"OK forget all about weather for a second, we've been over all that."
No. Let's not
forget all about weather for a second. If you don't
understand basic meteorology and basics of atmospheric physics
(and I'm not talking graduate-school stuff here, just basics), then how can you make an argument? How can I attempt to explain stuff in terms of
things you don't understand and seem to to have any interest in learning?
"Pls explain what 2 aircraft would be doing going back and forth across the sky in a repetitive patern. One flying east then turning and flying
west, and the other north/south. At a fixed altitude with a white cloud comming out the back, on a clear sunny day. No other contrails from other
After about 1.5 hours there was a chequerboard covering of white chem/con trail that slowly spread out into a hazy covering. Looked like classic
spraying to me, what else could it be?"
How should I know? You don't have any video so I can't tell if it's even the same planes.
My guess is that you saw one aircraft on a N-S heading and another on an E-W heading, both at about the proper height and in the proper atmospheric
conditions for persistent contrails.
If you saw two planes on two discrete track, the chances are that they are flying two more-or-less straight line (or Great Cicle) routes between their
two respective airports.
This means that, a few minutes later, another couple of planes flew the same (more or less) patterns, which makes sense, because planes fly in
more-or-less common lanes. So you didn't see two planes, you probably saw six or seven, separated by a few minutes of time.
If you were a serious researcher of this, you would be able, using Flight explorer ( www.flightexplorer.com...
) to tell you everything
about those aircraft, including their airline, flight number, vector, altitude, departing/arriving airport, etc., etc., etc. You would also be able
to get radiosonde information
from several sites that would tell you what the temperature and RH are in that area at any particular altitude,
so you could cross-reference the meteorological and flight-time information to see the correlations.
Now I don't want to wee-wee in your Wheaties, Anok, but you need to think about this. If there were
such things as "chem-trails" and the
aircraft flew these "tic-tac-toe" arrangements in order to cause the sky to be blanketed sith "chem-crud"...
Then why do you claim that a single
aircraft's contrails is a "chem-trail", and why does a single
"chem-trail" spread out to cover
the sky all by itself?
And if you need all that "tic-tac-toe" stuff to blanket the sky, then are you saying the "chem-trails" from a single aircraft (which, of course,
are the source of the vast majority of persistent contrails) aren't
doing the job? And if they're not
, then why are they being
"sprayed' inthe first place?
Anok, it seems to me that, in order for there to actually be such a thing as "chem-trails", you have to postulate a bunch of scenarios which all
have the same things in common:
They just don't make any sense.
(BTW, Your comment about it being a sunny day is irrelevant, as would be any discussion ot temperature measured on the ground; neither has any bearing
on the ambient temperature and relative humidity at ten thousand meters altitude.)