I've confirmed this quite a few times now myself and am able to predict when persistent contrails will show up and when they wont using this and this
If anyone here is interested in the phenomena I highly recommend looking into this to see what comes first; persistent trails or humid weather.
Again I see that on the left (north, east, se) persistent contrails do not form but far away on the right (south west) they form.
when I look at the relative humidity at 300mb we see that it's dry in Finland but not in the southwest.
And the humid air is pouring in from the sw as the model also shows
Is there anyone here that is interested, understands this and is able to look into it themselves, please?
Any chemtrail experts here that can explain these photos, please?
What are the significance or them and do they support my claims in this thread or not?
Are these wind turbines dropping chemtrails?
"The case of fog formation at the Horns Rev 1 wind farm that occurred 12 February 2008 at 10:10 UTC and was photographed from a helicopter is examined. The special atmospheric conditions are characterized by a layer of cold humid supersaturated air that re-condensates to fog in the wake of the turbines. The process is fed by humid warm air up-drafted from below and adiabatic cooled air down-drafted from above by the counter-rotating swirl generated by the rotors. The wind speed is near cut-in and most turbines produce very little power. The condensation appears to take place primarily in the wake regions with relatively high axial wind speed and high turbulent kinetic energy. The large-scale structure of the fog has an imprint of rotational spiraling bands similar to wake flow characteristics deduced from CFD DES modeling."
The Tennessee Senate passed legislation that prohibits “geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere.”
Rebel Call provides further insight:
Chemtrails come up here too
I was able to acquire the book " Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project Paperback, by Peter A. Kirby" featured in this video and the pages I've gone through are great mental excercise.
I find that oftentimes, when looking into things it's good to start things with a blanks slate and unlearn what you've previously learned about things related to the subject and not just accept things at face value and automatically jump to conclusions but to really see what is in front of you and to pay attention to the definition of words and what is really being said. Am I making any sense, please?
A quick look at some problems on the first pages of the book:-
Chemtrails often form Xs and sometimes grid patterns.
This is not an argument/proof of chemtrails. If something like persistent
contrails exists then of course Xs and sometimes grid-like patterns would form as passanger traffic criss crosses the planet, would they not? Just go to Flightradar24 to see just how much traffic and how much they are criss crossing the planet.
I don't think there's any mention of tracking planes using that and then sending another Chemtrail "researcher" to the airport to see if there were any real passangers on that plane.
Chemtrails are also sometimes sprayed in a circular fashion.
These are quite rare but are usually from small fighter planes or if a plane has some kind of issue/emergency. Can be tracked using Flightradar24 and verified with your own eyes and ears. Do small fighter planes have tanks, large enough to do chemtrailing?
Although trolls online try to drag people into highly technical, obscure, and deceptive arguments about the formation of contrails, simple applications of deductive reasoning show that we are being sprayed.
Right away he does a bit of a straw-man calling them trolls. Are highly technical and obscure things automatically lies? Which deceptive arguments is he talking about?
When two jet airplanes fly at a similar altitude, why is it that one
will emit a persistent trail while the other does not?
Can you see the problem here? The word similar, which does not mean identical.
We must question if there can be variations in atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity...) and how quickly, abruptly can the difference be? He does not appear to do that.
I was able to recognize most of these problems... However here is an analysis of the paragraph by ChatGPT 4o:-
The argument presented contains several logical fallacies and inaccuracies. Here are a few notable ones:
Hasty Generalization:
- "Simple applications of deductive reasoning show that we are being sprayed." This conclusion is reached without sufficient evidence and generalizes from specific observations.
False Equivalence:
- "The fuels are not different. Jet fuel, like gasoline, is standardized." While jet fuel is standardized, the argument ignores other variables such as differences in engine types, maintenance, and operating conditions that can affect contrail formation.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This):
- "How does a trail appear behind one engine of the same airplane, but not the other?" This suggests a cause-and-effect relationship without evidence. Differences in contrail formation can be due to a variety of factors, including engine performance and atmospheric conditions.
Straw Man:
- "Although trolls online try to drag people into highly technical, obscure, and deceptive arguments about the formation of contrails..." This characterizes opposing arguments as deceptive without addressing their actual content.
False Dichotomy:
- "Why is it that one day the sky will be full of lines in every direction and then the next day there will be none, even though the weather is identical?" This assumes the only explanation is spraying, ignoring other plausible explanations such as changes in atmospheric conditions that aren't immediately obvious (e.g., humidity at higher altitudes).
Appeal to Personal Experience:
- "Your author has witnessed all these things and you can too." This relies on personal anecdote rather than scientific evidence, which is not a reliable form of argumentation.
Confirmation Bias:
- The argument selectively uses observations that support the spraying theory while ignoring those that contradict it.
For a more robust understanding of contrail formation, it's important to consider the scientific explanations that account for variables such as atmospheric conditions, engine performance, and flight paths.
Here's a long piece of text where he shoots himself in the foot.
Here is the corrected formatting for the provided text:
Today's chemtrail spraying operations necessarily require a massive fleet of specialized jumbo jet airliners operating covertly. The volume and frequency of chemtrail reports from all over the world, the author's own observations, and the massive task of controlling Earth's weather in the fashion of the New Manhattan Project suggest that these planes number in the hundreds.
These planes must necessarily be of a certain breed. Any old plane rigged up with some spraying equipment or even with spiked jet fuel simply will not do. For example, a commercial passenger airliner following a predetermined route is not an effective chemtrail spraying plane. The chemtrail spray needs to be emitted at specific locations at a moment's notice. The super high-tech nature and payload requirements of the New Manhattan Project also demand specialization. The fuselage of an effective chemtrail spraying aircraft needs to be loaded up not with passengers and luggage, but with chemtrail spray, spraying equipment, communications gear, computers, and atmospheric monitoring equipment. An effective chemtrail spraying plane is a dedicated chemtrail spraying plane.
Not only does the New Manhattan Project require hundreds of dedicated airplanes, the project requires that these airplanes operate covertly. Even though there is a mountain of evidence proving the existence of this project, our federal government refuses to admit the obvious. Just like the original Manhattan Project, this project is still officially a big secret. Only this time, it's going on in the sky above us.
Why he shoots himself in the foot:- because if one actively monitors planes an their trails and uses Flightradar 24 and a pair of binoculars it's clear that it's easy to identify the airplanes and see that they are mostly passenger and cargo airplanes flying their scheduled routes and not specialized Jumbo airplanes.
I live in the countryside on a field and spend alot of time in the archipelago and do that.
If you then combine this with observing the weather, the relative humidity at high altitude you start to get a clear picture of when and where persistent trails form.
I challenge anyone here interested to monitor the forecast for a month and see if it is possible to predict it:-
https://www.instantweathermaps.com/GFS-php/euroupper.php?run=2024011012&var=RH&lev=300mb&hour=000
As for the author. Here is what I could find. (What is a researcher? Can anyone be a researcher? At what point do can you proclaim to be one?)
Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer, and activist. He has been researching and writing about chemtrails and geoengineering since 2009. He is a staff writer at ActivistPost . com. Among many others, Peter has appeared as a guest on the Corbett Report with James Corbett, Caravan to Midnight with John B. Wells, Project Camelot with Kerry Cassidy, the SGT Report with Sean, Dark Outpost with David Zublick, Business Game Changers with Sarah Westall, and Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. Peter has been published on websites such as: WakingTimes. com, DavidIcke. com, GlobalResearch. ca, TheDailySheeple. com, SGTreport. com, NaturalNews. com and DCClothesline. com. His work has been translated into: Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, French, Italian, and more. peterakirby. com
A large portion of this book is Kirby pointing to historical patents and government documents as proof of current chemtrails.
This assumes that the existence of these documents means a large-scale spraying program is happening now, confusing correlation with causation = believing that because these documents exist, they directly explain what we are seeing in the sky.
@adam I didn't watch much of the video but jumped onto the book that they referred to.
Did I miss anything from that video and does anything of what I've written above about it make any sense to you, please?
