Flooded with Chemtrails All Over Portland Oregon!! PIX

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Still waiting for contrail pics left by
Air Force One.
If Contrails are just created and unavoidable
as you all describe, we have had many Presidents flying in the most powerful advanced planes,
that should kick out more water vapor then the average plane.
So why can't you show me a contrail or two left by Presidents?

Here is someone who claims to have taken a picture of Air Force One, and 4 fighter jet escorts, and 1 other jet. There are contrails present in the image:

www.rcuniverse.com...

What I want to know is why you think there would NOT be contrails? Are you trying to deny the existence of condensation? Are you aware that clouds are condensation?

reply to post by MaxJohnson

.....from what I've witnessed they are wayward flying craft without a destination... only to return and splooge more stripes in the sky. I can only hope I'm wrong....

I doubt that "wayward" is apt.

Have you been introduced to this fine tool yet?

FlightAware

A LOT of information to be found, in there.....

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Tick Tock
No Contrail Pictures from Air Force One yet!
Contrails from Presidential Planes must be fantasy.

Here are two more pictures of Air Force One with contrails:

So do I get some type of prize for destroying your straw man argument?

reply to post by ProudBird


Ho hum yes I'm aware of that tool. It's for flight planning. Big deal, TOP SECRET. That's the key word. The sky is a huge place. Relative to how crowded you guys think the skies are it's nothing compared to the great blue yonder. I surmise they fly with impunity, that's how it works. We're not privy to their shenanigans.

why do you want chemtrials to be real? lol that's hilarious

reply to post by MaxJohnson

It's for flight planning. Big deal....

Not only flight planning. Are you sure you've actually looked at the site, and used any of it? It is a resource to prove that what people claim are "chemtrails" are merely contrails made by easily identified regular passenger jets, and the occasional private jet as well.

(You could also use it for fun....like, say you know someone who is flying in to meet you. You can track their flight, and know exactly where they are at all times. What fun! Also, check this out!! If YOU are the passenger, and you are on a flight with Internet access -- many have that now -- and you have your computer, then you can track your own flight!! Fun times two!)

....TOP SECRET. That's the key word.

What does that even mean? A contrail, in plain sight....how is that "secret"??

reply to post by ProudBird

ok... fine, i'm a little less shaken up. The anomolies of contrails are extremely perplexing. I just hope it is a byproduct of these super fuel efficient planes. I just remember the skies being blue all the time here in what used to be sunny SoCal. I hate the aftermath though, it is true that after said fly overs, the sky really does change, jus sayin, man.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


I do not know how old you are or what exactly you remember...Do I perceive things to be different now compared to when I was growing up? YES I DO...but we all do...I cannot tell you how many times I have spoken with my father about the things I see now compared to when I was a child...He says he has experienced the very same things and feelings about perception and differences...of course, he grew up in the 40's and 50's and had his life changing experiences in the 70's, 80's, and 90's...I listen to his descriptions of what he went through and what I am going through and I am more convinced as time goes on these changes are internal...

As far as having more airline traffic, that is external...the resultant cloud cover and associated air pollution...external...no getting around that...

Originally posted by ProudBird

(It's at 0:13. Those are not contrails, in that still image. It is a KC-135 tanker venting fuel overboard. NOT "chemtrailing", just dumping excess fuel. But, that photo is often used by "chemtrail" hoaxers to "prove chemtrails". LOL...)

It is often used, example:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4725eb79fea.jpg[/atsimg]

But it's not a KC-135 tanker, it's a Navy E-6B Tacamo. See:

tacamo.org...

reply to post by MaxJohnson


I noticed here in LA yesterday, plenty of contrails. Then this morning, the typical overcast stratus clouds.

Weather is constantly changing. and that's the way it is. The presence of contrails yesterday indicated an increase in moisture present, and today that bore fruit. It may rain this weekend (today is Friday).

Of course, weather is able to be forecast, with the many modern tools available....but, there is still a lot of imprecision in that ability, because there are many factors which contribute to weather, and we just don't have perfection (yet) to be able to account for every variable. That may be possible in some distant future, who knows? Certainly, it is still a dream, now....getting closer, but no cigar as yet.......

reply to post by Uncinus


Isn't that the same airframe and platform?

EDIT: No, it is not...The E6 is a larger plane...

Boeing E-6 : General characteristics- Crew: 12–25 Capacity: 23 Length: 150 feet 4 inches (45.8 meters)
Wingspan: 148 feet 4 inches (45.2 meters) Height: 42 feet 5 inches (12.9 meters)
Loaded weight: 342,000 lb (154,400 kilograms) Max takeoff weight: 342,000 lb (154,400 kg) Powerplant: 4 × CFMI CFM-56-2A-2 high-bypass turbofans
Performance Maximum speed: .862 mach (600 miles per hour, 520 knots; 970 kilometres per hour)
Range: 6,600 nautical miles (7,590 statute miles, 12,144 kilometers with 6 hours loiter time) Service ceiling: > 40,000 feet (12,200 meters)

en.wikipedia.org...

Boeing KC-135 : General characteristics- Crew: 3: pilot, co-pilot and boom operator. Some KC-135 missions require the addition of a navigator. Capacity: 37 passengers Payload: 83,000 lb (37,600 kg) Length: 136 ft 3 in (41.53 m) Wingspan: 130 ft 10 in (39.88 m) Height: 41 ft 8 in (12.70 m) Wing area: 2,433 ft² (226 m²) Empty weight: 98,466 lb (44,663 kg) Loaded weight: 297,000 lb (135,000 kg) Useful load: 200,000 lb (90,700 kg) Max takeoff weight: 322,500 lb (146,000 kg) Powerplant: 4 × CFM International CFM56 (F108-CF-100) turbofan, 21,634 lbf () each Maximum Fuel Load: 31,275 US gal (118 m³)
Performance Maximum speed: 580 mph (933 km/h) Cruise speed: 530 mph Range: 1,500 mi (2,419 km) with 150,000 lb (68,039 kg) of transfer fuel Ferry range: 11,015 mi (17,766 km) Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,200 m)

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Uncinus


Yeah, OK thanks:

But it's not a KC-135 tanker, it's a Navy E-6B Tacamo.

Still, version of the 707/320 basic airframe. The wingtips I didn't notice, and the angle made exacgt identification dodgy. Point was hammered home there, though....that image has been used by "chemtrail" hoaxers, countless times......

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MaxJohnson

 

I noticed here in LA yesterday, plenty of contrails. Then this morning, the typical overcast stratus clouds.

Weather is constantly changing. and that's the way it is. The presence of contrails yesterday indicated an increase in moisture present, and today that bore fruit. It may rain this weekend (today is Friday).

Of course, weather is able to be forecast, with the many modern tools available....but, there is still a lot of imprecision in that ability, because there are many factors which contribute to weather, and we just don't have perfection (yet) to be able to account for every variable. That may be possible in some distant future, who knows? Certainly, it is still a dream, now....getting closer, but no cigar as yet.......

Yes, you're older than I am jeichelberg, still that doesn't matter, if our perceptions were the same about sunnier skies (I see you're a Cali native too) in our younger years, the talk you had with your dad about external perceptions still doesn't shed light on the fact that such a trail of "steam" can fester and muster up all the moisture in the air and propagate relentlessly. It was a gorgeous day until the planes started flying. The contrails were EXTREMELY noticeable, the planes were waaaay the phuk up there too. They weren't at altitudes indicating take off or landing from the major airports close to me, LAX, John Wayne and Ontario. As I got on the freeway near Rancho Cucamonga ( the 10 & Haven to be exact) I saw the vast demonstrative contrails and my heart sank. There was I'd say a few months break between the last time they "sprayed" heavily. What baffles me is the lack of moisture in the air yesterday. It was bright, clear and dry. If moisture is in the air, it is visible. There's no argument there. Hot environments create high pressure zones which aren't conducive to moisture build up. I just can't see why the government doesn't put the issue at rest. There have been legitimate news broadcasts of chaffe from so called military jets and it blanketed Big Bear and the surrounding areas. Witnesses said overhead planes had the tell tale emissions of contrail/chemtrail. Anyways, only time will tell.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


Here is one thing you may be missing in connecting the dots...some people say the "extra cloud cover," we get from the contrails is serving to keep the heat out...others are saying it is serving to keep the heat in...either way, you are stating there is added heat which is reducing the moisture...well, this cannot be true on the one hand and then have contrails on the other...really, stop and think about it for just a little while...read up on it as much as you possibly can...go to the library and do a book search...you do not need to take anyone's word for it...

reply to post by MaxJohnson


OK....prepare to become "un-baffled".

What baffles me is the lack of moisture in the air yesterday. It was bright, clear and dry. If moisture is in the air, it is visible.

A common mistake, and one that is seen constantly in these sorts of threads about "chemtrails". It is the very misconception about our atmosphere, and temperature and humidity levels that people feel when they are on the ground.

Yes, it can very very dry, and warm, on the surface. And, directly overhead and very high up (where airliners cruise) it will always, always, always be well below the freezing point of water. In addition, the Relative Humidity can be quite high. Water vapor is present in the air, always. Whether you "feel" it or not. (If you felt air that was completely lacking any water vapor, you would definitely notice it! Especially breathing it).

So, at altitude above you, can be high humidity, with a close temperature/dewpoint spread. Actually, "saturation" of water vapor in the air is a more technically correct term. Air can also be "super"-saturated, and still look "clear". Water vapor is always invisible to the naked eye.

You might like this aviation weather website (It is on the page for Ontario right now, you can search other locations): Air Sports Net

Also, same site has Winds Aloft information in an easy-to-read format:

Winds Aloft for Ontario, CA

The aviation format pilots read is a bit harder to learn to decipher, but with practice anyone can do it. Heck, they even taught me!! (Many years ago....sigh). Here is what it looks like, it's at the bottom of the page inked above:

Raw Data

ONT 9900 2625+05 2733+05 2734+01 2729-13 2927-28 283645 274553 265656

Each block of numbers is for an altitude. There are only none data points....fewer for locations at higher ground elevations, of course.

Looking at the last set on the far right, that's at 39,000 feet. "265656" is decoded to read:

Wind from 260° True. Velocity is 56 knots. Temperature is -56°C.

(The website in easy-read information converts knots to MPH and °C to °F. ALL temperatujres above 24,000 feet omit the [ - ] minus sign, since it is always below 0°C up there).

There have been legitimate news broadcasts of chaffe from so called military jets and it blanketed Big Bear and the surrounding areas.

Have a link? Missed that. You say "blanketed"...seems a bit of an exaggeration, perhaps?

Military chaff is really not that extensive, when deployed. It makes a mess of radar, but that's what it is intended for.

Been seeing these things since the '80's. What is supposed to happen? Good thing we have the inatet.

Originally posted by ProudBird Water vapor is always invisible to the naked eye.

Worth repeating that. Water vapor is invisible. When you see water in the air (clouds, or fog, or even haze), what you are actually seeing is liquid water (in very tiny drops), or ice in the form of very tiny crystals.

What you think of as steam (say, from a kettle) is actually a combination of invisible water vapor, and a mist of tiny water droplets.

Yesterday, I saw this and had to post it .. my question remains, why would a commercial jet fly in the opposite direction, this is VERY unusual behavior for FAA rules for a flight plan & flight navigation, (I'm not a pilot but have flown with pilots with 2,000+ hours and it was years ago) obviously, FP's can be circumvented, however my question remains..

why the 180* turn since jets fly vectors and are direct control of the flight tower(s); this behavior in my book is extremely dangerous at these altitudes and needs answers.. here's the pics..I'm not going to re-size because I want the full effect

well .. I'll post the pics as soon as I can figure out how ATS wants me to imbed them.. I've tried 10 times and they won't imbed..

reply to post by Komodo

....why the 180* turn....

Awaiting your pictures, but will predict this: Holding patterns, or other Air Traffic Control delay methods for traffic sequencing, at high altitude. One other less frequent occurrence would be a reversal of course for an in-flight emergency of some sort. Whether mechanical, or medical...and a return to an airport of departure, or one behind and closest.

For the photos to display, save the copies to a folder on your hard drive. Go to the menu bar button labelled "TOOLS+". The drop-down selection gives you the option for "ATS Uploads". Click on "Select Image File" and navigate to the proper folder location to find the image files.

Follow the instructions....maximum file size is 500 kb, and will support JPG, GIF and PNG.

Originally posted by ProudBird
One other less frequent occurrence would be a reversal of course for an in-flight emergency of some sort. Whether mechanical, or medical...and a return to an airport of departure, or one behind and closest...

I'm awaiting the images too (was this high altitude or low altitude?)

While we wait, I can think of another reason for a mid- to low-altitude 180° turn: to be heading a certain direction upon landing when the plane was originally approaching the airport from the opposite direction.

One example I can recall from my own experiences as a passenger was flying into Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. We were arriving from the east (flying west). Flying toward the west, we passed north of the airport, did a 180° turn, then landed toward the east. As we were making this maneuver, I could see a long line of planes doing the same maneuver.

Planes flying into Philadelphia often do the same thing. More often than not, planes I have been on landing in philly were landing while on a westerly heading. Therefore, planes coming from the west (heading east) would fly past the airport, then make a 180° turn over Camden, New Jersey before landing.