Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


B-52 Afterburn pre-1970...


find me a photo of a contrail that looked like what we see today back during vietnam. It started with some fly boy jocks adding stuff to the afterburn mix. Military complex took it another step. Turns out it controls weather. I imagine it could be used with HAARP, but if you heat up the atmosphere to create a lense, wouldn't it show in our satilite data?

Please, someone show me a contrail that is pure white, photographed in the 60's.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

B-52 Afterburn pre-1970...


find me a photo of a contrail that looked like what we see today back during vietnam. It started with some fly boy jocks adding stuff to the afterburn mix. Military complex took it another step. Turns out it controls weather. I imagine it could be used with HAARP, but if you heat up the atmosphere to create a lense, wouldn't it show in our satilite data?

Please, someone show me a contrail that is pure white, photographed in the 60's.

You were already informed that B-52s do not have afterburners. Thats not a pre-1970 photo either, its 2005.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

B-52 Afterburn pre-1970...


find me a photo of a contrail that looked like what we see today back during vietnam. It started with some fly boy jocks adding stuff to the afterburn mix. Military complex took it another step. Turns out it controls weather. I imagine it could be used with HAARP, but if you heat up the atmosphere to create a lense, wouldn't it show in our satilite data?

Please, someone show me a contrail that is pure white, photographed in the 60's.

Your image has noting to do with contrails, because that plane is too low (the air temperature needs to be about -40 degees F (that's minus 40) for contrails to form, depending on the humidity and air pressure.

Here are some World War II contrails (I posted this in the other thread where you asked a similar question):
picasaweb.google.com...#

This page has a few contrails from different times (including some from the 1960s):
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I am unemployed, that is why I have time to waste here. What is your excuse, people? I asked for photos of pre vietnam jet contrials and was supprised at how fast this thread got clogged. To my replyer, WWII contrails were not jets, just smoke. Yes B-52's had afterburners, most military jets do.

How do you fellas know so little but seem to know not. PS, haven't heard from MathiasAndrew in a while after he started this thread... why, he was banned. I have only been threatend.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

I am unemployed, that is why I have time to waste here. What is your excuse, people? I asked for photos of pre vietnam jet contrials and was supprised at how fast this thread got clogged. To my replyer, WWII contrails were not jets, just smoke. Yes B-52's had afterburners, most military jets do.

How do you fellas know so little but seem to know not. PS, haven't heard from MathiasAndrew in a while after he started this thread... why, he was banned. I have only been threatend.

No, B-52s did not have afterburners. Most military fighters did and do, and the B-58 did, and so does the B-1B, but the B-2 does not. Even the Concorde did too. But the B-52 absolutely DID NOT.

And that was not smoke in the WW2 contrails, they would not have possibly ever been able to carry that much oil on board, nor do you see trails like that except for high altitude, not on takeoff and low altitude flying. Where do you get these silly ideas

And here is the source of that photo you put up. It was a takeoff from Scotland in 2005, and an H model BUFF which did not even have the water injection of the earlier ones which did make more smoke
www.airliners.net...

Originally posted by zipcode80013
...To my replyer, WWII contrails were not jets, just smoke...

No.

It is the water vapor from the engine exhaust condensing and crystallizing into something very similar to cirrus clouds -- contrails. Piston engine exhaust contains a lot of water vapor (the hydrogen in the hydrocarbon fuel bonds with oxygen from the air when burned -- creating water as a by-product)

That's the same basic mechanism by which jet engines create contrails. WWII contrails are not smoke, but mostly water vapor/water ice.

Here's a link in which contrails from the water vapor from piston engine exhaust is discussed:
www.airspacemag.com...

[excerpt]

The first recorded sighting of a contrail likely occurred in southern Tirol in the Italian Alps in 1915 when somebody named Ettenreich spotted “the condensation of a cumulus stripe from the exhaust gases of an aircraft”; the stripe stayed around for a while. It wasn’t until World War II that anyone took interest. In a single combat area, hundreds of aircraft sometimes generated so many contrails that pilots couldn’t see to keep in formation or find a target. “We were, in effect, clouding the sky over Germany,” wrote 34th Bomb Group member Hal Province to Veritas News Service reporter Jay Reynolds in 1999. Contrails could be used as cover for an attack: “Four Me-262s came in hidden by the contrails and hit four of us,” Richrad Scroxton wrote in a 1983 account now posted on the 100th Bomb Group Web site. Even more troublesome, contrails gave away aircraft positions. “We were easy for them to spot, as our contrails were heavy that day,” another bomber crewman noted, “pointing like fingers in the sky toward our squadron,” Mike Banta wrote in 1997 in an account of his B-17’s last mission, now posted on the 91st Bomb Group Web site.

reply to post by zipcode80013



You claimed to be knowledgeable about airplanes, and aviation?? You were shown that contrails have been seen, studied and known about since high altitude flight was commonly possible.....contrails form because of the FUEL, and the TEMPERATURE the air combined with the HEAT of the exhaust gases. Period.

...WWII contrails were not jets, just smoke...

How absurd.

Piston engines burn fuel, composed of hydrocarbons. The exhaust gases are hot, just as turbine engines exhausts are hot. Turbines also burn hydrocarbon fuels.

With engines (pistons or jets) any "smoke" that is white in color that appears naturally does so because of a mixture that is overly rich. This is brief, and will be seen only during engine starts, usually. (Jets can't run overly rich, by their nature....and neither can pistons...not very well, law of diminishing returns. AND not very efficient...).

IF (as you seem to "think") those photos of WW II era contrails were "smoke"....then the engines would be making "smoke trails" for the entire time that are running....or didn't you think about that? (BTW....that would be a very, very bad aspect to have in wartime....."smoke" trails that could lead an enemy to target your exact position???)

Looky, looky....thanks to groups of avid hobbyists and enthusiasts like the Confederate Air Force, and these of the Collings Foundation there are a number of the old warbirds still airworthy:



Not seeing all of that "smoke" there. Are you?

Same examples exist for WW II fighters as well. You SAW the dogfight contrail results, in the old photos...right?

CONDENSATION trails. CONtrails. Period.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

B-52 Afterburn pre-1970...

Interesting - you mistake WW2 contrails for smoke, and you mistake B-52 smoke for contrails - nice symmetry.

the B-52 engines are old technology - civil versions are known as the JT3 series and powered early 707's & DC-8's.

Despite advances in the 50 years since they were originally made, their underlying structure means they are still not as efficient as more modern designs - one of the most visible aspects of which is they make a lot of smoke.

Early versions of the JT3 were turbojets - a low-bypass ratio fan was fitted with the JT3D. Only B-52H's have the JT3D - all earlier versions were fitted with pure turbojet J57s, and were even smokier still!

find me a photo of a contrail that looked like what we see today back during vietnam. It started with some fly boy jocks adding stuff to the afterburn mix.

That's a new version of the conspiracy - can you link us to the evidence for that? thanks.

Please, someone show me a contrail that is pure white, photographed in the 60's.

NP - here you go

30 contrails 40+ years ago - 1963

contrail photos through history - includes a couple from teh 1960's

- 13 April 1960

this page of photos from NASA (not at a NASA site tho) has several contrails on it from 1940's, '50's and '60's research projects such as the X-1, X-15 and HL-10 - www.urbanghostsmedia.com...# - it also has more modern photos with and without contrails.

And a couple from Life Magazine in the 1950's - I know you asked for 1960's, but I'm just chucking these in for free


- unkown jet type, 1956


- trio of B-47 combers leaving long trails, also 1956

Originally posted by Toots

. Oh, and that guy's about page......pfffffT. I

pfffffT?

What does that mean?

What is on that page that is incorrect, or suspicious, or anything else?

what are your actual reasons for going "pfffffT"?

Are you suggesting that it is suspect because it is all factual and you can't actually argue that there's anything wrong??

Everyone who has criticised contrail Science so far (Hi Matty) has singularly failed to show that anything on it is wrong.

And if you do he has an open invitation to tell him and he;ll correct it.

so what's the actual problem there??

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Well I'm glad you've used a paranoid, delusional **Here is a bit of name calling**

Where is the name calling and ridicule, **calling someone a chemtrialer, cheemie, paranoid delusional, insane, or even using chemtrail instead of geoengineering** where is the side tracking? **pretty much your whole post, you still have not addressed the weather ballon proving contrails could not form** It would seem you are sidetracking by placing geo-engineering and chaff in the same basket as chemtrails, they're completely different things, same as cloud seeding is completely different. **you continue to try to divert to chemtrails instead of geoengineering**

Geo-engineering is an extremely broad term, from using volcanoes to launching rockets into space.**it is the correct term for the aresol spraying, by diverting to chemtrail you divert the discussion from where people can find solid scientific and political papers**
chaff
Chaff is rarely used for a start, then there is the way it dispersed, nothing like chemtrails.**will address below**

And if you have an issue with the use of the word chemtrail, you better take it up with the hundreds of people here who use the word to describe lines in the sky from jets.

So what is the main issue? **playing dumb again? I have repeated it over and over. The NWS radar baloons showed contrails could not form, yet there are lines in the sky. If they are not contrails what are they?**

Chaff shows up on weather radar and chaff is chemtrails? **sometimes it is**

Yes you do, there would be dozens of online weather stations with live, up to date information as well as live Doppler (happy mathius?) radar, which is what the guy on youtube is claiming contrails are showing up on.**see my post above, I was willing but the new radars will not pick up anything but moisture now so this would fail regardless of the presence or non presence of aerosol particulates.**

You post up videos discussing chaff/chemtrails on Doppler (happy mathius?) radar and I address these claims.

Don't see how that is deemed as changing the subject.**repeatedly answered... weather balloon data not addressed, I never said anything about radar except the radar was a weaker argument. From very first post I said the game changer was the weather ballon data.**

I'm sure this has been pointed out to you already but weather balloon readings are for a guide only, it takes readings in a small column of air as it rises, move away from these areas and conditions can and often change.**yep, deny everything. familiar with that tactic. The data was collected multiple time a day also.. the conditions were not present for contrails**

As for Mt Shasta, there was evidence of chaff possibly passing over the mount, is there any indication that it fell to the ground there?**deny everything again. The video speaks for itself.**

Why do things like the hundred year old wood processing plant get ignored?
You know the one that is now a super-funded site? **no clue what your refering too**

Yes chaff shows up on radar, but I challenge that it's proof of chemtrailst. I said chaff spraying accounts for I find it funny that people ignore lot's of glaring issues with the theory, such as the fact that radar readouts of a line of chaff can easily cover the length and width of several (5 in one case) counties, yet a single contrail/chemtrail does not.**In conglomerate they cover the sky from horizon to horizon.. a lot bigger than a few counties**

Plus there is the biggest one of all and why I suggested the experiment to you, and others in other threads who say that chemtrails show up on radar (read: chaff = chemtrails).asked/answered above... would not show up on the modified radars today**

Many things will show up on Doppler radar, even a large swarm of moths and dust.**not any more**

One thing that doesn't is clouds, which is what a contrail is, which is what a chemtrail is.**in your opinion**

There's mainly bad IMHO.

But it is best to determine on a case by case basis. **I agree, but this was not what you were suggesting in your last post**[color]

Geo-engineering, as I stated before is too broad a topic to be called chemtrails if you ask me, like how does launching a rocket into LEO tie in with jet trails? Or spraying salt water into the air with ships?**geoengineering is the correct term as this is where you will find all the scientific papers on aerosol spraying. I don't about your examples as those were not my arguments**

Definitely a mix of various elements going on.**I agree**

For example, in the last 12 years to 2009 3.5 billion pounds of aluminium and barium has been dumped into the environment from ground based sources, getting into the air and groundwater, this 3.5 billion pounds is just the total of the legal and recorded quantities, there's no saying how much is dumped illegally. plus the tons of aluminum that the military admits to spraying

And again, chaff isn't chemtrails.**some people have seen wide dispersal chaff spraying that looked like contrails. Link previously provided**

Hopefully this video makes it clear:**will address below**

Agreed, it's is circumstantial at best.**agreed**

Also, if chemtrails are some form of geo-engineering, then they've been doing it for 20 years, even the B2 bomber wasn't top secret for that long and we're supposed to believe they're carrying out a top secret operation (with long, obvious trails) for 20 years?**I have no idea where you get this data, I am new to arguement and only know for last 5-10 years, well within B2 timeframe and Tesla's work on EM was seized in the 20's? 30's? and still top secret and none of it revealed**

Colour me skeptical on that one!

Dude, it's a forum not a debating league, there is no honor here, nor do I or anyone else owe you or anyone one else anything.

So having said that, I feel I have answered your points as best I can, it is hard when you don't seem to fully understand things such as chaff, but I tried.

Thank you for this reply, it was much more on topic.

As to chaff...
There are many different kinds. The video you provided it to divert incoming missiles. The chaff I am referring to is the blanket chaff that they spray to disrupt radar systems over an entire region......
*****************************************************
the rest of this post is not addressing chad

hmm... I was looking for the links to prove my point I was making but found another friend has been banned...

I can't figure out what from his last posts.

This is getting ridiculous. ATS is going from a fun place to discuss ideas to one where if you say the wrong thing your booted??? I never knew that person to ever say a mean word to anyone. I notice those that are getting booted are all on one side of certain arguments while other posters are allowed to get away with all sorts of crap.: flame:

Too much nastiness, underhandedness and behind the scenes manipulation going on right now. All the fun of ATS is draining. It is becoming infested with viruses of the government sort. The funny thing about that law that our disinformation agents and bots operate in other countries.. well reciprocity being what it is, other countries such as the UK have their agents at work here in our country. Hope everyone sees through that bit of obvious lies. Welcome to the fascist states of america. All hail the all seeing eye.

I'm sick at heart right now and withdrawing from this conversation.

I would post a big middle finger right here to some people but I'm sure I'd be sanctioned for it while they call others brainless and get away with it even when flagged. Freedom of speech? Where can I go to get that anymore?

I asked earlier, in what way did weather balloon data show that contrails should not have been possible, and can you elaborate on what was so big to you in that WITWATS video?

reply to post by pianopraze


I believe you need to step back, re-assess, re-evaluate and re-examine SO many of your mistaken "beliefs".

Try, please, to steer yourself towards the science.....and AWAY from the paranoid delusions......

EDIT....I want to add....this is about meteorology, and weather forecasting. AS I SIT HERE, local time 20:43 EDT....in the Washington, DC area....it is POURING RAIN. Reason I mention this is, in this morning's papers (USA Today, Wash Post).....AND yesterday, as well....the forecast was for a "few showers".

Folks.....meteorology (prediction) is STILL an inexact science. Just pay attention to it. You will see. We are even getting lightning flashes...so, cell activity....that was NOT forecast!!

This is reality...to date...BIG, close flash just now!!!! (No thunder....not all lightning makes thunder, ya know....)....just sayin'....

PLEASE....experience REAL life, and learn, learn, learn......not "everything" is a bloody "conspiracy"!!!

This is either a chemtrail pilot trying to blow the whistle or it is a very amateur sky writing pilot doing a very bad job. Why does the black helicopter show up? Why does he stop writing? And what was he going to write? This at the very least shows the exact technology that could be used to make chemtrails. What do you all think?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
This is either a chemtrail pilot trying to blow the whistle or it is a very amateur sky writing pilot doing a very bad job. Why does the black helicopter show up? Why does he stop writing? And what was he going to write? This at the very least shows the exact technology that could be used to make chemtrails. What do you all think?

Still grasping at anything I see..

Well considering these are done with small single engine prop planes, that would not be reaching the kinds of altitudes that your big chemtrail aircraft so, I think you are wrong yet again. And the "technology" is just spraying oil against the exhaust manifold. Do you ever actually look up information or do research, or do you just blinding post videos and demand that everyone else figure it out?
en.wikipedia.org...

Skywriting is the process of using a small aircraft, able to expel special smoke during flight, to fly in certain patterns to create writing readable by someone on the ground. The message can be a frivolous or generally meaningless greeting or phrase, an advertisement aimed at everyone in the vicinity, a general public display of celebration or goodwill, or a personal message such as a marriage proposal or birthday wish.
The typical smoke generator consists of a pressurized container holding a low viscosity oil such as Chevron/Texaco "Canopus 13" (formerly "Corvus Oil"). The oil is injected into the hot exhaust manifold causing it to vaporize into a huge amount of dense white smoke.
Wind and dispersal of the smoke cause the writing to blur, usually within a few minutes. However special "skytyping" techniques have been developed to write in the sky in a dot-matrix fashion, and are legible for longer despite the inevitable blurring effect caused by wind.
In a 1926 letter to The New York Times one Albert T. Reid wrote:
A newspaper paragraph says skywriting was perfected in England in 1919 and used in the United States the next year. Art Smith, who succeeded Beachey in flying exhibitions at the Panama-Pacific Exposition in San Francisco in 1915, after the latter had been killed, did skywriting, always ending his breathtaking stunts by writing "Good night." This was not a trial exhibition but a part of every flight, and was always witnessed by thousands.[1]
A technique was developed by Jack Savage, former RAF pilot and writer for Flight magazine, after the First World War and he had a successful skywriting fleet.[2]
Satellite navigation is now used in modern skywriting aircraft, so that the message can be programmed beforehand, resulting in greater accuracy.[citation needed]
The first use of skywriting for advertising purposes was in 1922.[3

my take is that it is sign writing - the "spraying" clearly spells out "IS NOT" - whether there is more to come or not I don't know because the video finishes.

I'd say it was pretty competent signwriting actually - the letters are well formed and of even size, the staight sections start and stop in the right places, the "O" meets is a completed loop.

the writing is being quickly destroyed by wind - the letters are swiftly drifting to the left of the chimneys, disintigrating as they do so.

If the pilot did stop it might well be because the smoke was not staying around long enough to achieve the desired message/effect.

How do you know he stopped spraying?

What technology does it "clearly show"?

4 other a/c appear in the video - a DC-9 or similar flying right to left, and 2 helicopters and what appears to be a "light twin" flying left to right. I'd guess that the choppers and the light twin are all following a commonly used VFR corridor.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

B-52 Afterburn pre-1970...

Fairly weak smoking compared to what they could do in their heyday.

Here's a much better shot of B-52's smokin' up the atmosphere - B-52G's, ironically the massive amounts of black smoke are a result of water injection to increase the mass airflow through the engine - with the increased thust of the newer engines they no longer need water injection.




there's a lot more older B-52 photos at this site including a couple of take-off smokers.

www.aviationspectator.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



Please take a look at these WWII contrails, quite curved:
contrailscience.com...

...and give it up already.

A380 contrailing:

reply to post by Phage


Well I must say how disappointed I am that I ask for verification from the mighty phage and 2 days later I'm still waiting for a reply.
I find it strange that he's quick enough to attack my posts and yet when I take the time to properly research and I ask him a simple question and he ignore me so I will ask again just in case he missed the post.
phage so the 4 important factors that determine how long a contrail will persist for are:
1. atmospheric pressure
2. vertical air movement.
3. moisture content
4. temperature
I think we can discount the other 2 you mentioned as I know from the paper I'm reading that these may have an effect but it's not worth including because contrail's will form without them.
I'm just making sure that you agree with the reasons given are correct and that there is nothing else missing.
many thanks
djc

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I think it's an amateur skywriter

I also think I've stepped back and gained a little perspective and have a clear picture of what's going on.

I think it's funny people can call you paranoid delusional for a belief they can't debunk and suggest that you reexamine all your beliefs. I think I might get post banned if I suggested that to another individual. I think I might get post banned for even responding to those individuals in the proper way for such a response, they know it, and use it to the fullest extent they can get away with it.

I think your absolutely right on in your assessment of geengineering and there is probably something going on and I'm going to start looking into this more thoroughly but post much less.

I know: They have changed the radars so it can't be detected.

I know: The weather balloon proves contrails could not form when they videoed so they are spraying SOMETHING.

I know: the game now.