You can call them chemtrails or contrails but what is that thing flying between them?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Turbo-props rarely leave contrails because they usually fly too low.

So if turbo-props were to rarely fly too low, would they usually leave contrails?

I'm assuming you are joking about the lack of a comma there, but yes, if they did rarely fly too low (meaning if they normally flew high), then they would leave contrails.

Generally though they don't. Many commuter turboprops have a service ceiling of under 30,000 feet, which is usually not high enough.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Turbo-props rarely leave contrails because they usually fly too low.

So if turbo-props were to rarely fly too low, would they usually leave contrails?

Oh cutting come back

reply to post by luxordelphi


Luxordelphi is holding it down

This thread has been fun to watch

Keep it up Luxordelphi you're doing great. You'e really good at this and have pointed out a few things that I found interesting that I plan on checking out.

You got the debunkers standing on their toes

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Now yes, you could be complaining about there being too many persistent contrails. Or you could complain that the air force uses too much chaff in training, or that local water authorities do too much cloud seeding. Or that there's a lot of pollution.

So we've reached half-time and we're entertaining the fact that things don't look right; just not in agreement on what to call them or what they may or may not contain. I've been to the 'Chaplain' and come away not satisfied. 'The monolith cranks slowly' but I wouldn't say that it's just trudging around. (Meaning that the truth comes out eventually.)

Okay, there's a few different issues there, but just to clarify, when you look at an image like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6f4a686bb94a.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you think: "it's a shame those persistent contrails are inadvertently covering up the blue sky", or "that's not right, they must be deliberately spraying something there"? Or what?

reply to post by Uncinus


Condensed water vapor and particles of ice....in my sky!? What a travesty.

We need to do away with clouds, they're modifying the weather by making me feel cooler when they block the sun!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


*Luxordelphi* is doing what now? Huh?

Oh, you mean making pointless statistical comparisons about some airport traffic (operational movement totals) year-over-year, whilst ignoring the other data? Oh, that....

Perhaps you missed this post --- www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


You're an asset to this discussion thread.

As I read through the links you provided and supplemented those with others I was able to find because of your offerred starting point, I felt like I was witnessing the birth of 'skynet.' The dates of implementation of the various programs and the titles and expertise and language of the various authors and board members were daunting.

Constitutionally, in the U.S., the government (military) is required to keep people safe and secure in their homes and on their land. This extends as a responsibility globally to ensure as much as possible the liberty and freedom of all people. It is not my wish to pull the covers from the performance of sworn duty as it continues to abide by constitutional and Biblical principals.

Chemical and metal particulate and nano introduction into the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere etc. is seriously harmful to life. Metals are harmful to sanity. "Silence is tantamount to consent."

Here's a link on 'free flight' as used in the links you provided. It is unrelated to hang-gliding etc. in this context and has an entirely different meaning. Also about 1/2 way into the article is the writer's description of Boeings' input which is interesting.

www.aviationtoday.com...

On required avionics, Boeing would only say that modified, current-generation, airline flight management systems plus new 2 GHz data link units should be able to handle the company’s future concept. But a Boeing spokesman added paradoxically that general aviation could get by with a device similar to a "low-cost GPS."

reply to post by luxordelphi


What's the problem with free flight? Seems like everyone would benefit.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Chemical and metal particulate and nano introduction into the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere etc. is seriously harmful to life.

Well...yes, such would be less than healthful, most likely. But, why mention it when it isn't even happening?

If you are referring to some of the many suggestions being studied when and if the climate problems become so dire that *we* collectively as Humanity find it necessary to implement a solution, out of self preservation then ---- the options being evaluated have nothing to do with the troposphere. They are looking at options much, much higher, ad well above the altitude capability of conventional aircraft. Different engineering solutions are being studied.

But if you're concerned about particulates in the troposphere, well.....we've been doing that since sometime in the 1800s. It was called the "Industrial Revolution". It is also called "pollution".

Head on outdoors in a major city, and walk along a busy street or highway. Breathe in the car and truck exhaust fumes. You get far, far more pollution from those sources than you will ever get from commercial airplanes overhead at 30,000 to 40,000 feet. Where the exhaust has far more area to disperse, and become diluted.

Here's another thing people never think about...brake pads. Yes, in your disc brakes. Every time the brakes in the car, truck, motorcycle, etc, are applied, they wear a little. Erode away. Where do you think those particulates go?

There was a time, long before it was known to be so harmful, when asbestos was used in brake linings.......where was the "outrage" then?

reply to post by Uncinus


I'm going to try to explain this on the very slim and none chance that your question wasn't rhetorical.

Do you think: "it's a shame those persistent contrails are inadvertently covering up the blue sky", or "that's not right, they must be deliberately spraying something there"? Or what?

In the picture you present, from 1972, the color of the sky behind the clouds, in between the clouds and through portions of the clouds has no resemblance to the colors in my sky today. (I'm taking your word that the photo is actually from 1971 which is probably a mistake but I'm pressed for time.)

In my sky of bygone days, which I can visualize as clearly as you can visualize yourself in a mirror, the colors were specific and specifically varied and the quality of light was specific and visually quantifiable. It's like listening to a piece of music where one person has a perfect ear and another is so-so and a third is tone deaf. All will enjoy and all will be able to identify it as music and there will end the similarity.

I don't know if your photo has been enhanced to make the color more brilliant or more sedately blue in this case so I can't really argue with that. What kind of film was used? How was the negative or slide processed? What paper was used to print it out? How was it entered into the internet image sphere?

I don't see what I expect to see. I don't see what others expect me to see. I'm looking up and seeing what there is to see and I don't like it. My sky often, though not today, looks like the inside of the spiders' den in 'Lord of the Rings' with blue a distant memory unlike your picture.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Most photos from the 60s and 70s have rather garish colors. It's to do with the films used at the time, such as KodaChrome.

But that's not the question - the questions was about the contrails. Do you think they are being deliberately sprayed?

BTW there was a long thread on recollections of bluer skies:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scientists have long known that recollection of color is always more vibrant than the actual color.

1957 Article on the subject:
books.google.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7c5a2fe93c5.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Here's a link on 'free flight' as used in the links you provided. It is unrelated to hang-gliding etc. in this context and has an entirely different meaning. Also about 1/2 way into the article is the writer's description of Boeings' input which is interesting.

www.aviationtoday.com...

On required avionics, Boeing would only say that modified, current-generation, airline flight management systems plus new 2 GHz data link units should be able to handle the company’s future concept. But a Boeing spokesman added paradoxically that general aviation could get by with a device similar to a "low-cost GPS."

Indeed - "free flight" by airliners remains a holy grail of air navigation - it will apparently slash costs by allowing them to use the most efficient routes and climb/descent profiles and timings.

However there are extrmely complex systems required to automate altitude and route reporting to ensure colision avoidance - the systems used atm are relatively simple - standard seperation distances vertically and horizontally - reducing as technology advances (eg RVSM, TCAS, transponders) but still essentially the same sort of ideas as were used in the 1950's.

General Aviation is already largely "free flight" as most of it occurs outside controlled airspace. However there would be need for some systems when GA interacts with such airspace, particularly around controlled airports - but with the limited altitudes of approach fans, etc., they would probalby not need much of hte more sophisticated stuff that would only apply to airlienrs in cruise.

Just speculation on my part tho.

reply to post by ProudBird

Well...yes, such would be less than healthful, most likely. But, why mention it when it isn't even happening?

Says who?!! It's happened before in secret and/or in 'safety' so why wouldn't it be hapening now? That doesn't make any sense. It's gone on before. Patterns of behavior can change but generally a catalyst like true desire or other impetus is needed. Without a consequence for past actions why would there be a change in the present?

If you are referring to some of the many suggestions being studied when and if the climate problems become so dire that *we* collectively as Humanity find it necessary to implement a solution, out of self preservation then

The infant psycho-cybernetics (I think it's called something else today) modelled climate change predictions and the industrial revolution and traffic were included in those models. They're all shot to pieces now because something unknown entered the mix. Live today and die tomorrow from what you did to live today is not a viable option.

New subject: Still on about the 5% increase in air traffic and how that's possible. You're like the person who posts a thread titled 'I saw a star' and then 3 pages later everyone's still trying to figure out what they mean. The Airport Council International from their link here:

www.airports.org...

14,424,441 total movements from top 30 airports in 2010
14,355,336 total movements from top 30 airports in 2009
14,774,368 total movements from top 30 airports in 2002
15,721,158 total movements from top 30 airports in 2000

Comparing 2010 with these other years:

2010 saw 69,105 more movements than 2009
2010 saw 349,927 fewer movements than 2002
2010 saw 1,296,717 fewer movements than 2000

There's no 5% increase in those figures no matter how I work them. Looks like a lose-lose proposition all the way around. From what I can gather from their website, the airports themselves submit figures. Unless there is a government subsidy of some kind that would lead to deliberately trying to fudge the numbers down, I can't think of any reason why the numbers would be fudged to fall off a cliff like this.

Yes, there was 9/11 and there is the economic thing and those are all good valid reasons for these numbers but that wasn't the point. Point was 'air traffic is increasing or has increased or is alot more' and that just doesn't seem to be true.

...disclaimer...I make no claims for the stability of virtual copy.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

It's happened before in secret and/or in 'safety' so why wouldn't it be hapening now? That doesn't make any sense. It's gone on before. Patterns of behavior can change but generally a catalyst like true desire or other impetus is needed. Without a consequence for past actions why would there be a change in the present?

Lots of things have gone on before - that fact that something vaguely resembling it is known to have happened 40-60 years ago is NOT evidence that it is happening now, and what doesnt' make sense is saying that it is such evidence!!

Or do you also think the Roman empire still exists because we know it did 1500 years ago??

Some more up to date examples of things that happened 40-60 years ago that ain't happening any more: nuclear cargo ships, nuclear aircraft reactors, chimps in space (depending on what you think of astronauts of course!!), Edsells.

If it is happening now then where is the evidence it is happening NOW???

The "stuff" they "sprayed" way back then was specifically designed to be detectable - so what are we detecting now??

In terms of air traffic in hte USA - it appears the major US airlines are flying longer average sectors, and the larger network airlines are flying larger aircraft (more seats)

Average daily departures are down - but the number of hours flown is actually up - probably a function of the longer routes.

The home page for these stats

But Chemtrailers say that this all began in the 1990's and that the skies were bluer and clearer in the 1960's and 1970's when they were younger.

Therefore comparing departure numbers from within the claimed Chemtrail timescale cannot prove anything about what was happening before, whethers it's slightly up or down. Surely the point of reference has to be the air traffic from when the skies were cleaner? Maybe the figures from. 1970, when jet transport was well established and the first Jumbos were just appearing, would be more relevant?

In terms of aircraft numbers, Flight published an airliner census detailing every individual airliner currently in service from 1957 onwards and these too are on the archive for perusal.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
In terms of air traffic in hte USA - it appears the major US airlines are flying longer average sectors, and the larger network airlines are flying larger aircraft (more seats)

Average daily departures are down - but the number of hours flown is actually up - probably a function of the longer routes.

The home page for these stats

And the number of contrails sightings is more a function of the number of hours than the number of departures. Planes don't make contrails during arrival and departures, they make them in-between, when they are at altitude. So longer flights means the total length of contrails laid down is greater.

reply to post by Uncinus

Most photos from the 60s and 70s have rather garish colors. It's to do with the films used at the time, such as KodaChrome.

Some of those colors were from Fuji - the green box.

But that's not the question - the questions was about the contrails. Do you think they are being deliberately sprayed?

I'm surprised at you...asking me a trick question. I thought we were pals.

Scientists have long known that recollection of color is always more vibrant than the actual color.

What does that mean? Scientists have known alot of things for long or short times and then they didn't know them anymore because they are disproven. Non-theoretical scientists observe. So do I. Are you saying that everything is illusion and agreed upon reality? The color of the sky is only valid if a group agrees on it? My observations are only valid if I can get a group, say scientists or ping-pong players to agree on it? Are you saying I shouldn't be observing anything before reading the manual on what's allowed or not allowed?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Most photos from the 60s and 70s have rather garish colors. It's to do with the films used at the time, such as KodaChrome.

Some of those colors were from Fuji - the green box.

But that's not the question - the questions was about the contrails. Do you think they are being deliberately sprayed?

I'm surprised at you...asking me a trick question. I thought we were pals.

Scientists have long known that recollection of color is always more vibrant than the actual color.

What does that mean? Scientists have known alot of things for long or short times and then they didn't know them anymore because they are disproven. Non-theoretical scientists observe. So do I. Are you saying that everything is illusion and agreed upon reality? The color of the sky is only valid if a group agrees on it? My observations are only valid if I can get a group, say scientists or ping-pong players to agree on it? Are you saying I shouldn't be observing anything before reading the manual on what's allowed or not allowed?

I'm almost positive he's saying one persons unsubstantiated claim, that is based on nothing but memory, isn't reliable. You might disagree, but if so you're simply wrong.

Say I made an outstanding claim, but my only evidence is my memory. Others might even agree that they "remember" the same thing, however, that doesn't mean I actually have evidence that backs up my extraordinary claim. I would have flawed human memories to work with, nothing else. Hardly scientific. Kind of like how people assume that a scientific theory can't be proven true or false or else it would stop being a theory.

reply to post by waynos

In terms of aircraft numbers, Flight published an airliner census detailing every individual airliner currently in service from 1957 onwards and these too are on the archive for perusal.

Perhaps not as extensive as all the way back to 1957, but here is another resource, handy from your computer keyboard, to research airliners and their history in specific airline fleets:

www.airfleets.net...