Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
77
-
49
-
45
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
38
-
27
-
@MessiahComplx
"1932 - 1972 Us military conducted the Tuskegee syphilis project. Where they experimented on a proximately 600 US soldiers by giving them syphilis and watching the outcome."
Wrong. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was a research study, sponsored by the United States Public Health Service and conducted from 1932 to 1972, which followed 600 men, of which 399 had syphilis. Despite the availability of effective treatment using penicillin (after 1943) participants were not informed of their syphilis-positivity, provided with treatment, or even informed of the possibility of treatment. The Tuskegee Study became one of the main motivators for changes in ethical research practice.
"20s us government poisoned alcohol, blinding and killing many"
When the manufacture and sale of alcohol was illegal between 1920 and 1933, regulatory agencies encouraged measures making industrial alcohol undrinkable, including the addition of lethal chemicals. The "US government" did not poison supplies of alcohol meant for human consumption, nor did it intentionally aim to kill those who drank the tainted products - that would be unscrupulous traders that supplied the black market.
The practice was called “denaturing”. It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits.
Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol (“wood alcohol”) to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too unpalatable to drink.
One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous:
"and of course there is MK ultra."
And Operation Northwoods...just because that existed does it then follow that every subsequent terrorist atrocity is a a false flag?
"And many more. But to answer your initial one, you're an idiot if you don't do your own research after asking why."
"Do your research" - said every online conspiracy believer and You Tube addict ever. Well, you obviously didn't "do" yours very well.
What does any of this have to do with the conspiracy theory under discussion in this video which is predicated upon the misidentification of persistent contrails?
26
-
25
-
Well firstly why do you think that a trail is necessarily supposed to disappear? A contrail may be short lived, persistent of persistent spreading - or it may not form at all. In the regions that commercial aircraft cruise - the tropopause and lower stratosphere - the ambient air is frequently saturated in respect to ice. In cases of high RHi then a contrail will persist because the ice crystals are unable to sublimate back into the invisible gaseous phase (water vapour). However in cases of ice supersaturation, the water present in aircraft exhaust merely initiates the contrail. The growth comes from the available atmospheric moisture budget, which is precisely why a contrail can weigh millions of lbs. It is also the reason that it can expand, grow in mass, thicken and become indistinguishable from regular cirrus. What chemical can do that?
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
To address your initial question, how are you establishing precise altitude of these aircraft? - which is impossible as a ground based observer. Even in view of Reduced Separation Minima regulations, these aircraft will be 1,000 feet apart vertically and five miles laterally and horizontally. That is not 'in the same area of sky'. Appreciate that the atmosphere is not homogeneous or isotropic. The interplay of factors that govern contrail formation - temperature, humidity and pressure - can change within a matter of mere feet. Think about the inside and the outside of a cloud. Do variations in cloud cover also perplex you?
23
-
23
-
"Contrails are slender, elegant vapor trails that remain briefly way up in the stratosphere before fading away."
Sometimes. On other occasions, they may not even necessarily form at all, or, if the ambient conditions are conducive then they may expand and spread of be fanned out by high altitude wind shear.
"Chemtrails, on the other hand, are something I only began to notice in the last 10-20 years."
Since you heard about this conspiracy theory then?
"They look like the exhaust from a pollution-spewing jalopy and they hang way down here in the troposphere, often crisscrossed with many other such trails as they slowly spread out and merge with one another into hazy, unsightly "clouds" composed of Lord knows what"
You said it yourself - clouds. That's all they are. The contrails that you are misidentifying as 'chemtrails' are nothing more than persistent spreading cirrus and they are composed of condensed water vapour in the form of ice. This is measurable and demonstrable. Also, what mysterious 'chemical' is able to expand when released, increase in mass and vastly exceed the maximum take off weight of the aircraft producing it? And of course they appear to intersect?The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"When you notice one or two of them, scan the horizon. Chances are it'll be a heavy chemtrail day and you'll see a lot more of them all around."
Or more specifically at those altitudes, low temperature combined with high relative humidity and low vapour pressure. Who'd have thought?
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
@InDecibelOffical
"keep believing what you believe. Let me believe what I believe."
??? It isn't a question of 'belief'. Weather modification is the legal and technical terminology for cloud seeding which isn't sinister in the slightest and completely transparent and in the public domain. There are many private companies that freely advertise their services and contracts online - you just found one. You loud hire them for an event yourself. Cloud seeding isn't by any means widespread though and actually, the reliability and science behind it is questionable. Furthermore, since silver iodide and not elemental silver typically constitutes the seeding material, the claims of negative environmental impact have been found to be insignificant - the material used for additional nucleation injected into the clouds does not exceed the level of inflow of these chemicals to the atmosphere from natural and anthropogenic sources.
Geoengineering meanwhile is divided into two branches - GGR and SRM. With the exception of ground based albedo modification, the latter is entirely in the province of hypothetical research proposal and computer modelling.
Both cloud seeding and Geoengineering have nothing to do with each other, and nothing whatsoever to do with the contrails that you are seeing. Neither would actually leave a trail - far less a 100 mile plume in the wake of a jet aircraft. Cloud seeding aims to introduce additional nucleating onto existing cumulus and stratiform masses and so is conducted by light aircraft, usually at altitudes between 2 - 6,000 feet. SRM, in the form of Stratsospheric Aerosol Injection would aim to reproduce the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols and so would need to be deployed in the mid stratosphere. 65,000-70,000 feet which is double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing. Because it would be designed to release a fine mist of aerosols, even if it was happening, as a ground based observer, you wouldn't even know it was in progress.
"One day one of us will see the truth."
What? The science speaks for itself.
"What ever you say will not change my mind"
Of course it won't. Believers in online conspiracy are possibly the most closed minded individuals on the entire internet.
"as I have done more than enough research, and observing in my lifetime to understand the reality I live in."
You mean the internet told you what to think. Going back to belief, if you regard You Tube videos, clickbait confirmation bias and pseudoscientific conspiracy websites as 'research' and you choose to 'believe' some online charlatan over independently verifiable sources, then of course you will continue to conflate cloud seeding, geoengineering and contrails. Just don't expect to be afforded any credence in the real world outside of your online echo-chamber .
"Research' is not about what you think you know but about the continual revision of this. Try it.
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
@MNS5
My background is climate science and remote sensing, not that any of that matters given the illusory superiority of internet conspiracy theorists armed with the overnight expertise of a You Tube video. Also, as I always try to get across, although they personalise their replies and deploy ad-hominem abuse, (to which I am impervious), their argument and contention is not with me, rather, demonstrable and incontrovertible physical laws that govern the atmosphere and thereby, contrail formation
You'll find that all this nonsense is very repetitious - the usual regurgitated incredulity about intermittent on/off trails, grid patterns, contrails only lasting seconds to minutes, modern turbofan engines being incapable of producing them, misappropriated footage of ballast barrels and test or research aircraft and conflation with cloud seeding or geoengineering. In addition to this, repeated ad-nauseum reliance upon the same ludicrous supposed 'whistle blowers' and career conspiracy theorists that have been endlessly debunked. Like any online echo-chamber, however, it is utterly impenetrable and immune to logic or reason. All you can do is furnish them with the science. This is a good start...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1
Unfortunately, even though this is independently verifiable, reproducible, objective and axiomatic, because it runs counter to the narrative and emotional investment of the conspiracy theory you will inevitably be branded a "shill" spreading disinformation and propaganda.
Do appreciate though that this nonsense debunks itself. A persistent contrail is composed of millions of lbs of ice - far in excess of the MTOW of any aircraft in existence. This is an in situ study of a persistent contrail using multi-optical spectrometry.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The aircraft is a small Sabreliner jet at FL290 in air of -38.2 degrees C. The two engines produced 1.73 grams of water vapour per meter as a result of fuel combusted. They then turned around and found that the resultant contrail has expanded to 1km wide and 400 metres deep. The ice crystals that this was composed of had grown to weigh 30,000 grams per meter of contrail. The ice crystal growth is a product of ice superstaturation in the immediate environment.
A Sabreliner has a maximum payload of 2000lbs. The resultant persistent contrail was measured at 66,000lbs per square kilometre. It was therefore a physical impossibility for the aircraft to have sprayed this trail and so the persistent contrail was clearly a result of available moisture in the atmosphere.
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@wokengoatdeath9668
"The director of the cia at the time, John Brennan, talked openly about it and referred to it as stratospheric aerosol injection."
Talked openly about what? What do you mean referred to "it"? Sounds as though you are referring to those daft conspiracy videos that have dishonestly appropriated his voluntary address to the Council On Foreign Nations (a thinktank) and stuck the word "chemtrails" in the title. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is talked about openly - has been for years. So what? It's never been secretive or classified and the research is fully in the public domain and always has been.
You are referring to Brennan's 2016 speech on 'Transnational Threats to Global Security'. It is within the remit of the CIA to monitor new and emergent technologies that may in the future pose a threat to global relations. SAI is a hypothetical branch of geoengineering which would aim to replicate the cooling effect of volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere in a last ditch attempt to arrest rising global temperatures. Aside from the fact that it has not even progressed to the early stages of small scale trial, the technology and logistics are not remotely in place, the costs uncertain, the environmental effects unknown and the geopolitical implications alone render it a virtual impossibility.
Brennan isn't advocating the use of SAI nor is he saying that it is in progress, he is simply appraising the worldwide political and environmental ramifications of such a technology should it ever come to be - he also talked about other areas of ethical concern in the future abstract sense, such as genetics and anti-aging. Forget the dumb conspiracy videos. You can find a full transcription of his speech online.
"There is no debate to the fact that there are compounds being sprayed in our skies."
Agree completely - it isn't happening. I'd be more concerned about ground level urban and industrial pollution which is a genuine killer.
"The debate is only of what exactly those compounds are and why they are doing it."
You surely understand that our atmosphere is independently monitored around the globe. Any organised programme of spraying would be impossible to conceal and would involve the complicity and collusion of governments, states and nations, global aviation, in addition to the silencing and coercion of entire branches of science and technology worldwide.
Given that SAI doesn't exist beyond research paper and mathematical modelling, would not form a trail or involve commercial jet aircraft, would take place at double the altitude of the trails that you are seeing; that there is no aircraft on the planet that could currently loft the requisite materials (which have yet to be determined) to the required altitudes (65,000 - 70,000 ft) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject under discussion in this video (misidentified aircraft contrails)... may I ask you, what precisely is your point?
12
-
"There are videos that show the trails behind a jet stop and then start! I have actually seen a stop and then start incident."
So what - I see it all the time. Why shouldn't a contrail be intermittent? Surely you understand that the atmosphere is neither homogenous or isotropic? The interrelating factors that govern the formation of contrails - temperature, humidity and vapour pressure and all change within mere metres. Fly an aircraft at high speed through such conditions and of course a contrail an be interrupted. If you actually looked closer then you'd frequently see seemingly random sections of recently deposited contrails fading, vanishing and sometimes even reappearing. This is confirmation that the atmosphere is in continual motion and visual identification of rising and subsiding parcels of drier/warmer air. Are you equally perplexed about scattered/broken cloud?
"How is it possible for people to film a tick tack toe sky? At the end of the day of multiple jet trails from horizon to horizon my sky go’s from blue to white."
The sky is full of commercial aircraft flying to and from a range of national and international destinations in accordance with multiple airways headings and altitudes. If the conditions are conducive to the formation of persistent contrails, why wouldn't you expect them to appear to intersect from the perspective of a ground based observer looking up into three dimensional controlled airspace?
"No, you can’t have a serious discussion about global warming without talking about the purpose of HAARP"
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme? (which actually isn't 'active' at all). I assure you that you can...it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Would you like me to explain to you what an HF pump is actually capable of, what they comprise and what they were designed to do instead of you lapping up and regurgitating more junk online conspiracy theory? Of course you wouldn't.
"and the odd jet trails that do not disappear, but expand over a 40 minute period to for a whit haze."
Again, are you equally perplexed by cloud cover?
"You guys have not done enough homework on this subject"
And with the understanding that "homework" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening in front of baseless You Tube videos, cherry picked click-bait confirmation bias or self-referencing pseudoscientific junk conspiracy websites - how precisely did you do yours?
"Contrails do not expand into a white haze."
I assure you that they do. Would you like me to explain that too - unless of course you can identify these mysterious chemicals that can not only linger but, grow increase in mass just like...well no shit, condensed atmospheric water vapour.
The following paper tracked the development of contrail cirrus using a range of high‐resolution polar orbiting and lower‐resolution geostationary satellite instruments which was found to persist for a period of around 18 h, which at its peak covered over 50,000 km2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012650
Feel free to falsify the contents.
12
-
11
-
11
-
@LH23511
"Well said. I noticed the difference, when I would walk my dogs around 2010 . The contrails got much thicker and would spread out like thick tendrils. And another would come beside it, and they would merge and cloud the sky."
Persistent spreading contrails have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, filmed, measured and studied since the early advent of high altitude powered aviation and in excess of 80 years.
"This summer, we would have 9 hours of sun predicted every day. Instead we would have a couple hours in the morning, and then the sky would get hazy. We haven’t had a full day of sun in over a month - 2 months, here in Ontario."
Have you actually thought of looking into the meteorological conditions that have determined this?
"I also put a bowl of vinegar out, and it would make a big clear hole in the sky on a windless day. Acid of vinegar dissipates the alkalinity of barium and aluminum. It opens the sky above your house."
This is utterly staggering that there are actually still people online parroting this.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Harvard universities Prof David Keith, has been recorded dozens of times reporting his progress with Geoengineering. check out Harvard's web site. Do an internet search on Prof David Keith, Geoengineer."
I don't need to - I'm fully aware of his research proposals which have been in the public domain for years together with the ethical ramifications surrounding his recommendations.
"Remember: In these days of information freedom and access, IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE."
Remember, in these days of information, freedom and access, objectivity is a must.
"Whilst we are at it, here's a few gems from David Keith, via Dane Wigington, Anti-geoengineering Warrior (that's what i call him)"
What's your point?
"and I saved the best for last. In this next clip, David Keith freely admits (at 2:40 minutes) that as a direct result of his geoengineering weather modification program they WILL "... end up KILLING MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE A YEAR..."
The best bit for last???? A Dane Wigington video? Are you serious? He says nothing of the sort. This is a brief clip taken wholly out of context which is precisely the MO of conspiracy theorists. Doesn't the tacky music and sensationalist narration tell you anything or arouse your suspicions?
Keith has never denied that SAI properly evaluated before it is employed. The entire quote is stressing that if such a strategy was ever pursued without due diligence, you "might" end up killing tens of thousands of people as a direct result of that decision so the research if you care to read it is also committed to assessing the dangers of SRM prior to deployment. Assessing efficacy and risks are detailed here..
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
As a former meteorologist (my current field is the science of remote sensing) I can tell you that there is huge opposition to the notion of SAI. In terms of geoengineering, more funding and research is diverted into ocean fertilisation. The lack of political and public will, the logistical barriers and the ethical, soci-ecomnomic and geo-political implications combined means that SAI is very unlikely to become a reality and progress beyond the small scale trials scheduled for the next few years.
Elsewhere, independent studies are assessing the ethics of such proposals...
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=philosophy_pubs
"who like to troll and support this type of channel"
I think you'll find as the one posting your ill informed subjective content on this channel by definition, the troll is you - and for an example of such behaviour at its worst perhaps read the preceding post to mine which presumably you condone?
"David Keith's proposal to move geoengineering atmospheric spraying of nanoparticles of metals (aka Chemtrails) UP INTO THE STRATOSPHERE where he will have us SPRAYED WITH SULFURIC ACID instead!"
Firstly chemtrails are an online hoax originally perpetrated in the late 1990s by "shock jocks" such as Art Bell on Cost to Coat AM a commercial station that manufactures conspiracy theory to order to inflate ratings and thus sell more advertising airtime. Chemtrails are the erroneous belief that contrails in the wake of civil aircraft are evidence of chemical spraying. Meanwhile on the coattails of cheap conspiracy theory, charlatans such as Wigington are committed to conflating this with geoengineering hoodwinking the gullible, suggestible and scientifically ignorant - and it is precisely that which Rogan and West are debunking in this video.
Moving up into the stratosphere???? It's called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection - it has always been designated for altitudes between 65-70,000ft. Now allow me to educate you...
The purpose of SAI has always been clearly defined. The aim is to simulate the cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption after which large quantities of sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid are ejected into the mid stratosphere. Once formed, these aerosols stay in the stratosphere for about two years. They reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The relative influence of volcanoes on the Junge layer varies considerably according to the number and size of eruptions in any given time period, and also of quantities of sulphur compounds released. The stratospheric aerosol layer is sustained by natural emissions of carbonyl sulphide (OCS) through biogenic processes. Carbonyl sulphide is relatively stable can mix into the stratosphere where it is photochemically broken down resulting in the formation of microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid.
Keith has identified a range of possible materials to simulate/catalyse this process. Small scale trials commence this summer involving one KG of material. The objective is beyond that o disperse water, followed by small quantities of calcium carbonate and possibly hydrogen sulphide. Such stratospheric particles exist as thin veils of dust or sulphuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles.
"A short snibbit of his Report for your edification and information under the heading:
"Knowledge gap 2: potential human health impacts:
Epidemiological studies suggest a relationship between exposure to mists containing sulfuric acid and an increased incidence of laryngeal cancer, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that “occupational exposure to strong inorganic mists containing sulfuric acid is carcinogenic for humans”
- Occupational exposure...what's your point? Your extract is from one of the papers that I referred to in respect of the full evaluation of SAI should it ever be implemented.
And here is the paper in its entirety and full context.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/
I quote directly from the abstract...
"There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management. We offer several recommendations intended to help characterize the potential occupation and public health impacts of SRM, and suggest that a comprehensive risk assessment effort is needed before this approach to geoengineering receives further consideration."
8