Why do pictures that show tankers refueling, never have contrails?

I did a Google search of "tanker refueling" on images, and not one picture has contrails in it. I looked up refueling altitudes, and they vary from low to high, so at least some should show contrails, the way nearly every plane produces contrails these days.

Now I only used Google images. If you have a picture of a tanker refueling, and either plane leaving contrails from jet exhaust, I would like to see it.

Otherwise, logic would say, Chemtrails.

reply to post by 911stinks


"logic" says 'chemtrails'?

Not following that.

Firstly, I looked up the images, too. Every one of them were close-ups of the airplanes involved. Contrails form some distance behind the engines, not seen in those photos.

Also, contrails don't form ALL of the time, either.

Secondly, MOST airborne re-fueling OPS occur at the lower altitudes...

For security sake, we'll just give estimates. First off, generally speaking, the refueling altitudes are fairly standardized between FL19-250, with some of the slow/low flyers needing lower. The altitude is normally chosen based on threat and traffic requirements. If higher is needed, the KC-10 is required to stay 2,000 feet below optimum cruise altitude for a given GW, not to exceed 30,000ish. Above that, the maneuvering / thrust penalties very rapidly outweigh any fuel flow / drag benefits for air refueling.

www.airliners.net...

AND, if that doesn't convince, there is THIS:

www.vusn.org...


Sorry...."chemtrails" are pure fantasy, a product of over-active imaginations. combined with the rise of the Internet (and the greed of certain shady people who have found a way to make a living off of the gullibility of others).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Is that why I have a microfiche from a US govt. depository library, entitled Chemtrails?

It is dated 1991. Included all the chemicals used, and a nice section on acid rain.

It was a course at the Air Force Academy.

Originally posted by 911stinks
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Is that why I have a microfiche from a US govt. depository library, entitled Chemtrails?

It is dated 1991. Included all the chemicals used, and a nice section on acid rain.

It was a course at the Air Force Academy.

I don't suppose you could post scans / prints from the fiche, or the document or class title? It would be nice to actually see some evidence that can be checked and verified.

reply to post by 911stinks


That's been discussed, months ago, right here on ATS.

Was that with you, under a different ATS member name?

As I recall, it was an oblique reference to one title or chapter in an Air Force Academy textbook on chemistry, for one of the Chemistry Courses from their Syllabus...

Did you read the entire thing, or just pick out the word "chemtrail" and jump on it?

It may have to do with the fact that they are not cranked up but have slowed down to refule. Just a thought.

Does this count?

LINK

I am sure there are more if you want to go look for them.

You still don't know who I am, do you?

So, because many pictures of aerial refueling do not have CONtrails in them somehow proves the existence of chemtrails? Contrails start a large distance behind the plane, so contrails are not easily revealed from the perspective of the boom operator or the aircraft getting refueled, furthermore, most aircraft refuel at altitudes where contrails do not usually occur. All aircraft will produce contrails in the correct conditions, as the by-products from the combustion of hydrocarbons are well known scientific facts (water / carbon dioxide).



Isn't it interesting that when the OP is proven wrong he goes off on a tangent about things that have already been discussed.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz

Isn't it interesting that when the OP is proven wrong he goes off on a tangent about things that have already been discussed.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by C0bzz]

Thank you C0bzz, star for you.

Well, I have the document in hand.

But I'm going to let you people keep digging your own grave.

Because if the tanker was leaving a CONTRAIL it would interfere with the visability of the refueling aircraft. Plain simple and nothing sinister about it. Now think about this. If an aircraft was leaving a CHEMTRAIL (if they exist) it would be possible to do it so that there was no CONTRAIL for you to see.

Originally posted by 911stinks
Well, I have the document in hand.

But I'm going to let you people keep digging your own grave.

Ahh, the common cry of the shyster: "I have the evidence right here, but I'm not going to show you! Just accept that you are wrong!"

Chemtrails are a modern day myth.

Originally posted by 911stinks
Well, I have the document in hand.

But I'm going to let you people keep digging your own grave.

Yes, it is a Freshman general chemistry course for USAFA cadets. Acid rain? Oh my gosh, I think I had seen that mentioned in high school science classes too!

newly inducted USAFA cadets are issued a small knowledge guide called Contrails,which they are to memorize. "Chemtrails" was just a play on that, but if you think 18 year old USAFA cadets are being turned into evil mad scientists for your little conspiracy...

Of course anyone who has taken freshman level general chem, knows more than a chemtrail believer.


[edit on 2-4-2010 by firepilot]

This video* has contrails visible from 2:15 to 2:42 at a ranges comparable to aerial tanker re-fueling.

*Ignore cheesy music





[edit on 4-4-2010 by Daedalus3]

reply to post by 911stinks


Yes, I am sure you wouldn't want the debunkers to stomp all over it would you.

Well those of us who have had fun times debunking chemtrail believers, can actually show an upclose and detailed photo of an aircraft, and talk knowledgable about aviation.

Chemtrail believers just show fuzzy, distant and out of focus pics, and point to that as proof of their chemplanes just because you can see a contrail in it And when they try to comment on airplanes, they typically make themselves look foolish and uninformed, rather quickly, stomping their feet as they leave and accusing debunkers as being paid government agents.

I could ask why those chemtrail believers do not use upclose and detailed photos of aircraft, but that would put them on the spot and they would have to say that yes that certain kind of aircraft, or that airline, is part of their chemtrail conspiracy.

I can however think of a couple of times that chemtrail believers did put photos up of recognizable aircraft. One was that French KC-135, which was debunked as a chemtrail plane rather quickly. And there was that Gulfstream I air sampling aircraft, which should have been obvious to them since the nozzels were facing forwards to gather samples. Oh and that interior shot of a Boeing test aircraft with the ballast CG tanks, which chemtrail believers still claim is a chemtrail plane.