Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by Dramon
Well, I'd have to agree to disagree with you on this one. There have been many a well documented research topic that was shot down, only to find out that it was valid later - and no, I'm not talking about science in the 1500s.

How about an example of one such study????

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Why is it that not one of the atmospheric scientists world wide, has come out and said, there is something strange going on?

why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by billybob]

Thanks StuartAllsop for the concise explanation about the formation of contrails and super-saturation. Next question:

1. If it were possible to develop a pumping system with the correct nozzles, pre-heaters etc and design it such that it would fit into a 'carrier' aircraft, would a contrail form without the extreme heat of the jet engine using such a system; if there was a contrail, would it be diminished because of the lack of fine atomization of said mixture?

2. How big would such tanks have to be to carry on lengthy spraying session based on the amount of ice crystals required to form a contrail?

These are purely hypothetical questions, I appreciate your responses so far.

Wow Journey, now that is some picture, I've never seen a spiraling part of the aurora borealis before!

Originally posted by billybob
why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

C'mon, billybob, you know that isn't possible. I'd love to ask them a few questions, myself.

If an aerosol operation was occurring, as the technique has been discussed, it's very difficult for the average person (most of us) to prove.

"The voice of authority should be the voice of reason..supposed to set examples, teach us. And I have learned, it's all just bullsh*t to keep us down."

Clearly, you cannot measure relative humidity when the temperature is below freezing! It is impossible to do so, since the water vapor present in freezing air does NOT condense as water, but rather as ice crystals, and the physics of that are very different. Therefore, in temperatures below freezing, you cannot talk about relative humidity, but rather about ice supersaturation, or humidity with respect to ice. That is a VERY different animal. But chemmies never have been able to grasp this concept, so they continue to talk about needing 70% RH in order to form a contrail. Garbage.

i love you. now whenever i see a low altitude jet, say, at a peace protest, on an arid hot summer's day, i can say with absolute confidence, "look, ....chemtrails!"
this is what you call a chemically smoking gun. contrails are ice crystals at high altitude, or only form in very high humidity(as in, not blue sky) at low altitudes.

for those of you who don't know, 'howard roark' is the hero of an ann rand book('foundation'). as in the rand corporation. the same people who make the tunneling machines, among other new world order agendas. ann rand's lover was a rothchild. she is an elitist, who believes in aristocracy over democracy. the illuminati love to rub it in your face.
funny, in the two of her books the hero ALWAYS forcefully rapes the heroine, complete with scratches and bruising, and she loves it. for those of you familiar with "the trance-formation of america', this may set of a few minor alarm systems.

where does the name "stuart allsop" come from?


[Edited on 16-12-2003 by billybob]

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by billybob
why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

C'mon, billybob, you know that isn't possible. I'd love to ask them a few questions, myself.

If an aerosol operation was occurring, as the technique has been discussed, it's very difficult for the average person (most of us) to prove.

"The voice of authority should be the voice of reason..supposed to set examples, teach us. And I have learned, it's all just bullsh*t to keep us down."

exactly.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
You mean Sumaria, I suppose?

no, sumeria. zacharia sitchen spells it that way, why can't i?

Originally posted by billybob


why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by billybob]

And where does this tidbit come from? from Rense, no doubt.

There are thousands of microbiologists out there. I bet every time one of them dies, the Obit lists him (or her) as a "Leading Microbiologist."

You know, I bet that in the same time frame, a proportional number of "Leading Opticians" have died also. Does that mean that the NWO is out to enslave by taking away our contact lenses?

AND DON"T TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!


Answer the questions that I have askd throughout this thread!


WHy don't any scientists and researchers that study the atmosphere complain about the Chemtrails?????


They can't all be in on the conspiracy can they?

just how many people are we going to claim are in on it?

Lets see, you have the pilots, the mechanics and ground crew for the planes, the operations people, the chemical handlers, the chemical supliers, the meterorologists, the atmospheric researchers, the pilots of the commercial airline industry, The entire air traffic controll system, who else have I left out?

Oh, yes, all of the various industrial facilities that are required to conduct air monitoring at thier facilities, Why them? because they have to account for all of that aluminum and barium in thier samples.

Lets not forget your neigbors, that is of course why they laugh and wink at each other whenever you bring up the subject.

Originally posted by billybob

for those of you who don't know, 'howard roark' is the hero of an ann rand book('foundation'). as in the rand corporation. the same people who make the tunneling machines, among other new world order agendas. ann rand's lover was a rothchild. she is an elitist, who believes in aristocracy over democracy. the illuminati love to rub it in your face.
funny, in the two of her books the hero ALWAYS forcefully rapes the heroine, complete with scratches and bruising, and she loves it. for those of you familiar with "the trance-formation of america', this may set of a few minor alarm systems.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yes you are right, my screen name is based on the character in Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead.

As to the rest of your drivel,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. Fundamentally, it requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. Happiness requires that one live by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, a strictly limited government protects each person's rights to life, liberty, and property and forbids that anyone initiate force against anyone else. The heroes of Objectivism are achievers who build businesses, invent technologies, and create art and ideas, depending on their own talents and on trade with other independent people to reach their goals.

Objectivism is optimistic, holding that the universe is open to human achievement and happiness and that each person has within him the ability live a rich, fulfilling, independent life. This idealistic message suffuses Rand's novels, which continue to sell by the hundreds of thousands every year to people attracted to their inspirational storylines and distinctive ideas.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob


why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by billybob]

And where does this tidbit come from? from Rense, no doubt.

There are thousands of microbiologists out there. I bet every time one of them dies, the Obit lists him (or her) as a "Leading Microbiologist."

You know, I bet that in the same time frame, a proportional number of "Leading Opticians" have died also. Does that mean that the NWO is out to enslave by taking away our contact lenses?

AND DON"T TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!

Answer the questions that I have askd throughout this thread!

actually, i believe it was TIME magazine or USA Today, definitely one of the major propaganda rags, anyway. the proof is in the pudding, for anyone who knows the article i'm talking about. it was major, so i'm sure there are thousands of copies out there.
there was an article following the death of 13(may be wrong, don't bite me, maybe 11, or 15, more than ten anyway(probably 13, though, )). there was a rash of deaths of these microbiologists, anyway, shortly after the anthrax scam. they all died "mysteriously" within a period of about a month or two. so, the article pointed out a bunch of statistics theory(bogus, though), to disuade people from finding any kind of association between these deaths. they also quoted many of the 11's associated with nine one one. to stay on topic, i won't go into that, but i'm almost positive you know what i'm talking about. this was to show how ridiculous these seeming coincidences were. the whole point of the article was to debunk coincidence. imagine that! HAHAHA!
these scientists(yes, they kill you loyal brainiacs, too), were all involved in some way or another with weapons research. the last paragraph in the article describes how one of the scientists was found wrapped in barb wire in the stairwell of his apartmen(in miami?). very ominous, threatening and non-sequitor compared to the rest of the article.
and sorry, the fountainhead. and ayn, not ann. i read it years ago. read atlas shrugged and parts of her "who needs philosophy" book, too. very smart girl. great books. bit of a zealot, though. always thinks she's right. nobody is. not her, not me, not you.
foundation is isaac asimov(sp. but don't care, you know the guy). great series. psychohistorians. pattern recognition of the human populace's mass mind measured over centuries. what a great concept!
however, it's true. her boyfreind was a rothschild, according to len horowitz(oh yeah, i forgot, this TITLE means something to you, DOCTOR len horowitz, author of "death from the air, emerging viruses", and "healing codes for the biological apocalypse"). he is a researcher i respect, so I trust his information is good. your job is to demonize him, so i expect some derogatory comment or claim of ignorance about him.
it would be simple to cover up such an operation. there are many top secret airforce bases to stage from(area 51 is a favourite here).
it is also possible to take regular common chemicals and combine them into toxic or reflective compounds or whatever property you wish. this is like grade nine stuff. you make something simple seem insurmountable. more obfuscation.
the rest of my useless drivvle is also true. the rand corporation makes tunneling machines.
and, howard, as to the rest of 'my' drivvle, i was quoting you, so, it's officially your drivvle.

i never expected you to stoop to this insulting behaviour. i repect both you and stuart. you are both quite brilliant. if i have insulted you in some way(disagreement is not an insult), i apologize. it is sincerely not my intention.

don't try and make me look like an idiot, though. i do fine on my own. HAHA!!!



[Edited on 17-12-2003 by billybob]

see, i speeled a bnch of wrds wrng. therefore, when i speak the truth, it is no longer the truth. what an eediot i am.

I was puzzled bout this top microbiologists that are dead..i did some research on em, heres the results...

-Dr. Benito Que not much found, found a Que bg who did tooth eruption research.

-dr wiley is indeed a known microbiologist www.hhmi.org...

-dr. Vladimir Pasechnik no serious research papers found, some related to brain research..

-Dr. Robert M. Schwartz not a fanous dna scientist, he merely found industrial sponsors for a on-line data base for dna sequences. www.vabio.org...

-Set Van Nguyen : only one old publication under this name, bacterial research, but def not a 'leader'.. the research he published was done in japan, 99 and after that nothing

pz, joz

Here are a couple of links with information about the dead microbiologists.

portland.indymedia.org...

Eleven microbiologists mysteriously dead over the span of just five months. Some of them world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others, experts in the theory of bioterrorism.

www.apfn.org...

Originally posted by jozuph
I was puzzled bout this top microbiologists that are dead..i did some research on em, heres the results...

-Dr. Benito Que not much found, found a Que bg who did tooth eruption research.

-dr wiley is indeed a known microbiologist www.hhmi.org...

-dr. Vladimir Pasechnik no serious research papers found, some related to brain research..

-Dr. Robert M. Schwartz not a fanous dna scientist, he merely found industrial sponsors for a on-line data base for dna sequences. www.vabio.org...

-Set Van Nguyen : only one old publication under this name, bacterial research, but def not a 'leader'.. the research he published was done in japan, 99 and after that nothing

pz, joz

these are the 5 mentioned in this rense articel..when i have time ill check your link also but i guess its nothing..they not even leaders, exept this one who is kinda known but not really as a microbiologist :]]..

Originally posted by jozuph
these are the 5 mentioned in this rense articel..when i have time ill check your link also but i guess its nothing..they not even leaders, exept this one who is kinda known but not really as a microbiologist :]]..

what rense article?

www.rense.com...

Originally posted by dexxy
Thanks StuartAllsop for the concise explanation about the formation of contrails and super-saturation.

You are welcome!

Next question:

1. If it were possible to develop a pumping system with the correct nozzles, pre-heaters etc and design it such that it would fit into a 'carrier' aircraft, would a contrail form without the extreme heat of the jet engine using such a system; if there was a contrail, would it be diminished because of the lack of fine atomization of said mixture?

Is it feasible? Yes. Not a problem. In fact, airliners already have a couple of such systems. First, there is the fiuel dump system, that is used to jettison excess fuel in the event of an emergency that requires an immediate landing. Various designs of aircraft have them in various places, pretty much always on the wings somewhere. There are even some photos on-line of dumps in progress. A fuel dump does leave a trail, but it evaporates pretty quickly, long before it could reach the ground. An other type of nozzle on some airliners is for dumping waste water from the wash basins, galley, etc. These are normally underneath the fuselage. Water released from these also leaves a trail, but it is usually a pretty thin line, rather than the thick, billowing cloud of a contrail.

So is it feasible to put such nozzles on planes? Sure! Would you get a contrail? Perhaps, but I doubt that you'd be able to get anything near as big as a jet exhaust contrail. A high-bypass jet engine is pumping out a blast of hot air that measures many meters across, and I don't see how you could hide a nozzle big enough to give the same effect. You could probably hide a small nozzle, but then all that you'd get is a thin stream of contrail, such as the one that comes from the waste water dump valves. The only way to get a thick, billowy contrail is to have a very, very large nozzle, the size of a jet engine. That is kind of hard to hide!

Of course, if your "sprayer" were to fly throug a layer of ice-supersaturated air, then it would end up leaving normal contrails AS WELL AS the "fake" contrails, and that would be a dead giveaway! If you look around on the internt, you'll find several photos posted by chemmies, showing two different contrails, one very thin and dissipating quickly, the other billowing and spreading. They claim that the two planes were flying right next to each other, yet one is producing a normal contrail while the other is producing a "chemtrail". My question is, how come the "sprayer" that is producing the "chemtrail" isn't also producing a normal contrail? After all, if it is flying in the exact same conditions as the other palne that IS producing contrails, then it should be leaving both contrails AND "chemtrails". But it isn't. Hmmmmm.....

2. How big would such tanks have to be to carry on lengthy spraying session based on the amount of ice crystals required to form a contrail

Well, they'd have to be as least 60% larger than the fuel tanks on the plane, if you wanted to produce the same effect as normal contrails, simply because the engines produce 1.6 pounds of water for every 1 pound of fuel they drink. So, if you wanted to get only the exact same effect as contrails, you'd need to pump 60% more water than fuel. That means on something like a 767 you'd need to have tanks capable of holding about 144,000 liters of water, which would weigh 144,000 kilograms, or about 317,000 ponds. Since the entire payload of the freighter version of the 767 is only 127,000 pounds, it would be kind of difficult to do that....

Best case, you could carry maybe 100,000 pounds of water (allowing 27,000 for the tanks, pumps, spraying equipment, pipes, crew to operate it, etc.) Not even one third of what you would need.

Plus, once again, if you were to spray all of that out in conditions where it would form contrails, then you'd have to be in conditions where the engine exhaust would ALSO be forming contrails, so your plane would be leaving more contrails than it has engines.... That would be kind of suspicious.

In addition, that plane would have to be a freighter, with no passengers, if you wanted to carry all that weght. If you are trying to hide your spray gear inside a normal passenger plane, then clearly you are not going to be able to carry anything NEAR to 100,000 pounds of spray.

Finally, don't forget that the above calculations were for getting the SAME effect as contrails. But chemmies claim that "chemtrails" are much bigger than contrails, last longer, and spread out to cover really huge areas. Therefore you would need to carry even MORE spray, MORE tanks, MORE equipment, etc. to achieve that. For example, if "chemtrails" are supposed to last ten times longer than contrails, then you'd obviously need ten times more spray, which means that you'd need to cram about 3,000,000 pounds into your plane. If you also want it to spread to cover a volume 100 times larger, then .....

In summary, it would not be possible to hide spray equipment and spray in a normal airliner, and still get it to do what the chemmies claim it does. Not even a small fraction of what they claim it does.

These are purely hypothetical questions, I appreciate your responses so far.

No problem! Hope I answered them OK for you ... If not, then feel free to carry on asking.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob


why don't we ask all the dead leading microbiologists?

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by billybob]

And where does this tidbit come from? from Rense, no doubt.

what's wrong with the rense article? (thanx, jozuph for that link.) he does have an article about it. at the time it was written, only five were dead. the rense article references the Miami Herald, Associated Press, the Times, and the Washington Post.
just because paranoid freaks are the first to notice patterns in society, which are threatening to them, does not mean there are no threatening situations. just because i'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
nice attempt at demonizing Rense, but the fact is, each article there must stand or fall on it's own merit. i notice this article was written by a guy who has a book about the apocalypse. does that mean that if you don't believe in judgement day, you also shouldn't believe the obits in the Times? i mean, the same guy tied them together so naturally because he's a psycho religious paranoid(in your eyes), everything he says is untrue. because you find some material at rense farfetched, therefore everything at rense is untrue? your job is to demonize rense, because he also has an interest in chemtrails(and we can tell by your expertise that you're specialty is chemtrail 'debunking'. another indicator is that, as bangin' pointed out, you just showed up and all of your posts have been on this thread. ....you're very good at it, i hope you're well paid and they don't wrap you in barbed wire some day)

the article i read in LIFE or TIME or TIME/LIFE or whatever had 11 and was published in late winter/early spring of 2002.

and how about that, another microbiologist just bit the dust, too.

p.s. the guy who 'discovered' AIDS is the guy who invented it. typical illuminati shyte.

Originally posted by billybob
... now whenever i see a low altitude jet, say, at a peace protest, on an arid hot summer's day, i can say with absolute confidence, "look, ....chemtrails!"

But you still haven't told us how you can determine the altitude of a plane. How do you do that? In fact, if you look around on the internet, you'll find many claims of low-flying "sprayers", yet you won't find a single photo. Why is that? How come all these chemmies are out there, every day, happily snapping photos of normal airliners leaving contrails at high altitude, yet not ONE of them has EVER managed to snap a photo of a plane at low altitude!!!! Doesn't that tell you something? It tells me that chemmies are LYING when they claim to see low-flying planes leaving trails! They can show you thousands upon thousands of photos of planes at high altitude leaving trails, yet not a single photo os a plane at low altitude leaving trails.....

this is what you call a chemically smoking gun. contrails are ice crystals at high altitude, or only form in very high humidity(as in, not blue sky) at low altitudes.

Huh? Why would the sky not be blue when the humidity is high? I didn't follow that reasoning at all! You can only see water vapor if the humidity is AT 100%. At lower humidity, it is invisible, even at 99% RH. So why would the sky not be blue?

... for those of you who don't know, 'howard roark' is the ....

BINGO!!! I knoe it wouldn't be long. Rather than continue to debate the ISSUE, as soon as a chemmie troll starts losing the battle, they resort to the only weapon left in theri arsenal: ad hominem. Attack the poster, instead of the post. But in this case, you are not even attacking the poster! You are attacking someone who is related to a person who once ownede the company that you claim the poster works for. How on earth did you hope to prove that chemtrails exist, by following that path? What possible connection could there be between the lover of the ex owner of the company where you work, and "chemtrails"?

where does the name "stuart allsop" come from?

As far as I know, it comes form the town of Derby, in the county of Derbyshire, in England. I haven't traced it back much further than that, but I believe my cousin actually put together an extensive family tree, and traced our roots back to medieval Scotland, before losing the track. If you happen to find something more in your research of my ancestors, please let me know. It would be interesting... (Oh, and if it helps, I believe there was once an escaped convict in the penal colony in Sydney, Australia, with the name "Allsop". Can't tell you much more than that, though.)

So now you can go ahead and tell us about your family tree. Any time you are ready....

(And then you can show us the connection between our family trees, and the non-existance of "chemtrails").