The great chemtrails hoax
There were two or three days of rain, when came a wonderfully clear and beautiful morning with not a cloud in sight…
Our attention was first drawn to the sky by the sudden appearance of several strange and startling clouds — long, graceful, looping ribbons of white.
They were tapering to a point at one end… On close observation we noticed some distance ahead of each cloud point the tiny speck of a chase plane.
Apparently the churning of the air was all that was needed to upset the delicately balanced meteorological conditions and precipitate this strange cloud formation.
German geophysicist, meteorologist and astronomer Alfred Wegener, who first advanced the theory of continental drift, also described persistent contrails. Writing in January 1920, he described a cloud 50 kilometers long that formed behind three airplanes that flew over Munich, and explained the physics behind it.
On May 9, 1919, and again on May 11, German pilot Zeno Diemer, flying at an altitude of 30,000 feet, at a temperature of about -50⁰ C, noticed the formation of a cloud stream that extended for about forty miles behind his plane. Each time, this stream gradually spread out to form a cloud layer that was about 3,000 feet thick. (Luftfahrt, Mai 1919, p. 17; Nature, May 3, 1930, p. 693).
As the technology improved and airplanes began flying at ever higher, colder altitudes, persistent contrails became more common. By the beginning of World War II, airplanes flying above 30,000 feet, as commercial airplanes do today, often left long, thickening clouds trailing behind them.
In February 1942, French aviation pioneer and famed author Antoine Saint-Exupéry published Flight to Arras, a memoir of his service flying high-altitude combat missions against Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940.
He described the challenges of his reconnaissance missions, including the cold that could freeze the controls of his aircraft, and the anxiety of knowing his plane was trailing a white streamer that pinpointed his position for enemy fighters and gunners. Saint-Exupéry wrote:
The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil.
The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles.
If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.
Under these conditions, he wrote, “the rapidly expanding gases from the exhausts” of the plane cause “sudden condensations to form in [the plane’s] wake.” This also meant that there might be layers in the atmosphere some of which would support contrail formation while others would not. And indeed this was the experience of the fighter pilots: when heavy contrails started forming behind them, they could sometimes stop their formation by descending one or two thousand feet.
Between 1928 and 1931, America’s top airman, General Henry H. Arnold, directed a project whose objective was finding a way to reduce aircraft vulnerability to enemy gunners by dissipating their contrails.
And in September 1942, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics issued a report on condensation trails explaining how and why they form, and that their persistence depends on temperature and humidity at that altitude.
Not only the higher altitude of airplanes, but the introduction of jet fighters during World War II made persistent vapor trails commonplace in the sky. They became a common feature also in peacetime skies after commercial jets became common during the 1960s.
a photograph from World War II, in which the exhaust clouds behind jet fighters blended together and covered the sky
It was 1968, as I sat high in the bell tower overlooking Ithaca. The tunes I was playing on the Cornell chimes rang out over the campus, and spilled down the hill into town. After my morning concert, I gathered up my books, descended the 162 steps, and hiked down into the bottom of Triphammer Gorge to study.
As I lay on my rock drinking in the early freshness of the breeze and the unbroken blue of the sky, I saw far above me a jet plane on its way to some unknown destination, leaving a widening trail of water vapor behind it — and then another, crossing the first, and another and another. By early afternoon, my beautiful sunny sky was gone. Not a trace of blue was left.
I tried to tell everyone I knew what was happening, but no one cared.
Eventually I moved out to the less humid west, where the sky was still blue and the growing rivers of air travelers left relatively little trace. That changed during the 1990s.
Even in the arid west, there is a limit to how much water you can pump into the high layers of sky without making clouds. But half a nation of people who were used to air traffic being invisible did not know what they were seeing.
Origin of a Hoax
A couple of con artists from Lancaster, Ohio took advantage of that fact. Larry Wayne Harris was a lieutenant colonel in the white-supremacist organization Aryan Nations and a member of the racist, anti-Semitic sect Christian Identity.
He was arrested for possession of bubonic plague bacteria in 1997, and convicted of wire fraud for posing as a research microbiologist to obtain it. He was arrested for possession of anthrax and convicted of impersonation of a CIA agent in 1998.
He and his neighbor Richard Lew Finke are the people who invented “chemtrails.” But it took a nationwide radio show to popularize it, so widely that it has become nearly impossible for the average citizen to sort out the truth, to distinguish fact from fiction.
In 1996, Harris offered his services to analyze soil samples that he said were contaminated by fallout from additives in jet fuel. He told his clients that their samples contained ethylene dibromide (EDB), and that it was being added to jet fuel as part of a depopulation agenda.
No matter that EDB was an agricultural pesticide that persisted in the soil for years. It was in agricultural soil, he said, because it fell from the sky. The following year he and Finke took this fable even further: they started a consulting company purporting to analyze soil, water and jet fuel samples and Finke sent out an email announcement about “genocide” via “lines in the sky.”
In 1998, that email slowly circulated and became embellished. EDB became transformed by some into aluminum, barium, and strontium. These were also found in samples of soil and groundwater and were also said to have fallen from the sky. No matter that aluminum and barium are also in agricultural pesticides, and that strontium is in gypsum and other minerals and is ubiquitous in groundwater.
In January 1999, Canadian journalist Will Thomas, still sticking to the EDB story, embellished it even more: he published two articles speculating that poisoned contrails were being “sprayed” by unmarked military jets, were related to HAARP, and were being used for weather modification.
On January 25, 1999, Thomas appeared on Coast to Coast conspiracy radio, and disseminated a version of the fable to millions of people. On February 10, 1999, still talking about EDB, he sent out an email telling people to “TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY” and to “STAY INDOORS when contrails are being woven overhead.”
He said that “Emergency Rooms are overflowing with acute respiratory cases from coast to coast,” that the New York Times was reporting that “this is not the flu,” that the BBC was reporting 6,000 deaths from respiratory failure in England in two weeks, and that there was “a BBC photo of a freezer-semi filled with dead bodies”.
However the epidemic he described did not actually exist, and neither the BBC nor the New York Times reported any such thing.
But Thomas continued to embellish these reports on Coast to Coast radio. In March 1999, he coined the word “chemtrails.” He introduced the notion that “contrails” dissipate quickly and “chemtrails” do not. Whereas 80 years previously Wegener had explained that whether they dissipate or not depends on temperature, pressure and humidity.
Belief in the epidemic that Thomas had invented out of whole cloth spread round the world and has been impossible to eradicate since. Rather, it has been disseminated and embellished by a variety of individuals of questionable motives, all of them non-scientists, who to varying degrees have made their living from it: computer consultant Clifford Carnicom; filmmaker Michael John Murphy; TV weatherman Scott Stevens; builder of solar systems Dane Wigington; and author Elana Freeland.
More recently, in an attempt not to sound like conspiracy theorists, those spreading the fable have embellished it even more, claiming that the lines in the sky are being sprayed to combat global warming, and they are using the term “geoengineering” instead of “chemtrails” to sound more credible.
Wigington’s website, for example, is now called geoengineeringwatch.org. But this newer invented purpose is in addition to depopulation, weather control, and “ionization” of the atmosphere to enhance global communications.
And it has nothing to do with actual proposals to remedy global warming, which are found on geoengineeringmonitor.org, nogeoingegneria.com, and other websites that report only real information.
This confuses the public, discredits those of us with an important message, and does yeoman’s work for the telecommunications industry.
The reason this is so important, and the reason I am sending out a newsletter about it, is that the “chemtrails” fable has been promulgated so successfully that according to a 2016 survey, almost 40 percent of Americans believe in it and only 34 percent are sure that it is false.
This is also true of EMF activists and the people protesting 5G: a huge number of them believe in “chemtrails,” or “geoengineering” as it is now wrongly called, and do not believe in global warming. This discredits us and makes it more difficult to gain traction with the media and with environmental organizations.
That is the real scandal: 38 years after leaded fuel was banned in cars in the United States, 175,000 small airplanes are still spewing lead into all the air we breathe.
Header image: Wikipedia
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Moffin
| #
Congratulations to PSI for publishing this. Science is a little more reliable than belief systems.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Look after the first comment
Hi PSI Readers,
I must take responsibility from diverting attention from a really good scientific article about which Moffin initially remarked: “Congratulations to PSI for publishing this. Science is a little more reliable than belief systems.”
I must admit until a couple hours ago I had never read the article that Arthur Firstenburg wrote which is also about the mess the world is in because there are a few trying to destroy all the “knowledge” which has been gained by human experiences over thousands of years time.
Please read the article if you haven’t.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Dylan Jones
| #
Not too long ago I had an interesting email exchange with Arthur on this very topic that began like this:
Arthur, are you aware of this article written in 1970 by Wallace Murcray?
ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/98/10/1520-0493_1970_098_0745_otpowm_2_3_co_2.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display
This was around about the time you were trying to call attention to them.
Murcray observed that contrails were becoming more frequent and might have an effect on the underlying heat economy. He linked this observation to projects for modifying the climate discussed by scientists such as Fletcher in the 60s and speculated that they were already underway.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. A plausible one. Well before your 1997 watermark.
It is the intentional application of contrails and the vast canopies of artificial cirrus they induce that concern a good number of the group that you unkindly and inaccurately label as cultists.
It may cause you some consternation to learn that Ian Baldwin is a good friend of Marvin Herndon.
Making a straw mannequin that bears some resemblance to a narrowly-selected subset of a group, knocking it about, and then claiming victory is hardly fair play, Arthur. In fact, Bad Jacketing is a method deployed by intelligence agencies.
Are you implying that we are all racist, anti-semitic, cult members, or at best, self-deluded crackpots?
How can you hold a civilised debate from that position? You can’t.
Rather than presenting yourself as rational human being, you come across as a bag of ferrets.
So, once again, I ask if you are aware, as I suspect you are, of the scientific literature on the application of contrails to weather modification that has been around well before 1997.
Best,
Dylan
Reply
Dylan Jones
| #
Here’s Arthur’s reply to my first email in which he seem to concede that at least there was some intentional geoengineering going on involving aircraft and artificial clouds in the 70’s, although modest, and occurring over the North pole.
Dylan,
Thank you for sending me Wallace Murcray’s excellent paper from 1970. It is about the unintentional cloud seeding that was occurring due to the increasing volume of air traffic. Shall I quote his conclusion:
“The conclusions reached as a result of the above discussion are that nearly all results that can be produced by seeding with ice crystals are in fact being produced as a result of routine airline operations.”
And shall I quote the rest of the sentence that you extracted from his article:
“… it seems probable that one of the projects for modifying the global climate discussed by Fletcher (1965), namely modification of the cloud cover over the North Polar Basin by cloud seeding, is already underway, although the scale is still more modest than he envisioned.”
Murcray described how ordinary contrails, unintentionally, already in 1970, without any barium, strontium, or aluminum, had a much greater effect on cloud cover and weather than any intentional cloud seeding programs that had ever been conducted or planned, and the only intentional program he referred to was still modest and occurring only over the North Pole. Today air traffic is hugely greater than in Murcray’s time, and you don’t give a damn about it unless you turn it into a conspiracy. An absurd conspiracy that would have to involve millions of people in every country all over the world who pilot, service, maintain, build, outfit, and supply military, commercial and private aircraft of every conceivable type, all sworn to secrecy (under pain of death? you tell me how this is possibly enforced). Proven by finding agricultural pesticides in agricultural soil (which commonly contain barium and aluminum) (and strontium, which is found in nearly all rocks and soil) and claiming that it fell from the sky, then claiming that spraying metals into the atmosphere would “ionize” the air, when it would do no such thing, and that it would facilitate communication, when in fact it would make communication impossible worldwide. There is no science behind any of this, you aren’t interested in science, only huge impossible conspiracies that the ordinary person could not possibly do anything about, which disempowers people because they then give up trying to do something about real threats that they actually could do something about.
Arthur
Reply
Dylan Jones
| #
Here I continue with the exchange between myself and Arthur.
Arthur, I have responded in detail to every point you have made and added some further elements for discussion. Maybe you will consider them, maybe not, but one thing you will never be able to claim ever again is that all “chemtrail activists” are unwilling to engage in scientific and respectable debate whether you yourself are or not.
Arthur:
“Murcray described how ordinary contrails, unintentionally, already in 1970, without any barium, strontium, or aluminum, had a much greater effect on cloud cover and weather than any intentional cloud seeding programs that had ever been conducted or planned, and the only intentional program he referred to was still modest and occurring only over the North Pole.”
Myself:
He’s describing an unintentional effect of “ordinary” contrails in 1970, yes, but he mentions nothing of barium, strontium or aluminium.
He does mention this:
“The droplets all appear to form on nuclei, which are abundantly provided by the exhaust products, even if not otherwise present.”
What are the nuclei from the exhaust products? They are the ash residue of jet fuel combustion.
Jet fuel additives would be the first line of inquiry.
https://www.scribd.com/document/292205811/Trace-Element-and-Polycyclic-Aromatic-Hydrocarbon-Analyses-of-Jet-Engine-Fuels-Jet-A-JP5-and-JP8
Aluminium, Barium and Strontium seem to be up there.
Then we have the research conducted by Daniel Cziczo:
Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236675750_Clarifying_the_Dominant_Sources_and_Mechanisms_of_Cirrus_Cloud_Formation
This study found that two specific kinds of ice nuclei, those from mineral dust and metallic particles are favoured, constituting the nuclei for 61% of all cirrus clouds, despite the fact that other, less favoured aerosols, are more abundant.
Metals found as favoured ice nuclei for 9-26% of cirrus clouds included lead, zinc, tin, copper and silver.
Lead, tin and copper seem to be in jet fuel residue.
Mineral dust is mainly composed of the oxides (SiO2, Al2O3, FeO, Fe2O3, CaO, and others) and carbonates (CaCO3, MgCO3) that constitute the Earth’s crust.
Of central importance, is a class of ice nuclei obtained from cirrus clouds that is very difficult to distinguish from mineral dust and tends to be coupled with it by scientists. This is fly ash, the particles of which, like mineral dust, are very efficient CCN. One study on cirrus cloud conditions found, using Single Particle Mass Spectrometry, that 33% of the ice crystal residues were “mineral dust/fly ash”. Then electron microscopy revealed that 20 % of the particles in this category had a high degree of sphericity which indicated that they were fly ash. Therefore, a significant quantity of “mineral dust” particles that form the ice nuclei for cirrus clouds are actually fly ash.
Ice nucleation by combustion ash particles at conditions relevant to
mixed-phase clouds
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/5195/2015/acp-15-5195-2015.pdf
That’s around 7% of cirrus clouds formed on anthropogenic fly ash.
Lead, in particular, has been shown, in addition to being an ice nucleus itself, to have the effect of “supercharging” pre-existing particles, making even more highly efficient nuclei.
Lead iodide, along with Silver iodide, were the ice nuclei that were determined in the mid-40s to be the most effective candidates for artificial cloud seeding. Lead oxides and mixtures with ammonium iodide were later found to be similar, if not better, ice nuclei. Later still, it was found that pure lead-containing materials were not required for ice nucleation; instead, lead need only be present as a surface inclusion on an inert core.
Despite the switch to unleaded fuel down below, and supposedly in jet fuel, it appears that jet fuel emissions do in fact contain lead, along with other heavy metals, as you can see in the table above.
Certainly, jet fuel exhaust emits about 0.01% ash, the US EPA standard being 0.02% ash. About 0.045 kg of ash is produced for every 450 kg of fuel burned. This works out as around 254,276 x 10 to the power of 12 submicron particles emitted per metre of flight. Those particles entrain water vapour and grow rapidly to ice crystal sizes that are visible as contrails. As they spread out and (given enough atmospheric water vapour) grow in size, they form aviation induced cirrus clouds.
Arthur:
“Proven by finding agricultural pesticides in agricultural soil (which commonly contain barium and aluminum) (and strontium, which is found in nearly all rocks and soil) and claiming that it fell from the sky.”
Myself:
Who is this “You”? Is it your hastily mocked-up straw mannequin again?
I’ve just shown you that it is found in cirrus clouds and a significant portion of it has been identified as anthropogenic combustion ash.
Marvin Herndon found that the San Diego trailed (after observation of significant contrail formation) rainwater (not soil and compared with rainwater with no contrail activity) contained the same elements in similar proportions to coal ash. Like a fingerprint, the 8 element ratios match element by element, strong evidence indeed that the aerosolized substance is coal ash.
It was also found that the 14 element ratios contained in the HEPA dust matched.
Three fingerprints.
In his backyard rain gauge samples Mangels has regularly found around 1000 ppb (parts per billion) Aluminium and 8 ppb Barium.
The normal concentration of aluminium in the rain should be from 0 – 0.5 ppb. Barium should not be there in any amount. This is 2020 times the normal levels of aluminium.
There is no heavy industry in the Mt. Shasta area. These samples are correlated with persistent trailing occurring 3-4 days beforehand, the length of time for the particles to reach the ground. The figure jumps to 50 – 3000 ppb.
Normal levels in the soil for the California region are around 13,000 ppb.
Since the increased trailing, levels have reached 20,000 ppb and over. The rain has been gradually building up the levels of Aluminium in the soil
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) produced data showing elevated levels of Barium in surface water between 1988-2001. Barium should not be present in surface water at any level.
Between 1990 and 2002, data produced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) showed elevated levels of Aluminium (1500 – 2000 ng per cubic metre) and Barium (peaked at 50.8 ng per cubic metre in 2002). These were state-wide averages.
Arthur:
“An absurd conspiracy that would have to involve millions of people in every country all over the world who pilot, service, maintain, build, outfit, and supply military, commercial and private aircraft of every conceivable type, all sworn to secrecy (under pain of death? you tell me how this is possibly enforced).”
Myself:
Boring, boring canard about conspiracies being too big to contain, completely and utterly refuted by any study of history, including the giant conspiracy we are now being subjected to now.
Firstly, all it would require for such a scale is for the fuel suppliers such as Exxon to ensure that enough ash is generated in the exhaust.
That would only require a few people. Oil companies have been caught time and again engaging in giant conspiracies that most thinking people agree have occurred – take BP’s take-over of Iranian oil for example.
Herndon, suspects that coal fly ash and additives to keep it suspended may be added to the fuel at a stage after it is produced and before it is delivered to the airports.
I’m not even sure if that would be necessary. Just add large quantities of metal additives and claim it was for valid reasons and then suppress all investigation into their effects on the climate.
Arthur:
“the only intentional program he referred to was still modest and occurring only over the North Pole.”
Myself:
Murcray is linking the commercial aircraft contrails with this intentional program THEN stating that the combined effect would still be modest. But that was in 1970, curiously, when global warming really took off.
He recognised, as should you, that heat trapped by commercial aviation clouds in the northern hemisphere where it is concentrated, will move towards the north pole , vastly contributing to the intentional modification going on there.
In this paper written in 1969 by J.O. Fletcher (who Murcray referred to) for the Rand Corporation, Fletcher discusses modification of cloud cover over the North Polar Basin by Cloud Seeding. The intent of such an operation is quite clearly for causing a warming to melt the Arctic ice.
Fletcher:
“Still another form of growing pollution, and one whose possible effects have received little study, is the creation of cirrus cloudiness (vapour trails) by the exhaust products of high-flying aircraft.
“Possibilities for Purposeful Influence on Global Climate”
Fletcher:
“It has for example been noted that the creation or dissipation of high cloudiness has an enormous influence on the heat budget of the atmosphere and of the surface. It is estimated that it would take only sixty C-5 aircraft to deliver 1kg per km2 per day over the entire Arctic Basin (10 to the 7 km2). Thus, it is a large but not impossible task to seed such enormous areas.”
Managing Climatic Resources
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P4000-1.pdf
Myself
I am arguing that the conglomerate of energy companies, think tanks such as the Rand corporation, and governments had and have a vested interest in melting the Arctic ice.
This has involved intentional operations but occurs mainly under cover of “unintentional” commercial jet flight. If the oil companies and scientists are aware of the effects of jet fuel ash residue on climate and not doing anything about it, even amplifying and applying that effect as the major cause for global warming, and framing CO2 producing humanity for it, that is a conspiracy.
In fact, this would count as one of the biggest conspiracies of all time.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Common sense applied to such research tells you the same truth also. There is such lack of trust… http://revelationnow.net/2016/04/17/the-last-days-why-mens-hearts-will-fail/
Startling PDF from the UK govt on ethylene dibromide:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713569/1_2-Dibromoethane_incident_management.pdf
Reply
Michael
| #
I disagree. Chemtrails are real and part of the NWO. This is one of the ways we get ill, not through fictional viruses. Oh, and bye the way, climate warming has almost nothing to do with human activity, Mr Firstenburg.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Michael, since the trails are not contained to specific areas nor targeted, won’t the perpetrators, including their NWO masters be poisoning themselves as well? Isn’t this a recipe for all out war as countries poison everybody, including themselves? It’s a rather pointless and self defeating exercise.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Very good and undebatable.
Jerry Krause
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Good point Howdy, that’s why I don’t believe ‘chemtrails’ are real.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy and PSI Reader,
About the contrails seen in the header, I asked my friend who is a mechanical engineer: What are major gases in the exhaust of these planes?
And he did not, at first, correctly answer. So let’s have a contest between you and any other PSI reader. Who can first correctly name all these major gases?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
K Kaiser
| #
Hi Jerry,
;;; and the answer is:
– carbon dioxide, and
– water (vapor).
Have a great weekend!
Klaus
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus,
I’m sorry but I believe you will eventually admit that you have missed one.
Try again for I don’t see that anyone else has replied. Nice that the comments are time coded.
Have a good day, Jerry
Moofsonian Institute.
| #
I am surprised carbon monoxide is not included.
Below from wiki.
Engine exhaust is predominantly made up of water and carbon dioxide, the combustion products of hydrocarbon fuels. Many other chemical byproducts of incomplete hydrocarbon fuel combustion, including volatile organic compounds, inorganic gases, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygenated organics, alcohols, ozone and particles of soot have been observed at lower concentrations. The exact quality is a function of engine type and basic combustion engine function, with up to 30% of aircraft exhaust being unburned fuel.[6] (Micron-sized metallic particles resulting from engine wear have also been detected.)
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moofsonian,
A key word in my question is MAJOR gases.
And as I wrote Klaus: I believe you will eventually admit that you have missed one.
Have a good day, Jerry
Moofsonian Institute.
| #
Hi Jerry. You have me completely buffoonalderized.
A major atmospheric gas is nitrogen.
I must write out the question one hundred times.
lloyd
| #
NWO Masters are subconsciously suicidal. 🙂
Reply
Boris Badenov
| #
I’ve listened to a few of the wanna be world masters, they haven’t thought their grand plan all the way through. They are going to die along with the rest of us. Maybe even faster.
Reply
Kazar
| #
Howdy, you are wrong. That was a misdirectional fluff piece. I grew up on Air Force bases. There is absolutely a difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. The chemtrails being spewed are being done in a pattern for a complete cloud coverage. And for undebatable Jerry, for the NWO they are not country vs country. That is bs. They are transnational. And the air and land is being terraformed with low oxygen poisonous metals. The people responsible for this are well aware of what they are doing and how to protect themselves. This is a meaningless article with NO penetrating insight
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
It takes very little additional alleged chemicals to ruin arable farming yet after decades of alleged Chem trailing action the soil is still viable for agriculture and people all over the nation are still free of aluminum poisoning
Top symptoms of aluminum poisoning and toxicity
LINK
In areas of America there is naturally high levels of AI in the air soils and water.
Reply
striketheroot
| #
I am 73 Y. O. and from my youth have been watching/marveling at contrails in the sky. When I was 48 Y.O. i noticed the onslaught of a “NEW” type of trail in my NW area. Long story short, this author is sellng a fable to the millenials whoa are unaware of “snakes in the grass” and will obliviously swallow the B. that this wanker is selling. It took me a decade to convince my children that Chemtrails are REAL…
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I must take responsibility from diverting attention from a really good scientific article about which Moffin initially remarked: “Congratulations to PSI for publishing this. Science is a little more reliable than belief systems.”
I must admit until a couple hours ago I had never read the article that Arthur Firstenburg wrote which is also about the mess the world is in because there are a few trying to destroy all the “knowledge” which has been gained by human experiences over thousands of years time.
Please read the article if you haven’t.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Eve
| #
Operation Indigo Skyfold
Reply
Roo63
| #
So many patents and so many Official documents, yet people “believe” everything their superiors tell them to believe and regurgitate the same.
One such document being “The Regulation of Geoengineering”, an online UK House of Commons “Science and technology” document from the 2009/10 session but what does it matter. Find it yourselves and stick you propaganda.
THEY “ADMIT” THEY ARE DOING IT.
Thanks for the history lesson, now try to catch up.
Reply
Ogmios
| #
@Roo63 thanks for the geoengineering HOC reference. I found the governments response to this document which includes this gem.
‘We conclude that weather techniques such as cloud seeding should not be included within the definition of geoengineering’
Per the response HM Government is against geoengineering until an international consensus is achieved for its regulation. But since cloud seeding isn’t deemed to be geoengineering, they effectively have given themselves the right to conduct it.
Reply
Mario M
| #
Chemtrial is a public hysteria. People even say that the sky and clouds are not the same as many years ago, that veils of the sky are a new phenomena.
Reply
striketheroot
| #
How old are you? AND do you EVER look up? Drink Kool aid much?
Reply
Tom O
| #
I am glad there are so many people willing to believe these are simply “persistent contrails.” Believe – and die – from whatever you want. There have been those that have flown into these “contrails” and collected air samples that suggest otherwise. No big deal since, windmills and solar panels will also save us from over heating the planet. And, after all, there is nothing wrong with certain injectables, either. “Science” tells all. That is, all that the scientists want to tell us, whether it is right or wrong.
Reply
Boris Badenov
| #
You mean the glowbull warming that hasn’t happened for 8.5 years according to the US National Weather Service.
Reply
MC
| #
Contrails v chemtrails.
Reply
MC
| #
Remember the video from the UN admitting to using chemtrails?
Reply
Jim
| #
Surprised to see Space Commando posting an article like this. Multiple sources and many, many patents confirm the existence of geoengineering with chemtrails. Personally, I did the experiment in my back yard (southern California) and collected bowls of water from rainstorms, which tested positive for aluminum and barium. Snowmelt from Mount Shasta has been found to have 60,000 times the normal amount of aluminum compared to normal run off. We never had persistent chemtrails in the skyt in southern California in the 40 years I can remember prior to when they started in the mid 90″s. This article is major disinformation
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
You said absolutely nothing against the article itself by way of a counterpoint which means you are just another boring Chem Trail believer.
Reply
chris
| #
‘The great chemtrails hoax’ by Arthur Firstenberg??????????? Who the hell wrote this crap really?? CIA?
Reply
striketheroot
| #
👍👍👍👍
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Yet you can’t address the CONTENT of the article thus you are blowing hot air.
Reply
nadia
| #
5g and chemtrails, all is connected – who payed Arthur to write this article? Or who has mind-controlled him? There is sooo much proof of what is going on in the skies, together with all the haarp infrastructures worldwide.. which also emit electromagnetic frequencies… and as many write above, they even admitted it, also in the European Union.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Translation: I can’t address the article’s content easier to throw out a bunch of words instead.
Reply
Scott Foy
| #
AF, I’ve seen jets flying within 100 yards of each other spraying the skies simultaneously as many as 3 leaving a mist that lingers for hours, rain and snow has been analyzed resulting in very high levels of aluminum and barium where did that come from. Your post is without merit and not well researched like your wonderful book the invisible rainbow.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
LOL, you can’t address the content of the article which means it remains unchallenged.
Reply
Pamela
| #
Check this out!!
OPERATION INDIGO SKYFOLD: The Most Secret Covert Operation In World History – Chemtrail Pilot Blows The Lid Off Of OPERATION INDIGO SKYFOLD
A Courageous Chemtrail Pilot Exposes
the Global Geoengineering Program
“Maybe my fellow pilots will read or hear about this, and decide to come forward as well.”
State of the Nation
Finally, a military pilot steps forward and completely blows the lid off the unlawful and exceedingly destructive Global Chemtrail Program. What follows is a video which puts forth a true story about a courageous pilot who has broken ranks with his chemtrailing peers. In so doing he has risked his life and the life of his family. As you listen to this presentation, or read the text provided below, bear in mind that chemtrails are being sprayed 24/7 around the globe with terrible consequences.
[youtube_sc url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZaD-H_j3pU#t=11&w=560&h=315%5D
For those uninitiated in the ways of atmospheric engineering, chemtrails are but one geoengineering technique that is being systematically used by the U.S. Military. The following link provides an excellent overview of the geoengineering/chemtrail phenomenon, as well as an exceptional photo-doc. After all, only seeing is believing … for most people!
CHEMTRAILS: A Planetary Catastrophe Created by Geoengineering (UPDATED)
No matter what the stated reasons are given to those who fly the chemtrail jets, they are always told by their superiors that this ongoing and illegal atmosphere-altering program is being conducted in the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY.
SNIP
CONTINUE AT: https://themillenniumreport.com/2015/02/operation-indigo-skyfold-the-most-secret-covert-black-operation-in-world-history/
(You apparently can’t address the article itself just try to drown it with a bunch of links which indicated you have nothing against it.) SUNMOD
Reply
Mario M
| #
That’s contrails contrAILS CONTRAILS
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
A published science paper
Quantifying expert consensus against the
existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric
spraying program
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/pdf
Reply
Howdy
| #
Just as in everything else that is fake in this world, consensus is not fact.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
EPA:
Information on Contrails from Aircraft
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/information-contrails-aircraft
Reply
Lorraine
| #
Ever hear of crop dusting? This is higher altitude version.
Not necessarily using plant nutrients. Pesticides or other toxins are entirely within the realm of possibility. To deny this is foolish and shortsighted.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Crop dusting is a targeted process to meet a objective with a positive outcome, Lorraine. Nobody dusts crops to destroy them, or kill the end consumer, for which the analogy would be chemtrails.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
You didn’t address my comment. I stated crop dusting is an example of airborne distribution of chemicals. The same technology can be adapted for good and ill, for localized targeted distribution at lower altitudes, or for general widespread distribution at higher altitudes. The chemicals used can be harmful to life if that’s the intended purpose.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Loraine,
At high altitudes any chemical must be concentrated because of the tremendous dilution as it falls. It must have low viscosity in order to form micro droplets, be highly toxic to a specific targeted not effecting other species. The agent must be stable to intense ultraviolet light and unaffected by the water in the air even when it is sprayed at night, due to long time it remains airborne.
They haven’t found anything that meets these conditions. When they tried anthrax (which is common in the ground and must be inhaled to kill) the dispersion problem and susceptibility to uv made it ineffective.
Herb
(Fixed your e-mail) SUNMOD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Lorraine,
There are conditions that’s be met for high altitude spraying the most important one being the weather and wind.
In order to be effective a chemical must be highly concentrated because of the high dilution, toxic to the desired target and not other species, low viscosity to form micro droplets, and be unaffected by high levels of uv light and water. These are extremely difficult criteria to meet, easier to vaccinate.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Thanks Herb.
I believe I did address your comment Lorraine because crop producers will consume their own produce and by knowingly poisoning it, would harm themselves, their families etc. This is what chemtrails are supposed to do.
Even crazy people that want to take over the world realize they can’t just throw caution to the wind and are self preserving. I don’t see any of the WEF meetings where people wear respirators to protect from chemtrail fallout.
(Fixed) SUNMOD
Reply
Lorraine
| #
Hi Howdy,
I believe we have a disconnect in our train of thought. I don’t believe farmers would poison their own crops. I do think that those with nefarious intent could use the method of spraying toxic chemicals into the atmosphere at intermediate altitudes. The particles will disperse and eventually settle to the ground.
My father was a mechanic to the Blue Angels. I’ve seen contrails. What I’m observing over head on a family regular basis are patterns, parallel lines and cross hatches, that expand and hover in the skies for very extended periods.
Howdy
| #
Lorraine, you are saying the ‘elites’ are poisoning themselves at the same time as everybody else by using chemical spraying, which to all intents and purposes, is random. The analogy is a farmer spraying his own crops and consuming them, which will kill him as well as the intended targets which the farmer has no clue about, and could be his friends, relatives etc. In both cases, everybody loses including the perpetrators. I think the WEF and co are far more intelligent than that.
Herb rose
| #
Hi Lorraine,,
You do know that all those airplanes flying in the sky must file flight plans. They are not allowed to wander where ever they want.Their altitudes, paths and routes are determined by air controllers and depend on many variables over which they have no control.
Herb
K Kaiser
| #
@ Jerry Krause
Hi Jerry,
Re your claim ( of February 3, 2023 at 10:56 pm ) of:
“I’m sorry but I believe you will eventually admit that you have missed one”, presumably, refers to methane, (CH4).
Methane is:
— roughly at a THREE-Order of magnitude lower concentration than CO2 in the atmosphere, and
— is rapidly oxidized/converted to CO2.
Therefore, IMHO, methane’s influence is negligible.
If you meant a different trace gas, please be more specific..
Cheers,
Klaus
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus,
I went to my comment of that date and time and cannot find any mention of methane. You are the one who just wrote: “presumably, refers to methane, (CH4).”
In a comment relative to another article, MattH has given the answer–nitrogen. Do you agree with his and my answer?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Klaus,
I think you missed that Jerry went on one of his diversions and was talking about exhaust gases from an engine, not the atmosphere. Since nitrogen does not enter into the combustion process I am not sure it should be included as an exhaust gas but if it is then argon and unreacted oxygen should also be included.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and others,
How is it that you and others do not seem to see the word “major” and/or understand a definitions of this common word?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Walter
| #
I find it odd/funny that at the same time Principia-Scientific is ‘debunking’ chemtrails, Bill Gates is planning on filling our skies with chemicals…IN JUST THIS MANNER…to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Not a Conspiracy if it is happening!
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Where is your counterpoint?
Reply
Jack
| #
I’m amazed that PSI would publish this rubbish without some preamble logical input.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus, Herb, PSI Readers,
I read that the Creator God confused the speech of HIS created human’s, who had a common language, to slow their achievements which were to come later. Given what I see occurring now, it seems he wasted his effort.
Words of Wisdom. Galileo, as translated by someone, is said to have stated: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.” I have written an essay (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/). I been reading and pondering a 150 page 1988 book titled Weather Systems written by a geography academic, Leslie F. MUSK, (University of Manchester). I had forgotten that I had read it decades earlier and dismissed it as I critically peer reviewed it. However, this time I have finally saw something which I had not seen and questioned before.
If you are familiar with the idea known as the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas, and you are aware of the changes of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii from 1950 to 2021 (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases) you know what I knew.
However, in Musk’s book this figure’s time span was reduced to from1958 to 1983 which allowed the yearly changes to be better seen. Which allows one (me) to see there are differences between one year to the next which cannot be questioned. And in the caption MUSK wrote: “The strong seasonal variation is due to the removal of the CO2 from the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere’s spring and summer, during the growing season producing an annual minimum, decay of the biomass leads to an annual maximum in autumn and winter.” Which I had never read, nor reasoned. Which clearly indicates that the observed changes have a NATURAL cause which has nothing to do with any human activity.
However, given this inspiration, I now ask the question. From where does this NATURAL increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from year to year come?
Have good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus,
I really do respect your experience, hence KNOWLEDGE. So will you please try to answer my concluding question. For, if two can agree it is better than if only one has an answer. For hopefully any PSI Reader should be able to agree that the question has validity, whatever any answer might be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus,
I was finally motivated to actually discover what I could find on the internet. (https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2). This link allows us to see the details of the recent and current daily measurements and means of the recent weekly and monthly measurements. Which yearly cyclic variation Musk had generally described.
And I must acknowledge how stupid I have been as I have ignored these actual historical measurements which I just found is so easy to access.
And given the last yearly cycle of Musk’s Fig. 2.2 I will make the effort to find its detailed monthly means, if not its weekly means which would show any possible influences of the lunar cycles (atmospheric tides). For the shape of this last (maybe 1982) is quite different from those beginning in the 1950s.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
It is the oceans that determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the temperature of the water increases the solubility of CO2 decreases, so during a warming period the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase as the water temperature increases.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Is your comment to answer my question–From where does this NATURAL increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from year to year come?–or is it to explain the seasonal change of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for which Musk has given an alternative explanation?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have a garden which I mulch with leaf mulch. I do this after the growing season and the mulch does not decay.until the growing season when the higher temperatures cause an increase in the rate of oxidation of the organic material (rate doubles with an increase of 10C). I disagree with Musk’s seasonal theory.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
Okay. While I prefer Muck’s alternative factor for the seasonal change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide’s concentration cycle I must accept the possibility of your explanation for I know observation proves that it is absolutely wrong.
I sure would like you to try to answer my questions which really needs an answer. For the continual increase of carbon dioxide seems to refute the law of the conservation of matter.
Have a good day, Jerry..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I had looked for the data which showed the month with the maximum .CO2 concentration and I did not consider this when I replied to you. It was May. Then the month with the minimum average concentration was September. Only three months between these two.
Like your composting evidence which increases CO2 in early spring when many crops are only being planted and certain trees and brush are being to leaf out. Hence, it should be easy to see the rapid three month rapid decrease in CO2 concentration because of more photosynthesis (removing CO2 from the atmosphere) occurring because of more nearly direct solar radiation and the longer daylight daylight period. Which becomes more extreme the higher the latitude.
I must acknowledge significant difference between between the geography of the northern hemisphere’s polar region relative to that of the southern hemisphere as I leave this topic for another comment. Brief, simple comments are now my objective.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
There is a carbon cycle that describes how carbon changes structures and the increase in CO2 is just a part of the cycle and does not refute conservation of matter. Have you considered how much CO2 is removed by mollusks and corals in the ocean? 50% of the weight of marble and the cement in concrete is CO2. There is a lot more CO2 in the ground (limestone) than in the atmosphere.
I am of the opinion that plants do not absorb CO2 from the air with their leaves (there is so little of it) but absorb it with their roots when it is washed out of the air by rain (hence the fresh smell after a rainstorm). This CO2 in water is transported to the leaves where photosynthesis converts into carbon compounds and O2. During a drought plants do not grow even though there is plenty of sunlight and CO2 in the air. It is after a rain that plants grow the fastest.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus,
I found this link (https://datahub.io/core/co2-ppm) Perhaps you are familiar with it. However, now that I found it I’m not sure that the detail of the seasonal change is critically significant. More significant seems to be what is the source of the continuing increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
I’m not sure I’m answering the correct question you specifically asked of me:
(i) The long-term variation of OCO concentration is caused by oceans’ temperature in accordance to this Dutch Nobelist Van ‘t Hoff’s laws…
(ii) An addendum: the modern jet engines, as found on airliners, are designed for maximum efficiency therefore they do not emit much of unburned fuel (such as air-cooled a/c piston engines do), also, Jet-A contains on average some 0.05% of sulfur, so some OSO will come out as well, and due to the higher temperature in the high efficiency operating cycle they may emit some NOx compounds as well.
So here we go…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo and Herb,
Now we are getting somewhere. I never heard or read about Van Hoff’s Law but I have looked it up. Thank you for bringing it to others and mine attentions.
Herb, limestone, I believe. is the source of the carbon dioxide gas of the atmosphere which concentration, we observe, keeps increasing a little from one year to the next. We cannot explain much if we don’t observe the facts which we can now observe (measure) with the instruments that technologists have invented since the time of Galileo only about 400 years ago.
Hopefully both you and other PSI readers will stick together as we all review the SCIENTIFIC HISTORY (such as Stonehenge) of the ancient SCIENTISTS of past. For the “prehistoric” evidence cannot be denied that there ancient scientists and technologists existed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Incase you didn’t notice, Van Hoff’s Law is directly related to Herb’s attempt to explain how carbon dioxide molecules are accessed by plants to be converted into much larger molecules by the chemical reaction between carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules by a process termed photosynthesis involving solar radiation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Jerry & Herb
Hi Jerry,
One thing you have to remember: my propensity to a sick humor.
That Nobelist’s full name is Jacobus Henricus Van ‘t Hoff (Henricus ~ Henry)
Also — hi Herb,
I think your claim of the principal delivery path of OCO to plants for photosynthesis may be investigated by fairly simple experiment. It seems plausible (I ain’t no expert in this). OTOH, I never heard of watering plants by sparkling water 😉
Plants in drought conditions may still thrive in greater concentration of OCO in the atmosphere (greening of Earth in places where there is no noticeable increase of moisture).
While the fresh smell after rain may be rather caused by 000 (ozone)…
Cheers to you all, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
Part of my reasoning is that CO2 is a stable molecule held together by double bonds. This would make it difficult to capture and use in its gases form especially at low concentrations. Since plants are expelling water and O2 from their leaves it would be more efficient to have the CO2 transported with the water from the soil, then use the ionized form to catalyze into hydrocarbons and O2 during photosynthesis.
When starting my tomato plants inside I did use carbonated water on some of them to see if it made difference. I didn’t notice any improvement so I didn’t continue the experimentation.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
Keep your humor. Jerry does not set the rules (he still thinks he’s a teacher rather thanin a discussion.) You need to explain everything to him. (O O O is created by sunlight which is rare when it’s raining.)
Herb
Reply
JaKo
| #
Mea Culpa!
Not OOO but Geosmin! There may be some OOO after a thunderstorm, but not much after just a rain…
Czech this out: https://joyfulmicrobe.com/geosmin/
Just a few keystrokes and one learns something new…
Cheers, JaKo
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo,
Finally got to your link. And it proves that here at PSI one can learn about many NEW THINGS EVERY DAY. Thank you for this information. And Herb I may not being part of a discussion but I am certainly a part of a conversation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo,
I am reasonably sure you are aware that my SCIENCE is serious business. However, I aware that humor is one of your and MattH enjoyments of life and that is no problem. We all know about Herb whom often has unique scientific ideas which to him are also serious business. And regardless of our differences we all strive to better understand (explain) the natural physical world of the earth and its variable weather and its variable climate. An to do this learning we need to observe our solar system and our universe as observed by telescopes and assorted other instruments.
To do this we must accept that our accepted knowledge is based upon our personal experiments supplemented by what has been written others who have based their knowledge upon simple observations and measurements made with invented instruments, is ALWAYS UNCERTIAN to some finite degree. We must accept that all we can absolutely know are ideas which have been observed to be absolutely wrong by reproducible qualitative observations or by quantitative measurements.
As I compose I see Herb has made a comment which I. Have not read. However, you have written words that have been written by possible idiots outside of our GROUP. Please do not waste time doing this. Make your comments personal and not those of the present confusion which we observe to exist. Can you accept this?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “This would make it difficult to capture and use in its gases form especially at low concentrations.” I have no idea you pretend that gaseous molecules can be captured. Please explain.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
It is you that maintains that gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere is captured by plants and metabolized during photosynthesis.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, JaKo, and PSI Readers,
Herb correctly stated that I am acting as a TEACHER. So I will review some history of past teachers.
I read that the first Teacher of any note was Socrates, a Greek “philosopher”, who only asked his students questions and let them discuss what possible answers might be. His students must have learned something and did something because I read that the city fathers decided Socrates had to die (be killed), but they were gentleman and offered him the choice of how he wanted to die.
Fast forward to Galileo. Galileo was a teacher and a Pope declared he had to be burned at a stake to die if Galileo did not retract his claim that his observations, made with a telescope (an instrument), proved that the Earth did NOT standstill. So Galileo lied to save his life for we read that his work was not done. Everyone who is interested in SCIENCE should read his book originally written in the common Italian language, but more recently to English. For many scientists had to wait until 1914 to read Crew and de Salvio English language translation of Galileo’s Italian Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1638). I would urge anyone really interested in physical science to finally read Galileo’s book.
Newton was a teacher and his famous book of The Principia (1687) was written in Latin and translated to English by Andrew Motte (1848). The Principia is actually three books: Book 1. Of the Motion of Bodies. Book II. Of the Motion of Bodies (contd.), Book III. The System of the World. I would urge anyone really interested in physical science to read only the third book.
John Dalton was a ‘school’ teacher who convinced the physical scientists of his day (1804) that matter was composed of atoms.
Louis Agassiz was a NATURALIST who saw erratic boulders were moved by glaciers which slid down the slopes of the Alps and convinced the Geological community that thick layers of snow (ice) once covered the norther portions of Europe, Asia, and North America. He became a teacher at Harvard after he came to North America to observe the result of glacial action and to lecture to the public about glaciers. After which he became a teacher at Harvard. However after teaching students whom became famous Naturalists, he lost his reputation as a NATURALIST (SCIENTIST) because he tried to refute Darwin’s ideas about the evolution of life by comparing ancient fish fossils (his speciality as a naturalist) with modern fish bone structures. He evidently forgot that very few at that time were familiar with the structures of modern fishes.
And I only know about Agassiz as a teacher because Lane Cooper, a professor of the English Language and Literature at Cornell University wrote a book titled Louis Agassiz As A Teacher in 1917. Agassiz died in 1873.
And I read that Agassiz, as a teacher, never lectured.
Galileo, a teacher, is said to have stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help then discover in wishin themselves.” Herb this what I am trying to do as a teacher here at PSI. and thank you for giving me a reason to write this too long comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
JaKo commented: “I think your claim of the principal delivery path of OCO to plants for photosynthesis may be investigated by fairly simple experiment. It seems plausible (I ain’t no expert in this). OTOH, I never heard of watering plants by sparkling water 😉”
A real Scientist will have courage to try anything not likely to harm oneself or others.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo.
I used the FIND APP to find your recent comment (2/8) but I cannot access your link. Article is now on PSI page 3 or 4. Sometimes I cannot remember for more than a couple seconds. Will copy the link and see if I can get and read your link.
However, too many articles and too many comments is problem. However, it is not a problem, which cannot be eliminated if one is seriously interested in learning something NEW.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply