See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: CONTRAIL vs CHEMTRAIL 101
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Author: truthseeker1922
Post Date: 2010-03-18 15:43:02 by wudidiz
Ping List: *Black Ops - Psyops* Subscribe to *Black Ops - Psyops*
Keywords: None
Views: 1730
Comments: 101
. Subscribe to *Black Ops - Psyops*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 88.
#53. To: wudidiz (#0)
Here is what chemtrails are really about.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_se eding You'll discover that airports and Air Forces routinely use it for "hail and fog suppression". Takeoff and landings are safer with cloud seeding.
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?
for what it's worth, from Moving Targets Forums > References > Contrails 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.
So do you claim that the high altitude aircraft was flying lower or higher than the aircraft that formed the larger trail?
since you guys are unable to provide altitude data from either airplane, we dont know which plane was the "high altitude aircraft", do we?
Did you watch the full video BTW? The lower trail is VERY low on the horizon, MUCH lower than a high altitude trail would be, where the high altitude aircraft is significantly higher in the sky than the lower altitude trail, which arcs down under the tree cover while the high altitude jet is far above it.
the altitude of the sun is supposedly 93 million miles, and once or twice a day, it comes pretty close to the horizon.
Well there's water in the ocean too, but that doesn't mean I'm swimming in it right now. Man, you are a master of obfuscuation aren't you... The fact is, we are not talking about the sun, we are talking about TWO trails in the sky, one being left by an aircraft that MUST be at a higher altitude than the larger trail due to its position in the sky in relation to the horizon and to the larger trail. Just from your tap dancing it's obvious you're not interested in really finding out the facts, you're here to confuse whatever facts we can determine. I'm surprised you're not trying to claim the contrails are actually formed by starships, since we can see stars, and those stars are in the sky.
which is higher... the sun or the seagull?
Is the sun a seagull? If it were, then the seagull would be higher, but since it's not, then it's an invalid comparison. The fact is, the video shows TWO TRAILS, which YOU claim are BOTH normal CONTRAILS. Since you claim that they are the same phenomenon, then it IS a valid comparison to make between them.
The lower sun is VERY low on the horizon, MUCH lower than the seagull.
Uh huh, and when it's nighttime, then it ran away and won't come back, eh?
it's becoming obvious that you have no interest at all in doing your homework. since i have better things to do than babysit you, i'm gonna let you go.
for those of you who are curious about temperatures and pressures at various altitudes above your location, here's a site that has that information. you will need to convert altitude in meters to altitude in feet: here's a meters to feet conversion gizmo. you may want to convert centigrade temperatures to fahrenheit: here's a converter. here's a link to appleman charts. here are the questions that need to be answered it we're to understand the original video:
#89. To: groundresonance (#88)
Your questions are bullshit, since it's apparent the smaller contrail is being formed by an aircraft OVER 30,000 feet high, and the fact is, the larger trail is five times larger, so with all sorts of fudge factors involved, it's at MOST 20,000 feet high, without using improbable fudge factors, more like 8000 feet high, especially in terms of it's arc over the horizon in the video. And there's no way in hell you'll see a contrail form at 20,000 feet or less over Van Nuys due to the air temperature at those altitudes, so that trail is NOT a contrail.
Actually though, that high altitude aircraft does NOT appear to be a small business jet, so its contrail SHOULD be roughly the same actual width or greater than the lower trail, so that WOULD make the lower trail 1/5 (if the same size aircraft) or LOWER (if the lower trail was formed by a smaller aircraft) than the smaller trail's altitude, but since it's impossible for the lower trail to BE a contrail, then who knows. Judging from relative angles across the entire video, I stand by my estimate of 8000 feet, plus or minus 2000.
Do you think the earths rotation would have anything to do with these contrail patterns? Since they are aiming for flying over / to fixed points on the earth, and the earth spins more or less independently from the atmosphere, then you will get parallel lines and X intersections. Just an idea.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#59. To: Googolplex, ALL (#53)
#66. To: christine (#59)
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.
#67. To: groundresonance (#66)
#68. To: FormerLurker (#67)
(Edited)
are you still trying to sell
#69. To: groundresonance (#68)
#70. To: FormerLurker (#69)
you claim that the high altitude aircraft was flying lower or higher than the aircraft that formed the larger trail?
#72. To: groundresonance (#70)
#74. To: FormerLurker (#72)
The lower trail is VERY low on the horizon, MUCH lower than a high altitude trail
#75. To: groundresonance (#74)
the altitude of the sun is supposedly 93 million miles, and once or twice a day, it comes pretty close to the horizon.
#77. To: FormerLurker (#75)
#79. To: groundresonance (#77)
which is higher... the sun or the seagull?
#80. To: FormerLurker (#79)
The lower trail is VERY low on the horizon, MUCH lower than a high altitude trail
#82. To: groundresonance (#80)
The lower sun is VERY low on the horizon, MUCH lower than the seagull.
#86. To: FormerLurker (#82)
#88. To: All (#86)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 88.
#90. To: groundresonance (#88)
(Edited)
#94. To: groundresonance, christine (#88)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 88.