Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I wish I had a picture of it but I used to live in West Phoenix Az, and on more than one occasion saw not only parallel lines that were "unique" but
saw what from different angles were crossing parallel lines that created a tic tack toe formation..at the 20k to 40k altitude.
The reason why there are big X’s and checkerboards is due to the way that aircraft navigate. Aircraft fly on things that are similar to roads in the
sky, they have several different names, but the concept is the same. They are called Jeyways, Airways, Victor Airways, VOR’s, or
VHF Omnidirectional Radio
(
Here is what one looks like). These function by sending out a radio
signals 360 degrees in a straight line from the station, which the pilot tunes in on a special
radio
stack in the cockpit. These invisible radio roads in the sky have to cross each other somewhere, and where they do you end up with hash marks,
crosses, and X’s.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Not only do I disagree, I’m disappointed to see such a sweeping and dismissive generalization of people’s concerns go unchallenged. While it is
true that I have never seen a persistent contrail in my entire life, whether they existed or didn’t exist “in the old days” is not what the
chemtrail theory is based upon at all. That is, in fact, irrelevant.
It’s absolutely relevant, and it’s not a wide sweeping dismissive, but rather it comes from the actual “supposed” experts such as Carnicom.
The claim of chemtrailers is that they are not persistent contrails because no one saw persistent contrails before the 90’s, and thus are a new
phenomena created either as part of SDI or weather control. In reality there were fewer contrails back in the 80’s because there was less traffic,
and the engines were smaller in diameter.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You see, NASA states in their Contrail Education publication that contrails “only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8km – about 26,000
ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees Celcius)” and that they can “persist and grow (if the humidity is high)”.
If NASA actually said this, its obviously wrong or misquoted, because if the conditions are correct contrails can form at any altitude. I would have
to assume that what they actually stated was something more along the lines of “contrails normally form at this altitude”. It takes a combination
of cold air and the right amount of humidity to form persistent contrails, and its very obvious here in Florida as we start seeing them as soon as it
starts getting colder outside.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This specificity is emphasized by author and weather consultant Philip Eden, who wrote that: “condensation trails cannot form in the upper
troposphere if there is insufficient moisture there, which is the case 80-85% of the time over the British Isles”.
So what this guy is saying is that there is not any clouds, precipitation, or fog over England 80-85% of the time? If the conditions exist to sustain
cloud formation, then the conditions exist to sustain contrails, as they are exactly the same thing.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Mr. Eden was saying that the conditions for contrail formation only occur about 15-20% of the time over the UK. We can see from NASA that PERSISTENT
contrails require even more specific conditions than that; higher humidity; and the Meteorological Office in the UK says temperatures “MUST be below
-57 degrees” for PERSISTENT contrails to form.
I am not sure what the exact numbers on humidity level vs temperature are, but you can check them yourself with this:
Contrail Simulator
This will show the prediction for persistent contrail formation over the US at any given time:
Contrail Prediction Map
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The sky where I live has been WHITE for over two years, solely due to the emissions of unmarked planes
Almost all aircraft are either white, light gray, or silver on the bottom, so when seen from the ground they all look unmarked.
Please feel free to go on about this subject though, and I’ll be happy to try to answer each point you bring up. The only thing is that I am not a
meteorologist, simply a person who worked professionally in aviation, and an aviation enthusiast, so someone like OZ or Essan would be more effective
at answering specific weather related questions. I believe that Essan is over in the UK where you are, which might be very helpful to you.
[edit on 9/29/2008 by defcon5]