Where Have All The Planes Gone?

Originally posted by dplum517
Dude... you and I both know what is "wrong" with your site...

No where on your site will you say "Chemtrails Exist"

He only posts what is supported by evidence. So nothing wrong there.

Originally posted by dplum517
You continue to use that pitiful defense of "just because it's a patent doesn't mean it's in use" ....that's bs is all I can say....

Just because it's a cloud seeding patent doesn't mean 'chemtrails'.

Originally posted by dplum517
Or when the history channel puts on a show about ..... ohh "too bad they can't prove it"

I really enjoy the "Ancient Alien" series, I find it very factual and accurate.

Originally posted by dplum517
Hmmm well k... just because someone can't prove something right now doesn't mean it isn't happening.

The lack of evidence is what proves it isn't happening.

Originally posted by dplum517
Or if the word "Chemtrails" appear in an actual House Bill .... even if it wasn't passed or taken that seriously ...it was there.

It also mentioned millions of nano-mirrors in space, doesn't mean those are real either (they aren't).

Originally posted by dplum517
Then...something as simple as a "Powder Contrail" which was patented in 75.... that means it was around before 75.... that is a single patent .... not counting the 10's of other patents on all this.... and you want to deny they exist?

I'll take your word for it, but I don't doubt if you linked to it, the descriptions wouldn't match your interpretation.

Originally posted by dplum517
Even if someone did an experiment with a single Chemtrail 30 years ago.... that still means they exist.

They didn't.

Originally posted by dplum517

Your close minded denial of something so obvious is what is fundamentally wrong with your site.

He allows anyone to correct his site if they find something wrong. Did you find anything that was actually incorrect?

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
It is true.....planes with no contrail at all....are very hard to spot, and will often go un-noticed.

Yes, if I carefully scan the sky I may find some, so no one is saying it's impossible.

I have often spotted a plane accidentally. If I wasn't looking at that particular part of the sky, at that particular time, I would have never known it was there. This leads me to the conclusion, that often there are planes above me, and I cannot possibly expect myself to see/spot all of them.

Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with "chemtrails", so whether you believe in them or not, is completely irrelevant. It's just a simple principle......planes at around 9.5 km high with no contrail are hard to spot, therefore easy to miss.
There is no agenda in this principle....it's a simple observation.

And you can't just look up at the sky and expect to instantly see any planes that are up there. Pilots actually have to be trained how to look at the sky around them in a systematic way, called "scanning". You need to basically look in a particular direction for a second, then move on to the next one, to cover an area in segments. Generally this is just done in the more forward directions. Even then it's very hard to do, see:

www.airforce.forces.gc.ca...

Visual scanning involves moving the eyes in order to bring successive areas of the visual field onto the small area of sharp vision in the centre of the eye. The process is frequently unsystematic and may leave large areas of the field of view unsearched. However, a thorough, systematic search is not a solution as in most cases it would take an impractical amount of time.

The physical limitations of the human eye are such that even the most careful search does not guarantee that traffic will be sighted. A significant proportion of the view may be masked by the blind spot in the eye, the eyes may focus at an inappropriate distance due to the effect of obstructions as outlined above or due to empty field myopia, in which, in the absence of visual cues, the eyes focus at a resting distance of around half a metre.

That last thing is also an important point. If you are looking up at a clear blue sky, then you are not actually focused on it You are focused on a point two feet in front of you, so you won't be able to see any planes.

More details:

www.langleyflyingschool.com...

A pilot who experiences empty-field myopia is a pilot who is unable to see an aircraft in the distance, despite the unrestricted visibility.

To see something, the lens of the eye must be capable of physically focusing light from the object on the retina. To do this, the eye must be stimulated by an image. If the eye lacks this stimulation, the lens shifts to a resting state some three to five feet away.

When the sky is featureless—as is the case with unrestricted visibility, with hazy conditions, or dark night conditions—you effectively become near-sighted when you look out the windows as your eyes tend to resort to their natural resting state.

To counter empty-field myopia, it is a good practice to focus quite frequently on your own aircraft wing tips. Also, when scanning, focus on distant visible objects or outlines at or near the horizon, stimulating the eyes to establish long-distance focal points.

So, to effectively find all the planes in a clear sky you've got to divide it up into about 20 degree segments, so over 100 regions, and systematically scan each one for a second, and every so often re-focus on the horizon to counter empty field myopia.

But people don't do this. They look around the sky without stopping, or they sit and look in one direction.

Originally posted by SubPop79
It's so sad that not even Chemtrailers know that atmospheric humidity, temperature, and pressure affects the visibility of contrails and chemtrails. On a very dry day, you won't see many because the gases will spread out very quickly from lack of condensation.

You would think someone who was so worried about us, and apparently so versed in aviation, would understand the atmosphere a little better. The temperature and humidity on the ground isn't really a reliable indicator of the temperature and humidity at flight level, keep that in mind.

Originally posted by SubPop79
On the other hand, I've seen planes flying at relatively the same altitude, and one will have a contrail / chemtrail and the other won't. Could someone explain that to me?

You can't actually tell the altitude form the ground, they were probably at different altitudes (a few thousand feet). One airplane was flying at an altitude where the conditions were conducive to contrail formation, the other wasn't. The atmosphere isn't homogenous.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Dude... you and I both know what is "wrong" with your site...

No where on your site will you say "Chemtrails Exist"

Nowhere do I say "chemtrails don't exist" either. (and if you'd like to provide a definition of "chemtrail", then I can maybe be more specific - what do you consider to be a "chemtrail"?).

All I do is look at the evidence and debunk. (and post interesting facts about contrails).

Is there anything actually wrong on the site? Any errors?

Originally posted by adeclerk

You would think someone who was so worried about us, and apparently so versed in aviation, would understand the atmosphere a little better. The temperature and humidity on the ground isn't really a reliable indicator of the temperature and humidity at flight level, keep that in mind.

Originally posted by SubPop79


On the other hand, I've seen planes flying at relatively the same altitude, and one will have a contrail / chemtrail and the other won't. Could someone explain that to me?

You can't actually tell the altitude form the ground, they were probably at different altitudes (a few thousand feet). One airplane was flying at an altitude where the conditions were conducive to contrail formation, the other wasn't. The atmosphere isn't homogenous.

Of course. Nobody in their right mind, with a little knowledge on the atmosphere, would say that temp and humidity on the ground indicates that of the atmosphere. This is why there sometimes is fog and sometimes clouds, though mostly clouds.

But can the temp, pressure, and humidity of the atmosphere change in as little as a few thousand feet?

reply to post by adeclerk


You picked apart nothing.

The lack of evidence is what proves it isn't happening.

That's the dumbest statement I have heard today. No it doesn't "prove" it isn't happening...

I'll take your word for it, but I don't doubt if you linked to it, the descriptions wouldn't match your interpretation.

Ummmmm actually it does.... go find it yourself and read the entire patent ..... it's a very open ended patent that you can do alot of things with...

If you disagree.... then I fear you either won't read the patent or simply can't comprehend it...

Originally posted by SubPop79
But can the temp, pressure, and humidity of the atmosphere change in as little as a few thousand feet?

Yes. Look at any atmospheric sounding:

weather.unisys.com...

Temperature and pressure both decrease at a fairly steady rate. Temperature drops on average 3.5 degrees every 1000 feet, and pressure drops 4%. So if "a few" means four, then that's a 14 degree drop in temperature, and a 17% drop in pressure.

Humidity can vary much more abruptly, with huge changes in only a few hundred feet.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by SubPop79
But can the temp, pressure, and humidity of the atmosphere change in as little as a few thousand feet?

Yes. Look at any atmospheric sounding:

weather.unisys.com...

Temperature and pressure both decrease at a fairly steady rate. Temperature drops on average 3.5 degrees every 1000 feet, and pressure drops 4%. So if "a few" means four, then that's a 14 degree drop in temperature, and a 17% drop in pressure.

Humidity can vary much more abruptly, with huge changes in only a few hundred feet.

Well I did not know that. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

reply to post by pshea38


Hi again , I dont know too much about about chemtrailing here in Ireland except what I saw about 11years ago, but back to your original question as to the whereabouts of all the planes, today for example I saw hardly any and I was outdoors all day . Normally the sky would be full of them even more so now in summer because of holidays and the like . By the way dont mind that racist he obviously believes everything he sees in the movies !!!! Begob and begorrah !!! Lol !!! Slant leat I am off to to see Darby and the little people on me little ass and cart !!!

Originally posted by dplum517
That's the dumbest statement I have heard today. No it doesn't "prove" it isn't happening...

Sorry, I was throwing the word proof around loosely. It supports that nothing is happening (no on ehas found any evidence of chemtrailing since 1996).

Ummmmm actually it does.... go find it yourself and read the entire patent ..... it's a very open ended patent that you can do alot of things with...

Or maybe interpret a lot of things from?

If you disagree.... then I fear you either won't read the patent or simply can't comprehend it...

Give me a link or a patent office number, I want to make sure I'm looking at the right one.

I hope you understand my hesitancy to do so.

You haven't read this patent or probably any others for that matter and yet you have an adamant opinion on something.

You probably aren't a skywatcher ...correct me if I am wrong...

You go through this forum and troll threads with the same lame posts as the other debunkers.

I came to my conclusions simply by observing .... then following up and reading all I could on all the patents and DoE docs and on and on..... I have all of them in PDF format

I don't claim to know all but I do say there is something going on that is more than just water vapor in some cases..

"Powder Contrail Generation" # 3,899,144 Aug. 12, 1975

reply to post by pshea38


Those are contrails you see, not chemical spraying. The number of airplanes in the sky is down because of the economy.

reply to post by dplum517


I found the patent, describing it's predecessor in technology:

An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly.

From the summary:

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.

goo.gl...
Nothing very nefarious about that, although the stated purpose could be used for 'chemtrailing'....but no one has seen these 'powder hoppers' or drive shafts, so I can say with 100% confidence that they aren't.

They don't even use this for the training they developed it for!

Originally posted by SubPop79

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by SubPop79
But can the temp, pressure, and humidity of the atmosphere change in as little as a few thousand feet?

.......
......Humidity can vary much more abruptly, with huge changes in only a few hundred feet.

Well I did not know that. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Sometimes when flying, you can even "see" the layers of different humidity if there are clouds formed within the layers....look for the high flat clouds...
www.flickr.com...#/photos/nickleonard/3953843276/lightbox/

although the stated purpose could be used for 'chemtrailing'....but no one has seen these 'powder hoppers' or drive shafts, so I can say with 100% confidence that they aren't.

Your logic baffles me.

Really? No one? No, you can't say that with 100% certainty.

We live on a planet with Billions of people.... I really can't believe you think that.... to each there own

Next you're going to tell me you don't know what a contract is.... /sarcasm

Corporations and Almost our entire government is made up of secrets and contracts and intellectual knowledge that is kept under a lid.
People sign contracts and get paid .....people don't want to lose there livelihood or jobs ...so ya it can be easy to keep it from the public.

Originally posted by dplum517

although the stated purpose could be used for 'chemtrailing'....but no one has seen these 'powder hoppers' or drive shafts, so I can say with 100% confidence that they aren't.

Your logic baffles me.

Really? No one? No, you can't say that with 100% certainty.

We live on a planet with Billions of people.... I really can't believe you think that.... to each there own

Next you're going to tell me you don't know what a contract is.... /sarcasm

All it would take is you giving one example of this patent being implemented for 'chemtrailing' to be true. Got one?

Corporations and Almost our entire government is made up of secrets and contracts and intellectual knowledge that is kept under a lid.
People sign contracts and get paid .....people don't want to lose there livelihood or jobs ...so ya it can be easy to keep it from the public.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No plane spotters have seen this mechanism, no mechanics have seen this, no pilots have seen this. You're pretty much accusing a lot of people of being incompetent.

reply to post by adeclerk


point 1. chem trail by definition is a chemical substance sprayed by an airplane.
point 2 chemical is a very broad term and included many substances.
Therefore any substance used in any kind of aerial spraying can be considered a chem trail by definition.
point 3. When i questioned that sites scientific merit i was quoted this
Quote:Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“ (Page 137)
this book was written by Vincent Schaefer look him up and you will see proof that a chem trail program has been used therefore for you to claim that chem trail's have never existed is a complete lie proven by a source of information on this website you hold so dear to your hearts.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
point 1. chem trail by definition is a chemical substance sprayed by an airplane.

So the contrails you keep seeing aren't chemtrails, since they aren't being "sprayed".

Originally posted by djcarlosa
point 2 chemical is a very broad term and included many substances.

I'm aware.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
Therefore any substance used in any kind of aerial spraying can be considered a chem trail by definition.

Your definition deviates from the most often agreed upon one (and you likely changed it so you could be right in some aspect, you aren't).

Originally posted by djcarlosa
Quote:Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“ (Page 137)

He just described contrails pretty accurately.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
this book was written by Vincent Schaefer look him up and you will see proof that a chem trail program has been used therefore for you to claim that chem trail's have never existed is a complete lie proven by a source of information on this website you hold so dear to your hearts.

Right. And what site is that, now?

It's a patent for something that does the same thing as a smoke generator, and is intended to be used for target practice.

It's kind of baffling why this is brought up as evidence. What is so technically complex about spraying stuff from planes?

Of course chemtrails are technically possible. They even exist if you want to include stuff like crop dusting, or CBW dispersion tests in your definitions.

But what is this patent evidence of? That someone wanted to improve the method used to create visible trails from towed targets?

reply to post by adeclerk

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No plane spotters have seen this mechanism, no mechanics have seen this, no pilots have seen this. You're pretty much accusing a lot of people of being incompetent.

And why do you think this would be visible from the outside?

No pilots have seen this? Really? You have spoken with every pilot on the planet?

You missed my point earlier..... these pilots and mechanics would be under contract to NOT discuss there work. Pretty simple. Common business and government practice.

Are you going to ignore the decades of R&D they would do?