Shasta County Supervisors to discuss chemtrails

No...do NOT go there!!!

I refer back to my post above...(GoTO)...etc)....computer nerds can add the code....

EDIT: Hmmm....a 'female'.....perhaps I could....could.....''''no.....not processing''''

....nope....ain't gonna work. HOWEVER, I could interact with a person on an intellectual level...
we need a "huh?" rating icon
 
When the average person hears commercial pilot they think airline pilot. Not knowing that requires an Air Transport Pilot license (ATP). Plus type rating.
Jeff Nelson, talking at the meeting at about the 34 minute mark in the video, claims he was an airline pilot, and also lead flight instructor, teaching pilots about engines and weather. And then he goes on to claim that contrails last 1 minute tops, but usually just seconds.
And Russ Lazuka says he has 17 years of flight experience as a commercial pilot, and then goes on claiming that contrails completely dissipate within 15 secomds...

I used to argue that all pilots just laugh at the chemtrail theory. Now there are some counterexamples.
 
There is a guy in Australia called Carl Needham who runs a chemtrail website called "bluenomore".

He is a pilot who touts his credentials as 6000 hours command instrument time. It sounds impressive if you don't know that he is a light aircraft pilot and the "command instrument time" simply means he has an instrument rating he uses when he flies at light aircraft around.

I personally did not know the gritty details of persistent contrails till I started debunking chemtrails. Most pilots don't know the scientific details and couldn't care less about them other than the fact that with RVSM separation, they mark a potential area of turbulence to be avoided if following another aircraft.

That these pilots claim that there are chemtrails simply means they are of a mindset to believe, and haven't thought it through or don't wish to try.

They are the tiny, tiny minority. Even the pilots on the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" forum, whom you would think are more disposed towards believing at least some conspiracy theories, have given people like Harold Saive and Jack Baran (Quest) absolutely no comfort or support to their assertions.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pilots touting their licences is like Francis Mangels listing his "credentials". If you look at Mangels "document", which, again, starts with incantations of science, you quickly find that there is almost no science in there. It's all presuppositions, claims, and misinterpretation. But, hey, they're pilots and scientists, right?
 
Last edited:
Wow, over 4 hours. I skipped to R7 but still, that was some public session. I got the impression Mr Shappell (sp?) and Supervisor Giacomini were convinced these extraordinary claims of mass aerial spraying need further investigation (though unsure if they're doing it for political reasons or personal belief). The former panel member seemed to harbour a distrust of higher authorities? Not sure who he is or why he had a position on the panel, google wasn't my friend.

Mr Simon was very diplomatic in his response and it was interesting hearing about the role and limitations of the AQMD department, especially the facts pertaining to monitoring stations and how they open it up to small businesses, land owners and the general public to get involved. It would be very interesting to know if Mr Wigington himself will be taking up the offer to carry out monitoring under direction of the state and in accordance with proper practice and technique. Has anyone checked the data from the mentioned I.M.P.R.O.V.E website Mr Simon mentioned? It would be interesting to compare them to the oft-touted "high toxicity" levels complained of.

I was confused by Mr Simon's response to the particle size question though. He seemed to say they collect "up to" 2.5 and 10ppm. But then, I'm also confused by the other sides claim of being sprayed by nano-particles, as they don't have any proof I've seen, let alone claim of the actual size(s) that needs to be collected in the first place.
 
He seemed to say they collect "up to" 2.5 and 10ppm
It's not ppm, it's PM. Short for "particulate matter".
The monitoring stations measure PM up to 2.5 micrometers or 10 micrometers (denoted as PM2.5 and PM10).
But they give no information about what fraction of that material is nanoparticles.

To measure nanoparticles, entirely different techniques should be used. It's important to note that with nanoparticles, it's not their mass concentration but their number concentration that matters.

Air quality monitoring stations do not routinely measure nanoparticles, and there are no regulations or baselines for such data.
Of course if they found nanoparticles made of elemental aluminum, that would be proof of man-made nanoparticles.
 
It's not ppm, it's PM. Short for "particulate matter".
I stand corrected, thank you skephu. Off to google...

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particulatematter/
"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.
The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. EPA groups particle pollution into two categories:

  • "Inhalable coarse particles," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter.
  • "Fine particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air.
Content from External Source
 
Regarding nanoparticles of aluminum, there are some things that might be considered:

A) The oxidation rate. How long before it's aluminum oxide?
B) The fall time. How long does it take to reach the ground?
C) Dispersion area. Given B, how far from the trail will it be?

I'm thinking here of simple things that might be helpful to the Shasta board. If they are being tasked with testing for nano-aluminum being sprayed from planes, then it is worth asking first if such a test is even meaningful. What if the hypothesis that is being tested? Is that hypothesis falsifiable without tests? What would tests tell you?

http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/EUMETSAT/at_dust/navmenu.php_tab_1_page_2.1.2_type_text.htm



Nano-particles are (roughly) particles measured in nanometers, so less than 1 micron in size. From the graph above we see a fall rate of around 0.1 mm/s. One tenth of a mm per second. Or about 2 miles per year. So from an average cruising altitude of above 6 miles, that's three years to settle. By which time it would have gone around the world several times.

And then a key point is that there are no proposals for using aluminum nanoparticles. This is a misconception stemming from suggestion by David Keith using disks that were 10 microns wide - much bigger than the nano range and visibly under a reasonable microscope. And also designed to be self levitating, and hence remaining in the atmosphere indefinitely.

http://2020science.org/2010/09/13/c...articles-provide-a-novel-geoengineering-tool/
 
And then a key point is that there are no proposals for using aluminum nanoparticles. This is a misconception stemming from suggestion by David Keith using disks that were 10 microns wide - much bigger than the nano range and visibly under a reasonable microscope. And also designed to be self levitating, and hence remaining in the atmosphere indefinitely.

Important to note also that this "suggestion" would need to be implemented WELL higher than the typical passenger jet cruise altitude...lest these "discs" be ingested by the engines, and then cause damage (possibly to the point of engine failure).

This, then, obviously negates the claims made by the "chem"trail proponents, does it not?
 
This whole "nano" think seems to have captured the imagination of CT people. I doubt they really know what it means or the implications related to it.
 
Which ones? I thought the Welsbach was 10um and higher. That's the only one I have read though.
From this paper:
Blackstock, J. J., Battisti, D. S., Caldeira, K., Eardley, D. M., Katz, J. I., Keith, D. W., ... & Koonin, S. E. (2009). Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.5140.:
Another possibility is the fabrication of engineered solid particles, which would be manufactured on the ground and
then lofted into the stratosphere; proposals have focused particularly on aluminium and aluminium oxide particles. ...
For
 example, 
Teller‐1997 
proposed
 short
 (~300 nm)
 and
 fine 
(thickness 
and 
width
 ∼30 nm)
 aluminum

wires, 
coated 
with 
aluminum
 oxide 
for 
protection 
against 
further
 oxidation. 
The 
required 
mass
 of 
such

particles 
would
 be 
only
 a 
few 
percent,
 at 
most,
 of 
the 
mass 
of 
sulfur 
required 
to 
achieve
 the 
same
 radiative

effect.

Content from External Source
So it's not even true that "there are no proposals for using aluminum nanoparticles". They proposed aluminum nanoparticles coated with aluminum oxide.

Nanoparticles are generally optimal for solar radiation management. From the same paper:
For materially-uniform spherical particles, basic scattering theory demonstrates that the most mass-efficient scatterers have radii of
about 0.1 of the wavelength of the scattered radiation. For the solar spectrum, peaking on the red side of the visible
spectrum, this means particles with radii of ~1000Å (or 0.1µm.)
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From this paper:
Blackstock, J. J., Battisti, D. S., Caldeira, K., Eardley, D. M., Katz, J. I., Keith, D. W., ... & Koonin, S. E. (2009). Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.5140.:
Another possibility is the fabrication of engineered solid particles, which would be manufactured on the ground and
then lofted into the stratosphere; proposals have focused particularly on aluminium and aluminium oxide particles. ...
For
 example, 
Teller‐1997 
proposed
 short
 (~300 nm)
 and
 fine 
(thickness 
and 
width
 ∼30 nm)
 aluminum

wires, 
coated 
with 
aluminum
 oxide 
for 
protection 
against 
further
 oxidation. 
The 
required 
mass
 of 
such

particles 
would
 be 
only
 a 
few 
percent,
 at 
most,
 of 
the 
mass 
of 
sulfur 
required 
to 
achieve
 the 
same
 radiative

effect.

Content from External Source
So it's not even true that "there are no proposals for using aluminum nanoparticles". They proposed aluminum nanoparticles coated with aluminum oxide.
Teller's proposal (attached) suggest praying alumina (Aluminum oxide) 200nm particles.

The "wires" proposal seems to be this: "In the second, metallic "nets" of ultra-fine mesh-spacing are employed to reflect solar photons of optical wavelengths into space. " (page 11) which is not really spraying particles, as far as I can tell.


Nanoparticles are generally optimal for solar radiation management. From the same paper:
For materially-uniform spherical particles, basic scattering theory demonstrates that the most mass-efficient scatterers have radii of
about 0.1 of the wavelength of the scattered radiation. For the solar spectrum, peaking on the red side of the visible
spectrum, this means particles with radii of ~1000Å (or 0.1µm.)
Content from External Source

But I still don't see anyone suggesting spraying elemental aluminum.
 

Attachments

  • teller-OCR.pdf
    11.5 MB · Views: 526
Actually, many people don't even understand the difference between an element and a compound.
So for the chemtrail crowd, elemental aluminum or aluminum oxide are both just forms of aluminum. I don't think there is a strong statement by them that elemental aluminum, and definitely not aluminum oxide, is being sprayed.
 
Actually, many people don't even understand the difference between an element and a compound.
So for the chemtrail crowd, elemental aluminum or aluminum oxide are both just forms of aluminum. I don't think there is a strong statement by them that elemental aluminum, and definitely not aluminum oxide, is being sprayed.

It varies. However I think there were some strong claims made at Shasta that it was elemental, and that they tested for elemental, so it was not environmental.

However their tests, as Steve Funk pointed out at the meeting, don't distinguish between elemental and compound.
 
Actually, many people don't even understand the difference between an element and a compound.
So for the chemtrail crowd, elemental aluminum or aluminum oxide are both just forms of aluminum. I don't think there is a strong statement by them that elemental aluminum, and definitely not aluminum oxide, is being sprayed.

Good point made, stated well.

I still ask those who "believe" in the "chem"trail myth....just HOW are these so-called "chem"trails delivered?

Passenger airliners (and even cargo-only airliners) certainly do not have the excess payload capacity, NOR any 'spraying' apparatus.

Still, the myth persists....despite GOBS of evidence to the contrary.
 
Good point made, stated well.

I still ask those who "believe" in the "chem"trail myth....just HOW are these so-called "chem"trails delivered?

Passenger airliners (and even cargo-only airliners) certainly do not have the excess payload capacity, NOR any 'spraying' apparatus.

Still, the myth persists....despite GOBS of evidence to the contrary.

It seems to be, partly, that they see the aircraft flying so high overhead and 'out-of-reach'. They just don't seem to grasp that every single one of those aircraft has to land and be serviced by dozens if not hundreds of people. The believers don't seem to understand the scale of coverup needed to encompass this.
 
The believers don't seem to understand the scale of coverup needed to encompass this.

Ummm.....yeah, as I keep saying.

And yet NOT ONE verifiable 'source' to "whistle-blow".

Knowing what I know, from working in the airline industry? People on the ramp would LOVE to "reveal" something, for a big pay-out!!

(edit...in a "low-point", just to get a job after my commuter airline went BK in 1981, I worked on the ramp....and had the tube emptying a DC-8's lavatory BURST and cover me in the "blue". I have been, there, done that....)

We have not only those employed by "XYZ Airlines", but also the CONTRACTED workers....so, so many of them, ALL usually at minimum wage.

And yet? Nada....zilch....nothing.
 
Mick, the image you put up showing the 10 micron disk size appears to have an insect body part(maybe a leg?) on it. Do you know what that is?
It might be more informative if you labeled it as such, if you know, or remake the image with say a human hair which ordinary folks can relate to easily.
 
strawman said:
Mr. Mangels says his paper "Geoengineering - What we know" has not been debunked. Do we have a discussion of it somewhere on metabunk? And where can I find the most recent revision? All I could find is the one attached.
Attached Files:


Yes, he was debunked by no less than Steve Funk who lives in the same town, has known him for 30 years and has similar qualifications.

If Francis Mangels is denying that Steve has addressed his issues, he is not being truthful.
 

Attachments

  • Steve Funk reply to mangels Feb 12.doc
    3.7 MB · Views: 1,025

Yes, he was debunked by no less than Steve Funk who lives in the same town, has known him for 30 years and has similar qualifications.

If Francis Mangels is denying that Steve has addressed his issues, he is not being truthful.

Interesting. Steve Funk was present at that very meeting. I have to say that takes some balls.
 
Has Sutton ever said anything about the chemtrail theory before? I can't find anything.
I had not heard of him but had heard of AECOM and that got my interest.

I noticed on Facebook that the accusation that he was warned off is gaining ground. Is it worth trying to contact him to find out what he was invited to talk about.
 
I got there a little late and was the next to last speaker. This was not good for press coverage but good for being remembered by the supervisors. They seemed to be leafing through my writeup, which they received both by email and hard copy. Kehoe used to be personnel officer at the forest service. Ihaven't spoken to him for many years, but he recognized and welcomed me. I'm sure he also knew all about Mangels. I haven't had time or a fast connection to check the coverage of this in the past three days. I didn't attempt to speak with any of the other participants, but the lady who came from Spain sought me out, and we talked for a while. She has a political science background, and a bias against physical scientists. She said she would call me Paulo, in hopes that iWOULD BE LIKE Saul OF tarsus WHO was struck by a religious experience and became Saint Paul after having persecuted Christians. She was nice, but thought debunking and referring to it as a conspiracy theory was the equivalent of persecution.
 
Media report is somewhat facepalmable:


The report actually did nothing but "report" what happened at the meeting. It seemed they left the viewership to decide any stance of belief......based on the meeting's supplied info.

Edit.......the report did offer a brief alt "contrail" explanation, in fairness, @1:50.
 
Last edited:
Actually, many people don't even understand the difference between an element and a compound.
So for the chemtrail crowd, elemental aluminum or aluminum oxide are both just forms of aluminum. I don't think there is a strong statement by them that elemental aluminum, and definitely not aluminum oxide, is being sprayed.
Oh I think they do, except when it doesn't suit them to. Haven't you read the explanations for why the aluminium in the quack remedies they sell is good for you (zeolite etc), but the aluminium in chemtrails is pure airborne death?
 
That media report is pretty hilarious. I really hope they have to come in contact with some actual scientists or the legal system soon, and realize that gut feelings, pictures of contrails, flawed tests, and fear porn just won't cut it anymore.
 
She has a political science background, and a bias against physical scientists. She said she would call me Paulo, in hopes that iWOULD BE LIKE Saul OF tarsus WHO was struck by a religious experience and became Saint Paul after having persecuted Christians. She was nice, but thought debunking and referring to it as a conspiracy theory was the equivalent of persecution.

She sounds like she falls into the camp of people for whom chemtrails is a religious faith.
 
The report actually did nothing but "report" what happened at the meeting. It seemed they left the viewership to decide any stance of belief
As an 'outsider' that news video was totally biased against the chemtrailists. Calling them "believers" instead of "supporters", the kidney quote etc. I'm sure the chemtrailists aren't happy.
 
Back
Top