Extreme Chemtrail-day in Holland! Is anyone else seeing this?

Originally posted by dplum517
From wikipedia ...but all the sources are at the bottom.

Nice photo of wartime contrails in that article.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by wulff

 

That means nothing.

Every time you link military planes leaving trails you only validate that fact that it's being done on purpose.

I'm sorry .....but if you cannot see the tactical advantage of having a bunch of trails in the sky when bombing a city in 1940 then I guess you just aren't military minded.
Even if it's just a drip of oil or something else to produce a trail it is done on purpose......

Can you see the advantage of having a mess of trails in the sky when having multiple bombers over head?

It would be much more difficult to shoot a bomber out of the sky with anti aircraft guns from the ground if all you can see is a mess of trails.

It really is amazing that debunkers can only link military craft as "proof" that contrails were around......

cmon ....get me a photo of a grid of contrails at JFK or ATL in 1960 ....there was surely enough commercial jet traffic during that decade to produce at least a small grid.

edit on 19-10-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

Lol.. you are laughable! I flew left seat in B52G's in 'Nam (7th Air force) out of Anderson Air Force Base in Guam) We were one of 98 G's used in "operation Linebacker" (look it up).my aircraft had my 'Wulff Head' under the window, that is why I still use a Wolf as an avatar. Our G Models were underpowered compared to the D models but we could hover over the target longer... would have loved to have you along on those flights to knock some of your disrespect out of you!!
To say they used "smoke" in the Battle of Briton shows how little you understand physics, science or the military!
My uncle flew B-17G's in WW2 and he showed me (before he passed away) his flight logs and several times he said they aborted a mission because they were 'making contrails' ! He said if the conditions were right the tips of the propellers would also give off a small spiral contrail that would dissipate quickly but the main engine contrails could last for hours and all the fighter pilots had to do was follow them and find the slower bombers!
Well enough, memory lane stuff... as you can see I come from a military background (my dad won 2 silver stars and a bronze) during the Battle of the Bulge (which he refused to accept! (one of the Silver stars was for dropping a grenade down the hatch of a Tiger II (King Tiger) one of only 90 some used in that battle!
Sorry everyone to get off topic but when someone attacks my credibility it reflects on my whole family!
Sorry again, but maybe some people with limited knowledge on military experience might gain from it!
So, do realize what you look like in my eyes?
-Wulff

I never said the bombers/fighters didn't make contrails.

I'm sure they did.

After reading all the history on "persistent contrails" and studies done by universities (funded by NASA which should also indicate they want to control contrails or possibly make their own) they clearly indicate that persistent contrails were rare.

In a dog fight I'm sure pilots were putting the pedal to the metal... kind of like slamming on your gas and seeing exhaust come out.

...eitherway... everyone always ignores the last request I made in that post. Kinda funny.

...as I have said before..... IMO our gov has the ability to make "contrails" (chemtrails) long, short, persistent, no matter what weather condition it is.

reply to post by dplum517


It isn't remotely amazing that only military examples of aircraft leaving contrails can be posted from WW2, you see, only the military was flying as there was a war on. Well, actually there were some very small scale flights by BOAC, but hey tended to use military models themselves, such as the high speed Mosquito for mail delivery etc.

If you want an example of an early civilian trail here is a pic of the DH Comet. In 1952, it became the worlds firs jet airliner and was looked on in a similar way that Concorde later was because its height and speed were unprecedented for civil aircraft. As you can see, it is leaving a trail. Have you seen the link I provided elsewhere on here to the 1956 Flight article that referred to persistent trails and described why they occur, with diagram?

reply to post by waynos


Well thanks for the effort but cropped pictures of contrails don't really help much.

Just like people were amazed at the grids of supposed "contrails" over their cities in the 2000's ..... they took pictures because it was something they have never seen. All those pics that NASA uses to explain "persistent contrails" were taken in the last decade.

So, all I am saying is that there had to have been someone in the 60's, 70's, or even 80,'s that saw a grid (small) and said wow ...I will take a pic. Heck even one of the "X's" would do...

reply to post by dplum517


You did ask for one from 1960 before, stating that there was enough traffic to generate one. There probably wasn't actually because after the Comet disasters several years were lost while the cause was found and cured, the real big hitter in establishing jet traffic, the 707, didn't appear in service at all until the end of 1958 and was still quite rare in 1960.

I will however see what I can turn up.

Originally posted by dplum517
After reading all the history on "persistent contrails" and studies done by universities (funded by NASA which should also indicate they want to control contrails or possibly make their own) they clearly indicate that persistent contrails were rare.

"Rare" sounds a bit vague, could you quote where a NASA study says that persistent contrails are rare, and how frequent that is?

The conditions are generally -40, and 70%RH, at flight altitude, in Southern California those conditions existed on about 23% of the days in 2010 (Vandenburg figures from UWYO site), and 35% of the days in January. Is that "rare"?

Here's some from 1956:

www.life.com...


And a very nice X from 1970:

reply to post by dplum517


Huh?

....studies done by universities (funded by NASA which should also indicate they want to control contrails or possibly make their own) they clearly indicate that persistent contrails were rare.

? Studies by Universities indicated that persistent contrails were "rare"? Quite an assertion to make, without citing any sources to back it up.

But then, the logic escapes me --- the attempted inference that NASA "funded" the University studies that are alleged to have concluded that persistent contrails are "rare", but in the same sentence the claim is made that NASA wants to "control" or "make their own"? Ummm...if NASA (or anyone) wants to make a contrail, it's not difficult to do. You just wait until the meteorological conditions are ripe for it.

...eitherway... everyone always ignores the last request I made in that post. Kinda funny.

What "request"?

...as I have said before..... IMO our gov has the ability to make "contrails" (chemtrails) long, short, persistent, no matter what weather condition it is.

Is that a "request", or a bald assertion of opinion that is unsupported by any facts whatsoever?

And, when you say "our gov" (I presume you mean "government", not some state's governor) then the implication is that it's the United States Government, is that your opinionated assertion?

Odd, since this thread was inspired by a person from the Netherlands (Holland) who was questioning his/her local skies (not realizing, hopefully that has been corrected) what contrails actually are.

Is it fair to say you are now claiming that the U.S. Government is *spraying* in other countries?? There have been more claims of so-called "chem"trails on the ATS boards lately coming from people living elsewhere than the United States.....

...and to that opinion. Just how does the U.S. Government get involved in this notion of ".....the ability to make "contrails" ...." in "no matter" the weather conditions, when it is shown that the contrails are formed by regularly scheduled commercial airliners??

This makes no sense at all.

reply to post by ProudBird


Tell me who your original avatar was and maybe I will respond to you...

reply to post by Uncinus


Well ....all I see is clouds in the New York photo.


Do you have an exact link for the bottom one so I can see the context it is in.

You of course remember that I do think tests/R&D was happening well before 1996.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Well ....all I see is clouds in the New York photo.


Do you have an exact link for the bottom one so I can see the context it is in.

Contrails are in the upper right corner.

The bottom photo I don't have a link since Life rearranged their archive access, but the info is in the photo.

Originally posted by dplum517
You of course remember that I do think tests/R&D was happening well before 1996

So why are you asking for photos?

When a world war II piston fighter 'put the pedal to the metal' as you stated the 'smoke' wasn't white unless it was condensation..... it was BLACK from oil, the German BF109 always left a long trail of black smoke unless at high altitude then of course it was white!
No way are those WWII contrails smoke from the motors.
RESEARCH before typing!!

Check this link:
goodsky.homestead.com...

lots of beautiful REAL world war 2
contrails!
It was noted contrails sometimes hung for hours or days after a mission.

Originally posted by wulff

Check this link:
goodsky.homestead.com...

lots of beautiful REAL world war 2
contrails!

Here's a bigger collection:

picasaweb.google.com...

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

Need to find the source..

But I'm almost positive that the bombers flew lower to drop bombs because dropping them from above 30,000 ft proved to be most inaccurate.

Also because when you have an aircraft heavily loaded it simply cannot fly so high - nor climb as quickly.

Those a/c were full of bombs, fuel, and ammunition - .50 calibre ammo weight abpout 4 1/3 oz per round (M2 ball, 117.48 gm - M2 AP was a fraction of a gram lighter at 117.17), plus extra for links, and I've read that a B-17G carried 5000 or 6380 rounds for its 13 guns - that's 587kg/1300 lbs at 5000 rounds, 750kg/1660 lb at 6380 rounds.

The "service ceiling" for the B-17 was over 35,000 feet - but loaded up with bombs, fuel, ammo & crew I dont' think it would ahve come anywhere near that, although I cant' find any specific climb/altitude figures for the B-17 at weight.

But yes, I am sure it is also true that flying lower gave better accuracy too.