I have long feared getting something significantly wrong; now I have done it, mea culpa; my bad; I’m sorry; you are right, and I am wrong.
What I have learned in the past week finally gives me a chance to use a quote from The Big Lebowski movie:
The Big Lebowski: What in God's holy name are you blathering about?
The Dude: I'll tell you what I'm blathering about... I've got information man! New shit has come to light!
HERE is data about shedding compiled by Pierre Kory and AMD, the anonymous commentator. Recently, confidential sources told me much more, including showing me alphanumeric codes generated by those who have been vaxxed. I will delay addressing this subject until I analyze it more thoroughly. There is some good news.
Ana Milhalcea is writing about something real and vital—or at least part of it is. I dismissed her because she couples her truths with a staggering array of nonsense. Matt Crawford’s concept of “chaos agents” might explain her behavior. These people present part truth; part lies; they spawn anxiety, and their motivations are unknown. My purpose with the last post was to help us identify them and keep us from getting hypnotized or intimidated.
One of my friends said that when I go outside my area of expertise, I lose my status as an expert. (Thanks KEC. I’m a journalist now, however!) So, in this post, I will let George clarify “chemtrails.” I will not comment further except to say that his reasoning seems impeccable.
I have 537 comments on the last post, my most ever, most of them negative. I was initially dismayed but found that I was learning rapidly. I hope you can, too. You know by now that I write this Substack to figure out these topics for myself. I learn and research as I write; my truth is a process.
Our greatest need today is to retain our thinking flexibility in the face of the maelstrom. To do this, we must stay patient and calm and trust our process. I have appended mine again in the first Parting shot for your convenience. You should know what yours is and try to write it down. If you'd like to share, please feel free to put it in the comments.
I have told the story about my dear editor for Butchered by “Healthcare.” Every time I wrote something, she boxed my ears with bricks. It was painful, but the book was better for it. (Thanks, M!) I soon realized I was learning faster because of her style. To my readers here: once again, thanks ahead of time for your commentary.
I hate to quote psychodynamic theory because I have barely more respect for it than psychiatry. “Splitting” is a psychological mechanism that allows a person to tolerate difficult or overwhelming emotions by seeing someone as good or bad, idealized or devalued. Psychologists regard splitting as juvenile and sometimes characteristic of depression, borderline personality, or narcissistic personality.
Splitting makes it easier to manage the emotions we are feeling. Using crude defense mechanisms like this is understandable at a time when we seem to face an ultimate evil. However, to learn the most rapidly, we must try to hold opposing ideas in our minds.
About our debate: thanks again to everyone participating, even the one who emailed me, “YoHoo, you are vaccine-damaged. Unsubscribe me.” Please thank George in the comments for the effort he put in.
George writes the rest of this post:
Dr. Yoho wrote the original essay. He conveys passion for a topic through declarations that sometimes seem like clickbait. I will start differently by opening with some geoengineering claims I agree with:
There are weather modification programs in effect worldwide -- I agree
Some planes fly around and spray things -- I agree (I said this in the podcast)
Some people want to spread bad things to block the sun -- I agree
There are lots of toxic metals being measured in the air and water -- I agree
The cirrus clouds high in the sky on clear days are not natural -- in most cases, I agree
The government and DED want to control the weather -- I agree
People are changing the weather -- I agree
Artificial clouds are blocking the sun -- I agree (I said this in the podcast)
There is an artificial haze in the sky that never used to be there -- I agree, the sky is whitening.
Many people concluded that I was challenging one or more of those statements above, likely because of how the topic was introduced. That is a misunderstanding. There is hard evidence to substantiate all of these. I don't dispute any of them, and I didn't before, either.
Dr Yoho and I did not discuss the wide range of geoengineering topics as we weren't trying to talk about geoengineering. We could easily spend 10 hours of podcasts trying to cover them all.
Here are examples of geoengineering projects to illustrate them and their purposes. In the US, cloud seeding stations line the west coast mountains. Energy companies own many. Those that operate hydroelectric dams are incentivized to create extra snow and rain, for the dams are essentially big batteries. They store money in the form of water within their reservoirs.
Here is how it works. When power demand and price are high during the day, they open the gates, drain water, and generate power. At night, when power demand is low, some companies use (relatively) inexpensive nuclear power to pump water to higher-elevation reservoirs. This is efficient since atomic power plants cannot be turned on or off easily. The dam’s turbines then operate during the day and produce electricity, which is sold at a premium price when demand is high.
Economies are seasonal as well. The cloud seeding programs are used in late fall, winter, and spring to create snowfall, and the water fills reservoirs for the summer months when the companies sell energy at peak rates.
But removing water from the air like this makes the climate drier for anyone downwind. These companies are stealing rain from others.
Another example discussed in the podcast was that insurance companies would fly planes into clouds and spray silver iodide to create more rain and reduce hail size. These are active, well-documented programs. These planes can reduce a thunderstorm or sometimes even dissolve it. Jim Lee tells the famous example about the Chornobyl accident. A cloud of radioactive material was traveling toward Moscow, so the Soviet Air Force flew into it and seeded the clouds to rain out radioactive particles. The problem dropped into Belarus.
Another thing we could have discussed is that many scientists have concocted and published ill-conceived plans to block sunlight by spraying toxic metal particles such as aluminum into the stratosphere. These people are grossly irresponsible, ignorant, and criminally negligent for proposing dangerous and harmful actions without considering the downstream effects.
These academics are similar to their cousins in public health. They hold conferences, publish papers, and predict. In an ideal world, we would ensure they never end up in positions to influence public policy.
I give Dane Wigington (The Dimming) and Edward Griffin, Michael Murray, and Paul Wittenberger (producers of What in the world are they spraying?" full credit for their documentary attempts to expose these academic fools as dangerous, for they are. I also credit those folks for exposing the damage that the metal pollution in our air and water is doing. They are harmful to the environment, our food supply, and our water.
However, these documentaries are entirely wrong about some essential facts.
Due to these movies, many people believe in a theory known as “chemtrails.” They think there has been a worldwide decades-long secret government program to spray aluminum and other metals into the stratosphere to block the sun and poison us all. Most of the people who subscribe to this believe that most, if not every, trail created by an airplane was created by spraying chemicals from a plane. Some attribute every suspicious-looking cirrus cloud they see to the same thing. Others claim the military has special planes flying across the US and spraying us every day. Others say that commercial planes have secret compartments and spray equipment on board that the pilot can activate or deactivate on demand.
While answering a lot of attacks and questions in the comments of the last post, I reviewed the Griffin/Murphy/Wittenberger documentary and realized where all of these folks went wrong. (Note: this is far less misleading than Dane's.)
The people quoted in these movies start with the assumption that someone is spraying the skies and then set out to learn why. They also believe jet engines cannot create artificial, long-lasting cirrus clouds like we always see. Both of these ideas are false.
Edward Griffin explains his assumptions. He says he can distinguish between a sprayed cloud "chemtrail" and a traditional contrail with his naked eyes. He reasons that today's clouds look different from those he saw growing up.
In his documentary, Dane Wigington claims nearly the same thing, but he provides a different reason: He claims that the “high bypass” modern jet engines cannot create contrails. He shows a fancy graphic of a high bypass engine and then states his claim without evidence.
To review, the premises of the "chemtrails" theory in these two documentaries are:
The clouds look different from “regular” jet contrails, and therefore, they must be from spraying
According to Wigington, modern jet engines can't generate contrails by design and, therefore, must be spraying.
Dane provides no references and no technical explanation for these claims. Everyone else who claims chemtrails are real cites his documentary. But I immediately knew his ideas were wrong because I understood how these engines work from my engineering background. You do not have to take my word for it. Numerous well-documented studies look specifically at the formation of clouds from jet engines. This supports what I'm saying.
Dr. Yoho and I solely discussed this narrow topic. Jet engines create clouds in the stratosphere. Every single commercial airliner is a powerful cloud-generating machine.
Griffin’s visual observation that clouds look different today is accurate and supported by many similar observations. Three things made this happen:
1) Jet fuel was changed a few decades ago. It generates more soot, metals, and cloud-forming particles than before.
2) The modern jet engines today produce more contrails than the older ones, which is the opposite of Dane's claim.
3) Many more planes are flying now than ever before.
All of the above are easily verifiable. Jim Lee has linked references for #1 and #2 HERE.
To rebut Dane’s claim that the modern engine is designed so it can’t create persistent contrails, the following is a study published in 2001 and cited in Jim Lee’s essay above:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. D15, 4247, 10.1029/2001JD000813, 2002
Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7
U. Schumann, F. Arnold, R. Busen, J. Curtius, B. Karcher, A. Kiendler, A. Petzold, H. Schlager, F. Schro¨der, and K.-H. WohlfromPage 2-14, Section 3.7
"3.7. Engine Technology Influence on Contrails and Particles in SULFUR 7[49] The most recent S7 experiment was performed to test the influence of engine efficiency on contrail formation. Such an influence was expected based on S1 and in the meantime deduced from many individual contrail observations during POLINAT and SUCCESS [Jensen et al., 1998a; Karcher et al., 1998a; Schumann, 2000], but direct evidence for different contrail formation from two aircraft with different engine efficiencies was missing. In the experiment, contrail formation was observed behind two four engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. The two contrail forming aircraft were a Boeing B707 and an Airbus A340. The two aircraft were selected for this test because the modern A340 engines provide significantly higher engine efficiency than those of the older B707 with lower bypass and pressure ratio, see Table 3. An altitude range exists, see Figure 1d, in which the aircraft with high engine efficiency causes contrails, while the other aircraft with lower engine efficiency causes none [Schumann et al., 2000b].
The critical part is, "An altitude range exists, see Figure 1d, in which the aircraft with high engine efficiency causes contrails, while the other aircraft with lower engine efficiency causes none." So, the newer engine produced contrails at altitudes and conditions where the older engine did not. This is the opposite of Dane’s claim.
Here is more:
[50] The aerosol measurements in the young plumes of the A340 (Table 4, near flight level 314) and B707 (310) with typical FSC values (380 and 120 mg/g) and at noncontrail-forming conditions, at close separation (70 to 140 m; determined from photos, see Figure 1f ) reveal strong differences, see Figure 4. The number of nonvolatile (mainly soot) particle emissions is about 1 order of magnitude larger for the B707 than for the A340, see Table 6.
...
The PEI [Particle Emissions Index, how many particles] for the A340 are about 10 times larger than for the B707, see Table 8. The differences in the engines go along with differences in the EIs for CO which we measured during these flights: A340, 1.9 g kg; B707, 14.4 g kg. While the old engines emit more aerosols by mass, the modern engines contribute more (ultrafine) particles.
This is crucial: "While old engines emit more aerosols by mass, the modern engines contribute a larger number of (ultrafine) particles."
Not only is Dane Wigington wrong, but he is wrong on an order of ten times. The new engines create 10x more ultrafine particles, which could be sprayed into the atmosphere to create long-lasting clouds.
Jim Lee said, "Modern jet engines are perfect cloud makers." Based on the real-life measurements in this study, he is right.
Some people may claim this is bogus, but I know how to read studies, and this one is comprehensive. Their experiment is thorough; they publish all their methods and all the details, and it contains two full pages of well over a hundred references. I tracked several down and read them. They display all the data, how it was collected, what planes they flew, the atmospheric conditions, and photos of how it was done. In the test above, the aircraft flew side by side while a third plane measured the engine exhaust output.
This study was pulled down from the internet a few years ago. It can still be found in archives, but it isn’t easy to find now. In today’s “science” environment, this is evidence of truth.
This explains what everyone is seeing:
The new engines create more small exhaust particles and “chemions”
The new fuel is filthy
More flights
These factors explain why the clouds are different. The newer engines are far better at creating long-lasting clouds. Jim Lee also points out that in many cases where no clouds are produced, you still get tiny white crystals that will stay in the stratosphere for a long time. This creates "whitening" of the sky, and you can often see a haze even though you don't see clouds. Those are white ice crystals. That explains the haze, why the sky doesn't look the same, and why Dane got less output from his solar collectors.
Jet fuel contains precisely the same metals we measure in the air, water, and ground, as covered in both documentaries. It is simply pollution perpetrated by big industry. Does this sound familiar?
To summarize, jet engines produce nanoparticles of all the metals we observe sprayed in the stratosphere. Jet engines produce exhaust that avidly forms clouds and haze to block the sun. Why must we postulate a spraying program when thousands of jets put out toxic exhaust that causes the same thing?
Here is the amount of aerosols being exhausted in the USA alone. These planes burn about 1300 barrels of fuel PER DAY into our atmosphere.
I have heard many of the questions that will no doubt crop up again, all related to what the clouds “look” like:
“They don’t look like normal clouds” – They are not normal clouds.
“They never used to do this.” – The engines and fuel are better at creating persistent clouds than before.
“Why do I get a haze?” – when the particles are dispersed, they stay up there even though you don’t see a cloud anymore. They form a white haze.
“Sometimes I see a brown haze.” – Jet fuel contains sulfur, which creates a brown haze very similar to the haze we used to have over our cities before they removed much of the sulfur from diesel exhaust.
“What about cross hatches or other patterns in the sky?” We all agree these are created by planes, and whether they generate clouds from their exhaust or spraying doesn't matter. I can probably create any pattern in the sky using commercial flight paths with various wind patterns. I can also produce similar patterns with a single plane flying around. As I discussed, several programs involve spraying. We also know Air Force pilots are constantly undergoing training with patterned flight paths. If they are flying in the right conditions and altitudes, they create persistent clouds and weird patterns. So what you see could be a cloud seeding program (these are likely lower flying and spray silver iodide), or it could be a training flight (flying patterns in the sky), or it could be a result of an air corridor or intersection of corridors with commercial flights. All these can create persistent artificial clouds if the weather conditions are right.
“Why do the trails sometimes turn on or off?” To create persistent clouds (from spray or exhaust), you need nanoparticles for the water vapor to form around. This is what the term “cloud seed” means. You also need the appropriate temperatures and weather conditions where you’re depositing the particles to seed the clouds. This is described not only in studies about contrails from jet engines but also in geoengineering papers. So whether the cloud comes from jet exhaust or actively spraying particles from a tank, these conditions must exist for persistent clouds to form.
As anyone who has flown a plane knows, you can encounter smooth air, then a quick bout of turbulence for 5 seconds, 10 seconds, maybe 30 minutes, and then back to smooth again. That is because the conditions are different all over the sky, so the trails will change when a plane passes through new air conditions. This might mean the clouds will form, not form, dissolve faster, disappear completely, or appear suddenly. The other factor is the throttle. If the pilot turns down the throttle (to descend), the engines produce much less exhaust (just like your car exhaust decreases as you come off the gas pedal), which will also change the cloud trail. If you reduce the particles, the clouds decrease, like it would turning down a spray. The study I linked above extensively describes conditions where they found persistent clouds and others where they would not.
I agree that many, if not most, of the “weird-looking” cirrus clouds are artificial. I also acknowledge there are programs for spraying. These occur at lower altitudes, not typically in the stratosphere. If you see a weird pattern of cirrus clouds in the stratosphere, then spraying is not likely because the jet exhaust will seed the clouds as effectively as spraying.
So let’s cover the most critical question: “If the jet exhaust does the same thing as spraying in the stratosphere, then why, George, do you care if people think it’s a program of spraying vs pollution?”
This is important. There are two reasons:
One, if people constantly look up in the sky and think, "Planes are spraying me with toxic chemicals again today, and the government is out to poison and kill us all," that thinking reflects a lot of fear, and that's not healthy. Fear makes people easy to manipulate. When most people walk down the street and look at cars and trucks, they don't think, "Oh my God, they're spraying me with toxic chemicals everywhere I go.” The few people who do aren't going to live a long, happy life. These things matter.
Two. Big industry releases a lot of pollution that is affecting our climate, putting a lot of toxic metals into the air, water, and soil. If we want to stop it, we won't accomplish our goal by chasing a nonexistent spraying program. This is why the airlines want people to keep talking about "chemtrails." The last thing they want is for people to realize there is a significant pollution problem and start to demand something be done.
I will leave this last idea for you to ponder as you decide to invest your effort in activism for the health of our environment.
Suppose we lived in a world where crazy scientists created a secret program that sprayed the stratosphere with special planes every day. We all agree this is causing problems, so how easy would such a program be to stop? It would be easy if it were exposed. It could be stopped on a dime.
Now imagine we lived in a world where the same pollution was ending in the sky, but it was being ejected into the stratosphere by the exhaust of thousands of jet flights daily. How easy would that be to stop? Not easy at all. In the best case, stopping would take decades.
Based on hard facts, we know the second case is happening. We have all the evidence and the numbers. So, where do you want to invest your energy?
It's essential to focus on the problems that create long-lasting harm and are hard to reverse. Jet exhaust pollution is hard to reverse because we rely on jet travel, and that isn't going to change. We should focus on the right problem, or big industry will keep laughing at us as fools chasing a secret program they know doesn't exist. The geoengineers don’t need this excuse—they do what they do anyway. Meanwhile, geoengineering keeps happening under our noses, whether by design or accident (I won’t speculate on motive now).
Here is my parting thought. I am an optimist. We have been fighting vast polluting industries as long as the world has been industrialized. When we focus on the right things, we can make changes. When I was growing up, the air in every major city was terrible because of car exhaust. Even worse, they were dumping lead particles everywhere, and this is one of the most toxic metals. Today, the air is 1000x better. It is the same with the waterways; they were far more polluted when I was growing up. Decades of effort and regulation have improved both our air and our water. The jet exhaust problem will take decades to solve, but we are more than capable of solving it, and we aren't going to drop dead tomorrow.
Let's focus on the right things. We don't need to find a secret program to solve the problem we know exists.
Parting shot #1: Yoho’s Reality Rules
Today’s greatest challenge is to be patient and calm and avoid being intimidated by the psy-ops. The following will help you throw garbage out of your mind.
#1. Basic principles:
Those with the gold make the rules, so learning the funding source explains a lot.
For psychopaths, lying and damaging others is a drive like sex. Never underestimate your ability to be fooled by them, for they do not telegraph duplicity like ordinary people (Chapter 2, Cassandra’s Memo).
#2. Identify what is true.
Believe your eyes, experience, and intuition. Have confidence in your reasoning powers and take nothing on faith or authority.
If a source contains explanations you cannot understand, generally it can be cast off as false. Legal arguments fall in this category. Some highly technical science fields that require decades of experience must be judged by assessing the person telling the tale.*
#3. Use simple heuristics to unearth liars:
If one of our “colleagues” is all over YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram, he is part of a bowel movement, not the Freedom Movement. Judge us on what stays up and what gets censored. I am a small animal, but the jackals take down everything I put up on social media within 30 minutes.
“Anybody carrying water for archons, demons, alien invasions, or part-man, part-machine cyborg warriors is either a moron or a paid shill” (Polymath Paul).
Be suspicious of those who combine hysteria and apocalyptic religion.
Crediting powerful, previously unknown technology to psychopaths replaces our reasoning powers with atavistic fears about magic.
Events that are light-years of distance or eons of time away from us are science fiction.
Have doubts about stories that fail these tests. They are not a practical approach that might yield insights or action plans for today. (I confess I spent a lost decade with my nose in science fiction books, but this ended when I was nineteen.) My policy is Joe Friday’s; “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
When no rule of thumb is obvious, you must examine each situation individually. Your gut’s spider-sense should be your North Star. It is the sum of logic and emotions and will not forsake you if you listen. Aurelius wrote, “Don’t fear the future. You will face it, if that is your fate, armed with the same ruling reason that guides you in the present.”
If you get fooled, trust your intuition once more. Aurelius again: "Don't become disgusted with yourself, lose patience, or give up if you sometimes fail to act as your philosophy dictates. But after each setback, return to reason and be content if most of your acts are worthy of a good man."
When you blend your feelings and intellect, you own a superpower. Triangulating sources you respect will help you develop it.
HERE is the rest of this essay. I call out shills, liars, and crazy people. For your purposes, they are identical.
*Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch are glaring examples. For example, see Sasha Latypova’s analysis HERE and Matthew Crawford’s HERE.
Parting shot #2: You, too, can be a poindexter
If you have the paid version of Grammarly, you can now download the desktop app and correct Word, Substack, Scrivener, and Messages inside documents. (Thanks for this tip, T!) It is speedy, an enormous help, and unavailable in previous versions. Just click on the red underlines and approve or dismiss the suggestion. The app teaches you as you edit.
295. The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. --F. Scott Fitzgerald