Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

reply to post by AllTiedTogether

I can start up a small new flyer tomorrow, apply for a press card, and start calling myself a journalist. Being a Journalist is no affirmation of a persons qualification, their knowledge on a topic, or their objectivity. The fact that he is giving lectures on this topic speaks volumes to the opposite. The fact that he is using hearsay from an unknown source, which is full of flaws, similarly puts his facts in question. I have known several ATC personnel, and one who I am related to, none of them believe in Chemtrails.

reply to post by defcon5


This man is being paid of his work... yes I admit that is probably the case.. I don't know for sure if he is paid and will not assume....

You stated that you worked for the Civil Aviation division... did you get paid in this capacity? The CA has been linked to the 'chemtrail' conspiracy... How about the Oz... He stated that he was a met tech earlier... did he get paid or compensated in any way for his service? The Met techs of the world have been linked to a conspiracy to remain quiet about 'chemtrails'.... If I use your thinking there defcon then I would have to ignore all the info you've provided. But I don't believe that your info is all flawed and will never say it. I know how to find the nuggets of valid information in anyones posts and use it accordingly. As I'm sure you do also. But to just say a man is getting paid for writing what he knows is wrong. That would be like saying you can't use anyones word in the media because they get paid... Do the authors on contrailscience.com get paid? More than likely eh???

Rgds

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Proven? Are you kidding me? Defcon5 claims that these so-called "persistent contrails" (chemtrails) have been around since the 1920s, but when challenged to come up with a pre-1998 film, TV program or commercial to prove it, all he can produce is a black-and-white movie poster and a scene from Patton with ONE real contrail in the background?

I was asked to come up with one, and I did so. If you asked me to come up with 3 or 4 I can do that too, though I cannot do it tonight as I don’t have any DVD’s here with me at work. I will happily find more trails in movies if you so wish, but you are not going to find any like your picture, because Hollywood intentionally tries to not get that kind of stuff in the shots. Also it takes time to go through movies trying to find them, its not a quick endeavor. My biggest problem is that about 15 minutes into the movie I start actually watching the movie, and forget what I am looking for… However I can do it, and so can anyone else with some DVD’s, and a computer with a DVD player. Just pause the movie, hit Ctrl-Printscreen, open Mspaint, hit Ctrl-V, then cut and resize it appropriately.

Okay . Lets do it this way. Why does the new airbus engine run so much cooler than a 707 ?

CFM-56 engines will actually run significantly hotter than the Pratt & Whitney J57 due to significant advances technology. 1980's technology is far different from 1950's technology; materials, particularly, are significantly better. More you can heat the air; the more it expands, the more thrust you have.

In terms of overall exhaust, the CFM-56 should be cooler as they are turbofan engines, rather than turbojets; essentially energy from the exhaust is extracted to drive a fan. The energy in the exhaust of the CFM-56 will end up FAR lower than the JT3D. An example of this is the CFM-56 versus the General Electric F-101 engine in the B-1 supersonic strategic bomber. The CFM-56 has a new low pressure turbine, mixer, and fan, so obviously the exhaust will be significantly cooler.

They also reduce the effective mass of the aircraft increasing fuel efficiency .
No wonder boieng does not like competition.....

The CFM-56 engine used in the A340, was first found on re-engined DC-8's, re-engined Boeing 707's, and later the 737-300/400/500/NG series. Boeing's answer to the A340 is the 777, and as fuel prices go up it's lead on the A340 gets larger and larger. Check the order books.

Boeing 777-300ER engines...:
img16.imageshack.us...
img16.imageshack.us...
img16.imageshack.us...
Not just an engine... works of art. (Pictures taken by me).

Two massive engines is more efficient than four ones.

If raptor is no longer black its because its no longer STOA. Simple .well we proved that much to them with our 'outdated' F111's.

Once again, our F-111's have never flown against the F-22. Furthermore, the F-111 itself is getting replaced with the F-18F BLOCK II SUPER HORNET which has avionics lifted straight out of Boeing's JSF entry. Why would be replace it with something that's worse?

No the Raptor was never a black programme.

All around the country you have transmision towers constantly pumping out a broad NET of frequencies.

Yeah baby , thats what we are talking about or did you not grasp the fact that elecrtomagnetic energy can travel through the air ? I could say more on this topic because I am only describing our defensive detection systems in simple terms . But its enough to give people a grasp of the concept even if you deniers have a vested interest in 'shooting me down'.

Yes. What you refer to is essentailly a BI-STATIC radar system. They are nothing new; nor is the idea. I suggest you take a look at Lockheed Silent Sentry, advanced surveillance programmes. Problem is, unless the tranceiver and the receiver are sychronised, ranging is impossible.

cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu...

And what happens when we have a few EA-18G GROWLERS jamming the hell out of all communications... FM radio is not designed for LPI... Incidentally, all US stealth AC are designed with bistatic as well as monostatic RCS in mind, and it's a known quantity. If they didn't, we'd all go back to older missiles such as Aim-7, and R-27. Not to mention most communication isn't designed to saturate high altitude airspace (otherwise that's a hell of a lot of wasted energy, and money).

Oh well.... you should start a thread about these radar systems! They if developed properly and designed could surely detect stealth aircraft. Not sure about accuracy though and jammability.

What you may be reffering to is JORN. Jindalee Operational Radar Network, based in Australia. It runs at specific frequencies that bouce off the ionosphere, and pointing west it apparently detected a B-2 flying over Nevada. Problem is; the way it operates is simply not accurate enough for weapons cueing; knowing something is in a box of xx kilometres doesn't help for targetting. On the note of JORN, it is so good it can be used for maritime surveillance securing our borders, and also meteorological reports.

Our new AEW&C aircraft, Project Wedgetail, is unbelievably good also, can track thousands of sea, air, and land targets simultaneously, from a few hundred kilometres out. It operates in the same band as Russian military communications; with special software this jet might potentially be abled to knock them out.

I want to point out, our potential adversaries do not have stealth aircraft, their current jets have radar cross sections the size of BARNS - thus there is very very little need for spending money on anti stealth technology as of yet. The potential 5th generation adversary in future years probably won't be much better than a Block II Super Hornet, or Eurofighter. That's why it's hard to believe any chemspraying is done for detectability; they enemy can be detected with EASE already, meanwhile, stealth is starting to become the RAAF's biggest ASSET; that starts with the SUPER HORNET later this year, then the F-35 LIGHTNING II mid next decade.

Thats why the US has tried to hold back upgrading our telecommunications systems .

They did? The 3g network is at the forefront of world technology.

So rest easy me old cobber . The ADF has the technology and the best personel in the defence business .

Brings a lump to my throat anyway.

Maybe not the best technology in the whole world, however it has the best technology in the region with the best personel in the whole world. Our future fleet will look something like this...:

75 - 100x F-35's. (Dependant on whether Supers/Growlers are retained or retired, but 75x aircraft will be the minimum number of next gens, I would suggest).

24x F/A-18 SH/EA-18G Growlers. (Again, longevity depends on Government in the 2020 - 2030 lifetime and whether Growlers are acquired. A Growler acquisition will indicate a long term commitment to the platform. There is NO way Growlers would be retired in 2023).

6x Wedgetail AEW&C.

5x KC-30A tankers.

10 -12x AP-3C Orions (SLEP) or P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

6-8x Global Hawk MUAV.

4x C-17 Globemaster III. (A possible further order may be made, if the existing C-130H are to be replaced by this aircraft. Unlikely to be more than 2x additional C-17 aircraft).

12-18 C-130H/J Hercules. (H models may be retired from service completely and replaced by C-17, C-130J or perhaps C-27J or equivalent. Australia's Air Lift Study results will be released with the White Paper 2009).

12-14 C-27J/C-295 tactical airlifters. (These will be the long term replacement for the Caribou capability, in conjunction with enhanced numbers of Army CH-47D/F Chinooks, and possibly the C-130H).

Along with JORN, AWD, VIGILAIRE, Australia will simply dominate anything near Australia. Maybe in a few years I'll be part of them,,, hopefully.

Long before the raptor claimed super cruise as a first , the English electric lightning was already doing it .

Problem with the yanks is their definition of Supercruise is absurd and designed so only the F- 22 fits the bill. Supersonic without afterburners can be acheived with the English Electric lightning, F-16, F-15, Eurofighter, Gripen, and Rafale, probably more infact; however, nothing beats the speed and acceleration of the RAPTOR.... Mach 1.8 without burners with 8 AAM's.

[edit on 19/3/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Everyone should pay attention to what C0bzz includes....it is not bs, it is real stuff.

The person knows....I can smell BS....and it ain't here!!!

EDIT....AND I am fighting that red 'warn' tag....it's like a Master Warning light that just won't cnacel, even when you push it.....

I'm asking Mods to consider....seems there is some disarray, in the midst....

MY opinion.....

[edit on 3/19/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by defcon5

In case you missed it and before I get accused of fading into the sunset because so-called "proof" of "persistent contrails" has been posted, I have a question -- should it really be so hard to find a pre-1998 film or TV program that looks like this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5befcb2e00a93b42.jpg[/atsimg]
Sorry, missed your response:

I will happily find more trails in movies if you so wish, but you are not going to find any like your picture, because Hollywood intentionally tries to not get that kind of stuff in the shots.

I constantly see chemtrails in all kinds of films and TV shows.

However I can do it, and so can anyone else with some DVD’s, and a computer with a DVD player. Just pause the movie, hit Ctrl-Printscreen, open Mspaint, hit Ctrl-V, then cut and resize it appropriately.

I look forward to seeing it!

[edit on 19-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Now when you are using movies to show contrails as being contrails then you must remember that they were probably put there on purpose.... If the story calls for lots of smoke and contrails to show the dogfighting being done by enemy fighters then I think the director would have the pilots turn on a smoke maker or something along that lines. In a 'scene' that is suppose to call your attention to the skies and whats up there I think that you can safely assume that the long 'contrails' are smoke plumes to be part of the movie.

Kinda like if you had a car being driven down the road in a movie and the thing was an old beat up thing ready to break down... Wouldn't it make quite a lot of sense to have smoke coming out the rear end of it to signify to the viewers the significance of what they are seeing.

If you had a dogfight going on in a war film like TopGun without the 'smoke' would it be as neat? Could the average person really see the overall turns and abilities of the pilots without their smoke emission showing the barrel rolls and emphasizing the stunts?

Logic. You can't use a DVD movie that shows the skies during a supposed war and evidence of chemtrails let alone contrails.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
You stated that you worked for the Civil Aviation division... did you get paid in this capacity? The CA has been linked to the 'chemtrail' conspiracy...

I worked for an airline, I was not paid by the government, I was paid by them. In some countries the airlines are government run, such as BA or AC, but that is not the case here in the US. Now I work in an entirely different field all together, so I owe nothing to covering up some story for some company I used to work for like 9 years ago.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If I use your thinking there defcon then I would have to ignore all the info you've provided.

The problem with doing so is that I am simply restating things I have said for years here in other threads. I may not be doing it in this thread, but in most of the other threads on this topic I will back up my statements with source material. I am just being lazy lately as I have presented this stuff so many times its like smacking my face against a brick wall, and I don’t feel like looking up source material tonight.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
But to just say a man is getting paid for writing what he knows is wrong. That would be like saying you can't use anyones word in the media because they get paid.

Ok, but he has presented information which has been false in the past, and he is now basing his “new statement”, which you linked to, on that same story which has been proven to be false. So if the baseline information is false, then this new information is similarly false. You cannot build a house of truth on a foundation of lies, it just does not work that way.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Now when you are using movies to show contrails as being contrails then you must remember that they were probably put there on purpose.... If the story calls for lots of smoke and contrails to show the dogfighting being done by enemy fighters then I think the director would have the pilots turn on a smoke maker or something along that lines. In a 'scene' that is suppose to call your attention to the skies and whats up there I think that you can safely assume that the long 'contrails' are smoke plumes to be part of the movie.

I'm asking to see them in a normal background shot, not a 'Top Gun' SFX sequence.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Have you not read the entire thread? Several member, including myself posted pictures of contrails going way back...why everyone is ignoring these is beyond me.





Listen to this one...1944 and they talk about contrails

reply to post by defcon5


Could you please present the data that shows that this man is a liar? You have called this journalist a liar and I'd like to see the proof of it.... If you can't then I guess we can safely understand that this man hasn't been found guilty of lying and can therefore be trusted. I realize you are tired and lazy as you stated but although you seem to espouse your own integrity and honesty, who noone knows because of ATS anonymity, you have called a journalist a liar and have stated that he has been proven as such on occasion. I'll have to send this man a note linking to this thread and ask him his views and how he feels about being labeled as a liar.

Rgds

However I can do it, and so can anyone else with some DVD’s, and a computer with a DVD player. Just pause the movie, hit Ctrl-Printscreen, open Mspaint, hit Ctrl-V, then cut and resize it appropriately.

Often print screen does not work when viewing DVD's and other videos. The screen just comes out black for copy protection.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by sensfan


As you've noted its already been addressed a number of pages back and shown that the pictures you show there are NOT able to show chemtrails let alone contrails.... Contrails happen at certain heights and what you show above the whitehouse and bigben is engine exhaust. Proven already near the beginning...

Thanks
Rgds

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by sensfan

 

As you've noted its already been addressed a number of pages back and shown that the pictures you show there are NOT able to show chemtrails let alone contrails.... Contrails happen at certain heights and what you show above the whitehouse and bigben is engine exhaust. Proven already near the beginning...

Thanks
Rgds

I believe you are wrong, as they look to be at quite a high altitude, but I'll give you that on the pictures as it's hard to tell the height, although I've never seen planes smoke that much.

What aboout the video of the bombers where they explain their altitude and the formation of vapour trails (i.e. contrails). Can't be smoke, as it only starts when they get to a very high altitude.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by defcon5

 

In case you missed it and before I get accused of fading into the sunset because so-called "proof" of "persistent contrails" has been posted, I have a question -- should it really be so hard to find a pre-1998 film or TV program that looks like this?

Yes it is, you know why?
Because look how few sky shots there are in movies…
At the best you get a long shot of the horizon with the action in the foreground. They don’t walk on the set and point their cameras in the air. At most in some movies you get maybe about one or two inches of skyline at the top of the screen. Then you have to sit and go through the movie to even find the contrails that either the director and editor missed, or they chose to leave them in because they were not that noticeable.

But things happened just as I predicted they would.
You asked for a single shot from a movie:

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'm not asking for evidence of contrails in a Hollywood SFX sequence.

I'm asking for evidence of these so-called "persistent contrails" in the background of ANY film, television program or commercial that was shot prior to 1998.

I presented one:

Originally posted by defcon5
Well here are two shots of a persistent contrail from the 1970 movie Patton:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3100199a0b14.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/66c65a12bde2.jpg[/atsimg]

And my prediction:

Originally posted by defcon5
If I pull screen shots will that be the end of this Cloverleaf crap, or will you just find another excuse to continue on?

Came true...
Didn’t it?


[edit on 3/19/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Now when you are using movies to show contrails as being contrails then you must remember that they were probably put there on purpose.... If the story calls for lots of smoke and contrails to show the dogfighting being done by enemy fighters then I think the director would have the pilots turn on a smoke maker or something along that lines. In a 'scene' that is suppose to call your attention to the skies and whats up there I think that you can safely assume that the long 'contrails' are smoke plumes to be part of the movie.

Unfortunately, these also show up, and are far more noticeable in period pieces. Do you think that the director intentionally let this happen:

The Cowboys is a 1972 western motion picture starring John Wayne, Roscoe Lee Browne, Slim Pickens, A Martinez and Bruce Dern. Robert Carradine makes his film debut. Based on the novel by William Dale Jennings, the screenplay was written by Irving Ravetch, Harriet Frank Jr., and Jennings, and directed by Mark Rydell.

Goofs

# Anachronisms: Jet contrails near the beginning.

reply to post by defcon5


There is at least ONE obvious contrail in that still from a movie from the 1970s....AND, what is really astonishing, is the 'persistant' cirrus clouds also....hnmmmmm....seems the cirrus clouds just may be a sign of an impending weather front approaching....or not....because upper winds might steer the front in different directions....that's why being a weatherman in Hawai'i is such a good gig....

Back to topic....contrails have existed for decades. It's only lately that attention has been, IMO, mis-directed......

reply to post by C0bzz


Whether engines are hotter than another doesn't make a difference... If you had a ten planes all at the same altitude 30,000ft and all had different engines.. Each engine burned at a different temperature ranging from 100 degrees cooler than contrails could form and 100degrees hotter than contrails could form. Would any one of them make contrails? Given the atmosphere they are flying is meeting the criteria for contrails they would be seen following the aircraft that's engines would meet the temperature to create a contrail, which I believe is approx 50degrees colder than the aircraft engine.

Now we have some contrails... How long will these contrails last? Real contrail science before the emergence of 'Chemtrails' shows that most contrails will disperse within 30secs, which was also shown here. Although some may dismiss this page as having no value it just goes to show that this man knows how science works and has proven it to all who follow science. His science is sound and unless you can provide some understanding as to his incorrect methods of obtaining truth then I will ahve to admit this mans work as good science.

This is clearly showing that Unidentified acft have laid the most consistent chemtrails and that during his observations he shows that the majority of Identified acft are only dispersing trails of 30secs approx. This matches up with how real contrails work, before they contrail science and used it as contrail propaganda. So, if a plane is unidentified and probably military it will leave a trail that will last consistently longer than a known aircraft. Knowing the military have admitted to spraying its population in the US, UK, Canada and other countries of NATO alone leaves me to believe that they are still doing it by the evidence that is provided by the offenders themselves. I have no reason to disbelieve the military... I was one for 26yrs... I know of their compartmentalization and how secrets are kept...

Originally posted by defcon5
Because look how few sky shots there are in movies…

Say what? There are only a few background sky shots in films? C'mon.

But things happened just as I predicted they would.
You asked for a single shot from a movie:

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'm not asking for evidence of contrails in a Hollywood SFX sequence.

I'm asking for evidence of these so-called "persistent contrails" in the background of ANY film, television program or commercial that was shot prior to 1998.

Yes, I asked for "persistent contrails", (plural) like the photo I posted above.

After all, these "persistent contrails" have been around for decades, right? So they should be everywhere, both before and after 1998, when Project Cloverleaf began.

Originally posted by sensfan
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Have you not read the entire thread? Several member, including myself posted pictures of contrails going way back...why everyone is ignoring these is beyond me.

Have you not read how many times I've said NOT photos of WW II-era piston-engine aircraft?

Do those B&W photos look like modern-day chemtrails? No, they do not.

You can't find a single color photo or still from a pre-1998 film or TV program?

Why not? There should be many thousands of them.


[edit on 19-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


No joke? I was just about to ask if you took a picture of the sky me and my sister were watching earlier today! Hey, good to see another Louisville resident watching the skies. I often feel me and my sister are the only to who even pay attention to them at all! Nice picture, btw.

I wanted to add:

Today's trails formed a letter A, like above, or as my sister called it, the Masonic symbol!! Now how's that for another layer of conspiracy?

[edit on 19-3-2009 by hotbakedtater]