Mod+ Chem trails

#1
An open letter to Peter Russell (emailed to him and posted on the Skeptiko forum)

Dear Peter,

I listened to and very much enjoyed Alex Tsakiris's recent interview with you, and have visited your site, where there's also much to enjoy.

I noticed that you seem to be a supporter of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, whereas I am extremely sceptical, suspecting that most of the warming since around 1880 has been natural, and that the issue has been over-hyped. I don't want to have a great argument with you about that, since otherwise our world views are similar; rather I want to mention the fact that this important issue, should I prove to be correct, has different implications for a putative meta-paradigmatic shift.

Environmentalism on the face of it has laudable aims, but I think that with the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis in particular, it is showing signs of having become a surrogate organised religion, with some of the characteristic intolerance of that. I know you were brought up a Christian, as was I (at around the same time), and that we both rejected the dogma whilst discovering a yearning for the spiritual. You certainly don't strike me as intolerant, but many supporters do; and I myself used to simply accept the orthodoxy until I started investigating the science when "Climategate" broke. However, even James Lovelock--the father of Gaia theory and modern environmentalism--has himself become somewhat sceptical.

I don't think that science is the issue, so much as scientism. I believe that so-called consensus is considerably less prevalent than promulgated in a couple of methodologically dubious "scientific" papers. I also think Kuhn would have agreed that consensus tends to prevent rather than promote paradigm shifting, and hence, instead of adopting it as a positive influence upon hastening the approach of de Chardin's Omega Point, I think its exposure as being bogus is what may well provide a catalyst. Of course, there is enormous resistance to that from the scientific establishment, which by and large is invested in the support of CAGW and has much face (not to mention political influence and funding) to lose should the issue turn out to be a latter-day (and even more destructive) version of Lysenkoism.

I agree with you about the influence of the Internet. Without it, evidence running counter to orthodoxy could not have become so widely or quickly known. We no longer have to rely only on the word of academia, politicians and the mainstream media, all of which have axes to grind and a buck to make out of frightening the general populace with tales of coming Armageddon unless we change our consumerist ways. I'm all for being less consumerist, but I don't need to be propagandised to exercise restraint. I try to do so because I agree with you that it's spiritually healthier not to be too attached to "thingness".

A Sufi dictum has it that things that appear to be in opposition may in fact be working in harmony; and as you mention in one of your videos, the ambiguity in the Chinese conception of crisis includes an aspect of opportunity. We may not always be able to perceive the ways in which the universe is unfolding, and misinterpret some of those as threats rather than opportunities--perhaps indispensable necessities.

I think we can both agree that models aren't reality, but climate science relies heavily on them, and empirical data is increasingly contradicting them. Sooner or later, I believe the crisis point will be reached, and at that point--if I'm right--a huge blunder will be exposed. That said, I'm an optimist: I think that whatever happens, the trend is going to be towards what we both hope for: the next great meta-paradigmatic shift. Hopefully that will usher in an age of greater commonsense and a reformation of the way we currently practise science and think about reality. Also, an age in which powers that be will cease trying to use fear to control people, each of whom I believe to be a noble manifestation of the desire of Source Consciousness to come to know Itself better.

Namaste,

Michael Larkin
Michael, since you have invested your time into the Global Warming issue, have you watched this video;


If not, would you please and provide your opinion? I ask because this video has singularly changed my outlook on the subject and I would like to have an opinion that would have critical thinking behind it.

Thanks...
Matt
 
#2
Matt , I have not watched the whole video but I must take huge issue with the man at the beginning stating definitively that " there's no denying that jet is spraying -
period !"

That jet is NOT spraying ! As someone who has looked up at aircraft since I could look up and now age 53 still look up at them even though I was an airline pilot for most of my life I am annoyed when images like the one shown are provided as 'proof'. Planes I have flown only make two types of visible trails when flying through saturated air, one is caused by the jet engine, usually called contrails - short for condensation trails,the other caused by compression ot local air by pushing a large object at a high enough speed through the 'moist' air. If there is no moisture - there will be no visible trail.

The wing is an aerofoil, it creates lift largely by producing low pressure above it as the air is forced around it. Anyone who flies as a passenger sitting near the wing can watch as moisture , like mini clouds , form over the wing when the air is moist enough, often flying through thin cloud as the aeroplane climbs or descends. It seems to form and disappear instantly as it passes through different patches, that was what was being shown in the video, where the question marks were in the relatively dry air !

The wing tip vortices also explain the different intensity of the trail behind the jet. These highly energetic vortices turn the contrails into separate high intensity, different looking, twisting trails which descend quite quickly from the rest of the air behind the aircraft. These were the two lighter parts shown in another bit of the video. There are more things that can make moist air visible, like putting down flaps.Also things that look like contrails, like dumping fuel for an emergency landing may be mistaken for 'chemtrails'.

I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations, but many times the videos shown as proof are simply the interaction of high speed and moist air. These videos are of landing aircraft and don't include the classic contrails from the engines, but they give a taste of the different things that are formed naturally. There was no secret switch on the Boeings I flew.


This shows aircraft contrails in the cruise in not very moist air.

 
Last edited:
#3
Michael, since you have invested your time into the Global Warming issue, have you watched this video;
...
If not, would you please and provide your opinion? I ask because this video has singularly changed my outlook on the subject and I would like to have an opinion that would have critical thinking behind it.Matt
Frankly, I think it's nonsense. I'll just mention one thing: there aren't 200 species going extinct every day. There are actually only a handful of documented species extinctions in the last few centuries. The guy is obviously scientifically barely literate and is just weaving together lots of different narratives to suit his rather paranoid views.

I didn't want to sidetrack into a discussion of global warming per se, still less pretty absurd conspiracy theories: I wanted to relate it to the kinds of things Peter Russell is interested in, such as the possibility of a meta-paradigmatic shift.
 
Last edited:
#4
Matt , I have not watched the whole video but I must take huge issue with the man at the beginning stating definitively that " there's no denying that jet is spraying -
period !"

That jet is NOT spraying ! As someone who has looked up at aircraft since I could look up and now age 53 still look up at them even though I was an airline pilot for most of my life I am annoyed when images like the one shown are provided as 'proof'. Planes I have flown only make two types of visible trails when flying through saturated air, one is caused by the jet engine, usually called contrails - short for condensation trails,the other caused by compression ot local air by pushing a large object at a high enough speed through the 'moist' air. If there is no moisture - there will be no visible trail.

The wing is an aerofoil, it creates lift largely by producing low pressure above it as the air is forced around it. Anyone who flies as a passenger sitting near the wing can watch as moisture , like mini clouds , form over the wing when the air is moist enough, often flying through thin cloud as the aeroplane climbs or descends. It seems to form and disappear instantly as it passes through different patches, that was what was being shown in the video, where the question marks were in the relatively dry air !

The wing tip vortices also explain the different intensity of the trail behind the jet. These highly energetic vortices turn the contrails into separate high intensity, different looking, twisting trails which descend quite quickly from the rest of the air behind the aircraft. These were the two lighter parts shown in another bit of the video. There are more things that can make moist air visible, like putting down flaps.Also things that look like contrails, like dumping fuel for an emergency landing may be mistaken for 'chemtrails'.

I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations, but many times the videos shown as proof are simply the interaction of high speed and moist air. These videos are of landing aircraft and don't include the classic contrails from the engines, but they give a taste of the different things that are formed naturally. There was no secret switch on the Boeings I flew.
I agree 100% ! This is analogous to the pictures of horrendous toxic clouds being emitted from power stations - actually it is almost entirely steam!

There is a hell of a lot of cynical manipulation going on, and people need to be aware of the process.

David
 
#5
Matt , I have not watched the whole video but I must take huge issue with the man at the beginning stating definitively that " there's no denying that jet is spraying -
period !"

That jet is NOT spraying ! As someone who has looked up at aircraft since I could look up and now age 53 still look up at them even though I was an airline pilot for most of my life I am annoyed when images like the one shown are provided as 'proof'. Planes I have flown only make two types of visible trails when flying through saturated air, one is caused by the jet engine, usually called contrails - short for condensation trails,the other caused by compression ot local air by pushing a large object at a high enough speed through the 'moist' air. If there is no moisture - there will be no visible trail.

The wing is an aerofoil, it creates lift largely by producing low pressure above it as the air is forced around it. Anyone who flies as a passenger sitting near the wing can watch as moisture , like mini clouds , form over the wing when the air is moist enough, often flying through thin cloud as the aeroplane climbs or descends. It seems to form and disappear instantly as it passes through different patches, that was what was being shown in the video, where the question marks were in the relatively dry air !

The wing tip vortices also explain the different intensity of the trail behind the jet. These highly energetic vortices turn the contrails into separate high intensity, different looking, twisting trails which descend quite quickly from the rest of the air behind the aircraft. These were the two lighter parts shown in another bit of the video. There are more things that can make moist air visible, like putting down flaps.Also things that look like contrails, like dumping fuel for an emergency landing may be mistaken for 'chemtrails'.

I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations, but many times the videos shown as proof are simply the interaction of high speed and moist air. These videos are of landing aircraft and don't include the classic contrails from the engines, but they give a taste of the different things that are formed naturally. There was no secret switch on the Boeings I flew.
Steve, I think your response might have been regarded more if you had watched the video, since that was my request. Also, you could have just asked me about my knowledge of contrails.

I agree, making categorical claims without first providing evidence is something I would try to avoid, but IMO he does later on. I think this was the image he was referring to;


If you're not saying there is nothing to these allegations, then why did you try to convince me otherwise prior to this acknowledgement, rahter than watching the video or spending some time time looking into the subject?

Since your claiming to have experience in an airliner and atmospheric conditions, I like to ask your opinion on these images;
chemtrail-over-city.jpg chemtrails.jpg chemtrails2.jpg chemtrails_09092012-5.jpg Oval-Chemtrails_photo_medium.jpg Screen-Shot-2014-05-08-at-6.15.30-AM.png 5274831092_01a418685e_z.jpg fire-rainbows-6[2].jpg tumblr_inline_mhb4yrQN411rn2vc5.jpg

Do you believe these are normal or typical? Because I've always been a sky watcher, day and night, and I've only notice these types of atmospheric phenomena the last 5yrs. I have never seen clouds produce spectral colors until recently and only after I've observed heavy aerosols dispersions. I've made over a dozen such observations and noted the time, conditions, airline descriptions, flight path, and resulting phenomena. I happen to live under an international airport flight path for 10 years and have become very familiar with typical passenger and freight flights.

The hole punch through the cloud image is something I've videoed only after I've observed a heavy dark colored dispersion that will drop through any cloud below and literally punch a section out.

After heavy days, the setting sun to night sky looks like smog. Often the there is a barometric change the following day and strong winds. Then within the week, the temperature will drop or it will rain. Respiratory complaints increase over the entire area for days. I happen to suffer from a mild asthma and it's always exacerbated. This is a common situation that has been taking place around 2 years. People who have never suffered with such problems are quite common now.

I've notice my garden has been stunted. There have been a noticeable lack of vegetative growth. This is another complaint that is becoming commonly heard.

I have found what I have observed, noted, and personally experienced extremely difficult not to notice and be concerned about, so I am find the lack recognition and acknowledgement of this matter very perplexing, upsetting, and disturbing.

Steve...can you convince me I am putting pieces together that really do not fit? That what I have observed and the information I have gathered myself and from many others over the year is just confidence?
 

Attachments

#6
Frankly, I think it's nonsense. I'll just mention one thing: there aren't 200 species going extinct every day. There are actually only a handful of documented species extinctions in the last few centuries. The guy is obviously scientifically barely literate and is just weaving together lots of different narratives to suit his rather paranoid views.

I didn't want to sidetrack into a discussion of global warming per se, still less pretty absurd conspiracy theories: I wanted to relate it to the kinds of things Peter Russell is interested in, such as the possibility of a meta-paradigmatic shift.
Disappointing...
 
#7
Steve, I think your response might have been regarded more if you had watched the video, since that was my request. Also, you could have just asked me about my knowledge of contrails.

I agree, making categorical claims without first providing evidence is something I would try to avoid, but IMO he does later on. I think this was the image he was referring to;


If not saying there is nothing to these allegations, then why did you try to convince me otherwise prior to this acknowledgement, rahter than watching the video or spending some time time looking into the subject?

Since your claiming to have experience in an airliner and atmospheric conditions

Do you believe these are normal or typical? Because I've always been a sky watcher, day and night, and I've only notice these types of atmospheric phenomena the last 5yrs. I have never seen clouds produce spectral colors until recently and only after I've observed heavy aerosols dispersions. I've made over a dozen such observations and noted the time, conditions, airline descriptions, flight path, and resulting phenomena. I happen to live under an international airport flight path for 10 years and have become very familiar with typical passenger and freight flights.

Steve...can you convince me I am putting pieces together that really do not fit? That what I have observed and the information I have gathered myself and from many others over the year is just confidence?
Okay Matt but I really don't want to derail this thread as I would like to hear more about Peter Russell, I'll make this one last post in reply, then it's a new thread or PM.

The thing is I could have watched the video but it's like trying to buy a car from a car salesman you know is lying to you? In this case the motive isn't money and I believe the guy has genuine concerns, but the language used at the beginning is hardly that of someone who accepts that however strongly he believes his case, he may be wrong ? The true skeptic.I listened to the first twenty mins this morning but I just couldn't listen to much more......sorry.

Now I don't know anything 100% ,but I am as close to it on this small topic as I am on anything. As I said aeroplanes have been my love and my job for most of my life, there are people who know more about how they work and although I was an examiner on simulators, I know people who are more knowledgeable than I am on the details, maybe I am more 'right brained' than them ? I love watching them much more than flying them. You used the phrase '....claiming to have experience in an airliner.....', mmm...skepticism is healthy. ;)

Much of the discussion on this forum goes way above my head, so I enjoy it when I think I can add value when a topic occasionally arises that I can post about with some authority. That is why I said 'I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations', I can only talk with authority on the subject I know something about. In this case it is in the general area of 'visible trails from aircraft'. Not climate change or Geo-whatever or anything else? For the record I believe something was 'wrong' with the official explanation of 9/11 (massive understatement!), that TWA 800 was probably shot down with a missile, that it is extremely unlikely that Oswald killed Kennedy etc etc, I believe people will do anything under some circumstances, usually involving money and definitely power, false flags - jeez yeah. So I am not closed minded!

With the above in mind I am sorry to say to you that many of the pics are typical of busy skies, especially over Europe. Aeroplanes are often going to similar places, for example in the morning we, along with many others, would make our way to destinations in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, etc over Belgium and Germany, filling the sky with contrails similar to those shown given the right conditions ?

The racetrack patterns as scoffed at by the guy in the video as well as his audience laughing in the background at the ignorant comments generally saying something about ' they must think were stupid if they think civil airliners fly like that ?' Well guess what ? They do. They're called holding patterns or 'holds', they are published at the vast majority of airports in the world, and nowadays can be found in the computers that navigate most aeroplanes, you can just press HOLD present position and it will automatically start flying a racetrack pattern ! They are mostly used in the vicinity of busy airports, but can be used to delay flights for all sorts of reasons like weather, computer breakdowns etc. So I think they are normal.

Anyway Matt, I really wouldn't try to convince you of anything, I have come to believe that you can only really do what is right for you.You may think that is apathy or ignorance, I really don't. This world is much more complex than all of us can understand, and I think that if you believe everything that's on coast to coast you'd probably be nuts. I have an 'insider' membership, but I am discerning in what I choose as truths. Most of it is intuition but a small percent is, as in this case, both intuitive and experience based.

I believe that one by one, we must try to choose love over fear and that basically, 'it's all good'.
 
Last edited:
#8
Okay Matt but I really don't want to derail this thread as I would like to hear more about Peter Russell, I'll make this one last post in reply, then it's a new thread or PM.

The thing is I could have watched the video but it's like trying to buy a car from a car salesman you know is lying to you? In this case the motive isn't money and I believe the guy has genuine concerns, but the language used at the beginning is hardly that of someone who accepts that however strongly he believes his case, he may be wrong ? The true skeptic.I listened to the first twenty mins this morning but I just couldn't listen to much more......sorry.

Now I don't know anything 100% ,but I am as close to it on this small topic as I am on anything. As I said aeroplanes have been my love and my job for most of my life, there are people who know more about how they work and although I was an examiner on simulators, I know people who are more knowledgeable than I am on the details, maybe I am more 'right brained' than them ? I love watching them much more than flying them. You used the phrase '....claiming to have experience in an airliner.....', mmm...skepticism is healthy. ;)

Much of the discussion on this forum goes way above my head, so I enjoy it when I think I can add value when a topic occasionally arises that I can post about with some authority. That is why I said 'I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations', I can only talk with authority on the subject I know something about. In this case it is in the general area of 'visible trails from aircraft'. Not climate change or Geo-whatever or anything else? For the record I believe something was 'wrong' with the official explanation of 9/11 (massive understatement!), that TWA 800 was probably shot down with a missile, that it is extremely unlikely that Oswald killed Kennedy etc etc, I believe people will do anything under some circumstances, usually involving money and definitely power, false flags - jeez yeah. So I am not closed minded!

With the above in mind I am sorry to say to you that many of the pics are typical of busy skies, especially over Europe. Aeroplanes are often going to similar places, for example in the morning we, along with many others, would make our way to destinations in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, etc over Belgium and Germany, filling the sky with contrails similar to those shown given the right conditions ?

The racetrack patterns as scoffed at by the guy in the video as well as his audience laughing in the background at the ignorant comments generally saying something about ' they must think were stupid if they think civil airliners fly like that ?' Well guess what ? They do. They're called holding patterns or 'holds', they are published at the vast majority of airports in the world, and nowadays can be found in the computers that navigate most aeroplanes, you can just press HOLD present position and it will automatically start flying a racetrack pattern ! They are mostly used in the vicinity of busy airports, but can be used to delay flights for all sorts of reasons like weather, computer breakdowns etc. So I think they are normal.

Anyway Matt, I really wouldn't try to convince you of anything, I have come to believe that you can only really do what is right for you.You may think that is apathy or ignorance, I really don't. This world is much more complex than all of us can understand, and I think that if you believe everything that's on coast to coast you'd probably be nuts. I have an 'insider' membership, but I am discerning in what I choose as truths. Most of it is intuition but a small percent is, as in this case, both intuitive and experience based.

I believe that one by one, we must try to choose love over fear and that basically, 'it's all good'.
Steve...maybe you're aware of it, maybe you aren't, or maybe it's intentional, but you have come across condescending in both responses. Now, IMO and from experience, if this is normal behavior, then it is by a person with the attitude they are superior, have it all figured out, and narcissistic in nature. If is intentional, then it's just a person being an arrogant a**hole, but what's the difference? However, I'd like to make a request, in the future, please don't respond like that or just don't respond.

My questions and concerns are very personal, very disturbing to experience, and I don't have the option to just ignore it, because just by looking up, making observations, and noting the results that are nearly identical every time, I also have to watch others be affected and myself endure the effects quite often. But, these are not just my concerns, these are also the concerns of many others whom have been researching this far longer than I have.

My skepticism is quite healthy and that is why I have great difficultly taking anyone seriously when their opinion is denial back by an Argument from Ignorance.

As far as derailing the thread, well I also suggest this in the future, don't respond to those asking questions you have made no attempt to understand and then answer with empty ramblings of Straw-Men and Red Herring tangents.

But, I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. Just don't think you're going to convince me with just your belief.
 
#9
Steve...maybe you're aware of it, maybe you aren't, or maybe it's intentional, but you have come across condescending in both responses. Now, IMO and from experience, if this is normal behavior, then it is by a person with the attitude they are superior, have it all figured out, and narcissistic in nature. If is intentional, then it's just a person being an arrogant a**hole, but what's the difference? However, I'd like to make a request, in the future, please don't respond like that or just don't respond..
I suspect pilots - such as Steve - know a LOT more about planes and what is normal with them, than others do.

David
 
#10
Matt

I'm sorry that you feel and have reacted in this way, maybe you should ask yourself why ?
I just feel that the pictures and video should be truthfully described and I am not going to lie just to make you feel better. My posts above are genuine, the intent behind them was genuine. To be honest, I found your reply hurtful.

As I said earlier, I am not going to try convince you.

Steve
 
Last edited:
#11
I suspect pilots - such as Steve - know a LOT more about planes and what is normal with them, than others do.

David
I'm certain Steve does know more about planes, but this is not a subject I just stumbled into yesterday. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the material available and I have made several observations myself, noting the results, and comparing them succeedingly. I did explain that I have noted patterns and definite effects, but not once was this even acknowledged.

But, what really upset me was the fact that I had asked for the video to be reviewed by Michael Larkin, who could have just responded with not interested. Instead it was not viewed and labeled a conspiracy theory.

Then Steve chimed in with I have not watched the whole video, which was my request. I can understand if no one is interested, but to ignore my request and still respond without bothering to look into the subject, ignoring my observations (which are not verified I realized, but still to just ignore them?), and then try to explain it all away casually with a mix of other subjects I'm not discussing, made me angry.

If someone ask me something I don't want to discuss or do not have any knowledge of, I won't respond condescendingly. I'll just respond not interested. That seems the appropriate response in my opinion.
 
#12
Matt

I'm sorry that you feel and have reacted in this way, maybe you should ask yourself why ?
I just feel that the pictures and video should be truthfully described and I am not going to lie just to make you feel better. My posts above are genuine, the intent behind them was genuine. To be honest, I found your reply hurtful.

As I said earlier, I am not going to try convince you.

Steve
I explained why I responded as I did. I also explained these were questions concerning actual physical effects. If that does not help you understand why I was upset by your response then I don't know how else to explain it.
 
#13
Frankly, I think it's nonsense........The guy is obviously scientifically barely literate and is just weaving together lots of different narratives to suit his rather paranoid views.
I didn't want to sidetrack into a discussion of global warming per se, still less pretty absurd conspiracy theories:
I agree 100% ! This is analogous to the pictures of horrendous toxic clouds being emitted from power stations - actually it is almost entirely steam!There is a hell of a lot of cynical manipulation going on, and people need to be aware of the process
Matt

I think you are hacked off because no-one agrees with you ?

If you wanted Michael Larkin to watch the video , you could have sent him a PM ? So stop complaining as you didn't ask me to watch the whole video and I'm under no obligation to do so.

You keep complaining that I mixed it up and went off on tangents ? Wrong ! I was very specific on what I know and what I wasn't making a comment on.That is why I said :-

'I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations', I can only talk with authority on the subject I know something about. In this case it is in the general area of 'visible trails from aircraft'. Not climate change or Geo-whatever or anything else?

So please stop complaining about me, it wasn't me who displayed typical effects of cognitive dissonance or started calling people offensive names.
 
Last edited:
#14
But, what really upset me was the fact that I had asked for the video to be reviewed by Michael Larkin, who could have just responded with not interested. Instead it was not viewed and labeled a conspiracy theory.
Whoa there! I did in fact look at the video. How else would I have known that it it referred to species extinctions? I didn't watch all of it, because after a while I grew tired of it. As Steve says, if you don't want people to look at the video, which I suspect many did (even if not all of it), then don't post it on open thread. That said, if you had sent it me privately, my response (if any), wouldn't have been any different.

My saying it's nonsense doesn't say that I think you are an idiot: it just says that I think the guy in the video was a conspiracy nut. Maybe you don't know enough to make a good evaluation, but if so, I've given you mine, which you asked for and are free to take or leave.

Steve seems to know his onions about this issue, having flown planes. Having looked myself at so-called instances of "spraying", I immediately noticed that they often came from the edges of wings, perhaps particularly when the flaps are down. There are pressure differentials between the top and bottom of wings (which is why planes can fly), and so there may be localised effects that cause water vapour to condense from humid air. I'm also not surprised by busy contrail patterns produced by aircraft as they circle in a holding pattern before coming down to land. Lastly, it doesn't surprise me if sometimes planes, even passenger planes, do sometimes carry spraying equipment: one can imagine their being employed in crop spraying or forest firefighting.
 
#15
I think you are hacked off because no-one agrees with you ?

If you wanted Michael Larkin to watch the video , you could have sent him a PM ? So stop complaining as you didn't ask me to watch the whole video and I'm under no obligation to do so.

You keep complaining that I mixed it up and went off on tangents - wrong ! I was very specific on what I know and what I wasn't making a comment on.That is why I said :-

'I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations', I can only talk with authority on the subject I know something about. In this case it is in the general area of 'visible trails from aircraft'. Not climate change or Geo-whatever or anything else?

So please stop complaining about me, it wasn't me who displayed typical effects of cognitive dissonance or started calling people offensive names.
Feel better?
 
#16
Whoa there! I did in fact look at the video. How else would I have known that it it referred to species extinctions? I didn't watch all of it, because after a while I grew tired of it. As Steve says, if you don't want people to look at the video, which I suspect many did (even if not all of it), then don't post it on open thread. That said, if you had sent it me privately, my response (if any), wouldn't have been any different.

My saying it's nonsense doesn't say that I think you are an idiot: it just says that I think the guy in the video was a conspiracy nut. Maybe you don't know enough to make a good evaluation, but if so, I've given you mine, which you asked for and are free to take or leave.

Steve seems to know his onions about this issue, having flown planes. Having looked myself at so-called instances of "spraying", I immediately noticed that they often came from the edges of wings, perhaps particularly when the flaps are down. There are pressure differentials between the top and bottom of wings (which is why planes can fly), and so there may be localised effects that cause water vapour to condense from humid air. I'm also not surprised by busy contrail patterns produced by aircraft as they circle in a holding pattern before coming down to land. Lastly, it doesn't surprise me if sometimes planes, even passenger planes, do sometimes carry spraying equipment: one can imagine their being employed in crop spraying or forest firefighting.
I can only provide what I have observed. Anything else is not my research, but if what others have parallels what I witnessed, then I will note the similarities, make comparisons, and discuss it further. So far, what I have noticed is that the spraying patterns are different for the seasons. Winter spraying was very heavy and it seemed to extend the cold weather. I haven't made any notable observations for Spring/Summer yet.
 
#17
I think you are hacked off because no-one agrees with you ?

If you wanted Michael Larkin to watch the video , you could have sent him a PM ? So stop complaining as you didn't ask me to watch the whole video and I'm under no obligation to do so.

You keep complaining that I mixed it up and went off on tangents - wrong ! I was very specific on what I know and what I wasn't making a comment on.That is why I said :-

'I'm not saying there is nothing to these allegations', I can only talk with authority on the subject I know something about. In this case it is in the general area of 'visible trails from aircraft'. Not climate change or Geo-whatever or anything else?

So please stop complaining about me, it wasn't me who displayed typical effects of cognitive dissonance or started calling people offensive names.
Steve - would you like to look at this post, there must be some confusion. You quoted Michael Larkin and myself, but seemed to be replying as if we were Matt!

David
 
#18
Steve - would you like to look at this post, there must be some confusion. You quoted Michael Larkin and myself, but seemed to be replying as if we were Matt!

David
Sorry David, I have edited the post to make it clear that it is addressed to Matt.

I was using your posts to make the point that on this issue he stands alone ! My posts received 12 'likes' to his 0 ? He was clearly frustrated by the responses he received, but he chose me alone to vent his anger and frustration. A bit like the school bully beating up some innocent kid when he realises he's not having his way.
 
#20
Sorry David, I have edited the post to make it clear that it is addressed to Matt.

I was using your posts to make the point that on this issue he stands alone ! My posts received 12 'likes' to his 0 ? He was clearly frustrated by the responses he received, but he chose me alone to vent his anger and frustration. A bit like the school bully beating up some innocent kid when he realises he's not having his way.
Steve this is not a popularity contest. I left that attitude in high school and I don't ask questions with the intent of trying to be ❝liked.❞ I have followed Dane Wigington's research ever since I watched the video and I feel his research and findings are credible.

Now you are certainly obliged to your opinion, but attempting to reference it in that ridiculously juvenile framework is absurd and insipid. And IMO, is more of an attempt to distract and self-validate an Argument from Ignorance to bolster an Appeal to Consequence of Belief.

I guess we're just different. You value popularity and being ❝liked.❞ I value empiricism and my health.
 
Last edited:
Top