Wayne Hall, I asked you for evidence of a moratorium breach. If you have it, why don’t you just provide it? Why should I have to contact people? I did not make the claim, you did.

Just write what you found out. Can’t be too hard.

Also, I am waiting for evidence of anything sinister going on in the skies. Not that I have great hopes.

I already indicated that I do not propose to have any contact I may have with ETC predicated on your agenda, precisely because they owe whatever progress they have made to avoiding getting trapped in your agenda, as everyone else on this planet is trapped.

It is the same agenda as that purveyed by the promoters of the official 911 conspiracy theory. Perhaps the 911 Truth movement needs to find a “realpolitical” structural equivalent of the ETC group to get you out of the ghetto into which you have painted yourself.

Would you like to make a claim that you have not painted yourself into a ghetto???  Then I could ask you to prove it.

Wayne Hall, I’m sorry to say that your writing ceases to make any sense ...

If you don’t understand what I am saying, perhaps others will and the discussion will be able to continue.

@ Josh “Citing Youtube videos is not very convincing. “

the video showed a contrail dissappearing very quickly.

if youre not convinced - i did suggest you could simply look up.

the fact that some contrails do dissappear quickly, does not rule out contrails that can linger. the fact that some contrails linger, does not rule out chemtrails.

the fact that you took a gliders exam is not very convincing and does not make you qualified to tell me what i am or are not seeing.

Unliked,
if you accept that contrails can linger and spread - how can you “see” a chemtrail? What is the difference to a contrail?

“Seeing” without knowledge does not mean much. Millions of people were convinced that the Earth is flat. They could “see” this. It was obvious.

Unliked, are you really interested in this contrail vs chemtrail discussion? Do you regard it as a useful subject for debate?

Whats to debate?

http://www.consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdsVXiVFLYM

i could add a hundred links,, i could post my own photos and videos…

we could debate until the cows come home.. but to what end? neither you or i are qualified to put this matter to rest once and for all - beyond all reasonable doubt…

there are many credible people who have concerns about chemtrails..

of course i believe it should be debated, but not here,,  id more prefer a public forum with experts from all sides, in some sort of official capacity, where any findindings can be acted upon..

where do you stand on the issue mr Hall.. and what qualifications do you bring to the table?

@ josh..

the differences?

the differences being, i live in a remote area.. we might be under the flight path of major airlines.. in one direction only..

i am in a position where i may observe the whole sky.. from horizon to horizon every day.. i see commuter aircraft pass by.. regularly.. leaving normal looking contrails..

and then on othe r days, i see planes covering the whole sky.. in criss cross formations, from horizon to horizon.. where none of the trails dissappear, they all spread out, until they form an overcast ‘cloud” where the planes fly low enough for particulates to fall noticably from the sky.. where i know im breathing this shit.. and i know how it makes me feel.. thats the bloody difference.. thanks for caring.

youre not the only one who knows the different names of clouds..
but when youre being sprayed, like they do here, theres no doubt.

Unliked: the proposals to spray aerosols into the atmosphere (sometimes into the stratosphere, sometimes into the troposphere) for “geoengineering” purposes have their origins in US nuclear weapons laboratories, among scientists who assimilated Cold War modes of thought and habits of being secretive, disingenuous and deceitful in their behaviour towards outsiders. Their habits are consciously or unconsciously imitated by the very large numbers of professional and amateur hangers-on that involve themselves in most internet discussions of this question. The resultant discussions are usually degrading for participants on both sides: on the “official” side because they involve politicization and debasement of what should be the honesty and integrity of science; on the “oppositional” side because they often testify to naivety. This discussion between purported “critical insider” Alan Robock and street activists                              
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNrkp6a_6As&NR=1
is typical.

Personally I don’t think it is worth arguing with anybody who wants to dispute the existence of aerosol spraying from aircraft. It is in any case not necessary because a moratorium has been agreed on this activity, so that the only question is why it is not being implemented.

Chemtrails debunkers like Josh who ask for evidence that this moratorium is not being respected should direct any relevant queries to the lobbyists who achieved the moratorium, the ETC group.

It is not appropriate for chemtrails activists to ask these questions of the ETC group because chemtrails activists in any case rely on the evidence of their senses, i.e. what they see with their eyes, and do not need to ask for confirmation of the obvious from manipulative and cunning lobbyists against geoengineering who owe their achievements precisely to the lip-service they pay to prescribed mythologies.

To answer your questions about me: I do not have any relevant formal qualifications, but have been engaged with this issue for nearly ten years. I am the co-ordinator of the Greek website “Enouranois” and recently made a documentary of the same name:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBAOCC3W0Dk&annotation_id=annotation_437164&src_vid=U68iFCxQrSE&feature=iv

Thankyou for your pithy reply mr hall
i look forward to checking out your website, and i want to let you know i appreciate your efforts in bringing to peoples attention what i believe to be a very significant issue.

I just came across this blog. Hmmmmm. It is clear that some of the wild theories abounding about contrails and “chemtrails” need to be put to bed, if that is possible. With 14,000 hours in the skies over some 40 odd years, and with an Airline Transport Pilot Licence having flown in a number of countries,and having had to pass the Meteorology examinations in a number of countries including Canada, I think I can put forward reasoned explanations. I have made contrails and flown through my colleagues contrails. The first thing we need to understand is that contrails do not expand. The reason being the simple explanation that ambient conditions have to be right for contrails to form and no aircraft engines add anything to the atmosphere as they pass on their way that could possibly cause any change other than a temporary alteration to temperature. The minuscule amount of water expressed from turbine fuel through combustion is not even worth mentioning. The air that passes through a hot engine, piston or turbine, does not delete the water that exists in the surrounding atmosphere, it merely heats it, turns it to steam and it is condensed back to water vapour as soon as it exits the exhaust or jet pipe. As the temperatures at the altitudes where contrails occur are below freezing, we get ice crystals from the condensing water vapour. Hence we get a trail of ice crystals behind the exhausts which may last for a few minutes or longer depending upon the humidity of the air mass being flown through. The only thing that has changed is the temporary increase in temperature and as can be appreciated at freezing temperatures such a rise in temperature is fleeting. If the ambient conditions were such that an increase in humidity occurred we would get cloud as it is the cooling of water that causes cloud/fog. Cloud is only fog at altitude, fog is only cloud near ground level. No amount of flying can generate sufficient humidity to form cloud and that is what the proponents of “lingering” contrails claim happens. Anybody who has performed high altitude aerobatics in a jet fighter can tell you that it is possible to do a loop at 40,000 and fly through your own slipstream at the bottom and find your contrail has disappeared. You can also fly a steep turn horizontally and fly through your own slipstream and find your contrail disappearing a short distance behind your aircraft. It depends upon the ambient conditions at the time. There would be cloud if the conditions were such that “lingering” contrails persisted and you would not see the contrails because they would form part of the cloud you would be flying through. You could also note that sky writers eject chemicals to form their words in the sky and they disappear rapidly with the wind and persist for short periods of time only if there is light or no wind. Please note that contrails only appear over Eastern Australia in winter in the eastern dry season, and over Western Australia in the winter, as temperatures and conditions are not conducive to contrails in other seasons, yet we see chemtrails in summer in the east during the wet season whenever there is a likelihood of rain. How come? the proponents need to explain how we get aircraft flying over Brisbane emitting chemtrails at and below 10,000 feet AMSL.

Are you at all familiar with the “geoengineering” discussion, Leonard Clampett, or is contrails/chemtrails all you can talk about?

Leonard Clampett,
from your first-hand experience, would you confirm that the number of contrails has increased during the last 20 years or so?

Many “chemtrailers” claim that this is the case, and I wonder if this part of the story may in fact be true, due to the increase in air traffic and probably due to jet engines burning more efficiently.

From my memory, I couldn’t tell ...

The seminal text to consider in the chemtrails/geoengineering debate is this one:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791

The geoengineering scenario came from the same minds as those who propelled us into the nuclear arms race by allowing Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall and others to leak “secrets” to the Soviets, (who then copied the design for the Nagasaki bomb and started making these things in the USSR), and then executed the Rosenbergs for doing what they had actually done themselves.

The geoengineering scenario came from the same mind as the scenario presented to Gorbachev in Reykjavik, where Reagan said that he would agree to the US and the USSR destroying all their nuclear weapons if the Soviets would consent to the US going ahead with the SDI (Star Wars) plan for an anti-missile system to shoot down Soviet nuclear weapons.

These people decided that they would like to get the world talking about the differences between contrails and chemtrails at the same time that they embarked on the plan outlined by Teller in the text above, a plan for solving a “problem” he thought (or said he thought)probably did not exist.

The contrails/chemtrails debate is a little like the Osama Bin Laden debate, the 11th September 2001 debate, the Soviet nuclear threat debate of the 50s to 80s.

Do you really think I want to talk about it just because someone at Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore thinks that this is a suitable subject to get the plebs arguing about?

Read what the ETC group has to say on these matters. They don’t tell the truth bout “chemtrails” but at least they focus the debate on worthwhile subjects.

To Wayne Hall,

“Are you at all familiar with the “geoengineering” discussion, Leonard Clampett, or is contrails/chemtrails all you can talk about?”

Thank you for your rather rude response. The geoengineering you write of has been around for many decades. The HAARP system has been built up and we now have seven HAARP sites across the planet. These are used to alter weather and are a weapons device created by the US military/industrial complex. The US has an agenda to dominate and run the world and are working toward a war free time when by creating either drought, floods or earthquakes they can bring any country to its knees. You may have seen the many photographs available on the Internet showing unusual cloud formations which are clearly not a natural phenomena. I have a couple which were taken on Saturday the 9th of June 2012 showing what can only be geoengineering at work, taken at the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia as demonstrated by the tower at “Wet and Wild” near MovieWorld. A pity I cannot upload it to this Blog site, but anybody interested can e-mail me for a copy at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Make no mistake, there are contrails, which are, as originally called, “vapour trails” caused by water condensation and freezing, and there are “chemtrails” which are man-made sprays created for use in conjunction with the HAARP system for weather modification and other devious designs. The contrails seen over England and Europe during the second world war were vapour trails left by high altitude supercharged piston engine aircraft which had not flown at those kind of altitudes prior and the ambient conditions in that area were ideal for the formation of contrails. There has been a proliferation of contrails over the last few decades due to the increase in air traffic and no amount of engine technology causing better combustion will diminish contrails because they are a result of ambient conditions which includes the amount of water vapour in whatever parcel of air is being flown through. There has been a proliferation of chemtrails over the past couple of decades as more and more are sprayed. no amount of denial from authorities can refute the fact that chemtrails are sprayed on a regular basis all over the planet. Observation and analysis proves that beyond doubt.

Dear Leonard Clampett,

Thank you for your reply. I see you are quite familiar with the facts and this could be enlightening for Josh, whose last posting you also answered.

Pardon me for being indiscreet, but given that you know quite well the realities of this subject, why in your first post did you describe as “wild theories” the facts about “chemtrails” which you then stated yourself?  “there are “chemtrails” which are man-made sprays created for use in conjunction with the HAARP system for weather modification and other devious designs.”

The only point I would take you up on is the idea that HAARP foreshadows a “war free” world.  It seems that the type of war waged by HAARP, which is illegal under the ENMOD Treaty of 1976 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention
is meant to supplement other kinds of war, not replace them.

The United States does not acknowledge that HAARP is a weapons system but the European Parliament has described it as such and condemned it:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

However, precisely because of the military status of HAARP, the European Commission has said that it has no authority to act on the recommendations of the above report. So much for European sovereignty.

Leonard Clampett said:

“No amount of flying can generate sufficient humidity to form cloud and that is what the proponents of “lingering” contrails claim happens.”

No, they don’t. Even the ice crystals in a persistant contrail are consisting mainly of water that was present in the air already. See “supersaturation with respect to ice”.

Clouds do evolve, with trails or without. Why should a contrail not give the initial push for clouds to develop if the relative humidity is high enough?

Is your objective to generate clouds in this discussion, Leonard Clampett?

(There is nothing like flogging a dead horse with a red herring.)

and heres a video of “clouds” being turned on and off..

Josh thinks stuff like this is perfectly natural…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWO5KT8IhI