Chemtrails Versus Contrails: Who's a Nutter? Answering Laura Knight-Jadczyk of sott.net

I'm answering Laura Knight-Jadczyk, a Facebook friend [former; read on], here.

Laura is maintaining that there is no such thing as Chemtrails and that all the trails we see are regular, unlaced, condensation trails. She's even said that those who say otherwise, such as yours truly, are "nutters."

UPDATE 1:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk: P.S. the "nutter" remark was addressed to the nutters flaming me privately. When I get flamed, I know I've hit a nerve with the COINTELPRO peeps.

UPDATE 2:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk: Tom Usher, you wrote a bald-faced lie in the first line [she meant second paragraph] of your article which reveals that you probably did not even read mine, or if you did, your emotions blinded you to what I was saying.

However, here's how she started the thread:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk People need to learn to identify cloud formations and understand how these atmospheric layers work.

If it is in the stratosphere, it is NOT a chemtrail. What is in the stratosphere does not come down for a LONG time.

Now, it COULD be "metaltrails" as in dispersing metallic particles for bouncing of radio waves etc, but then it would likely be much higher than the stratosphere and it would be exhobitantly expensive.

So: stratosphere has contrails. Not likely anything else other than an occasional fuel dump but even that is unlikely nowadays except in emergencies.

Troposphere CAN have chemtrails, or cloud seeding but they would require very specific weather conditions to form into cloud cover.

Abovetopsecret.com is a black op. See: http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/03/abovetopsecretcom-exposed.html [Tom Usher says: I don't see "chemtrail" anywhere there; but she could retroactively change that on account of this post update.]
30 minutes ago

Laura Knight-Jadczyk "Ž@Anita: Here is another good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8
Nope, sorry. It's wrong. The opening sequence shows a fresh contrail and an older one. They are BOTH in the stratosphere.
29 minutes ago

So, unless she's calling cloud seeding "Chemtrails" proper (meaning what everyone means when using the term; and I don't think that's what she's implying), then I don't know what she's talking about. We aren't seeing cloud seeding every time we are seeing chemtrails. In fact, I don't think we are ever seeing cloud seeding in this vein. The military could turn to masking things that way, but I don't believe they've bothered with attempting to do that to date because I'm confident that they believe people are stupid and will simply accept the official line that there are no "chemtrails" — "cloud seeding" aside.

Of course, I would have been interested in Laura clarifying her statement and would not have ruled out in advance that she was not ruling out that the chemtrails I discuss below were exactly that: chemtrails and not contrails. However, she de-friended me over this post of mine rather than discussing it or allowing me to reply on the thread. I only posted one thing on that thread (that has 73 comments on it as of this update), as follows:

Tom Usher: Chemtrails Versus Contrails: Who's a Nutter? Answering Laura Knight-Jadczyk of sott.net http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2011/01/09/chemtrails-versus-contrails-whos-a-nutter-answering-laura-knight-jadczyk-of-sott-net.html [which is this post]

That doesn't strike me as cause to cut me off from even being able to respond, but that's her choice.

Once you are de-friended and the individual involved has privacy settings set to disallow non-friends to comment, you're not able to reply. I'm not against that ability, but I do think it's rather intellectually dishonest to use it as Laura did.

By the way, I wasn't what could rightly be termed emotional over her "post" called, "NOT Chemtrails!!! They are CONTRAILS." It was not an article that I could or can see. It was and is a photo montage with a comment thread below it. For those of you with Facebook accounts, I believe you should be able to see the page here. I came into that by way of my Facebook Homepage "Top News" list. Because the montage had garnered so many comments, it was filtered into "Top News" by Facebook's software. I did not come into the discussion via any "article" link. That's what I was commenting on: the photo montage and her comments below it, not any article.

In addition, it didn't take her long to un-friend me because I received no email notifications of anyone adding a comment after mine, which struck me as very strange what with all the comments before it and the nature of my comment and this post that continues below.

She went on to post the following comment after blocking me:

Laura Knight-Jadczyk Let me reiterate what I wrote in the first point of this article: I do think that there is a hidden operation going on involving spraying of dubious substances on SOME populations. But that activity is limited. But for some reason, people reading this article both here on SOTT and on FB just keep missing that. They want to insist that every plane in the sky and every trail made by those planes, is evil "chemtrails.
...

However, I see no such article on Facebook. I see only the photos with comments. So, if there's an article and if I had, had an opportunity to look at it and if it would have substantiated Laura's claims, I would have updated this post to reflect that. The fact is though that I went to Laura's Wall to look to see exactly what possible "article" she might be referring to only to discover that she, as I said above, un-friended me, which prevents me from seeing any such article there.

I've reviewed the thread above my lone comment and see no link to any such article in any of Laura's comments.

Oh well, at this point, all I see is Laura's knee-jerk reaction at best. She's New Age in my view {although apparently she doesn't consider herself New Age, per se;  I won't quibble, but she apparently claims to channel (that's a New Age type claim to me) from Cassiopaeans}, and I knew that; but I didn't know until just this incident that she's so much in the Gordon Duff mold of "cut them off before they finish showing your errors." There is a time when debates end; but really, this was not that point any more than when I was dealing with Gordon Duff's wild claims that Julian Assange is a proven, "Busted" Mossad agent (even while Gordon ever so slightly hedged from his emphatic statements that there is no doubt Assange is Mossad).

You can read all about that here:


WIKILEAKS SERIES Information

UPDATE 3:

So, not that I figured I owed it to her, but I left Facebook all together (Laura's photo montage that had no "article" with it and Laura's Wall that she blocked me from seeing) and went to Laura's site sott.net to look for the article Laura assumed I should have read before commenting (even though there was no link to that article at the photo montage and she didn't mention it in a clear way to me until she simultaneously cut me off).
What did I find? I found that she said that any chemtrails as used in the common parlance are as follows:

1) Obviously, there is some "spraying" that goes on and it's not for the benefit of humanity. I've heard a few stories from people about very low flying planes dispersing stuff that lands all over everything or makes people sick. And I do mean LOW flying.

Source: Chemtrails Contrails Strange Skies

You will also note that in her most recent post as of this update, Not Ready To Make Nice, she complains of being censored by Google, yet she cut me off nearly instantly.

Now, I haven't gotten sick in the way that others have associated with higher-altitude Chemtrail activity, but I don't rule out the association.

Anyway, from her one paragraph there, it is not possible to conclude that my position concerning her position is wrong. I believe that my characterization of her position remains still valid. You decide though. I say she is saying what I said, which is, "Laura is maintaining that there is no such thing as Chemtrails and that all the trails we see are regular, unlaced, condensation trails." I know of no one who has been publishing extremely low-flying plane trails and calling them "chemtrails," even though doing that would be valid. Afterall, a crop duster certainly is a chemical trail of sorts. I believe you see my point here.

[end of UPDATES]

Laura Knight-Jadczyk's website is http://www.sott.net/. It doesn't exactly reflect mainstream thinking. Some would say it's the stuff of a "nutter," but she's entitled to write her ideas just as you are and I are entitled to write ours. Besides, I like some of her posts very much. I disagree strongly with some though too.

Well, I'm closing in on 60 now, and I grew up in Michigan and then Arizona starting in 1964 with its huge US Air Force bases. The fact is that jets were new enough and novel enough that we children looked up at every one of them.

When I was in early grade school, they were so rare that the whole class would rush to the classroom window to see one when we heard it. The teacher would go over and look out and up too. We would not be scolded but understood for our legitimate amazement.

During these early years, most jets put out a dirty exhaust; but the higher they went the more there was an evident condensation trail.

Just to be clear here, I never stopped looking up. I've been a sky observer all my life. Much of that had to do with anticipating desert monsoons and dust storms and the like. So, I remember the first time I saw a jet leaving behind a trail that did not dissipate when all other indicators said it should have. In addition, there was a marked difference between it, in terms of billowiness (still is), and condensation trails that could hang around longer than usual (but never ever all day). When I saw that first chemtrail, I said to myself, quite literally, "What the hell are they doing?" As an environmentalist well aware of the anti-environmentalism of the military at the time (I still don't consider them environmentalists at all), I really didn't like seeing it.

After that, not too long after that, perhaps a matter of several months, I was outside in our backyard cleaning up when I witnessed the entire sky being criss-crossed by no more then two jets at a time flying exactly perpendicularly to each other until the whole sky was nearly perfectly grid. Now, this was the first time that had ever happened over Phoenix, Arizona, but not the last. This was absolutely not commercial air traffic. Sky Harbor International Airport was right there, and I knew the flight paths very well. It would be asinine to suggest that it was commercial air traffic. I'll tell you why beyond what I've already said too.

Not too long after that and since people were clamoring for answers, the local news reported that local farmers were upset that the nitrogen-fixing of the heat lightening during the monsoons was apparently being interfered with by the aluminum chaff the farmers had been able to collect and associate with the timing of fallout from the chemtrail jets. Unlike today, the military admitted that it had been testing communication methods in the event of a war (it was the Cold War era) where normal military communications might be knocked out. The story was that by flying chemtrails over the horizon, the military could communicate over that horizon. I doubt that was the whole reason, although it would sound plausible at the time given the average understanding of most people.

Anyway, the chemtrails actually completely stopped for a while — at least a whole monsoon season if memory serves. I was glad. When they resumed, they were never done the way they had been done that first time I mentioned, gridding the whole sky very uniformly and quickly (no deviations).

My sense is that over the decades since then, many different chemical combinations have been used for many different experimental and programmatic reasons and that computers and software and data have been constantly enhanced so that they now release other than normal fuel/water vapors in a much more scientifically calibrated manner to achieve a host of outcomes.

As for poisoning us, it depends upon what one means. Environmental pollution is certainly poisoning. However, could chemicals be released as chemical warfare? Of course they could. Have chemicals been released where there is documentation concerning that? Yes, the military has historically released chemical agents to test them on unsuspecting Americans and that has been documented and is not denied by the military/CIA, etc. Could viruses and bacteria be released in biological warfare? Again, of course they could. I believe there is documentation of this too, but I don't recall off the top of my head [Oh, yes: . I don't want to be confusing the chemical with the biological. Could certain people be inoculated in advance? Well, before the Anthrax attack in Washington, it has been widely reported and not denied that the White House staff and select others were put on CIPRO, which is an antibiotic to protect against Anthrax.

Now that last aspect is very nasty and shows the depths to which some in power when they have it will stoop to increase their power by terrorizing others and even killing others, often innocent others. This sort of thing is nothing new, and the list where this has happened is huge and has never been compiled but is scattered.

No, the trails are chemtrails. One can see that readily for among other reasons that one sees chemtrails and condensation trails in the same sky where by elevation and weather related reasons, they should be reversed if all are contrails.

Contrail versus chemtrail in the same image

Furthermore, it has been conclusively shown in Europe by a meteorologist there that the government (NATO?) scrubs the weather maps of chemtrails. If they were simply "natural" condensation trails, it would be stupid to erase them.

I believe Karsten Brandt, a meteorologist with real time access to the government's censored weather maps and also the un-scrubbed meteorological radar. What he said there jibes completely with my personal experiences related above.

In addition, he clearly stated that the clouds are really dense artificial clouds. He's right. If one were to use nothing but common jet fuel in all the jets, no such clouds would form. There are also images available of jets fitted with rows of pressurized canisters and nozzles on their wings, etc., for releasing the contents of those canisters. Of course they exist and have been used and are being used.

I'm far from a nutter. You need to rethink, Laura. You're on the wrong side of this issue.

Peace

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.