was a grain of plausibility I would lend a hand; I'm that kind of person. There isn't so I don't.
Care to explain why and how Spraying is not plausable?
How can you say that there is not a grain of plausibility? Have you not read the evidence available that says it is certainly plausible? Did you not listen to the few short accounts of my own observations that directly contradict your above statement?
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:49 am Post Subject:
In 1996/1997 suddenly we started seeing chemtrails in the world. The explanation of it being due to increased air traffic doesn't wash with me.
Before then you may have seen the odd contrail high above but it didn't spread leaving a pea soup sky. Statements below show that there is clear intention to manipulate our weather....
"We’ve heard from researchers, scientists, and the Air Force on the issue of contrails and aerosol spraying. Clearly, this subject is bottomless and requires tireless investigation in order to uncover the facts about aerosol spraying and its possible consequences to our health and environment.
Do advanced technologies exist that can be used for weather modification or some other drastic aim? Just listen to former Secretary of Defense Cohen’s words over a decade ago:
Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
--Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, at a Conference on Terrorism in Athens, Georgia
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:39 pm Post Subject:
i think it has been the case for perhaps a hundred years, perhaps a lot longer, that it's no longer nation against nation, that's just a charade.......
in my mind, there are two problems with being dominated by eggheads
one, i don't like being dominated, and working for cratocrats who take more than they give
two, our present crop of cratocrats is sick and rotten to the core, not worthy of our service
it's my belief that they got this way as a byproduct of assuming obscene power and wealth, essentially through being divorced from nature........in my view, big cities are unmanageable for us, at present, we should scrap the format, it has led to such overpopulation that massive suffering is inevitable
give me a cratocracy that can broker the conditions we had centuries ago, when we didn't have or need policing, along with a high technological culture, and i'll willingly work for them, and happily pay a high price in taxes and commitment
but for pickpockets, snobs, gangsters and princes who aspire to be tampons, i'm strangely not so keen
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:13 am Post Subject:
I crack myself up Deano!
Anyhoo.... I had a good old read of the patents which led me to clicking on the links to have a closer look. None of them worked? However on the upside one sent me to an excellent forum which is run by Clifford Carnicom. Everyone should check it out... There is a wealth of knowledge on there. I love his opening statement to guide users...
The objectives of this message board have been reorganized and redefined. The purpose here is to continue research and to support activism and education on the aerosol operations issue. The conclusion within is that the aerosol operations are a reality, and this message board is no longer a forum for debate. Lame, unsubstantiated, non-comprehensive arguments will not be provided with a repetitive forum. The multitude of citizens that form this group within are now encouraged to network and organize at a higher level. Those that choose to continue to debate will need to establish or locate a forum elsewhere. This board is dedicated to individual and organized activism, education and continued research. The top level link for this forum is located at: http://pub8.ezboard.com/bchemtrails and primary energies will be directed to that point. Participation within this message board is a privilege. Clifford E Carnicom Dec 6 2001
Yes, Jeremy, I heard your accounts of your observations. I recall that you don't have a date, and you didn't take any photos. We will have to discount those stories on the same basis that we discounted mine. See https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6032
Yes, of course spraying from aircraft is "plausible". There is well developed technology and mechanical devices for controling application rates and droplet size distribution. This is to ensure that the right amount of product is applied, and that it falls to the target area.
But that's not what we are talking about here. What is not plausible is the proposition that high flying (11 kilometres high!) jet aircraft spraying something for some reason. The only "evidence" seems to be the persistent contrails observed from time to time.
What is the reason for the spraying? What is the purpose?
What aircraft are doing this? Two possibilities:
1) Commercial jet aircraft: Where is the spray equipment on the plane? Has anyone seen it? How and where is the product loaded on the plane?
2) Some other type: Where are these "large unmarked white aircraft" operating from? Where do you see the tankers on the run between the chemical plant (or storage facility) and the aerodrome?
There must be hundreds, maybe thousands, of people involved in New Zealand alone. Who are they? Why aren't they speaking out? You cannot keep something so big so secret for so long.
Why do they only spray when atmospheric conditions are suitable for persistent contrails? Why don't they spray every day? Why don't they spray everywhere, not just on the main air routes?
If the proposition were plausible, there would be a plausible answer to all of those questions. But there isn't.
Take another look at the video. magical1 (and steve clougher) makes a very good point about education, and thanks to magical1 for bringing this useful resource to our attention.
At mark 1:30 a plane appears near the horizon traveling north with a "normal" contrail. No one seems to be concerned about these. They are the normal, short lived ones, and I think (hope?) everyone understands and accepts how and why these form.
When it gets to about mid-frame, the contrail changes and becomes persistent. Now, these persistent contrails are the bad ones. They are the "spray" and supposed cause of the motivational, health, and deficit (or surplus) of rainfall problems.
It went from a good contrail to a bad one; it transmogrified right there in front of your eyes! I am sure you have all seen this yourselves; I saw it happen yesterday at 3:10pm over eastern Wellington with a jet travelling south.
I suggest the change in the appearance and behaviour of the contrail is something to do with its environment and not the contrail itself. I further suggest that the environment where the contrail is persistent is supersaturated with respect to ice. You will notice that this occurs in the vicinity of cirrus already present, but not always. It can be supersaturated with respect to ice and there be no cloud present - that isn't a problem. Vast regions of the upper troposphere can be supersaturated with respect to ice in the absence of cloud and often is.
The contrail did not transmogrify ! The ephemeral contrail and the persistent one are manifestations of the same thing: jet exhaust condensation, frozen, in either an unsaturated or supersaturated (with respect to ice) evnironment.
That explanation is elegant, simple, but not simplistic, based on the properties of water in the upper troposphere, and doesn't come with a back story involving thousands of secretive people, hundreds of unknown planes, operating from who knows where, engaged in a spray operation with an unknown purpose.
It didn't all start in 1996/1997. Persistent contrails were known about during WWII. Here is a paper about their possible effects on weather and climate published in 1970 (37 years ago!) ... On the Possibility of Weather Modification by Aircraft Contrails
Here, for your benefit, is the Introduction. There is no suggestion here that the formation of persistent contrails is intentional and deliberate with malice aforethought. That's a much more recent idea.
Quote:
Aircraft contrails first attracted public attention during
World War 11; but as air traffic has built up to its present
level, they have come to be accepted as part of the environment.
Even during World War 11, it kas difficult to watch
the cloud cover laid down by a large bomber formation
without wondering what it might be doing to the weather;
at present, there is widespread belief among the general
public and some feeling among scientists (Fletcher 1969,
Reinking 1968, Livingston 1969, and Schaefer 1969) that
contrails are increasing cloudiness, if nothing more, in
some regions. The writer himself has seen instances in
which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an
overcast covering the whole sky. If the contrail were indeed
responsible, which is by no means certain, this would
constitute definite proof that contrails are capable of a
significant effect on local weather, and even possibly on
global climate, if such occurrences are widespread and
frequent. It seems worthwhile, in view of all this, to
consider quantitatively whether OT not there is reason to
believe contrails are capable of exerting a significant influence
on weather.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:03 pm Post Subject:
hey Ross,
you are wrong about the only evidence being the trails
if you seek, you will find
the mystery of the cover-up being so successful , yes this is an acknowledged mystery, that's what we are about here, mysteries
my tentative explanation takes account of other hugely successful cover-ups, of which there are too many........it's sad, that people in general are willing to believe any old thing, as long as they don't get nudged out of their comfort zone
i think the cover-up is plausible in the light of the dedication of the visual media to distraction, disinformation, disturbing-ness, monopolisation of the news, and complete subservience to the agenda of a cunning and ruthless elite
if you haven't had a look, don't debunk
turn off your teevee and surf this net while it lasts.......it won't be free and open for much longer
Hey, steve, I think you are making the common mistake that the purpose of the media is to bring us accurate news and current affairs information. It is not. It is to sell copy, subscription and advertising. The most likely reason that the media have not picked up the "chemtrails" story and run with it is that they suspect (correctly in my view) that doing so would make them look a bit kooky, and consequently they would likely lose sales, subscriptions or advertising patronage. There is no censorship here; it's a business choice !
Sure; do your information gathering on the Internet. But learn how to sort the wheat from the chaff. Beware of fallacies. Here is how to recognise them... http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html
How many are committed by the chemtrail proponents in advancing their arguments? (rhetorical question)
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:04 pm Post Subject:
Hector you have been studying "debunking 101" I see!
Below are some excerpts from "How to debunk just about anything"by Stanley V. McDaniel. Now, I'm not saying that you are exactly like any of these quotes Hector so don't get you knickers in a knot and don't get defensive. I thought others may like to see how discovery of the truth often gets blurred.
"Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear.)
If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back "there is nothing new here."
Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.
If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue, "Evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not “supposed” to “prove ”anything*.
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."
