Pilot admits chemtrails and says they are a "necessary evil"........

Aloysius the Gaul

OneManArmy

Zaphod58
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

Then where is the evidence they are real? And don't say "you can see the difference", because you can't tell a chemical from a contrail by looks alone.

Stormfury

A failed attempt to "steer" hurricanes 40 years ago proves that chemtrails exist today?

How does that work??

40 years of Practice!

You know what they say about practice....

reply to post by AbleEndangered


Except they gave it up in the early 1970's, and haven't been "practicing" at all.

So perhaps you should stop inventing stuff to support the myth and just admit there's no evidence.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by AbleEndangered

 

Except they gave it up in the early 1970's, and haven't been "practicing" at all.

So perhaps you should stop inventing stuff to support the myth and just admit there's no evidence.

lol, of course they did.


Dead Science?

More Dead Science?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Lingweenie

 

Saying the wind speed is faster in higher altitudes proves nothing.

It does when you think that something coming from a plane that high up will effect you directly under it.

And that is also the reason you see persistent contrails spreading out.

I never said it would. Why would it matter if it ended up 200 miles away from where it was released, or farther? It still ends up somewhere. I rather it be no where than somewhere.

If I through a plastic bag off of a 20 story building on a windy day, does it really matter where to bag ends up at? It's not like one specific area is the better place to litter at, or pollute for that matter.

reply to post by OneManArmy


I thought we were talking about chemtrails, cloud seeding is quite common and nobody is really worried about it. The argument is that any fluffy contrail that lasts over 2 minutes, (or some other magical number) must be a chemtrail. Why? just look up. No sicence, no reason, no explanation. It's completely made up. Junior high Earth science teaches enough to understand this. I guess the trick is to pay attention.

Heres an angle which I haven't heard discussed yet. As in most conspiracies, how about we follow the money.

So I'll do a conservative estimate on the costs associated with this. Very basic, but I think you will find the numbers astounding.

We have all these airline like aircraft flying all over the world, they have been described as big airplanes, i.e. 4 engines, I don't know of many small aircraft which have 4. So I imagine at some point the folks responsible for this would have had to purchase the aircraft to do the spraying as I don't believe Boeing or the like would donate them. A Boeing 777 costs around $300,000,000 USD, as we have witnesses claiming having seen these spraying aircraft all over the world from the States, Canada, Australia, Europe and I remember hearing about them even being spotted over Hawaii, lets be conservative and say that there are 100 of these aircraft. It really couldn't be much less than that being as how they are apparently seen everywhere in all corners of the globe and a airline with less than that amount would probably rarely be seen. So lets assume that they got them used, say a third of the price, (which is an unbelievable discount) so 100,000,000 each. The cost to purchase the airplanes do do this spraying would amount to 10,000,000,000 USD… or 10 billion US dollars. Most aircraft have a service life of around 20 years, seeing as how this has apparently been going on since the 80's they would be on their second set of jets, so around 20 billion dollars just for the equipment it's self.

Can't fly planes without fuel or crew, a typical cross country flight burns roughly 40,000kgs of fuel, a 1000kgs costs around $980 USD, so $39,200 times 100 airplanes = 3,920,000 a day x 365 = 1,430,800,000. You need people to fly those planes (unless the person above is correct and they are jumbo drone planes) you won't find a captain to fly a big jet for less than 200,000 a year, and a f/o is around 100,000. So 300,000 for crewing, 100 aircraft = 30,000,000 a year. I'm not even going to bother with maintenance as that part I don't know but I'm sure its a few mil.

So to conclude, we have a clandestine operation spraying our skies who have/had enough capital to spend 20 billion dollars on aircraft and 1,460,800,000 a year in expenses, all the while with ZERO potential for profit….

Seems a bit far fetched to me..

I'd guess if that there's anything to it, they'd be doing this for a reason. What I'd really be curious about is measured UV exposure levels on the ground before and after such activity. Much of the claimed release chemicals appear to be the same or similar to those used in sunblock.

The real reason (if the phenomena exists) might be something like putting a bandaid on effects caused by an occasional hole in the ozone layer. If high UV levels may cause damage to some things which are economically important and also play a role in forming smog near the ground, the makers of stuff like CFCs might not want to have it become a large enough problem where they're found liable.

Not saying the side effects of spraying would be good, but perhaps not as bad as what may happen if they didn't.

Of course I don't know anything and I'm just speculating like anyone else, but I'm trying to think of what would be the most plausible explanation to put that much effort and money into doing something like this.

reply to post by pauljs75

The "holes" in the ozone layer are over the poles, mostly the south pole.

gman1972

Can't fly planes without fuel or crew, a typical cross country flight burns roughly 40,000kgs of fuel, a 1000kgs costs around $980 USD, so $39,200 times 100 airplanes = 3,920,000 a day x 365 = 1,430,800,000. You need people to fly those planes (unless the person above is correct and they are jumbo drone planes) you won't find a captain to fly a big jet for less than 200,000 a year, and a f/o is around 100,000. So 300,000 for crewing, 100 aircraft = 30,000,000 a year. I'm not even going to bother with maintenance as that part I don't know but I'm sure its a few mil.

Haven't needed a crew for a while, 20 years....

Controlled Impact Demonstration (1984) Aircraft Crash Test Using
www.youtube.com...

OneManArmy

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by AbleEndangered

 

Except they gave it up in the early 1970's, and haven't been "practicing" at all.

So perhaps you should stop inventing stuff to support the myth and just admit there's no evidence.

lol, of course they did.

so now we're back on cloud seeding - I though you were talking about Operation Stormfury - the abandoned attempt to "steer" hurricanes.

cloud seeding ahs been going since the late 1940's - so a lot more than 40 years of "practice" - and they still can't actually guarantee anything with it.

reply to post by AbleEndangered


Ha ha, how about the people remotely flying it in that example.

reply to post by AbleEndangered


And yet other than a couple of specially modified aircraft every commercial flight, and all but about 1% of military flights have crews. And civil aviation is talking 15 years to go to one pilot, for cargo flights.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You are unfamiliar with the new digital interfaces instead of analog controls??

Any plane with digital interface can be remotely steered and require this equipment to commercially fly in most air spaces!

I wont get into these systems, but you can at federal aviation websites...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


I SAW THE LIST OF PATTENS REGARDING SPRAYING / FOGGING SYSTEMS FOR ALL MANNER OF PURPOSES SO LET'S TRY TO THINK WHAT PURPOSE WOULD YOU BE USING CHEMTRIAL SPRAYING FOR..

FIRST, IF YOU ARE KEEPING IT SECRET THEN I WOULD THINK THE ENTITIES DOING THE SPRAYING ARE THINKING THAT IS WOULD NOT BE READILY ACCEPTABLE BY THE GENERAL POPULATION.. OUR FIRST QUESTION..WHY?

SECOND WHY SECRET?... WHAT PURPOSE WOULD THE GENERAL POPULATION THINK WAS BAD?
A) EFFECT HEALTH OF POPULATION ADVERSELY? AT HOME? OVER ENEMY? WORLDWIDE?
B) EFFECT WEATHER FOR THE GOOD BUT EXPERIMENTAL/NOT PROVEN YET? FOR CROPS PRODUCTION?
C) EFFECT WEATHER FOR THE BAD OVER AN EFFECTED AREA? CROP DISTURBANCE? OVER ENEMY?
D) PROTECT THE EARTH SERVING AS A "MIRROR". FROM OUTSIDE ADVERSE EFFECTS? SOLAR FLARES? RADIATION? COMIC/ULTRA VIOLENT RAYS?
E) TO ATTRACT AND COLLECT PARTICALS IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR REDUCTION/CLEANING PURPOSE?
F) TO EXTERMINATE AIRBORN VIRUS, DISEASES, INSECTS, PEST??????

THIS IS THE APPROACH TO PURSUE IN FINDING OUT WHAT, WHY AND WHO.. ANY SUGGESTIONS?

reply to post by AbleEndangered


It's called Fly-By-Wire and I'm well aware of it. It doesn't change anything. It would still require special modifications to become an unmanned aircraft.

All digital architecture changes is weight, since you no longer have to have pulleys and cables, and control response time. It didn't suddenly let the crew sleep while it's flown from the ground, or remove the crew requirement.

CaptainBeno


No, but I am going to tell you that is a non-pressurised aircraft. Meaning it can't go to the dizzying heights you see you "trails" at.

Fail.

Actually they could, it is called supplemental oxygen. I flew in the military for 28 years.... but then that aircraft flies at very low altitudes to drop its fire suppressant. BTW I'm not the one that believes in chemtrails...hehe

The bottom line here is much like the huge leap people make when we say life is in the universe. They take that to intelligent life around our planet. In this case we say that aerosol spraying is possible, and has been done at low levels, such as agent orange in Vietnam, and people take that to also mean every airline is dumping at 35,000 feet all over the world.

In both case these people seem to easily step across a massive chasm of differences, and incomprehensible levels of difficulty.

Zaphod58
reply to post by AbleEndangered

 

It's called Fly-By-Wire and I'm well aware of it. It doesn't change anything. It would still require special modifications to become an unmanned aircraft.

All digital architecture changes is weight, since you no longer have to have pulleys and cables, and control response time. It didn't suddenly let the crew sleep while it's flown from the ground, or remove the crew requirement.

Special Modification = Firmware Update....

reply to post by AbleEndangered



You need communications equipment that interfaces with the flight control computers, new software that interfaces with the communications to the computer, interprets the flight control input, sends the signals back to the ground station repeating everything happening on the plane, as well as diagnostic software in case something happens... It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

You are unfamiliar with the new digital interfaces instead of analog controls??

Any plane with digital interface can be remotely steered and require this equipment to commercially fly in most air spaces!

I wont get into these systems, but you can at federal aviation websites...

I fly UAVs for a living and know a lot about them, but I would need to ask you the question of why use drones at all? So we are flying 1000s of airline type plane converted to drones? Where are the drone pilots located for this massive operation? Where are these plane located? Where are the factories to make the chemicals, where is the logistic industry to move it all?

To be honest...if I was going to do this I would use huge blimps....

If you are talking autopilot it is still very limited and requires pilots on board.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Blimps would be more practical but way too obvious.
Everyone would notice blimps but no one can see "chemtrails". Except for some people that is.