Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by Bangin
Old news is no longer relevent?

HowardRoark, there's more to this and somehow I feel as if you know about it.

Originally posted by Bangin


That would be the same area that I've lived for 14 years, central Texas. Never seen them during the previous years, so I don't understand why they're showing up now. Again, it is not a normal occurrence in this area.

Originally posted by THENEO
I get so bored at this site sometimes fighting with people that have an opinion on a subject but with absolutely no knowledge of what they talk about.

Thus: are you a disinfo spook?
are you just a kid pretending to be an adult?
are you just trying to get a rise out of somebody?
are you just plain defiant about everything you encounter?
what is your problem?

regarding this phenomena I have on numerous occasions seen the following:

A large jet aircraft, that is white with NO markings whatsoever do the following over at least a 4 year span over a large metropolitain area where I live:

enter our airspace at a great altitude,
fly across the city laying down a contrail,
shut off the spray while banking to turn,
turn on the spray while crossing over the city again,
then turn off the spray while banking again,
and repeat until spray is finished.

I have witnessed this done while the craft layed down a DEFINITE pattern of spraying and this often is coordinated by as many as 3 planes at once. Once the spraying is done, the planes shut off the contrails and begin flying south east to where the rumoured mothballed airstrips are in the US NorthEast which this operation comes out of.

All the time this happens, chartered airliners leave and enter Toronto International Airport (by far Canada's busiest airport), with minimal contrails.

Furthermore, planes flying a holding pattern looking for runway clearance coming in do two things: they fly much lower than the contrail planes and two they rarely produce contrails and even when they do they dissipate rapidly.

When jet aircraft fly over our airspace they often fly higher than the jets that spray and even at very high altitudes I can identify that they are in fact commerical carriers (with binoculars). In the case where contrails are formed by these planes (common due to high altitude), these contrails dissipate quickly.

Lastly, note with spraying planes, they emit a dirty and sometimes greyish blue smoke which I do not see from commercial jets. Also, it is not just a contrail being emmitted but from where, sprayers emit contrails from the back of the plane and there is often at least 3 plumes and as much as half a dozen. Few Commercial aircraft today have more than 4 turbines, and most newer jets have only two!

Originally posted by Martinez
The aerodynamic contrail is produced by the momentary reduction of pressure resulting from the flow of air past an airfoil. Since it is of short duration, it is not considered an operational hazard.
The key word here is short lived! Usually the only time you see an aerodynamic contrail is in very high angles of attack(fighters and aerobatic planes), or in big planes when they are low and slow and in a transition phase of flight when the conditions are right. You will not get aerodynamic contrails when straight and level and at a constant speed during flight.

Originally posted by Bangin
Some of the pictures were taken in Pflugerville and the others in Austin.

Based on my observations, air traffic heads towards Bergstrom. The aircraft making these trails were primarily heading East to West > West to East. Hope this helps.

Originally posted by THENEO
Oh goody! We have a disinfo spook here to shoot us all down!

Who do you work for?

Now on to the facts.

Originally posted by THENEOContrails dissipate faster no matter where they originate from nor the type of plane or the era they were photographed.

Originally posted by THENEOTwo you did not produce any photos showing the mass sprayers that emit from the entire tail of a plane.

Originally posted by THENEO
When you are not the best informed on a subject then you do not have the right to act like you are an expert.

It is called courtesy.

Frankly when you attack others and put them down based upon incomplete knowledge on a subject then you deserve a potshot IMHO.

The board exists for people to share and learn and there will always be opinions, true. But you have to have the ability to defend them too.

Also due to the nature of the general topic that this board covers being Conspiracy' one has to accept that proof is hard to come by and subject to scrutiny. This ain't the science channel. On the other hand the science channel ain't run by the people either...

I sometimes get annoyed when the mods here allow rookies and cranks to attack people that are trying to do the right thing and they paint both sides with the same brush. That is unfair and something that happens a lot here.

Anyways my struggle to improve ATS continues...

Now on to the topic at hand,

If you want to really know whether Chemtrails exist do some more homework and then we will discuss the finer' details of this subject which I am able to get down and dirty with anyone here. I used to post a chemtrail watch on the web 4 years ago on a regular basis when few people even knew what the heck they were.

I challenge you to prove that they are just smoke or condensation from planes with known commercial operations or routine military or spook activities.

Originally posted by THENEO
When I ask questions I expect people to answer them.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction


An you ARE the expert on this subject????


HA!!!! I challenge you to prove ANYTHING you have posted!!!! You surely haven't done so yet. You have only proven that you attack someone who puts forth an argument, WITH proof, by the way, that differs from yours!

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction



First of all, to whom are you speaking? those of us having a civilized conversation here would like to know, as it's good to know who you are beyotching at....


Secondly, if in fact you have seen such activity on a regular basis, why have you not photographed it, or better yet, video taped it? I've been flying for nearly 20 years, adn have never, ever, seen anything even remotly like what you describe. Some proof please, other than an angry, "you have to believe me because I say so" attitude???

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction


As who sees them? Facts are supported by evidence, of which you have given none. That makes your posts opinion. State them as such.



Where did THAT come from? Dissapate faster than what? As stated on the site I posted earlier, the speed at which contrails dissapate is an effect of the atmospheric conditions that exist at the time. Winds aloft, temprature, dew point, these all work in concert to effect contrails created by aircraft, as they do clouds.



Perhaps that is because they do not exist, except for on crop dusters! You haven't shown ANY pictures, or proof of any kind. Why? You seem to have all the answers...where's the proof? Again, opinion, not fact...

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction


An you ARE the expert on this subject????


HA!!!! I challenge you to prove ANYTHING you have posted!!!! You surely haven't done so yet. You have only proven that you attack someone who puts forth an argument, WITH proof, by the way, that differs from yours!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Back to the subject at hand. Neo, since you have been studying “chemtrails” for these fast few years, maybe you can enlighten us on a few basic concepts

1. Cirrus clouds generally form at high altitudes and consist of small ice crystals. Why is it that cirrus clouds can form and persist, yet it is a given tenet of the chemtrail theory that contrails must always dissipate rapidly after forming? Please explain how it is that the atmospheric conditions that allow a cirrus cloud to form don’t apply to a contrail?
   
   
2. Can you define the term relative humidity?
   
   
3. How is the relative humidity with respect to water different from the relative humidity with respect to ice?
   
   
4. How does the relative humidity change for a given air mass if the temperature of that air mass is lowered?
   
   
5. How about if you lower the atmospheric pressure?
   
   
6. Can the relative humidity ever exceed 100%?
   
   
7. What is the “dry bias?”
   
   
8. If a jet airplane consumes 500 lbs of fuel (assume that the fuel is pure toluene) per hour (assume 90% combustion efficiency), and the plane is traveling at 400 miles per hour at 40,000 feet, how much water is being released per foot?
   
   
9. Assume that the ambient temperature is -45 degrees F, that the exhaust rapidly cools down to the ambient temperature. If the ambient relative humidity with respect to ice is 98%, (outside the exhaust plume) is the relative humidity inside the exhaust plume likely to exceed 100%?
   
   
   
   Certainly these questions should be easy for someone who is an “expert” like yourself to answer.
   
   What do you say, folks, will Neo:
   
   
   
   
   1. Answer the questions (or at least try to);
      
      
   2. Attack HowardRoark for being a “paid disinfo agent” (and ignore the questions);
      
      
   3. Try to get HowardRoark banned from the board, (and ignore the questions) or;
      
      
   4. Change the subject (and ignore the questions)?