posted 06-17-2004 08:52 PM            

June 17, 2004

To all:

I have to express a degree of uncertainty, to the point of suspicion, about the apparently new forum member, Ken Welch in Houston.

Among Ken Welch's first postings were some extremely ill-informed criticisms of points that I made.

I mentioned, for example, that, on June 5, there was a heavy rain in West Caldwell, yet weather reports indicated a humidity of only 57%! I pointed out that precipitation, generally, occurs when the humidity is, effectively, 100%. I indicated that this could be a sign of a material I long suspected of being introduced in the atmosphere, to take the place of water in causing weather. This material would, essentially, be "squeezing" water out of the air, and that could cause a heavy rainfall when the moisture content in the air was only 57% of what traditionally would accompany precipitation.

Ken Welch's response was, "Julian, I think you must put your thinking cap back on". Ken Welch in Houston indicated "local weather stats" to represent only conditions at ground level, while rain falls from "many thousands of feet up under much different conditions". They then go on to assert that "although the warmer air at ground level can hold much more moisture than the cool air in a cloud at 3,000 feet, once the raindrops are formed, they fall too quickly to evaporate before hitting the ground". Among other things, though, this fails to explain the phenomenon of virga, rain that does evaporate before hitting the ground! Important, too, is Ken Welch's representation of "a cloud at 3,000 feet". Is Ken Welch saying that 3,000 feet is "many thousands of feet"? Of eminent importance, too, though, is the sheer fact that weather reports do include humidity. Why would they include it, if it didn't have some importance in relation to rainfall? Why, too, would they include "dew point", the temperature at ground level, essentially associated with precipitation if temperatures and conditions at ground level did not have a connection with precipitation? Important, too, is the fact, as I mentioned before, that I had never seen such heavy rainfall - if any at all! - at such a low humidity!

Ken Welch in Houston's accompaniment to my comments on an apparent invisible chemtrail that split a cloud in two are so questionable as to be all but unpalatable!

I described a cloud that had a line running across it, straight, apparently cutting the cloud in half. The cloud first formed around what might be taken to be empty air, but, evidently, had some material in it. The residue, apparently, kept the cloud from forming where the trail was, so the cloud, essentially, condensed already broken in two! It then started to dissipate, but the material around the line seemed to almost solidify, and remain there, after the rest of the cloud had disappeared. I included a sequence of pictures with my post.

Ken Welch in Houston, however, claimed, "it is never an actual cloud that is 'split'. It is the older remainder of previous spray runs". They described chemtrail spray as remaining "at the spray altitude", then spreading out but going "neither up nor down", only getting "thinner and thinner". As a result of this Ken Welch asserts, "a spray run later in the day is often knifing through a fuel fog that is only 100 to 200 feet thick, measured vertically."

The cloud that was cut in two actually formed around the invisible chemtrail! It was not present before the chemtrail seems to have occurred. And, in terms of size, many water cloud layers can be no more than 100 to 200 feet thick! Ken Welch's claims seem intended to give the impression that chemtrails are not harmful to water clouds! Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone, determined to oppose unfair aerial spraying of the populace, giving vent to such unwarranted and, frankly, unsupported statements!

Debunkers, it is likely, will try to have a field day with this, insisting that all chemtrail opponents make unsupported statements! Chemtrail opponents rightly point out that the sky is filled with multitudes of non-dissolving trails that were not present even shortly before 1997! Ken Welch, on the other hand, is saying that the invisible chemtrail is cutting through a cloud that was already there, when there wasn't a cloud already there! It's like they didn't even look at the sequence of photographs, or decided that their propaganda wouldn’t be based on them!

Add such things as Ken Welch claiming to "taste" a saltiness in the air after chemtrails occur - something I have not heard anyone describe before! - their fixation of ethylene dibromide, to the exclusion of all else, as if trying to lead chemtrail opponents into looking in that direction, and not the myriad others; and even their indulgence in claims of "reverse speech". It looks very much as if Ken Welch is a debunker, or their ally, trying to goad earnest, but unwitting, chemtrail opponents into accepting, and even proliferating, patently unreasonable material! How it would fit into the evident propaganda of the debunkers, that chemtrail concerns are just "mass hysteria" caused by a few doom-sayers, if they could demonstrate Chemtrail Central forum members being led into palpably inane matters, just because a kind and agreeing voice induced them to!

I think the material by Ken Welch in Houston should be closely watched, and taken with more than a grain of salt! They seem insincere, and, likely, inimical to chemtrail opponents! Be careful in dealing with Ken Welch in Houston!

posted 06-18-2004 12:00 PM            

Although all views need to be examined when dealing with this issue, I'm glad that somebody can't come on here, post some lame dribble, and get away with it.

So thank you to all who keep an eye to the sky and an ear to the floor.

OUT

posted 06-18-2004 12:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tachyon:
It seems like swamp gas has his back.... He told me I have a psychology degree from sears™ in defense of Ken Welch's post. I guess maybe I should have taken psychology.. then I could figure out why exactly these people are so shady.

---

Well, tachyon, Julian and I are from the same neck of the woods, Northeast New Jersey. Living around here, you can smell a rat (Ken Welch?) a mile away. Comes with the territory.

You see, saying someone is "paranoid" is an easy way to trash a cautious person's gut/intuition feelings. Paranoia is a very serious mental illness whose description should not be tossed around so easily. If one has two different responses to a certain stimuli, we do not automatically call them "bi-polar" or "schizophenic".

If you are truly learning the ropes of spoting a disruptor as quickly as possible, then keep at it. You'll get better, I'm sure.

posted 06-18-2004 12:59 PM            

However on the statement that RH has to be 100 percent on the ground, to have rain, well that is not true.

Maybe at the point in the storm high up, the capacity of the air to hold water was exceeded, but that is not the same as saying RH on the ground should be at 100 percent.

For example, in the southwest and desert areas, rain occurs but you will very very rarely ever have conditions of that kind of humidity on the ground. Often the rain evaporates on the way down and doesnt reach the surface, due to the low RH of the air.

And if you have been caught in a desert rainstorm, you can see how much the air cools off from evaporative cooling, and if you get soaked from a storm and are up in the mountains, hypothermia is very much a possibility for the same reasons

posted 06-18-2004 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Dear Nick,

I have asked this question a thousand times and no one has ever been able to answer it. My question is this: When it's raining outside, why is it NOT 100% humidity?  Doesn't humidity measure moisture in the air?
Thank you,
Ruth Burch
St. Paul, Minnesota
 

Ruth,
You are right; humidity measures moisture in the air.   But it can be raining without 100 percent humidity.  And, the humidity can measure 100 percent without it raining.   

For clouds to form and rain to start, the air does have to reach 100% relative humidity, but only where the clouds are forming or where the rain is coming from. Often, rain will be falling from clouds where the humidity is 100% into air with a lower humidity. Some water from the rain evaporates into the air it's falling through, increasing the humidity, but usually not enough to bring the humidity up to 100%.  

When air is saturated, or 100% humidity, rain may or may not form, since it takes more than saturated air to make rain.  Rain actually forms from two processes.  In one case, the drops simply collide with one another until they are big and heavy enough to cease being suspended in air and they fall to the ground.  The air may be completely saturated, but the drops are so small that they may remain suspended in the air and not fall as rain.  This is one reason why not all clouds produce rain.  In thick fog, the humidity is usually 100 percent, but the fog droplets are so small they don't form raindrops. 

Most rain actually starts from ice crystals in clouds, which draw moisture from very cold water drops.  The ice crystals grow in size and weight until they are big and heavy enough to fall from the cloud.  If the air at the earth's surface is cold enough, they remain in crystal form and fall as snow or melt on the way to the ground and fall as rain.  Again, the air in the cloud may be 100 percent humidity and this process may not happen.  Thus you have saturated air, but no precipitation. 

Sometimes you just have to ask a question at least one thousand and ONE times to get an answer!

---

Hope this helps

posted 06-18-2004 09:44 PM            

THE MORAL MAJORITY ARE TRAITORS USING THEIR WACKY VERSION (PERVERTED ACTUALLY) OF RELIGION TO SUBVERT THE GOVERNMENT AND POPULACE...MIND CONTROL OF MKULTRA PERPED THROUGH THE BIBLE BELT OUT OF HUNTSVILLE AL REDSTONE ARSENAL, PAPERCLIP, PANDORA, PROJECT monarch, ETC. SEE WWW.LUXEFAIRE.COM/ELECTRO.HTML LOWER CASE...THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF THAT TOO...BUT NOT FOR LONG KIDDIES....

buchanan201@aol.com, oscully@tassie.net.au, noahshouse@adelphia.net, newstips@time.com, mayor@ci.boston.us, jtaylor@hotmail.com, jusdonnasue@centurytel.net, katheirinoniel@yahoo.es, kbussie@webtv.net, jmorrison@washingtontimes.com, john.emery@dhs.gov, john.webster@dhs.gov, jmaznar@gob.es, info@knesset.gov.il, info@minitrans.ru, info@nwcn.com, info@rnc.org, info@ruscon.org, info@sirc-csars.ca, info@gov.sa, info@gopac.org, info@bctelecom.ca, info@bskyb.co.uk, info@cnn.com, info@georgebush.com, info@georgewbush.com, info@al-aribiya.net, franklingraham@billygraham.org, esser@computer.org, emailtom@cox.net, ewray@gopac.org, fabc@bluewin.ch, feedback@gopusa.org, editor@kcjn.com, decision@billygraham.org, colette.avital@knesset.gov.il, chicago@fbi.gov, chairmanvance@wsrp.org, chairmanvance@wsrp.gov, bushcheney04@georgewbush.com, barbara.simpson@ksfo.com, bloomberg@bloomberg.com, abrahmstreport@msnbc.com, admin@wsws.org

posted 06-18-2004 10:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by billder:
[B]Many if not all the debunkers now are OHS (OFFICE HOMELAND SECURITY= NAZI AMERICA) and there are a LOT of them...many people out of work because of boy georges sell out of America to the world bank, so they are now employed AGAINST the internet and as snitches EVERYWHERE...

---

First of all I doubt anyone, debunker or not, visits this sight out of the department of homeland security. Although 'some' of the debunkers may not be sincere, they know that even Ridge is an idiot. Now most educated people realize that the FED is not a democratic organization, and has not been for some time. However, there is little that you or I can do to change this. The elite have constructed a monopoly which short of revolution cannot be overcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by billder:
check out this email i got, this is just the list of addressees, the first one is who it was from...no text, ONLY ATTACHMENT NUMBERED 3999 heheheheh do we know what that means? the subject was GODS WRATH....so yeah, chemtrail issue is breaking loose and boy georges little ship is breaking up because of it...CHETRAILS ARE THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY IN THE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT WORLD...nothing of this scope of tyranny has ever been imagined b4, say nothing about being implemented...in a sentence? CHEMTRAIL SCIENCE IS THE WAY TO TAKE AMERICA WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE THE GUNS....B

---

I don't know exactly what you are trying to say and you are not making much sense in my honest and sincere opinion. If chemtrails do exist, which they may, they are atmospheric exploits and not exploits such as some of the low frequency resonation devices which have been placed to alter your mode of thinking (i.e. GWEN or NDGPS).

quote:

---

Originally posted by billder:
THE MORAL MAJORITY ARE TRAITORS USING THEIR WACKY VERSION (PERVERTED ACTUALLY) OF RELIGION TO SUBVERT THE GOVERNMENT AND POPULACE...MIND CONTROL OF MKULTRA PERPED THROUGH THE BIBLE BELT OUT OF HUNTSVILLE AL REDSTONE ARSENAL, PAPERCLIP, PANDORA, PROJECT monarch, ETC. SEE WWW.LUXEFAIRE.COM/ELECTRO.HTML LOWER CASE...THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF THAT TOO...BUT NOT FOR LONG KIDDIES....

---

MKUltra was a CIA endeavor in the late '60s. It is no longer an active operation. Project Monarch was also a retroactive attempt to study the psychidellic affects of mind altering drugs on young females. Many sick expirements were performed by Sydney Gotlieb in regards to this operation but it was years ago, and is hardly relevant in anyway to chemtrails.

posted 06-22-2004 11:01 PM            

June 22, 2004

To all:

With respect to my point about humidity and rainfall, msu94 and Wolf_Larson have weighed in with points at once declaring a contradiction to what I said, yet, also, failing to address points that I made.

For example, msu94 says, "maybe at the point in the storm high up, the capacity of the air to hold water was exceeded, but that is not the same as saying RH on the ground should be at 100 percent." They also assert, "for example, in the southwest and desert areas, rain occurs but you will very very rarely ever have conditions of that kind of humidity on the ground. Often the rain evaporates on the way down and doesn't reach the surface, due to the low RH of the air".

As I pointed out, though, in this case, despite the quite low humidity, the rain did reach the ground. In fact, a few days after the rainstorm I mentioned, there was another storm, and, now, the humidity was only 57%! In fact, when rain is formed, in general, but the updrafting of humid air - which tends to raise a degree of uncertainty about the account of rain in the desert - the humidity on the ground would have to be significant, since that is what is feeding the clouds, and, to be so unstable that it would force its way up, the lighter than oxygen water molecules would have to be very abundant! Considering, too, that the storm clouds are rarely more than a few miles high, it seems utterly unlikely that the moisture content in the space between them would vary a great deal. And the water feeding the clouds is coming from somewhere, and that appears to be from water-laden air at the ground level! This wouldn’t necessarily be expected to happen in the desert, as msu4 asserted, but, then, West Caldwell, New Jersey is not the desert!

It should also be pointed out that, even if the description msu4 provided for precipitation in the desert is the “modern accepted view”, that doesn’t mean it is correct, or represents the truth! There do, after all, seem to be many things being asserted “officially” that bear no resemblance to reality! The oceanic temperature inversion off the coast of Mexico used to be credited with every meteorological manifestation on the continent, but that hasn’t even been mentioned for a few years now. The “Greenland block” - whatever that is! - was apparently created, in just the past couple of years, as an “excuse” for the fact that forecasters can’t seem to achieve even 75% accuracy predicting only a few hours ahead! Just because rain water is described, in modern texts, as evaporating over the desert before it hits the ground doesn’t mean that it is normal. And, even if it can be considered something to be expected, that doesn’t mean the reason it is evaporating now is the same reason it might have evaporated years ago! If there is a volatile substance in the clouds, now, it would evaporate from rain much more readily than water would have! If anyone wants to acknowledge experiencing the “evaporative cooling” that msu4 mentioned, they should remember that, if water rain evaporating before hitting the ground can do that, then volatile evaporation should do the same, even worse! I don’t remember any cases of people suffering frostbite from non-existent water rain, as msu4 suggested!

And another point has to be brought out. Namely, I do not ever remember seeing a rain with the humidity far below 100% before! About the lowest it has ever gotten was, perhaps, 85%, and even that seems unlikely. Humidities of no less than 90% seem more common!

Much the same can be said with respect to the material posted by Wolf_Larson. There is no reason to expect the humidity at the ground to vary greatly from that only a couple of miles up. And, when you are in an area that creates the rain by water vapor rising from the ground, there seems no reason not to expect the humidity at the ground level to be considerable!

There are many who would, apparently, prey on lack of understanding, or personal uncertainty in one’s understanding of things. People cannot allow themselves to be used by those who make them doubt what they assuredly know to be true!