that doesn't appear to me to be the same thing as the multiple planes doing the crisscross patterns. this thread is long and i haven't read it all, but has anyone explained the difference between one plane with a con? chem? trail behind it as opposed to 2 and sometimes 3 crisscrossing over the same area for hours?
As a 20 year fighter pilot I can attest to his offering regarding fighter pilots getting the meteorological info of where "the cons" will be before stepping out to fly.
In the USAF the brevity term for being in the cons was "Marking", as in "Conan 2, bring it down, you're marking." As we entered the MOA or Warning Area to set up for a practice long range fight we'd have one of our wingmen "light the cans" and climb up to check it (the weather liars aren't always entirely accurate). As soon as he started to "mark" in the climb, one of the other guys would call "Marking" to clue him to report his altitude as you can't see it easily from the cockpit itself (they start a few hundred feet directly behind you usually).
Conversely, as he climbed out of the cons, a flight member would call "Stop mark", the reply,"340." Armed with that info, when "committing" out of the CAP, we would go min burner (to save gas) to climb up through the cons above 34,000 so that the bad guys couldn't see us as we approached them from 60-70 miles away.
This also serves to increase the range of your missiles as you get faster and higher up in the thinner air, and as well your fuel consumption is significantly less at altitude.
Typically, the cons will begin in the mid 20s and end in the mid to high 30s, but they can stretch up into the 40s if atmospheric conditions are right - I had a wingie marking at 49,000 at Nellis once (very rare) when we (Alaska F- 15Cs) were trying to set up a difficult 3 group "Hi-lo stack" problem simulating MiG-29s against heater only armed F-16 students and IPs from the USAF Weapons School back in '93 (I was out of them at 52,000).
Six of us against eight of them, but four of theirs were bomb laden strikers. The problem was very difficult - we slaughtered them and the poor student leading the mission had to re-do the ride.
They initially saw my wingie in the high cons and got overly concerned with him and thus didn't see a lower Eagle who'd done some good maneuvering with chaff. He ended up 15,000 feet right over the "battle box" of the 4 strikers down in the weeds trying to hide behind mountains as they ingressed to their target. He "popped" all four as he dove down on them in less than 30 seconds then added insult to injury by gunning one of the other Vipers only minutes later - a simulated "Ace in a day".
So are you still trying to sell the idea that the high altitude aircraft leaving the small contrail in the video was actually flying lower than the aircraft that left the huge chemtrail?
all i'm trying to sell is a rational approach to this controversy.
if there's a mystery, we have to start somewhere, dont we?
and the first place to start is: finding out if there's really a mystery at all.
so far, everything you guys have posted has been completely lacking in facts... so nobody can tell, from what you've posted, if there's a mystery or not...
...not only that, but everything you've posted can be explained by the laws of chemistry and physics that cause contrails, so we dont have to trot out out this "chemtrail" baloney at all.
so the burden of proof lies with you ...you have to come up with evidence of an existing "chemtrail" that cant be explained by the chemical and physical science of contrails...
so far, you've failed miserably to provide proof of anything except your gullibility and bullheadedness.
since you guys are unable to provide altitude data from either airplane, we dont know which plane was the "high altitude aircraft", do we?
I don't think anyone here works for the FAA and has access to flight data, radar logs, or other such information pertaining to the video in question.
So we can only apply scientific technique in evaluating what we CAN see. It is apparent that the aircraft leaving the normal contrail is flying at an altitude of between 30,000 and 35,000 feet, is it not?
It is apparent that the aircraft leaving the normal contrail is flying at an altitude of between 30,000 and 35,000 feet, is it not?
we have no way of knowing.
that plane creating the small contrail may be down around 20,000', just entering air in which contrails form... not only that, but that could be a very small twin-engine jet, with a wingspan five times smaller than that of the wide contrail plane, and it might be creating only 1/10th of the water that the big contrail jet is creating.
or the small contrail plane could be at 35,000 feet, just leaving air where contrails form.
we have no way of knowing, since you guys have not provided us with data.
well, we have no data pertaining to that particular day, do we?
Why don't you get some data on that, since you're the one claiming that it can get down to 45 degrees F below zero at 20,000 feet over Van Nuys.
BTW, are you aware that Mount McKinley in Alaska (20,320 feet) has a weather station at the 19,000 foot level, and the lowest temperature in July was -22.9 F? I'd say July in Alaska is probably a bit colder still than ANY time of year in Van Nuys, CA.