Um.. which question to answer first. Well, my criteria is much the same as everyone else's: a lifetime of observation!
This is a key point Iain. If you can't explain what the difference is, then there is no difference.
Please address this question.
Um.. which question to answer first. Well, my criteria is much the same as everyone else's: a lifetime of observation!
I have explained the differences in detail, so you can always refer to those answers.
If someone asks, what is the difference between cerulean and and cobalt, you might not know. Or if you do know, you would not be able to tell someone who knows nothing about them; no matter what you tell them, they still think they are the same, because they lack the capacity gained from observation. And of course, if they don't want to bother, then they won't.
But the differences are still there, and can easily be discerned by someone who spends time learning them. If someone hasn't spent that time, or isn't really capable of seeing the difference, what would be the point in explaining? You would just waste your time.
Well, you could just show them this chart:
For any ambient temperature or humidity there is only one rate. And the word is evaporation.Condensation can dissipate at varying rates, of course.
But the air isn't "the same" anywhere, is it?But it can't be created in vast permanent quantities by one plane, and not at all by another, when the jet fuel and the air are the same.
But not all aircraft can be identified, can they?It would help if the white muck layers appeared on civilian tracking systems, so they could be identified.
Best ask yourself if you are fully-informed, first. I don't believe you are.Then all questions would be directed to the operator of the airplane!
Condensation can dissipate at varying rates, of course. But it can't be created in vast permanent quantities by one plane, and not at all by another, when the jet fuel and the air are the same.
Condensation can dissipate at varying rates, of course. But it can't be created in vast permanent quantities by one plane, and not at all by another, when the jet fuel and the air are the same.
It would help if the white muck layers appeared on civilian tracking systems, so they could be identified. Then all questions would be directed to the operator of the airplane!
Exactly right! How else can you determine what is in a cloud of chemicals? You need a Spectroscope!
Exactly right! How else can you determine what is in a cloud of chemicals? You need a Spectroscope!
The Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) can directly compare image spectra to a known spectra (usually determined in a lab or in the field with a spectrometer) or an endmember. This method treats both (the questioned and known) spectra as vectors and calculates the spectral angle between them. This method is insensitive to illumination since the SAM algorithm uses only the vector direction and not the vector length. The result of the SAM classification is an image showing the best match at each pixel. This method is typically used as a first cut for determining the mineralogy and works well in areas of homogeneous regions. The USGS maintains a large spectral library, mostly composed of mineral and soil types, which image spectra can be directly compared.
These things are VERY expensive. But if we only had one, you could point it at the heaviest density of cloud and determine if it was condensation, or some kind of chemical. I'm all for it! Richard Dawkins explains it on page 171 of Magic of Reality. Get a copy - educate yourself!
I think anyone with experience can tell the difference by looking at them, just like the cerulean and cobalt. It's when you're dealing with people who can't tell the difference, or who don't believe there's a difference, or who refuse to listen to you, that you need some kind of machinery to take the place of their brain.
So I could get a spectrometer accurate to 8 km for $500? If that's the case, Im sold - my colleague in toxicology said they were more like $200,000 but perhaps he imagined I was aiming it at the moon
I think anyone with experience can tell the difference by looking at them, just like the cerulean and cobalt. It's when you're dealing with people who can't tell the difference, or who don't believe there's a difference, or who refuse to listen to you, that you need some kind of machinery to take the place of their brain.
So I could get a spectrometer accurate to 8 km for $500? If that's the case, Im sold - my colleague in toxicology said they were more like $200,000 but perhaps he imagined I was aiming it at the moon
So I could get a spectrometer accurate to 8 km for $500? If that's the case, Im sold - my colleague in toxicology said they were more like $200,000 but perhaps he imagined I was aiming it at the moon
But surely (just as an artist learns names for different shades), this "experience" must have involved some positively identified "chemtrails" by which to train your eye and discern them from persistent contrails. How did you learn which was which to begin with?I think anyone with experience can tell the difference by looking at them, just like the cerulean and cobalt. It's when you're dealing with people who can't tell the difference, or who don't believe there's a difference, or who refuse to listen to you, that you need some kind of machinery to take the place of their brain.
Mick, forget all that - we just go round in circles wasting time. I am now focused on getting an affordable spectrometer. If I can get an accurate reading from a distance of 8km, that's all I need. If I can achieve that I will let you know, and we can talk about scientific results. I don't actually think I can get a device that will give accurate readings from that distance but at least I'm willing to try. Mike, Thanks for the info - I will go over it
I think anyone with experience can tell the difference by looking at them,
Mick, forget all that - we just go round in circles wasting time. I am now focused on getting an affordable spectrometer. If I can get an accurate reading from a distance of 8km, that's all I need. If I can achieve that I will let you know, and we can talk about scientific results. I don't actually think I can get a device that will give accurate readings from that distance but at least I'm willing to try. Mike, Thanks for the info - I will go over it
Meantime I have a water sample awaiting analysis - this is a rain water sample, about 250 ml taken over 3 days after some really heavy sprays. If my theory is right, chemicals will show up in some way in the rainwater. Maybe I'll be wrong, and of course I hope I am. But I'll wait until I get the sample done - and then let you know the results
Rainwater samples will have all sort of contaminants and many of those will be be from hundreds of miles away.
If you left the sample open, then 'dust' of other types entered it.
Last year, I had a booth, next to a road with heavy traffic. After the show, I washed my hair and black 'soot' washed out. Particles from the diesel exhaust. I ended up washing my jewelry and finding more of it. In general, after 3 outdoor shows, I wash my jewelry to get rid of the dust and dirt that it picks up. It is very important for soft, easily scratched stones like amber and pearls. Over time, just the airborne dust will scratched the amber to the point it has to be repolished
As for the Phelps couple, I don't have any proof the people labelled "Phelps" are actually the Phelps. Perhaps they are, perhaps they're someone else altogether.. who can say? I don't know. And if they are "the Phelps", what evidence do we have that they are genuine parents of Sandy Hook? Maybe they are.. and maybe they aren't. I sure can't tell
Sure, it's a good point. But the collector was away from the road, and away from any overhanging roof tiles etc.
I just spoke to that guy at the spectrometr place and he was very helpful - but he said what we need is a reflective spectometer, and his equipment is for local samples that are passed through, with the equipment calibrated in advance for what you're looking for. Reflective spectrometers seem to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, but I might be able to talk someone up in Cambridge into having a field day with one, who knows.
The spectrometer takes input through a SMA connector port. Usually a fiber patch cord is used to transmit light into the spectrometer. However it’s also possible to send the input light directly into the spectrometer through the input slit.
As for the Phelps couple, I don't have any proof the people labelled "Phelps" are actually the Phelps. Perhaps they are, perhaps they're someone else altogether.. who can say? I don't know. And if they are "the Phelps", what evidence do we have that they are genuine parents of Sandy Hook? Maybe they are.. and maybe they aren't. I sure can't tell
Michael J Murphy disagrees. He's the guy who made the 2 WITWATS movies - he says that persistent contrails do exist, and the only way to actually know the difference is to take a sample:
​
Yes.. I start to see the problem. If you can't tell the difference between clouds and condensation and persistent sprays, maybe you shouldn't really be posing as a scientific type! Next you'll be telling me WTC7 fell down because of a strong breeze!
Sure, it's a good point. But the collector was away from the road, and away from any overhanging roof tiles etc. And of course, if there are any results, I would be looking for high levels of unusual substances, not things you would commonly find from the roads. It's still worth doing. The thing is, when it rains here there's a kind of caustic smell in the air. I don't know really what it is. But it's a metallic sort of thing - hard to describe. Maybe exhaust stuff, maybe industrial. But anyway, the test kit is ordered, let's wait and see
He seems to say, 2:19, "but where they're spraying, is up in the stratosphere. and there's very rarely, much if any humidity up in those areas and you will not get persistent contrails in there."
Today I saw a BA flight at 29,000 feet, no contrail at all. Zero. He was literally floating in the blue. but left and right were long white streamers from non-trackable planes, and this stuff hung around a very long time - I would say most of the day, from 11:00 am ish to late afternoon.
Um.. which question to answer first. Well, my criteria is much the same as everyone else's: a lifetime of observation! As for 9/11, what we have found is the shills who love chemtrails are the same people who think WTC7 collapsed without the help of high explosives. They're also the same shills who promote Israel, and probably GM foods as well.
Defending the government is kind of like a package deal - if you buy one bit, you have to buy the lot - otherwise you'd be in a difficult situation. You'd be admitting one item is a lie, but claim everything else, from the same mouth is, for sure, as shiny and true as can be!
Photo with houses in shot? Exact time?
I have explained the differences in detail, so you can always refer to those answers.
If someone asks, what is the difference between cerulean and and cobalt, you might not know. Or if you do know, you would not be able to tell someone who knows nothing about them; no matter what you tell them, they still think they are the same, because they lack the capacity gained from observation. And of course, if they don't want to bother, then they won't.
But the differences are still there, and can easily be discerned by someone who spends time learning them. If someone hasn't spent that time, or isn't really capable of seeing the difference, what would be the point in explaining? You would just waste your time.
But anyway, the test kit is ordered, let's wait and see
As for the Phelps couple, I don't have any proof the people labelled "Phelps" are actually the Phelps. Perhaps they are, perhaps they're someone else altogether.. who can say? I don't know. And if they are "the Phelps", what evidence do we have that they are genuine parents of Sandy Hook? Maybe they are.. and maybe they aren't. I sure can't tell
I would say this is important. Unless you did, and especially if you hadn't seen the full range of behavior for ordinary contrails persistent and non-persistent, how would you really know?But surely (just as an artist learns names for different shades), this "experience" must have involved some positively identified "chemtrails" by which to train your eye and discern them from persistent contrails. How did you learn which was which to begin with?
I'm not a forensic scientist, I'm giving you my observation. BA flight - no contrail. Zero, Zilch. Way too far away for an iPhone pic. Ok, that's it - you're going to have to find something else to do. Reboot server time over here, then SQL backups. So long