Update: If you are looking for a debunking of Why In The World Are They Spraying, first check out this post, as the second film really depends on the first being true, then have a look at the various errors in Why In The World Are They Spraying, detailed here:
http://metabunk.org/threads/712-Factual-Errors-in-quot-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot
——————————————————————————
The documentary film “What in the World are They Spraying“, by Michael J. Murphy, attempts to promote the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory (which states that long lasting contrails are actually the result of secret government spray operations), and proposes a possible explanation: that the trails are part of a geoengineering project involving injecting large amounts of aluminum into the atmosphere to block the suns rays.
Multiple parallel trails over Mt Shasta, California. Taken in 1989, ten years before the chemtrail operations were supposed to have begun.
The basic premise of the film is:
- Normal Contrails fade away quickly
- Scientists have talked about geoengineering using aluminum sprayed from planes
- Since 1999, trails have been observed to persist for a long time
- Tests in various locations at ground level have found different levels of aluminum
- Monsanto has genetically engineered aluminum resistant crops
- The government denies any spraying or geoengineering is going on
- THEREFORE: The trails are aluminum being sprayed as part of a secret government geoengineering project.
Normal contrails can persist and spread
That reasoning is somewhat suspect even if you accept all the points. But where it really falls down is that it’s based on a false assumption – that “normal” contrails quickly fade away. In reality, normal contrails can persist for hours and spread out to cover the sky. Whether they do this or not is entirely dependent on the atmospheric conditions that the plane is flying through, so it depends on the weather, and on the altitude of the plane. This is something that has been observed since 1921. Just look at any book on the weather, like this one from 1981:
They tested sludge, not water
So the film is based on a false premise and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion. But what about the aluminum tests? You can find the tests referenced in the film here:
https://contrailscience.com/files/chemtrails_basic_lab_report.pdf
And this is the one shown in the film, which they claim should be pure water:
Pond with low aluminum in the sediment. The film mistakenly claims the level are high by comparing them to water levels. Note the rocks (8% aluminum) that line the edges, and the bottom.
The bottom line here is that they are testing sludge rather than water. Sludge is water mixed with dirt. Dirt is naturally 7% aluminum. That’s all they are finding.
The first aluminum result is from the pond, discussed at the start of part 3, and it’s 375,000 ug/l. What they don’t mention is that it’s from pond sediment, sludge. So essentially it’s not testing water, but is instead testing the amount of aluminum in soil. So that’s 375 mg/kg for sediment that has settled in a pond over several years. That’s actually quite low. Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%, but is typically 7.1%, or 71,000 mg/kg. The amount of aluminum found in the sludge is quite easily explained by windblown dust. It’s low, probably because it’s a new pond, so a lot of the sediment is vegetable matter.
Then there are the rain readings. 33, 262, 650, 188, 525, 881, 84, 815, 3450, 2190 ug/L. Wildly different values, some high sounding, some low. But no details are provided that correlate these different numbers of contrail activity. If this variation were due to aerial spraying, then surely a match would be found. These numbers simply tell us that different tests produced different results. It does not tell us why. No details of the sampling procedure are given, or the weather conditions preceding the test. Nor are we told what are the expected levels of aluminum to be found under these conditions.
Rain gauge used for the aluminum test. Note the mounting bracket appears to be made from aluminum.
Rain water contains particulates from airborne dust. The amount of particulates will vary greatly based on the weather. A sample from a brief intense storm after a dry period would give you more particulates than a sample taken in the middle of several days of rain. The amount of particulates in the sample would also vary with how long the container is left out in the open. Dust will settle on the container if it’s left out for a while, increasing the amount of aluminum found. All these tests are really telling us is how much dust the sample was contaminated with.
How much aluminum is there in the dust? Let’s say it’s about the same as the amount of aluminum in soil (although it’s probably higher). How much dust is there in rain? According to Edward Elway Free of the the United State Bureau of Soils, in his book “The Movement of Soil Material by the Wind“, in tests performed by Tissandier, rain water contained 25,000 to 172,000 ug/L of particulates. But he notes “As the amounts of rain and snow which fell in the various cases are not given, the figures are of little value. The first drops of a rain storm will of course contain the largest percentage of dust, and as the storm continues the air is gradually wasted clean.”. Still if only 1% of the lowest figures there were aluminum, then that’s still 250 ug/L. And at a quite plausible 10% of the upper range, that’s 17,200 ug/L. A range that easily covers the observed test results.
See also the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, VOl 4, 1967, which shows Aluminum found in rain in the range 520 ug/L to 1,120 ug/L, over 13 different tests. This shows that the results in 1967 (when presumably there were no chemtrails) are pretty much the same as the results the WITWATS is getting. Nothing unusual.
Tens of thousands of time the “maximum limit” for water. Sure. But you were not testing water, you were testing dirt
The soil tests are where a typical mistake is made – conflating the percentage of the metal in one substance (soil) with the typical percentages in others. As noted, soil aluminum naturally ranges from 0.07% to 10%, and is typically around 7.1%, which is 71,000 mg/kg. The tests from Oregon (see sheet 16 in the pdf) list quite ordinary results for soil of 18,600 to 38,000. But then they note the results are “Tens of thousands of times the maximun limit for water“, which is true, but they are not testing water, they are testing soil, and it less than half the normal value for soil.
They continue this on the next page, with a low soil aluminum value of 10,500 mg/kg (just 1% aluminum), and yet note: “Near playground Sisson Elementary 300‘ away”. As if this is somehow dangerous to children. It’s just normal soil, as found in any playground, anywhere, ever.
Aluminum is everywhere, in various quantities
- Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust, about 8% of the ground is aluminum. In some places, like the Hawaiian islands, it’s 30-60%!
- Aluminum is everywhere, in the food we eat, and the air we breath (as dust)
- Aluminum is in daily contact with us, in soda cans, cookware, aluminum cooking foil, construction, transportation, baseball bats, etc.
- The amount of aluminum in any location varies naturally. In some places there is a lot, in others there is very little.
- Contamination of samples with aluminum is very common due to it’s abundance and common usage. Unless careful control samples are taken, then the results are often wildly inaccurate.
- One of the tests in the film was water collected by a schoolgirl in a mason jar. Mason jars occasionally have aluminum lids
- Another was taken from a ski area snow pack in early summer. Skis, ski grooming equipment, and ski towers use aluminum. (Update: it is not an active ski area, so more likely it’s just dirt contamination, as the sample was taken in July)
- Aluminum is a common ingredient in antiperspirants and antacids such as Mylanta.
Aluminum resistent crops have been a goal for 100 years
And knowing that aluminum is very common will also answer why Monsanto would want to develop aluminum resistent crops. It will increase yields in areas with acidic soil. Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminum in the ground, and the fact that aluminum ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been a known problem for a hundred years , it’s hardly surprising that someone would try to make crops have a higher resistance to it. Here’s the Botanical Gazette of the University of Chicago, Volume 71, page 159, from 1921.
Note the reference at the bottom: “Aluminum as a factor in soil fertility”. Note also they are discussing how to “reduce the toxicity of aluminum salts” in the ground. So if scientists were doing it 90 years ago, then why exactly is it somehow suspicious that they are doing it now? For more discussion, see:
http://metabunk.org/threads/341-Debunked-Monsanto-s-Aluminum-Resistant-GMOs-and-Chemtrails
Discussing ≠ Doing
Finally, what of the government discussions of geoengineering, and their denials that anything is going on? Exactly. What of it? They discuss geoengineering because it’s something that people might actually want to do in the future, so we’d better talk about it now, so we can figure out what problems might occur. The concerns about health effects and effects on the environment are perfectly valid concerns, but they are not evidence that a spraying program is currently underway.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has no idea what you are talking about, because there is no government geoengineering project, just a few scientists talking about it.
And the most reasonable explanation for why they deny they are doing it because they are not actually doing it. The congressmen interviewed in the film claim they they are not familiar with it because they are not familiar with it. They don’t want to talk about it because they don’t know anything about it. There’s nothing sinister going on there. The congressmen are simply not familiar with this one particular theoretical geoengineering method (or probably any theoretical geoengineering method), so when they are buttonholed by someone who rather intensely asks them if they approve of it, then it’s quite understandable they don’t want to talk to him.
The film presents the conferences on geoengineering as if they are somehow secret and clandestine operations that need to be revealed to the public. In reality, geoengineering of this type has been discussed for at least sixty years. It’s hardly covered up, as the discussion has been constantly in the news, often front page news, since 2006, and has been making occasional mainstream news stories since the 1980s, with thousands of publicly accessible research papers over the last sixty years. There’s no evidence anyone was doing it sixty years ago, there’s no evidence anyone was doing it in 2006, and as far as anyone can tell, nobody is doing it now. Denials are not admissions, and discussing something is not the same as doing it.
I don’t want to make this article too long, but I’ve noticed a few more problems with the documentary, see the comment section for more info.
Thanks Uncinus for putting up this easy to understand info, it’s much appreciated to us who just want to bring a little sanity back to our world.
I did not want to clutter up the article any more that it already is, so I’ve put this in a comment:
If anyone wants to learn more about aluminum in the environment then I’d highly recommend the very detailed Toxicological Profile for Aluminum from the CDCs ATSDR
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=191&tid=34
With some quotes:
(Note that’s a normal upper range of 10% aluminum, 100,000 ppm, or 100,000,000 ppb, in soil)
Pretty funny review from a film critic in Atlanta of this Video which played one night at The Atlanta Historical Center.
http://www.examiner.com/skepticism-in-atlanta/credibility-leeches-premier-film-at-atlanta-history-center
Good find on that review Steve. I added a post on that page, I was too wordy, but we should have a new influx of chemmies coming in soon lol.
Another thing, the focus on Aluminum is a bit odd, as very few geoengineering proposals include aluminum. They harangue David Keith at one point in the movie, but his proposal actually involves engineered aluminum particles, which is obviously not what they have found, otherwise they would have been able to see them under a microscope.
http://2020science.org/2010/09/13/could-precisely-engineered-nanoparticles-provide-a-novel-geoengineering-tool/
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16428.full.pdf+html
10um is 0.01mm, visible as dust, and easily visible under a microscope. So if they can’t see it, then that’s not it.
Right at the start of part three of the documentary, they tout these numbers found in pond water. 375000 ug/L Aluminum. Claiming it came from a rubber lined pond that is only red by rain water (which does not seem to match the pond they show, with rocks and carp in it, but maybe that’s just for illustration)
Months old dirty pond water is probably not something you’d expect to find low levels of windblown dust in, hence you’d expect plenty of aluminum (especially if it were actually lined with rocks, as it appears). Looking closer at this one (see the video, it’s hard to read in a still), I believe it says:
It’s blurry, but I’ve put up “Pond Sediment” and “Sludge” next to the words, and they look like they fit.
They were testing sludge? Really? That’s basically just dirt, so the aluminum content is actually pretty low.
I can’t read it perfectly, so if anyone has the real report, or a higher resolution screen grab, then let me know.
And the funny thing is, this is pretty irrelevant. Their own tests show wildly different amounts of aluminum from different locations around Mt Shasta. If it were being sprayed, and these were results were actually about what you would expect in nature, then they would be all the same. But all they show is normal variation, to do with the local geology.
Hmm, just listing to the audio, they talk about testing a “crust” on the surface of the water that formed after a day of “spraying”, and simultaneously “a year and a half of accumulation”. So exactly what was it they were supposed to be testing?
[Edit – turns out it was Sludge. See the new section “The aluminum tests are scientifically unsound”, above]
So this whole premise of aluminum found in this test sample from Mt. Shasta is based on a year and a half accumulation of”pond crust”. Amazing! What a farce.
Great site guys, been bugged at work for the last 3 months (I am an air traffic controller and former commercial pilot) by a local ‘crusader’. Great to find some sanity somewhere on the internet!!
Hi Uncinus,
Any coment about this docs? I am searching information for a post about this patenst ans I would like to have your impressions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38476142/Patent-Us-20100043443-Cancellare-le-contrails
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38234543/Powder-Contrail-Generation
Thank you!
Here a show you my article. Comments are wellcome
http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=es&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lamentiraestaahifuera.com%2F%3Fp%3D3985
I make persistant contrails all the time and this “device” does not exist on my plane.
If you want to meet the people behind this scam here’s the location and time of their screening of this video:
http://www.meetup.com/WeAreChangeLA/calendar/15274286/
Aluminum is everywhere, in various quantities
“So the film is based on a false premise, and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion.”
I am shocked!!! A intelligent intellectual such as your_self would make such a comment.
1:Anyone Curious about the subject would already know about Natural occurring aluminum in the Earth’s Crust.
2:Francis Mangels, BS in Forestry, Masters in zoology and a retired soil conservationist/wildlife biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for over thirty years. At the Federal level, soil conservationists are employed primarily in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.(not conspiracy theorists)
3:while standing in his own garden, Francis Mangels talks about a large shift in soil PH and a massive spike in certain soil elements; such as, aluminum and barium. You would think after 30+ years he would know what he is talking about? ? ?
Francis Mangels speech is in the last quarter of: 2 of 7 What in the world are they spraying
Here is a quote from G. Edward Griffin from his website Realityzone:
“UN asks nations now engaged in geo-engineering to honor a moratorium until such time as the UN itself is recognized as the principle authority to direct it. [This declaration is further proof that geo-engineering already is underway even though government officials have denied it to the public. Do not be fooled into thinking that world leaders at last have recognized the insanity of geo-engineering. It means only that the UN wants to be the controlling center of it. Since it will bring political power and massive funding, the UN will enthusiastically embrace all aspects of it while issuing comforting words about the need for caution. The UN’s honesty or accuracy in this matter will be no better than with its fraudulent support of the global-warming myth, which is the underlying justification for geo-engineering.] ETC Group Posted 2010 Oct 30 (Cached)”
I think he has the future confused with the past.
Scroll down to the letters section for a good laugh:
http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html
@ J
Francis Mangels probably does know what he is talking about.
However, the trails in the sky are ice clouds.
Yea, this stuff is insane. To think this just goes on unchecked, with no regard for its effects.
Perhaps going on because of it’s effects? I think the word has to get out, everyone I talk to has seen these and just, really, thought nothing of it, not worried about the effects or what it even is. Some try to tell me they usual. NOPE. They usually disappear, these I have seen stay all day.
I have written those in my state to investigate and halt these chem trails over Delaware.
I fear I have just beeen taken as a crazy person. The proof is in our face, it is just too unbelievable for people to take a stand, but our numbers are growing.
Posts such as this and the debate I started at http://upfordebate.us/story.php?title=what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying help to get the word out to more people. We need people the understand this is what is really going on and what will happen if it continues.
It is essential that something be done. The effects of doing nothing are too vast and far reaching to public health and future prosperity. This is just one more example of money run a muck.
“Yea, this stuff is insane. To think this just goes on unchecked, with no regard for its effects.”
Yup, just as with EVERY other source of combustion we have…It’s no worse…and no better.
And that line that they are supposed to disappear, is bullshit. They last just as long as the conditions allow them to. Which can be seconds, minutes hours or days…
“I have written those in my state to investigate and halt these chem trails over Delaware.”
Good luck with that! It’s only frozen water vapor produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons in a supersaturated and VERY cold atmosphere. The only way they will stop is if all air traffic is forced to fly at at altitudes where these conditions don’t exist.
When “those in your state” write back and tell you that these trails are normal and are nothing to worry about…will you believe them or insist that they are mistaken?!~ Or, will “they” then become part of this HUGE conspiracy?
What effects?
Let’s be careful here… it is ICE-supersaturated. It is important to specify that it is supersaturation with respect to ICE. This is why the contrail does not evaporate.
“Let’s be careful here… it is ICE-supersaturated. ”
Well, when it’s “VERY cold”, all there could be is ice saturation. The temperature determines that, doesn’t it? If the conditions are right for contrails, the temperature will be so low that the supersaturation MUST BE ice.
supersaturation only refers to the fact that the air won’t hold anymore moisture, regardless of it’s form.
No… Given that we are talking about the environment of contrails, we are talking about low temperatures -40°C to -60°C. The amount of saturation depends on the amount of moisture present. The saturation vapour pressure (SVP) with respect to either ICE or WATER depends on the temperature. SVPi is lower than SVPw. So at a given temperature, there is a range of vapour pressure where the air is (super)saturated with respect to ice, but unsaturated with respect to water.
If the air is saturated with respect to water, the water vapour will condense on the readily available cloud condensation nuclei. If the temperature is below the homogeneous nucleation temperature, the water droplets will freeze. If this has happened during the process of jet exhaust mixing with the environment, the the interesting thing is this – What will be the nature of the saturation at the end of the mixing, when the mixture is almost all environment and a little exhaust.
If it is unsaturated with respect to ice – that is the vapour pressure is LESS that SVPi, the the contrail will evaporate.
If it is supersaturated with respect to ice (ice-saturated) – that is the vapour pressure is between SVPi and SVPw, then the contrail won’t evaporate. You have a persistent contrail. Some are calling these chemtrails and attributing many unrelated things to their presence.
If the VP is greater than SVPw, then the contrail is already in cloud (probably ice cloud – cirrus) and also won’t evaporate.
So there you have it. What in the world are they spraying? Ice is what.
Ross- great explanation. Is there any way you can incorporate slight variations in EGTs into that? Say one aircaft has an EGT [Exhaust Gas Temperature] of 750 and another at the same altitude has an EGT of 800. Is there anyway this could have a bearing on contrail formation?
Thanks captfitch. I was describing there the end point of the line that describes the mixing of exhaust gasses with environment. You are now asking about the temperature at the start point. The other quantity to know is vapour pressure of water vapour in the exhaust gas. I am not sure but I suspect higher EGT is associated with higher VP, so that for a given engine at working cruise power these points are all on the same line in T vs VP. That is to say there is an operating characteristic depending on engine design… no bypass, low bypass, high bypass.
The exhaust of more efficient engines condenses in warmer environmental temperature. The increasingly efficient jet engines is one of the reasons that more contrails are seen now.
The reason is this: for the same fuel burn (and water production) more of the energy goes into thrusting the plane forward, so less is wasted as heat in the exhaust. EGT is lower for the same fuel burn.
The exhaust mixing process is linear on a graph of T vs vapour pressure, but the SVPi and SVPw lines are curved. If the mixing line crosses the SVPw line to the saturated side, the water vapour in the exhaust/environment mixture will condense.
The environment and the engine characteristics (EGT and water content) determine the two ends of the mixing line in T vs VP space.
Understanding all this, and the temperature structure and moisture variability in the atmosphere, it’s not hard to see why you can see a plane with no contrail, a plane with a short contrail and persistent contrails all in the same sky.
I wrote: “Well, when it’s “VERY cold”, all there could be is ice saturation. The temperature determines that, doesn’t it?”
and
“supersaturation only refers to the fact that the air won’t hold anymore moisture, regardless of it’s form.”
“no”
“The amount of saturation depends on the amount of moisture present. The saturation vapour pressure (SVP) with respect to either ICE or WATER depends on the temperature. ”
Looks like you simply repeated what I wrote in a slightly different way.
I’m a bit confused as to how I’m wrong. Is it because I’m using layman’s terms as to not confuse anyone who doesn’t understand the science?
Oh well…
So basically newer engines= lower EGTs and lower EGTs= more contrail formation?
Even though I operate them every day I’ve never paid attention and I’m curious- is there a non-linear relationship between fuel consumption and EGT or not? I ask because I would suspect that as engines get hotter they become closer to max efficiency. I also might assume that these items differ from engine to engine.
I think the differentiation between ice super-saturation and water super-saturation is important to make because they are different numbers. Air can be ice supersaturated 100% when the water saturation is only 70%. There’s two curves on a graph, so you want to be pointing to the correct one.
When it gets VERY cold the presence of liquid water is increasingly unlikely. However water can exist in supercooled form down to -43.6F, and frequently does in some clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercooling
Water is complicated stuff.
Turns out it was sludge that they were testing to get the super high results. I found a link to the actual test reports. See the new section “The aluminum tests are scientifically unsound”, above
Thanks Uncinus for the new section that clearly explains the complete misunderstanding of the testing. They just took samplings from soil/sludge and put the the results on scales meant for water. Simple.
Yeah, then that 375,000 figure is splashed all over as “evidence”
http://www.google.com/search?q=375000+chemtrails
Yes- water is strange. I recently read that the ice structure that water forms whn frozen is always present in some amount even when the sample is well above freezing. So essentially all water is on the rocks.
I’m amazed when I see water streaking up the windshield when the temp says -10c.
What about the little girls hair sample? Is it normal for children to have high levels of aluminum in their hair?
“What about the little girls hair sample? Is it normal for children to have high levels of aluminum in their hair?”
Probably not, but are the trails in the sky a source of aluminum?! Is it normal to assume that the aluminum could ONLY have come from the trails?
People get most of their aluminum from food, about 8 mg per day (or 8,000 ug, if you want to be sensationalistic) . They can get very high levels from antacids (100-200 mg) or buffered asprin (10-20 mg/tablet)
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34
It’s pretty ludicrous pointing out individual tests like this as evidence of spraying. Did they spray the trails JUST ON HER? If there was spraying then EVERYONE would have elevated level.
And why don’t they also leap to the conclusion that contrails contain Antimony, Arsnic, Cadmium, Gadolinium, Lead, Tin and Uranium, as they all had elevated levels?
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/hair_analysis/appendix_c_sharon.html
And they were not even particularly elevated. 23.1 ug/g, where the “healthy” level was 17.3? Given the huge problem with environmental contamination of aluminum for testing, and the known inconsistency of scalp hair aluminum testing, this is pretty meaningless, even if it did correlate with contrails. Which is doesn’t.
It’s not at all scientific, and it demonstrates nothing.
Oh, and yes it IS natural for a little girl to have high levels of aluminum. The chart shown says the healthy ranges are for adults, and scientists say:
So if 17 is normal for an adult, then 23 sounds quite reasonable for a child.
Very nice research.
captfitch:
As you head for perfect efficiency for any specified power output, ALL design features would converge upon a single design.
Assuming that before they reach optimal design, they may be somewhat non-linear, but AT the optimal design they WOULD be linear.
A limiting factor would be the MAXIMUM temperature rise achievable before the engine begins to soften somewhere.
That high temperature will determine the quantity of NOX produced.
Aluminum being so toxic, they had better watch out for this,
Mylanta Ultimate Strength contains 500 mg of aluminum hydroxide PER TEASPOON, or in more alarming terms, since a teaspoon is 1/200th of a liter, then (literally) 100,000,000 ug/L !!!!!
So, I sent G. Edward Griffin the following email. I’ll be interested to see if he posts it, or responds.
Cirrus Uncinus
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: A few brief point on “What in the world”
Dear Sir,
I watched your documentary, “What in the world are they spraying” with interest, but I have a few of issues I’d like to raise.
1) The film seems to suggest that water from the pond was tested at 375,000 ug/L aluminum. However the lab report says it was sediment. Since sludge is basically soil, then 375,000 ug/L is a perfectly normal level. Ordinary soil has an aluminum content averaging 7.1%, or 71,000,000 ug/L
2) The hair test on the little girl were used to suggest that aluminum must have been sprayed. Yet the levels on the report were only 33% higher than that listed for a healthy adult, and children are known to naturally excrete aluminum at a higher rate than adults. Hence the use of that test result seems rather misleading.
3) Aluminum toxicity in soil has been a known problem for a hundred years. Breeding crops to be aluminum resistent has always been a goal, and hence a normal application of genetic modification. How then can this be evidence of aerial spraying?
4) The tests used for aluminum were EPA 6010B, Plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. This does not distinguish the form in which the aluminum is in. Hence any contamination with aluminum oxide, which is present in very large amounts in soil and dust, would throw off your tests. Basically, if the water had just a tiny bit of dirt in it, from dust or otherwise, then the results wold be immediately off. This was not addressed in the movie.
I hope that you can post a clarification on these issues.
I have no specific education in these subjects, and prefer to remain anonymous, so that the facts may speak for themselves. I refer you to the references below for confirmation.
Regards,
Uncinus
References:
Original test results from the pond, as shown in your film
http://ihost.nu/lucifer741/public/chemtrails/chemtrails_basic_lab_report.pdf
“Description: Pond Sediment”
“Matrix: Sludge”
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – Summary Report Hair Analysis Panel Discussion Exploring The State Of The Science
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/hair_analysis/4.2.html
“Aluminum in hair is not a useful biological indicator of exposure”
” Studies suggest, for example, that alkaline earths and zinc are not excreted as much in early years of life. The opposite is true with aluminum, of which children excrete higher levels than adults (Paschal 1989). ”
Botanical Gazette of the University of Chicago, Volume 71, page 159, from 1921.
“Aluminum as a factor in soil fertility”
Its incredibly obvious isn’t it ? A foreign substance is introduced to our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice, that’s just the way your hardcore Aluminati works. Its in the Mylanta! It’s in the children’s Mylanta!
While I understand that such a movie is chalk full of questionable content, Encyclopaedia Britannica’s quote doesn’t help:
Firstly, any water at the altitudes necessary to produce this phenomenon is already up in the atmosphere, in the form of solid, translucent ice crystals. Exhaust from a combustion engine converts this ice into steam or water vapor, thus rendering it opaque. The reason “normal” contrails disappear so quickly is because immediately after heating the ice crystals into steam, the surrounding ambient air refreezes the water back into ice crystals–the very same ice crystals that were there BEFORE the plane heated them up. It’s not any different than exhaling on a cold day and seeing your breath. You exhale, and voila, you see the steam. How many folks have seen their steamed breath hang around for hours? Saturation. Supersaturation. Blah. Blah. The reality is that this phenomenon only occurs one way naturally.
The garbage about aluminium is hokey. Anyone who applies antiperspirant is applying significant quantities of aluminium to the skin. This is in fact what prevents the sweat glands from releasing sweat. However, the idea of spraying aluminium into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight isn’t so far-fetched. Clouds are visible in large part because the water vapor is clingly to and trapping microscopic particles of dust and debris. It’s know that variations in the color of the atmosphere during a setting sun indicate the level of pollution or smog in the air–the more pollution, the dark the hue of crimson. In light of this, it stands to reason that artificially spraying materials clearly (pardon the pun) affects the amount of sunlight that enters the atmosphere.
Oh yeah, your blog made it on Fox News’ Web site for what I can only assume is a “scientific” reference although I’m using the term as loosely as the word “News” appears behind “Fox:” http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/09/mystery-solved-missile-launch-jet-contrail/
You know, getting a definitive answer about Contrails/Chemtrails should be incredibly easy.
As the burden of proof is on those making an incredible claim, all they need to do is to fly up into a trail with some Aerogel, capture some of the trail, and bring it back for analysis. If it has barium and aluminum salts in it, that would definitely be 1) interesting and 2) counter to the claims that it is merely water/ice.
It would not settle the issue of “government conspiracy” but it would settle the issue of what the trails are actually made of.
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808
The Brittanica quote is correct. All modern scientific models of contrail formation agree that the water is in vapor form, and it nucleates due to the added vapor, added nuclei, and the heat and turbulence mixing things up.
When you exhale, it’s the moisture in your breath you see, not invisible moisture droplets that are already there.
You know, a gallon of jet fuel produces over a gallon of water.
I have found myself being swept away at times by this conspiracy, and must say its a breath of “fresh air” ,no pun intended, to find people actually using critical thinking to approach this topic. I am fairly new to all the science of why some some contrails linger longer than others and have a question that might show how little I actually know. I live about 10 miles from the Mississippi Gulf Coast and can’t help but notice that these lingering contrails in California are also coastal, does that play a roll in it? Also question about the patterns of X’s, that’s just normal flight traffic or exercises for the neighboring air force base? I have 3 airports and an air force base within a 40 miles radius. When I watch something or read an article that shows pictures of the same sky I see from time to time and it tells me its poisonous, what is the motive? I realize this last question might be out of the field of the reader.
sorry for all the links above my last post, i don’t know how that happened
Who provides funding for your website? How do we know that you are not just another Propaganda Prostitute working for the Federal Government. Your pseudoscience site does not provide reliable scientific data. Good Luck to you!
Ah – the hoax posts…
I think we should stop calling chemtrails a “conspiracy theory” – it is, IMO, a hoax – something intended to deceive or defraud. there is no evidence for it, evidence that shows it is rubbish is dismissed without actual cogent reasoning, and the mere act of saying that there is no evidence gets you labelled as per “Global Political awakening” rant above.
Yes – no longer just a theory IMO – it is a hoax perpetrated upong het world by peole like GPA.
Christopher, the links are just trackbacks. Nothing to dow ith your post. My site is just bit messed up.
Contrails are costal only to the extent that many cities are costal, and flights tend to be between cities, so are often on the coast.
The X’s are not from local base traffic, but will be from much more distance airports, planes flying overhead.
your all missing the obvious…
Q:do the planes travel the same route every day
A: YES THEY DO
So all you with the answers run right out and see your contrail that should be there every day at the “SAME LOCATION” since planes travel in air corridors(highways in the sky for all you supersaturated Geniuses, boy just pull out a big word and people believe anything because they thinks it so smart they want to be a part of it) i know your gonna say well it has to be special conditions and i agree the special conditions = is a nice beautiful clear sky that when it is the most obviously occurring….and also when you have your special conditions…why do the contrail end up everywhere all over the sky criss-crossing and snaking “S clouds” across the sky? “as you say” these are all clearly normal…if you choose to forget common sense.
IN closing, If they are not spraying then when you see “even 1 chemtral..opps i mean con-trail” and i mean con! then feel free to sit there and watch as the nearby air magically “doesn’t” produce any long lasting cloud causing supersaturated Bullcaca if you say the conditions must be right, then when you see 1 then the conditions must be right, correct?…so they should be there all day while plane are taking off..and yet when i am seeing them appear from particular planes of which the fleet of them “HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED” and yet i see plane flying over them with no contrail….and before any of you think, well it the altitude like you said, well that has no relevance in taking off planes they cover from the ground to their flying altitude …i live near an airport…..still waiting for the magik clouds….FYI—the spraying plane fly at a much lower altitude than passenger planes.note where you supersap happens and then look at any planes flying in the area..”if” you can see thru the spraying you’ll see planes traveling in there corridor as require by FAA……but with that, you all sound like a bunch of politicians not looking at the facts or using you own brain….instead you all just feel so good because you have a bunch of uninformed agreeing with you..or maybe they have an indoctrinated degree …may Yeshua bless us all with understanding
FYI-…global warming is caused by humans…..LOL that is funny if you want to see all the “so called” complicated numbers Al-Gore never explains and of which his lies are getting him sued by the creator of the Wheather Channel along with 30,000 scientist 9,000 of which are PHD’s..(hmmm why is this not top news?)(could the media be controlled, of course not lol)..who could be right gore or 30,000 trained in the field of science? watch “the great global warming swindle” google it on google video…..may Yeshua’s blessings win our hearts
Very good reporting. After reading all the evidence the conclusion is quite clear.
You guys work for the government.
😀
Moe the hoaxer – atmosphereics vary.
It is a common mistake by chemtrail hoaxers like you to try to make people believe that the atmosphere is always exactly the same and therefore the contrails should be exactly the same.
It’s pretty stupid really tactic, since just looking up into a sky with partial cloud covert tells you that conditions are not always the same even at het same altitude!
Up at 30-40,000 feet it is the same – some days there are the conditions for ontrails at 30,000 feet, other days there is not, but perhaps those days they occure at 40,000 feet, or some other altitude.
Moreover aircraft do not always fly at the same altitude. They may be 1-2-3,000 feet apart vertically, and you would never know by looking at them from the ground.
And if you think that 1,000 feet is insufficient to have different atmosphereic conditions, then I invite you to look at the top of some fog next time you can – i these parts you can often do it 50-100 feet above ground level – that is all the difference that is needed to go between foggy conditions and not-foggy conditions.
I have to agree with TinFoilHat. This website is an “unofficial” government cover-up site.
You people will probably go so far as to tell us that the WTC towers were brought down by planes and fire! LOL.
If Chemtrails, er, Contrails are a natural occurrence why then have they only been seen and questioned in recent years? Is the jetliner engine technology totally different now or has the atmosphere changed radically?
Sorry Sheeple, I ain’t buying it. Tell me about HAARP….
USP-
How can you legitimately look ALL at the material on this site…which is all independently verifiable…and still say persistent contrails have only been seen in “recent” years?
Talk about cognitive dissonance…
USP-
only recently questioned?? not true:
https://contrailscience.com/contrail-confusion-is-nothing-new/
Scientists have been studying them for decades:
Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)
“It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”
http://tinyurl.com/3828jfj
Why does anyone have to be “working for the government” just because they post factual information about a specific subject on a website?! That’s such a terrible assumption. It’s also a complete lie. I accept the information on this site as factual simply because the information passes the scientific method. If you find anything that you disagree with, please bring it to anyones attention and it can be backed up with MORE factual information.
All the chemtrailers have is speculation and assumptions that border on insanity. It’s really sad.
Nothing new huh?
I’ve been on this planet for 52 years and have been a star gazer for most of those years. In other words, I’ve always been looking skyward. In all those years I have never seen anything like what’s happening in our skies now.
I recently heard that the only country that doesn’t experience chemtrails is China. Coincidence??
well…if you heard it…it must be true…
I do know that China experiences persistent, spreading contrails…as China is not immune to the physics of the atmosphere.
Now, can you explain why there is so much historical and scientific record of persistent, spreading contrails?
Can you actually ADDRESS the evidence and not just base your reasoning on your memory?
…or perhaps why you would like to explain why I DO remember persistent trails from my youth decades ago?
US Patriot – as a stargazer I would ahve to guess that you have been looking at clear skies at night.
Which is when aircraft mostly do not actually fly. sure some do – freighters, long distance flights, etc. But the vast majority of flights operate betwen roughly 6am and 9pm on domestic routes throughout the world.
So of course there are fewer contrails at night – even if the conditions do permit it.
It also occurs to me that at night you simply do not necessarily see the detail of any haze that might obscure your vision anyway – how would you know whether haze was wispy cirrus, or a thin contrail?
MikeC, you didn’t read my whole comment…
Let’s pry apart the following falsehood:
To say that there isn’t moisture all around us–including at sea level–is preposterous. Assuming the ambient air temperature in my home is 78 degrees, what happens if I leave my ice cold glass of water sitting on the kitchen table? Eventually, I see condensation. This moisture didn’t come from inside the glass, it came from the surrounding air.
When I exhale my warm (~98.6 degrees) breath, which is analogous to the hot engine exhaust from an aerial vehicle, it suddenly warms the air immediately outside of my mouth in a reaction not dissimilar to pouring water over hot lava rocks in a sauna…steam. As the warm exhalation travels through space and time, it spreads and dissipates. This is no different than watching manhole covers eject steam ever so slightly on a cold winter day. But we never see this steam lingering, spreading, and engulfing the entire atmosphere the way these chemtrails do.
And just today, I noticed that the planes are spraying again my area (Tampa/St. Pete). Interestingly enough, I was able to capture video footage. However, it doesn’t do justice to fact that nearly 10 planes flew from north to south in formation 10 – 20 seconds apart (with the exception of three that crossed paths, one flying straight, the other two criss-crossing from east to west and vice versa) as if dusting crops. Each plane was staggered by a similar distance across the sky for 40 – 50 miles. If my hunch is right, they will fly in this same arrangement for the next three days or so, at which time I’ll have enough evidence to support flight paths that have absolutely nothing to do with commerce.
Hugh- are you saying that there is no commercial air traffic over Tampa/St. Pete? Look up Q Routes. And are you intrigued by the staggered planes? Look in the AIM.
Why am I not explaining these things to you? WHy should I do the work when you have obviously not bothered to. I’m just going to send you in the right direction and hope that you do some investigation on your own.
Hugh,
You’re wasting your time posting here. These well disciplined sheep will never concede to logic or critical thought.
lol – that’s quite funny – because it is the hoax that contains no logic, no facts, no verifiable objective observations, and that puts forth repeated statements of opinion as proven fact.
The whole “contrails do not last” thing, for example, is disproven many times over through simple observation of contrail photographs since at least 1940 (Contrails over St Pauls, London, during the Battle of Britain”).
It is, therefore, logical that persistant contrails are not any different from non-persistant ones.
It is critical to ask “OK – you say that persistant contrails are not the same as “normal” contrails – why is that the case?”
And it is logical that failure to show why it is the case is taken as failure of the whole hoax.
So no, it is not us “sheeple” who lack critical thought or logic – it is the hoax that lacks it.
US patriot I read your whole statement, which bit do you think I missed?
According to this hoax thread the skies over Beijing were full of chemtrails a couple of years ago – http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message580871/pg1
That’s entirely wrong. If what you say is true then you could take a hairdryer out on a cold day and blow fog. Try that and see what happens. (actually I’d be quite interested, there might be some edge effects)
See:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99839.htm
et al.
Actually it is the moisture in the mixture that condenses. Some is contributed by your breath (or the exhaust) and some is contributed by the environment. This is why one of the considerations for the formation is RH of the environment; the others are temperature and pressure.
Of course, if the mixture never reaches saturation, it won’t condense. The environment was too warm or too dry.
I told myself I wouldn’t post here anymore but…………..If non-dissipating contrails have been known and visible since the ’20s, then explain all the interest in them now.
If your proposal is correct then the NDCs should attract no more attention than seeing Santa Claus this time of year.
Wow. The desperation is radiating from the page, now. Keep up the good work Uncinus, you are officially over the hump, achieving the opposite of your intended goal!!
True, but if you consider the breath itself in isolation, then it’s basically warm moist air, and contains more moisture than it could hold at the temperature of the outside air. Hence if you could rapidly cool it down without mixing, then it would still turn to fog.
“non-dissipating contrails”
“NDCs”
No, persistent contrails is the correct term.
The interest in them now is based on hysteria spread on the internet about the hoax. Especially over the last few days since the California contrail got people to look up, for once. Now there’s a whole new generation of chemmies.
US Patriot:
“If your proposal is correct then the NDCs should attract no more attention than seeing Santa Claus this time of year.”
That would be the case, yes, were it not for the Internet. Nobody seemed to bother before.
And this is the really interesting phenomenon of the story: social networking and conspiracy theories.
USPatriot-
have you really reviewed all the information on this site…all of it well sourced, verifiable and based on logic and facts?
Have you truly looked at it in an intellectually honest way without bias??
Do you still believe – based on basic laws of physics- that contrails can’t persist?
Why?
Is all the data on aggregated here just “disinfo”?
Hardly. What I’ll ask you is how many commercial flights do you see during the day that parallel one another, within three or four lengths of one another, as if they were crop-dusting, like this:
^ ^
| ^ ^ | ^
| | ^ | | |
| | | | | |
Really? how much moisture do you think that hairdryer is pushing out? And you yourself said,
TFM:
Contrails don’t appear at sea level and work their way upward. They only appear ABOVE a certain altitude. And having served in the submarine Navy, I can tell you that it was a classic signature of a submerged missile launch. But, if you want to believe the government’s story that 19 hijackers with box cutters are responsible for 9/11, be my guest. A comfortable lie is always easier to swallow than an uncomfortable truth.
And just so we’re all talking about facts…
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_eeuQVIK5c
Go to this link: http://www.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal
Download this file: http://164.214.12.45/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/UNTM/201045/NtM_45-2010.zip
Navigate to page 55 or search for: “434/10(18)”
Hugh contrails will form at sea level if it is cold enough – search for “ice fog alaska” to get many examples – or jsut go to http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1319.html for an explaination of how vehicles can cause persistant ice fog – although in Alaska in 1965 they weer not the major contributors in total!
Here’s some fabulous photos of aircraft creating massive contrails, giving rough locations and heights – jsut to show that Chinese aircraft & Russian/Siberian airspace have no immunity either – http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozinho/389570979/
A search of “contrail china” on Flikr produces dozens of examples – including a couple of Air-air photos. See http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=contrail+china&w=all&m=&s=int&mt=&referer_searched=
Enjoy 🙂
Photos of contrails at night:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail-special.htm
“Hardly. What I’ll ask you is how many commercial flights do you see during the day that parallel one another, within three or four lengths of one another, as if they were crop-dusting, like this:
^ ^
| ^ ^ | ^
| | ^ | | |
| | | | | |”
I don’t often see any this configuration. Do you have any pictures or are you exaggerating?
I’m west of Logan airport and I see many planes following the same routes. They are usually much more separated than what you are suggesting, but they do fly one after another after another all day. What you are claiming is more of a formation than planes following air routes…like the ones which create the trails where I live.
Again, pictures?
Precisely. And when I can record video suitable for sharing, I’ll be happy to add a youtube.com link. Despite walking around with a smartphone, these planes fly so high and so fast that it’s not always easy to capture what I see real-time, but I’ll endeavour to try.
Hugh:
You would if you breathed out into a saturated stratospheric layer at 35,000 feet, and a temperature of -40 deg C/F. Try it.
Spraying? So you could see the nozzles? You were using a camera fitted to a 6″ reflector telescope and motorized tracking mechanism, perhaps. Very diligent of you.
You assume the stratosphere is not in a constant state of CHANGE (where its speed, heading, and humidity will ALL vary, so as a consequence you will be wrong. Again.
my two cents: generally , i believe i can tell the difference between a sincere rock group and a corporate rock group. or to put it another way, someone who is internally or externally motivated. whomever is creating this sight seems to be internally motivated. this is a brilliant site with a brilliant researcher who cares.
having said that: going thru my context of vision based on ten years of examining “conspiracy”
evidence, i am still assuming the chemtrails are happening.
once you understand 911…, everything opens up and the implications turn the world upside down. my hat is off to this guy, i hope he moves to my side. we can use him.
Yup, everything revolves around 9/11.
The evidence is insurmountable!
/sarcasm
No plane flying above St. Pete at altitude is flying much faster than any other plane.
The fastest they could fly would be M.99 unless there is some secret program that has created the technology to fly faster than the speed of sound without making a boom.
This is just a preview of the much anticipated new in-depth documentary film coming soon by the highly renown investigative team of G. Edward Griffin and Mike Murphy producers of the much acclaimed film what in the World Are They Spraying? The title of this new one is tentatively called What in the World Are They sprinkling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
Unfortunately, there are MILLIONS of people just like dbootsthediva (“the crazy sprinkler lady”) in the world. And what’s even MORE unfortunate is that there are millions of other folks out there that will accept every word she says/writes as “fact”. Those people don’t need no stinkin’ book learnin’ to understand what they see in the sky!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2010/11/11/moos.mystery.contrail.mania.cnn?hpt=C2
A mention on CNN. Congrats!
Now that you mention it, I never saw the nozzles on those low-flying planes that used to spray for mosquitoes when I was young. But hey, if we can’t see ’em, then they must not be there. Or maybe they are: http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=chemtrail+nozzles&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1284&bih=503
The maximum speed for most commercial jet liners is 600 MPH. Mach 1 starts at just over 761 MPH, so there is enough room for a military/government jets to exceed the maximum cruising speed (by as much as 25%) at a much higher elevation than commercial traffic and still not break the sound barrier.
TFM, if you understood basic physics, you would question the story you’ve been told about WTC 7, assuming you even know about the third building on 9/11/01 to fall symmetrically into its own footprint that day at 5:30PM despite never being hit by a plane. If you had even the slightest idea about just how many cameras there are watching the Pentagon, you would understand why six or seven grainy, still frames from a crappy ID checkpoint camera just doesn’t do justice to the truth. A few years after the incident, a FOIA request was granted and the following video was released. Although it’s from a distance, I am sure you would agree that whatever hit the Pentagon was not an airplane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l7dr5QhuZI
If you realized just how criminal it was for Rudy Giuliani and Co. to tamper with the crime scene before a full investigation could be carried out, you would be scratching your head. If you paid more attention to the government’s brush-off of first responders, you’d see the corruption the same way that I do. But if you want to believe the government, the same unaccountable government that it was recently disclosed to have injected thousands of Guatemalans with syphillus, be my guest….ignorance is bliss.
What? Where did you get that number from? What FAR states that? We don’t even operate in MPH. It’s all knots. WHERE is Mach 1 761 MPH? Do you understand why I’m asking you that?
Every day I get to M.81. Citation 10s can get to M.92. The new G650 will sport .95. The old 727s used to routinely bust .90 I think. Do you know what speed that is in MPH because I don’t. I don’t know what that is in knots either. Unless you have all the info you can’t state that Mach 1 is xxxMPH.
Take the time to watch this documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw
Building 7 was a progressive collapse. One can easily tell that the weight of the penthouse was too much for the damaged building to support. No, not because of “fire” but because the tower collapse took out a key support. I have seen plenty of evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.
This site is about persistent contrails and the mistakes people make about them.
Keep your opinions about other hoaxes to yourself. It’s quite obvious that you need to learn a bit more about this subject. You must be very blissful. Please stop convincing yourself that you can’t learn anything about persistent contrails. There is plenty that you don’t understand.
No 9/11 please guys. I don’t want to have to start deleting that again.
Hugh
So, what do you make of my new post, where I explain the perspective?
https://contrailscience.com/contrails-are-usually-horizontal/
Make sure to watch the video, it helps visualize the curvature of the earth.
@Hugh: the speed of sound in air depends on the temperature. It is not a fixed speed.
@JazzRoc: Please review your ideas about air traffic, contrails and the stratosphere. Most of the air traffic is in the upper troposphere, below the tropopause. The stratosphere is above that boundary which, sometimes, is not very distinct. The boundary is marked by a change in temperature lapse rate.
Hugh:
Perhaps you ought to look around…
Everyone of those images is either innocent, mistaken, or FRAUDULENT, and most have been neatly DEBUNKED. Right HERE, on this site…
That you raise “911” proves to me that you lack some essential logical equipment, without which you could just as easily link the crucifixion story, or Genesis itself – you would merely need a little more time… LOL
Ross M:
The altitude of the tropopause varies between 18,000 feet at the poles and 38,000 feet at the equator. This boundary (with its change in lapse rate) is approximate and variable.
Above it the stratosphere is divided into seven “cells,” and layered with layers of varying humidity, through which jet streams fly. All these boundaries are also approximate and variable.
Seeing that commercial aviation arranges its flights to avoid the turbulence of the troposphere, the boundary of which is approximate and variable, and frequently pierced or displaced upwards by cumulo-nimbus thunderheads, this arrangement includes a nominal range of flight altitudes which, at POPULATED LATITUDES, extends between 27,000 feet and 39,000 feet.
I was talking about the layering of the stratosphere within nominal flight altitudes at populated latitudes, and so I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
Don’t you believe that the stratosphere is “in a constant state of CHANGE, where its speed, heading, and humidity will ALL vary”?
It’s always rather difficult to describe atmospheric processes without undertaking a science lesson, so try to give me the benefit of your doubt here.
Here you are: http://www.google.com/search?q=mach+1+to+mph
But, I’m guessing the “google” is mistaken with their calculator…my bad. I wasn’t aware that I was speaking with a family member of the Wright brothers.
Keep your fascist authoritarian ticks to yourself. If you don’t like the conversation, you’re FREE to mind your own business and IGNORE it.
Let me see here, your first two images are: the missile, and the space shuttle (for comparison). Excellent. You can stop right there, because unless you have yet ANOTHER shot of the missile to give it your “hypothetical” perspective, I remain unconvinced of your conjecture.
True, as is the speed of sound in any other medium. However. average speeds are normally used as a frame of reference, not unlike the average speed of sound in water that we used aboard the submarine to determine distance to the target (while understanding that depth, pressure, and salinity all play a factor in the ACTUAL speed at that moment).
And what credibility does this site’s author possess that gullible people like yourself would fall for such tripe?
How will you know if I have another shot if you don’t continue reading?
The track for 902 matches exactly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjjQPmKi8oM&feature=player_embedded
I have no credibility, but the images speak for themselves.
No- Google is not mistaken. Thier calculation is based on sea level, standard temp, standard pressure.
If you base your conclusions on false assumptions and false calculations then your conclusion is automatically false.
You claim that chemtrail planes move faster than regular planes. I have proven that they could not.
“Keep your fascist authoritarian ticks to yourself. If you don’t like the conversation, you’re FREE to mind your own business and IGNORE it.”
No, that’s not what I meant…the person who runs this site wants to keep it limited to the one topic. You did direct some of that 9/11 nonsense directly at me, and I was just simply telling you that it’s not allowed here.
“And what credibility does this site’s author possess that gullible people like yourself would fall for such tripe?”
Well, the fact that everything on this site is based on peer reviewed science and general aviation knowledge that has been well understood for several decades goes pretty far to establish the credibility of this site. Feel free to find anything on this site that isn’t backed up by millions of man hours of research. No, really…go for it!
Chemtrails are a hoax. And quite a good one.
@ captfitch
If you base your conclusions on false assumptions and false calculations then your conclusion is automatically false.
This very well sums up the problem with chemtrails, not just Hugh’s reckoning of what speed Mach 1 is.