The Chemtrail Myth

As a professional aviator with 2,500 hours of flight time throughout our national aerospace system, and possessing a background in B-52Haerospace engineering and physics, I understand how and why some people without proper training in these disciplines might bite off on the chemtrail conspiracy crap.  Nevertheless, I never cease to be amazed at how they can turn a blind eye to rock-solid information and persist in their beliefs.

When I say the chemtrail crap is crap, I mean just that:  It’s crap.

Here’s what’s real:  The chemical equation for stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen is given as follows:

chemtrails

That’s a contrail, ladies and gentlemen.  You ignite a hydrocarbon in air.  It combines with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide and water.  The x and y denote the elemental fractions.  The z just means the combustion occurs in an excess of oxygen.

fuel + oxygen –> carbon dioxide + water

It’s that simple.

As for “chemtrails,” I’ll keep that one simple, too.  Chemtrails are a ridiculous, brain-dead myth.  The very idea violates the laws of physics and biology.  I’ve seen chemtrailthousands of photos and videos of supposed “chemtrails” online, not one of which has ever appeared to be even remotely more than a plain old contrail, composed of water vapor precipitating into droplets or ice crystals in the presence of cold, humid air.

Contrails were observed long before World War II.  Whether they disappear rapidly, slowly, persist, or foster additional condensation from the WWII Contrailsair around it is determined by the temperature, relative humidity, and density altitude of the air around it.  If the air is too warm, contrails will not form.  If the air is too dry or thin, they will not persist.  When the surrounding air is more humid or dense, however, they can persist for hours.  If the surrounding air is humid enough, contrails will cause additional precipitation, leading to the growth of clouds.

Contrails are so predictable, in fact, that during World War II, more than 70 years ago, the military’s weather forecasters would contrail-to-cirruspublish daily tables of time vs altitude for the aircrews, indicating where contrails were most likely to form.  Allied bombers used this information to steer clear of those altitudes where contrails would form and give away their positions, making them far more visible to ground forces than if they weren’t producing contrails.

The criss-cross pattern of contrails occurs when numerous aircraft fly over the same ground track while the air mass moves.  You can image028replicate this with a friend, two pencils, and a sheet of paper.  Start drawing lines, one per second, then slowly move the paper beneath the lines.  Draw your lines stationary relative to the desk, not the paper.  Your pencils are “flying” over the same location on the “ground” while the moving paper represents the moving air mass.  Result:  cross-hatch.  In fact, you can tell the general direction of upper-level winds by noting which direction parallel contrails go from sharp to fuzzy.  Fuzzy are older.  Therefore, they’re downwind.

The idea that spraying chemicals seven miles high would have any effect on the ground is absolutely ludicrous.  Even with some of the most cropdusting5_bshpotent chemicals available, crop-dusters must still fly within a few feet of the crops.  If they don’t, the chemicals disperse in even the mildest of air currents.  Even if you allowed that aircraft swapped out half their fuel load in favor of toxic or mind-altering chemicals, you’re still dealing with the fact you’re spraying them from an altitude 3,000 times higher than required for cropdusters.  As contrail1linear dispersion is proportional to the square of the altitude, however, you’re not talking about diluting the mix by a factor of 3,000, but by a factor of 9,000,000.  That’s 9 MILLION times more diluted than a cropduster.  Even if you were spraying pure botulism toxin, the world’s most potent toxin known to mankind, the concentration when it reached the ground would be so incredibly diluted that it would have no affect on either people or animals below!

Meanwhile, the increase in respiratory ailments is due to a number of factors, including the release of man-made xenohormones and other chemicals into our environment, primarily in the form of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, pollution, and toxins found in a wide variety of industrial pollutants and man-made home furnishings, such as carpet and manufactured building materials.  I’m sure the addition of fluoride into the water supply hasn’t helped things, any more than does chlorine, which is in the same family as fluoride.  We know for a fact  other things also cause problems, and that humans are much better off breathing fresh air, drinking fresh water and eating wholesome, organic foods.

The idea of chemtrails, however, is scientifically and logistically impossible, thoroughly debunked a thousand times over.

It’s absurd beyond the extreme, and only blithering idiots persist in such beliefs in the face of all known scientific fact to the contrary.

Nay…  We’re dangerously polluting our environment and living spaces, all right, but we certainly don’t need to entertain the myth of chemtrails in the process.  Fortunately, a number of aviation professionals have stepped up to set the record straight, such as this post found on Facebook:

chemtrailUpdate (Dec 2, 2015):  Another blitheringly idiotic post on Facebook claims “Conspiracy Theorists Vindicated:  US Senate Reports Chemtrails Are Real and are Killing…”

Well, no.  Here’s a copy of the photographed report, all 746 pages of it.  No mention of chemtrails, there.

And here’s a copy of the searchable text of the report.  Still no mention of chemtrails, much less anything about “killing,” with the sole exception of this sentence:

6. Dynamic effects:
(c) Cold thunderstorm downdrafts, either killing local convec- 
tion or sotting off new convection cells elsewhere.

The Many Problems with Obama’s 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control

While only three are actually “executive orders,” all of what Obama spewed forth last week is troubling, if not outright illegal.  Without further ado, let’s just get to it:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

gun control
If you don’t want it … DON’T ALLOW IT!!! Our nation is one of the people, by the people, and for the people. Those guys in Washington? We elect them to serve our nation. They serve us, not the other way around.

What “relevant data” does Obama want released?  Does this include any sort of data currently protected under HIPPA?  Would this allow the federal background check system to deny a firearm permit on the basis of certain medications?  What about diagnoses?  Would a permit be denied for a simple mental health visit?

The problem with the first of Obama’s edicts is that it’s nebulous.  If acted on without regard to the Constitution and its amendments, countless rights violations would ensue.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

These “barriers” as Obama calls them, aren’t barriers at all.  They’re protections, specifically built into the system to protect the rights and the privacy of all citizens.  Attempting an end-run around them is unconstitutional.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

The current background check system allows states the option of conducting their own checks or using the FBI’s system.  As the FBI’s system does not meet the the privacy requirements of our State Constitution and its Statutes, our State conducts its own background checks.

This recommendation is nothing more than Obama’s way of back-dooring national gun registration, a step which historically has always lead to firearms confiscation, then oppression of the people by an ever-growing federal government.

This idea is utterly abhorrent to everyone who has fought for the rights and freedoms we enjoy today.  It directly violates both the spirit and intention of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Tenth Amendment’s limit on the powers of the federal government.

Put simply, it’s un-Constitutional.  Even suggesting it violates Obama’s oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.  Any support of it would violate the oath of office of any civilian, military, or law-enforcement officer.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

This is a slippery slope upon which we must not step foot.  It’s the same slope used (rather, abused) by the Nazis to identify, then incarcerate “persons of interest,” those whom the government considers “dangerous.”  Dangerous to whom?  To others?  Or to the government?  Once this line is crossed, it only gets worse, until the feds will have rounded up every “dissident” simply for standing up for their Constitutional rights.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Was the gun seized legally?  If not, this is a wide-open door to violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.  Law enforcement already has the authority to temporarily seize a firearm during routine traffic stops, along with the authority to run plates and a driver’s license.  How does that differ from a “full background check?”  If a person holds a concealed weapons permit, they’ve already had a “full background check.”

Furthermore, how long is this “full background check” going to take?  A week?  Ninety days?  If so, this is nothing more than an excuse to deprive an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

There is currently no requirement for private sales to involve background checks.  Making it a requirement will have absolutely zero effect on illegal gun sales (sales to criminals) while imposing an expensive and unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens.  A similar argument could be made about sales from gun stores.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

The NRA’s Eddie Eagle Gun Safety programs have resulted in sharp declines in firearms accidents

gun control
Whenever we allow compromise, WE are the ones who lose.

among children.  As it is, the CDC’s reports indicates some very interesting results.  They’re interesting because they indicate the death rate due to firearms is exceptionally low.  It’s so low, in fact, that it doesn’t even appear on the CDC’s top 15 list.  For example, in 2010, total deaths by firearms came to 1.24% of the total for all ages, and just 0.25% of the total for those aged 1-14 years.

The fifteen leading causes of death are: Diseases of the heart, malignant neoplasms, chronic lower respiratory diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, accidents (unintentional – includes motor vehicle crashes), alzheimer’s, diabetes melittus, nephritis and nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis, influenza and pneumonia, intentional self-harm (suicide), septicemia, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease, parkinson’s, and pneumonitis due to solids and liquids (choking). Even this last comes in at 5.5 per 100,000, which is nearly double that of homicide by firearm.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Firearms which must be locked up until needed are rarely accessible in a timely manner.  They’re next to useless in stopping home invasions, much less armed robberies.  They’re about as useless as seat belts which remain unfastened, or life jackets which remain in storage, which is why nearly all state and federal laws require seat belts to be fastened and life jackets to be worn.

Obviously, leaving a firearm unattended not appropriate, particularly around children.  However, the proper place for a firearm is in its holster, worn on one’s person.  For those of us who live alone, however, any requirement to keep it locked up puts us at risk of not being able to defend ourselves, and is unacceptable.

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

This is yet another back-door attempt at gun registration, without which such “tracing” would be impossible.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

I sincerely hope the first such firearms to be analyzed will be those lost and stolen guns from Operation Fast and Furious.  If not, if the DoJ is incapable of keeping track of their own firearms, it’s unreasonable to ask them to analyze information on the lost and stolen guns of others.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

When compared to their budget, the ATF has a dismal record.  It currently costs them approximately $115,000 for each and every person they recommend for federal prosecution for firearms possession just through the Project Safe Neighborhoods framework.  Many of those recommended for prosecution are never convicted.

Besides, B. Todd Jones, the acting director of the ATF, has already been nominated for the permanent position, subject to Senate approval, of course.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Law enforcement, first responders, and school officials already have proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

This is so nebulous its not even worth addressing, except to note that the most effective means of preventing gun violence is to relax gun control laws.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This was done during an earlier Democratic administration, and the answer wasn’t what was expected.  Basically, the three-year study published its findings in a 800+ page report which concluded that no amount of gun control legislation has ever had a positive impact on gun violence.  Instead, it found that that the most effective means of preventing gun violence is to relax gun control laws, to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Basically, it supports the wisdom that infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a causative factor in increasing gun violence.  As for the other factors, suicide by firearm (0.79%) is nearly twice the rate of homicide by firearm (0.45%).  Even so, twice as many suicides are committed by means other than firearms, and the report stated that suicide by firearms has dropped while total suicides have remained steady on a per-capita basis.

As for firearms homicides, no study is required to determine that there are three reasons:  Greed (robbery), hate (crimes of passion), and the least likely causal factor, mental instability/insanity.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

There is no “magic pill” with respect to firearms safety, and reliance on such technology diminishes the most effective safety protocol:  Human.  Jeff Cooper advocated four simple rules of firearms safety which, if followed, would eliminate nearly all firearms accidental deaths and injuries, and without any need for expensive gadgets which ironically tend to get in the way of the safe and effective operation of a firearm.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

My Second Amendment rights are none of my doctor’s business.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

gun control
It’s OUR Bill of Rights. It’s up to US, We The People, to protect it from those who would take our rights away from us.

Health care providers are not qualified to determine what constitutes a credible threat against a law enforcement authority.  Only sworn law enforcement officers and certain types of mental health care providers have the requisite training, and current law already allows for such reporting.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

That’s up to the States and the school districts.  However, the best incentive is protection of the children.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

While this is indeed a good idea, the critical fact which must be remembered is that the only effective way to stop a shooter is to shoot them.  Attempts at tackling a shooter usually winds up with the tacklers seriously injured or killed.  Tasers are ineffective against an armed gunman due to their very limited range.  The fact remains that more shooting sprees are stopped by citizens than by law enforcement, and more than 2/3 of the time that’s accomplished by armed citizens.

Another critical fact is that so-called “gun free zones” don’t work.  They’re a magnet for those who commit shooting sprees.  Only a known armed force will deter such shooters.  More than a month ago I outlined a plan for the screening and selection of a small group of armed teachers for each school.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

The last four recommendations, along with a few others, delve nebulously into mental health.  Without clearer, better-defined terms, however, along with restrictions protecting and respecting all existing Constitutional rights, including those provided by the various State Constitutions.

Right now, Obama’s recommendations make no such promises or provisions, which is why so many sheriffs around the country have lined up to oppose it.

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority.  She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it.  Her oath of office states in part:  “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states.  Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.

With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?

I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:”  It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.

Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution:  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”  I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.

Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity.  She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid:  Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.

Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.

In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people:  We must obey God rather than men!

UPDATE:  Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:

In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Note:  RFRA:  “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”

I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago.  If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations.  You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.

 

sotomayor
Honest, God-fearing Christians!

The Hidden Threat of Genetically Modified Foods

When it comes to food quality, most European countries tend to err on the side of caution.  There are MANY questions, concerns, and controversies over genetically modified foods, the most solid of which is that despite the fact that we’ve mapped genomes, we still have little to no understanding of what many genes do or how they interact with other genes.

genetically modified foods
Just Label It

We we do know is that modifying one gene for a desirable effect will almost certainly affect how other genes behave.  That may involve raising or lowering the threshold of environmental stimuli required to turn the other gene on or off, or turning the other genes on or off completely.

Since we have a poor understanding of what the various genes in a specific plant do, this may introduce toxins into the life-cycle of the plant, toxins which may not harm the plant at all, but which may prove to be either acutely or chronically harmful to humans.  It’s fairly esay to detect any acutely harmful chemicals in trials.  Chronically harmful chemicals, on the other hand, take years to detect, requiring very long-term studies involving tends of thousands of people.

How prevalent is this threat?  According to the American Cancer Society, “Environmental factors (as opposed to hereditary factors) account for an estimated 75%-80% of cancer cases and deaths in the US.” – p. 51, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2012,” American Cancer Society.  We’re aware of some carcinogens, but strongly suspect there are many more low-level carcinogens.  We also suspect that because of their high numbers and widespread use throughout modern society, they are responsible for much, if not most cancer in humans.

Cancer, however, is merely one of many human ailments known to be affected or caused by environmental factors.

genetically modified foods
Say NO to GMO

Our bodies evolved over millions of years to work in harmony with nature, including being resistant to most things in the environment which would have otherwise caused us harm.  When we introduce new environmental factors, whether they be in the form of man-made compounds, increased concentrations of compounds normally found in nature, or genetically modified foods, we have introduced an unknown factor.

The bottom line is this:  Short-term trials do not uncover long-term health concerns.  Only long-term studies will do this, and it’s both premature and irresponsible for any government or scientific body to declare genetically modified foods as “safe” on the basis of short-term trials.

I agree with the graphic.  Just label it.  We’re not asking you to pull genetically modified foods off the shelf.  We do, however, reserve the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically modified foods.

Demand Congress enact GMO Labeling Now

GMO Labeling is something that’s long overdue here in the U.S.  Watch this short video, and you’ll know why.

Then, use the following form letter to write your Congressman of your desire for him or her to implement mandatory GMO labeling of all GMO foods:

Dear Congressman X:

Were you aware most GMO corn in the U.S. (i.e. most corn in the U.S.) is treated by by crop-dusters who are required, by law, to wear full chemical protection suits while spraying your food with 2,4-D, which is one of the two active ingredients in Agent Orange?

It’s true.  Please watch this video:  http://youtu.be/FyWMuA8HcJk

Armed with this information, along with the fact that 9 out of 10 Americans want to know whether or not their food contains GMO foods, please pass legislation requiring the mandatory and conspicuous labeling of all GMO foods as “GMO.”

We deserve to know what’s in our food!  Russia passed the bill, as did China, and more than sixty other countries around the globe, including most EU countries.

They passed the bill because they care enough about their citizens to require complete disclosure on their food labels.  What does that say about the United States and how little we care about our citizens when we allow big business to run roughshod over the government and keep people in the dark about what’s in our own foods?

Please pass the mandatory GMO labeling legislation.

Thank you.

Sincerely,