Michael J. Murphy Admits Persistent Contrails Exist. Can't tell the difference.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


Michael J. Murphy, in his film What in the World Are They Spraying, claims that "normal" contrails are always short and dissipate quickly, and that's how you can tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails. But science and history tell us that contrails can persist and spread for hours.

In this clip from a Q&A session at San Diegans for 9/11 truth, Michael Murphy is asked abut this distinction.

He now admits that persistent contrails exist.

So how can you tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail (which is what the questioner wanted to know, so she could explain it to people)? According to MJM, you can't tell the difference unless you chemically analyze it.

At 1:25, MJM:
"Persistent contrails are just natural contrails, they do not contain the high amounts of aluminum, barium, strontium, and other fall-out that matches geoengineering and numerous patents exactly. So with that being said, a persistent contrail is a contrail that lasts a little bit longer, and they have been seen as far back as World War Two."
He then goes on to say that the conditions for persistent contrails are "rare" (but does not define how rare). But the point is made. He can't tell what is a chemtrail, and what is a persistent contrail. He just think's there's more persistent contrails than there should be.

So, Michael J. Murphy, will you now issue a correction to your claims that you can tell the VISUAL difference between a contrail and a "chemtrail"? Or at least issue a clarification?

What IS the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
This is going to cause some hurt for the chemmies. Every time one of them brings up the canard about contrails only lasting a few seconds, we can bring out this quote. Wonder if Aircrap will put this one up!

He has really put himself into a box now I think. How are they going to deal with one of their own, saying contrails can persist and that they have since WW2 (and before actually). Maybe Jay got through to him, or MJM spent some time reading postings here or Contrail Science.

Now that I have listened to it more though, he is claiming WW2 contrails were at low elevations, and that todays aircraft fly in the stratosphere, and there is not enough humidity up there to have persistent contrails. Still utterly wrong, and aircraft like B-17s could and did fly in stratosphere. Nor does he understand relative humidity, and how vapor pressure is affected by altitude.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, that was rather odd, saying "low altitude". That would imply all the short-hop commuter planes in europe should be leaving persistent contrails.

Notice he does not answer the question. She wants to know how to tell the difference so that she might able to not be poo-pooed. I don't think he's helped her.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Yes, that was rather odd, saying "low altitude". That would imply all the short-hop commuter planes in europe should be leaving persistent contrails.

Notice he does not answer the question. She wants to know how to tell the difference so that she might able to not be poo-pooed. I don't think he's helped her.
When you think about it, his whole answer was entirely flawed. If humidity decreases with altitude, then the best chance for cloud would be at ground elevation, and clouds decrease in likelyhood as you went up in altitude. Obviously not correct, since clouds are usually at some altitude above the ground

But, then again MJM did leave off the word "Relative" in front of humidity, which makes all the difference in the world. Now, was it intentional, or was it a lack of knowledge of a very basic principle.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
With this evasive political response, Michael J. Murphy has indeed boxed himself in. Perhaps he had an honest moment or is implementing an exit strategy. The end result is that he could not tell that particular woman what he has been saying thus far, and he cannot go back and un-ring this particular bell.
Thanks, Mick!
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Holy smokes, some chemtrail believer just asked Michael J. Murphy what this video is all about on his facebook page.
What to do, Michael, what to do........?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Funny how the backpedaling has started though. Now apparently they claim to have always said there can be persistent contrails.
Maybe its just my fuzzy memory, but it just seems that the lynchpin of their chemtrail conspiracy, was that contrail can not persist, at least according to them.
Now all of a sudden they can.

Of course in that video, MJM finds a new route, claiming that fallout from some trails matches what was proposed or was in patents.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Perhaps best get some screen shots of their pages claiming the old story before they disappear??!! ;)
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Wouldnt be the first time that chemmies changed their story. Will Thomas is the obvious example, like how Jay has mentioned Will claiming KC-135s spraying from booms, even at low level, and that he had photos to prove it. None of those ever came up. And then he claimed to have lab reports, if people will only pick up the tab for them. Not that there were any such lab reports, and he admitted to that.

Carnicom now claims that he doesn't use the term chemtrails. Well he does not, anymore. He did for a long time though, before changing to "Aerosol crimes". Interestingly enough, there is no more actual carnicom.com website, it now redirects to his "Carnicom Institute", which is does ask for money and volunteers for. Wonder if he would want people with actual aviation knowledge. Doubt it.

I do wonder though if those two friends who supposedly handle donations for Willl Thomas for people, I mean victims, to pay to restore his boat, (and who nominated him for that position he is running for )actually know about his fast and loose history with the truth, and money. Between asking for money to do a collecting flight, that never happpened, and supposedly getting paid $7000 dollars to speak in Aspen and leaving them quite unsatisfied, he has a bit of history.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
He said:
"....but where they (are) spraying, is up in the stratosphere...and there's very rarely much of any humidity up in those areas, and you will not get persistent contrails, in there."

True enough (depending on the amount), but what if on the occasion there IS enough humidity ? Isn't this when we see persistent contrails ?
He uses the word "rarely"...and that may indeed be the case. Because that would explain why we don't see persistent contrails -- all-the-time.
....and if you factor the amount of daily flights in the stratosphere, and the earth's global weather....there's bound to be many areas with "enough humidity" to create persistent contrails.
This is what's being reported as "chemtrails" or just contrails.
There are little-to-no reports of "planes with no contrails".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, I think "rarely" is going to be the next thing he's going to have to explain. How rare? How do you know it's rare? Why is it rare?

Why do we get cirrus clouds so often, when ice supersaturation is so rare?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
It's like when you see a dedicated forum for software, or other product.
Rarely do you see a positive review of a product. You mostly see negative reviews or problems with the product.
Rarely do people post positive comments, because it's already working for them as it was advertized ....so why post anything, but problems ?
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I really like this video, so I'm re-posting it lest it get forgotten.
As a reminder i uploaded a very high quality copy of this video and a link to the 1905 book "Cloud Studies" at: http://tinyurl.com/7ezxt5n

If you have the means of posting videos (like on a youtube account) i invite everybody to download the HQ copy and repost this video. So far the high quality copy has been downloaded over 100 times.

Judging by the hate mail i get, it's an effective video.
 
Ok, Im not being sarcastic. Im asking out of my ignorance, because Im not sure I understand this

1) If the "Chemtrails" theory is real and govt (or whoever) is spraying stuff in the air, wouldn't it be better to spray a solution that DID dissipate quickly? What good is spraying something into the air, if it just hangs together and stays up at altitude?

2) Occasionally airplanes can dump fuel. The fuel aerosolizes fairly quickly. So it makes more sense to think that any chemicals sprayed into the air would not leave a persistent trail, but dissipate very rapidly. True or False?

3) Unless I misunderstood the video, it was stated that its drier at higher altitude (less humid) than it is at lower alts. Wouldn't drier, colder air at high alt be MORE likely to produce a contrail than humid air? It seems to me that if (lower alts, in this case) were humid, then they can support suspending condensation without "clouding."

4) If contrails really never happen at ground level, and do happen a lower altitudes, infrequently--Doesn't this trend confirm a correlation between ALT and the possibility of contrails?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, Im not being sarcastic. Im asking out of my ignorance, because Im not sure I understand this

1) If the "Chemtrails" theory is real and govt (or whoever) is spraying stuff in the air, wouldn't it be better to spray a solution that DID dissipate quickly? What good is spraying something into the air, if it just hangs together and stays up at altitude?
That depends on what you think it's for.

2) Occasionally airplanes can dump fuel. The fuel aerosolizes fairly quickly. So it makes more sense to think that any chemicals sprayed into the air would not leave a persistent trail, but dissipate very rapidly. True or False?
Fuel aerosolizes instantly, it then evaporates fairly quickly. Depending on what is (theoretically) being sprayed this might happen, or it might remain and gradually dissipate, like smoke.

3) Unless I misunderstood the video, it was stated that its drier at higher altitude (less humid) than it is at lower alts. Wouldn't drier, colder air at high alt be MORE likely to produce a contrail than humid air? It seems to me that if (lower alts, in this case) were humid, then they can support suspending condensation without "clouding."
Colder and more humid are the factors that make contrails more likely. Temperature is most important for formation, humidity for persistance.

4) If contrails really never happen at ground level, and do happen a lower altitudes, infrequently--Doesn't this trend confirm a correlation between ALT and the possibility of contrails?
They can form at any level. It depends on the temp and humidity.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
higher alts being typically colder would be MORE likely to see contrails
Depends on what you mean with "higher".
Mind that "humidity" is a bit ambiguous here - it can be referred to as absolute and relative (which is probably a source for misunderstandings for chemtrail believers).

It's a fact that the absolute humidity (amount of water molecules in a given volume) decreases with altitude. However, condensation and ice accretion can still happen because they depend on the relative humidity which refers to the ability of an air volume to hold water vapour (gas) before condensation sets in - at which point we'd say there is 100% relative humidity.

As it turns out, the ability of air to hold water as a gas decreases with temperature. So you can have high relative humidity with very little amounts of water when it's cold.

Bottom line: with increasing altitude, temperature and absolute humidity decrease rapidly - but relative humidity can vary between low and 100% like anywhere on the ground.

Regarding your conclusion: exhaust contrails usually want at least around -40° C/F and less which translates to a certain altitude (quite variable though). Below that - at even higher altitudes - the relative humidity is the central factor for contrail likeliness.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, the RELATIVE humidity is the important thing. There is less water in the air at high altitudes, but the air can hold much less water.

It's like putting a thimbleful of water in a shot glass, and a bucketful of water in a paddling pool. The first example has far less water, but will fill proportionally more of the container. At high altitude/low temperature you need far less water to achieve saturation.


This graph shows the moisture holding capacity of air at different temperatures. As you can see, at this scale the capacity appears to be almost zero by the time you get below -20°F. The temperature at cruising flight levels is typically below -40°F.

image.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Contextually it means "farther away from the ground."
he might have been referring to
the stratosphere is higher than the troposphere. But yes, unless you are in alaska or something, persistent contrails dont form low to the ground.

But a plane flying at 35,000 feet can leave a persistent contrail, while a plane flying right above it at 40,000 feet may not leave a persistent contrail. Because the relative humidity for p.contrails may be high enough at 35,000 but too low at 40,000. (The moisture 'pockets' move around)

You need BOTH: cold enough AND a high enough relative humidity.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Contextually it means "farther away from the ground."
But it's not the case that higher altitudes necessarily mean more likelihood of contrails. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The humidity varies a huge amount: sometimes the relative humidity can be very high at, say, 30,000 feet, but much lower at 35,000 feet. Sometimes it can be the other way round.


That's why you can see two planes apparently at a similar altitude, displaying very different contrail behaviour.

Here's an example sounding of the atmosphere from a weather balloon:

image.png

The red line shows the temperature. The blue line shows the dewpoint. In simple terms, the closer the two lines are to each other, the higher the humidity.

Contrails are usually seen at cruising height which is between about 300mb and 200mb pressure altitude (the scale down the left). 300mb equals roughly 30,000 feet.

From this chart you can see that on this particular occasion the highest humidity in this range (lines closest together) is at about 250mb. Above this point, the lines get further apart and by 200mb (getting up towards 40,000 feet), the air is much drier again.

(And, in fact, from that point the temperature is starting to rise again, as the slope of the line is greater than the green dashed temperature lines. This indicates the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.)
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
Contextually it means "farther away from the ground."
What I tried to bring across - and the others have explained probably better - is this:

It's likely that you have a better chance for exhaust contrails on 35000 ft altitude than on 20000 ft (in a moderate latitude). However there is no increase in likeliness on 50000 ft compared to 35000 ft.

So it matters which specific level of "higher" we are looking at.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
Ok, Im not being sarcastic. Im asking out of my ignorance, because Im not sure I understand this

1) If the "Chemtrails" theory is real and govt (or whoever) is spraying stuff in the air, wouldn't it be better to spray a solution that DID dissipate quickly? What good is spraying something into the air, if it just hangs together and stays up at altitude?
I thought one of the reasons given was the geoengineering aspect of the spraying

In which case you would want the contrail to form a high cirrus cloud so that it obscures the sun and presumably provides some form of negative feedback

I,e, AGW mitigation AKA geonengineering

Wasn't that one of the reasons Dane got into it - observing the reduction in solar radiance on his solar panel installation
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I thought one of the reasons given was the geoengineering aspect of the spraying

In which case you would want the contrail to form a high cirrus cloud so that it obscures the sun and presumably provides some form of negative feedback

I,e, AGW mitigation AKA geonengineering

Wasn't that one of the reasons Dane got into it - observing the reduction in solar radiance on his solar panel installation
But you don't want to form cirrus cloud, because cirrus cloud causes global warming, exactly the reverse of the goal of geoengineering!

For geoengineering you either want to form low cloud, e.g. marine layer clouds (hence the idea of ships spraying sea salt to make clouds out at sea) or else you want to spray reflective particles into the stratosphere, above the height where clouds form. Creating high cloud, as with contrails wouldn't work.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
cmnit Patrick Roddie and the Saudi princess Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TEEJ "An Unconventional Shade of Grey" - Michael J. Murphy new Film Contrails and Chemtrails 345
Jay Reynolds The Claims of Michael J. Murphy - A Factual Examination Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Michael J. Murphy sues Shasta county Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Michael "Mad Mike" Hughes Dies in Rocket Malfunction Flat Earth 2
Mick West TFTRH #27 - Michael Shermer Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 5
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
deirdre NASA fakes Michael Collins' spacewalk photo (artistic representation of event) Science and Pseudoscience 23
RecoveringCT The Summer of Paranoia by Michael Echon Escaping The Rabbit Hole 18
Keith Johnson CLAIM: Dispatch Log Shows CT State Police Were at Sandy Hook School Hours Before the Shooting Sandy Hook 1
Asylumkid Conrad Michael's $10,000 reward to prove him wrong about contrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 53
TEEJ Debunked: Lack of Smoke shows Michael Slager shooting of Walter Scott was Staged General Discussion 7
Steve Funk Claim: Officer Michael Slager was shot with his own taser General Discussion 49
MichaelStox NY Mag Covers Michael Hastings Story Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Statement from Michael Mulder of Aerotoxic.org regard claims by Max Bliss Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Alchemist Debunked: Michael Hastings Cremated Without Family's Permission Conspiracy Theories 1
Joe Debunked: Michael Hastings Crash "cars just don't blow up" - Kim Dvorak Conspiracy Theories 19
Mick West Debunked: Michael Hastings Crash Engine Found North of Crash going South? Conspiracy Theories 43
Joe Michael Hastings Death Brings About Conspiracy Theories, Reporter's Deadly Car Crash, Conspiracy Theories 29
tryblinking Michael J. Murphy's most recent Contrails and Chemtrails 282
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Explained: Head Of The Army Admits to "Little Green Men" [Covert Russian Agents] Conspiracy Theories 7
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
M Debunked: Bush "Admits" to Explosives used at WTC 9/11 0
Critical Thinker The Anti Media, makes bogus claim that "CDC admits Ebola could be airborne" Conspiracy Theories 75
J Debunked: Al gore admits to chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 3
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
Mick West Debunked: Mainstream media admits smart meters are spying devices Conspiracy Theories 9
Ross Marsden Debunked: Weatherman admits "Meteorological Spraying" [It's Meteorological Spring] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Rroval Video: US Government Admits UFOs in Press Conference | Disclosure UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
WavedRhyme The MOD admits spraying the UK public between 1940 and 1979 in secret trials Contrails and Chemtrails 56
BenC Debunked: UK Government admits Chemtrails (Legislation HC221) Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jay Reynolds G. Edward Griffin Admits "Chemtrails" Are from Passenger Jets: "They are not tankers" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
HappyMonday Bill Gates Admits to Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: Holdren admits Obama Administration is performing Geoengineering Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: CFR Admits "Millions Spent to Confuse Public About Geoengineering" Quotes Debunked 0
SR1419 CDC admits flu vaccines don't work Health and Quackery 9
ThorGoLucky Power Balance admits false claims Health and Quackery 2
Related Articles








































Related Articles

Top