why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real

reply to post by Uncinus

I'd not sure I'd class you having noticed something that somehow eluded the entire meteorological profession as a "stalemate".

I don't think that elusion has anything to do with it. They would have had to have been looking for it in the first place in order for it to have eluded them.

This is what I am talking about. At the present moment in this debate it comes down to perception. Sorry, I know that perception is pretty lame when compared to a college degree. But it is all we holdouts have to go with at the moment.

"you being convinced something changed in 1997 in the face of irrefutable evidence that it did not."

Uncinus, it doesn't have to be like this. You know that you do not have irrefutable evidence that we are not being aerosolized with chemicals.

Here's a plane dumping fuel. It does not look like a contrail or a cloud.

No. you are right. Contrails are made from 'Products of Combustion (POC). That is definitely a plane dumping fuel.

Anyhow, Bubba, This thread has given me a great idea for a thread this weekend. Be sure to look out for it.

Have a great week.

Wow, before I go. I was just at Wikipedia. I find it pretty amazing that the entry there for 'Contrail' seems to be directed at anyone who might be looking for some answers to what they are seeing in the sky.

It really looks like it has been written to do damage control for anyone who thinks there are 'chemtrails' and is looking for answers. I might even say that it looks like a condensed version of the material on CS. there is even a hasty entry to explain the 'vertical contrail' seen during the 'Chinese missile' thing in California.

Hmmmm. If I were me 6 months ago this would make me very, very, suspicious (but I am sure you could guess that it would).

Looks like someone has been keeping very busy with this. I wish someone would work just as hard to find the answer.

reply to post by Uncinus

Powder would not sublimate. Non-water chemicals would behave differently to water. Specifically they would freeze differently. Here's a plane dumping fuel. It does not look like a contrail or a cloud.

That is exactly what I am getting at, U. If it is aerosolized chemicals performing in a system designed to make those chemicals remain airborne and persist (like cloud material or water vapor) then you and I standing on the ground and observing the resultant 'condensation trails' will not be able to determine their composition.

reply to post by Uncinus




Looks like a contrail to me,, what the hell are you talking about ???

Originally posted by Frater210
I don't think that elusion has anything to do with it. They would have had to have been looking for it in the first place in order for it to have eluded them.

So scientists never notice anything except for what they are looking for?

Here's a graph of historical cloud cover. The chemtrail program seems to be having little effect, and there's certainly no dramatic onset of the kind you describe.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c01a7abb16fd.jpg[/atsimg]

www.climate4you.com...

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Looks like a contrail to me,, what the hell are you talking about ???

Fuel dump:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b1232d1a0fd.jpeg[/atsimg]

Contrail:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/23d024bc4301.jpg[/atsimg]

1) It diffuses and quickly spreads out into a blur. Contrails do not do this, they remain much more sharp edged if they are non-persistent.
2) It starts AT the wing, contrails start a half plane length behind the wing.
3) It has no narrowing as it fades away. Non-persistent contrails narrow as they fade.
4) it comes from the wing tips, not the engines.

Sure, it resembles a contrail. But you can see the differences. Most notably how it diffuses, but the gap is also a give-away. You can NOT, however, see any difference between a contrail and a "chemtrail". Chemtrails look exactly like contrails.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by mkkkay

 

Those barrels are full of water used for flight testing. It simulates the weight of an airplane full of people, without needing 200 people for the test.

I see said the blind man pissing in the wind

You guys don't miss a thing do ya! Well i will give you it is logical and probable for this[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6e3caee6088.jpg[/atsimg]
But what about this[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96c77240f252.jpg[/atsimg]
Just incase you did not take the time to see the videos i posted, what are these[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/423a27bc1674.jpg[/atsimg][atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4342bd3cd0f4 .jpg[/atsimg][atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9668a2f40750.jpg[/atsimg][atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8204 6c9042ae.jpg[/atsimg]
You should take the time to look at the second video i posted before, it's taken live via another plane
Happy trails to you

reply to post by mkkkay


Seriously?

Or just trolling? Because those have all been debunked several times on ATS and other places. Some years ago.

reply to post by mkkkay


All of these have been explained, hundreds of times (it feels like):

Picture #1: An Airbus A-380 in flight testing. Barrels hold WATER. They are for CG (center of gravity) shifting, in flight.

Here you go:

Another angle photo of the same procedure. Read:

F-WWDD (cn 004) This is a view of the main cabin of the A380 as seen at the 2005 Dubai Airshow. The aircraft was mainly fitted with test equipment and small sections of the proper interior. The red-topped grey containers were water storage containers and these could be filled or emptied to act as ballast and to simulate a passenger load.

And, another A-380:

F-WWEA (cn 009) This A380 was in ADD for high altitude test for four days. The elevation of the airport is 7,630 ft (2.326 m) and the 3.800 m RWY is capable for 450 t. Here you can see the ballast barrels.

______
Picture #2: Boeing 777-300, same as above.

Here you go:



And, read:

N5016R (cn 32431/429) Showing the extreme rear of this aircraft which was rigged for the rigorous flight test program that all new Boeing types must undergo. The barrels are part of a water transfer system to simulate various loads and their effect on the aircrafts centre of gravity. The air data package (cone from top of tail) reel is visible and marked "Fin Cone" especially for you!

______
Picture #3: A KC-135 tanker where the refueling boom was modified with the sprayer to spray...WATER! It was used for inflight icing testing. There is a grand total of ONE of those, and I think it's already been decommissioned.
______
Picture #4: Test equipment that reels out the tailcone...to sample atmosphere. (See below)...
______
Picture #5: The KingAir that is designed to SAMPLE air....all the collectors point forward, INTO the airflow. It doesn't "spray" anything!
______
Picture #6: A passenger airliner dumping fuel.




All the SAME nonsense, and lies, that are spewed by the "chem"-trail websites. Guess you fell for it, which makes you uninformed (well, you were...now, you know better).


EDIT: And....the last UTube....isn't that the same one you ALREADY posted, and was already explained to you?

reply to post by mkkkay


Oh goodie - more of the same photos that are old hat - just what we all look forward to!

You need to take a look at contrailscience.com... which covers most of those.

and the fuel dumping shot - sigh.....didn't Uncinus already cover that today??

see contrailscience.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Picture #4: Test equipment that reels out the tailcone...to sample atmosphere.

That's actually the drogue for the trailing wire VLF/LF antenna of an E-6B

www.flickr.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac60e2096646.jpg[/atsimg]

Sometimes a quote is worth the entire summation of thinking for a constructive post

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Wow, wow wow. The SAME photos that have been long ago explained. Why do you chemtrailer insist on putting them up yet again???

Forward facing air tubes can somehow magically spray backwards

Oh well, we need Mathias to come here and tell us how how the hoaxed photos of the 777 interior that have been edited, are the real ones, and one one out of the book is the edited one.

The KC-135 water attachment for icing tests, has been on Will Thomas website for at least 10 years, he never has taken it down yet. He has to know absolutely what it was, I defintely consider him as one of the disingenuous ones in all of this

Originally posted by firepilot
Wow, wow wow. The SAME photos that have been long ago explained. Why do you chemtrailer insist on putting them up yet again???

Cause its good mythos

ATS needs an Image Detection algorithm that automatically links an image to its debunking. Something like TinEye, but with added debunking.

TinEye is great, BTW, for tracking down the original source of an image.

www.tineye.com...

Originally posted by Uncinus
ATS needs an Image Detection algorithm that automatically links an image to its debunking. Something like TinEye, but with added debunking.

TinEye is great, BTW, for tracking down the original source of an image.

www.tineye.com...

Or maybe we should create a thread with those photos embedded into it, and any time they post those photos/videos, we could automatically link that thread, instead of having to explain things each and every time.

Even better if it would be a "sticky" and always be at the top of the list of threads.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Uncinus
ATS needs an Image Detection algorithm that automatically links an image to its debunking. Something like TinEye, but with added debunking.

TinEye is great, BTW, for tracking down the original source of an image.

www.tineye.com...

Or maybe we should create a thread with those photos embedded into it, and any time they post those photos/videos, we could automatically link that thread, instead of having to explain things each and every time.

Even better if it would be a "sticky" and always be at the top of the list of threads.

edit on 24-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

That's kind of what I had in mind with this post:

contrailscience.com...

I think what I need is a big page of thumbnail images, so everything is there on one page and can be easily found. It's a bit of a long post as is. And new images keep cropping up.

I have seen that page multiple times, its a great website and you know you are doing good, based on the amount of return fire you get from the chemmies.

I am surprised the chemtrailers do not link the BBC video I am on, where I fly a Piper Cheyenne and light off multiple hygroscopic flares around a storm

reply to post by firepilot

I am surprised the chemtrailers do not link the BBC video I am on, where I fly a Piper Cheyenne and light off multiple hygroscopic flares around a storm

Was it this project?
www.rap.ucar.edu...

These were cloud seeding tests, right?

Nice rig.

This is why I love ATS. unbelievable collection of professionals.

Here you are, my friend. Is this the one?

Gentlemen,
I would just like to say that I am a bit enamored of scientists and I generally trust them. Especially a man with as kind a face as that seen in the video above. If you tell me that there are no 'chemtrails' I tend to believe you. Please continue to educate us all on this subject. I am very suspicious of my self and I have been holding out the hope that I am entirely deluded when it comes to the 'chemtrails'.
But if I am not wrong, and I hope I am (wrong), well...I don't know, I guess I am just going to have to try very hard to maintain my composure and not die of laughter. God!, I hope I don't die of laughter before I get a chance to enjoy being right.
Gosh.

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by firepilot

 

I am surprised the chemtrailers do not link the BBC video I am on, where I fly a Piper Cheyenne and light off multiple hygroscopic flares around a storm

Was it this project?
www.rap.ucar.edu...


These were cloud seeding tests, right?

Nice rig.

This is why I love ATS. unbelievable collection of professionals.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Frater210 because: (no reason given)

It was not that one, it was a country in West Africa, Mali. However it was a very similar project.

But the same scientists involved in that project from NCAR/UCAR mentioned in that, were involved in this one too, and it was that exact same kind of airplane, but I do not think it was that specific one.

I have a fair amount of time flinging Piper Cheyennes and Beech King Airs into bad weather and storms for research and seeding.

Yes, that is me flying it, that is a South African scientist from NCAR at that computer console for the video. They rarely actually ride along on the research flights however.