+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: Science and Technology (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Science-and-Technology)
+--- Thread: Chemtrails (/Thread-Chemtrails--3846)
Chemtrails - Jack White - 07-08-2010
Sam Kent Wrote:I have a few problems with the chemtrails.
To Jack White:
Why is every trail in the sky you see a chemtrail?
Don’t you have any contrails from any airplanes in DFW?
I see videos of these supposed chemtrails where the spraying is on and off. But there isn’t any engine condensation trails in between the spraying. So are we to believe they shut down the engines for those few seconds where there is no spraying?
If the whole thing is supposed to be a secret, why do they spray during the daytime? Shouldn’t they do it at night? You did say the stuff hangs around for hours didn’t you?
The attached illustrates the difference. Up very high you
see a plane leaving a CONTRAIL, caused by heated air meeting
cold air, causing condensation. Contrails are caused by engine heat.
The two much large CHEMTRAILS illustrate the difference. Chemtrails
are not from the engines, but from spray vents in the wings, releasing
chemical and particulate matter into the air.
Contrails evaporate quickly as the hot air cools. Chemtrails do not
vanish, but morph into cirrus clouds.
I cannot answer your other questions.
Jack
Chemtrails - Sam Kent - 07-08-2010
Jack you are well published on the web. Couldn't you go to one of the many respected news departments in the DFW area and get a few minutes of video air time to alert the 1.3 million or so people to look up?
Why is it that no one else is seeing them?
Chemtrails - Jan Klimkowski - 07-08-2010
Sam Kent Wrote:Jack you are well published on the web. Couldn't you go to one of the many respected news departments in the DFW area and get a few minutes of video air time to alert the 1.3 million or so people to look up?
Why is it that no one else is seeing them?
Sam Kent - you've been a member of DPF for a couple of days, and have posted 3 times.
Your first post asked Jack White some questions about chemtrails. Jack answered you civilly.
You have responded with sarcasm.
There is no place for such behaviour on DPF, particularly when you have so far failed to demonstrate any research credentials of your own, or any awareness of deep politics.
Please note and abide by the following DPF rules of engagement, which you have agreed to by becoming a member of this forum:
Quote:15. The deep politics forum is not an arena for the right and the left to bait each other. There are plenty of forums on the internet for keyboard warriors to call political opponents names, or to post crude propaganda.
DPF will close the membership of any poster whose rationale, as revealed through their posts, is to engage in crude political baiting, and who shows no understanding of, and no desire to learn, about deep politics.
This is, and will remain, the deep politics forum.
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58
Chemtrails - Jack White - 07-08-2010
Originally Posted by Sam Kent
Jack you are well published on the web. Couldn't you go to one of the many respected news departments in the DFW area and get a few minutes of video air time to alert the 1.3 million or so people to look up?
Why is it that no one else is seeing them?
Kent is poorly informed. Millions are seeing them, but
most are equally uninformed. Kent also exaggerates my
importance to local news departments. Television weather
people have been informed to refer to them as contrails.
Jack
Chemtrails - Sam Kent - 10-08-2010
I apologize to all for my transgression.
I still have a problem with the identification of actual chemtrails.
To make a positive ID on something you must already know what it should look like.
Example:
To identify an auto from 3-4 miles away we must look for the identifying characteristics of an auto. Like 2 round objects equal distant from opposite ends and a bulbous area slightly off set from the center line. We all would recognize it as an automobile since we see them every day.
But recognizing a chemtrail? Who has actually seen an actual chemtrail? This would have to be someone on the inside. This person would have had to watch the loading of some chemical onto a plane and then seen the spraying. A whistle blower. Where are these people with their pictures? Every news paper in the country would love to get a scoop of this magnitude. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? It defined their careers. If you want to secure your news job for life in these times of layoffs and company failures, get your name on the 'by line' of the century.
How do we know it's chemicals being sprayed? Just because some web blogger says so?
I'll do you one better. I know what it is. It's baby milk! Yes milk. Here's my proof.
These trails last longer and disperse slower that contrails right.
What's better than something that starts white and stays white? Even though it spreads out, the particulate matter stays white and creates a hazy milky sky.
Why milk you ask? Easy. The government has been supporting the dairy industry for decades. Now with the modern dairy farming methods we have far too much milk. The government fears a collapse in the price structure of dairy products. The best way to stave off a collapse is to remove product (milk).
But how to get rid of the milk? You can't just dump it down the drain because it will sour the mash (so to speak) of the public waste treatment plants. You can't dump it into the ocean as the beach combers and day sailors will see the white patches of water. There's no better way to dispose of it than dumping it out of a an airplane. It's hard to get caught with your pants down in this scenario. Who's going to question a series of milk trucks driving down the road. We see them almost every day. And if you get suspicious and pull one over, what a surprise, It's got milk! No cop is going to investigate any farther than that. Airports need milk too don't they?
Not to pick on Jack but in post #21 you state:
Quote:The "sawtooth" feature seems to be a new feature to cause the chemtrails to have
a more natural cirrus-like appearance when they disperse.
If it will let me post a picture, your picture matches a picture I found from 1940. The sawtooth pattern is nothing new.
![[Image: 1944-91st-bomber-contrails.jpg]](http://consci.s3.amazonaws.com//images/1944-91st-bomber-contrails.jpg)
From my analysis and this picture we must have been spraying the Nazis' with baby milk!
Chemtrails - Jack White - 10-08-2010
Recognizing chemtrails and contrails?
Simple.
Contrails are short and evaporate quickly.
Chemtrails are hundreds of times bigger, emanate from
spray nozzles instead of engines, turn into cirrus clouds,
and do not disappear, but form a hazy, milky sky.
The milky sky is what Dr. Teller proposed to prevent
"global warming".
Simple.
Contrails are formed when heated moisture in engine exhaust
condenses in cold air. There is little moisture left in exhaust
after fuel is burned, so contrails are small.
Chemtrails are particulate matter and chemicals which expand
in cold air, making huge clouds. There is NOT ENOUGH MOISTURE
IN JET FUEL TO FORM CHEMTRAILS. Chemtrails come from spray
nozzles, not engines.
Simple.
Jack
Chemtrails - Sam Kent - 10-08-2010
Jack do you agree that the photo I provided from 1940 shows the exact same saw tooth pattern?
Chemtrails - Matthew Lewis - 11-08-2010
Jack White Wrote:Recognizing chemtrails and contrails?Wrong. Here's a study from nearly 70 years ago that says otherwise.
Simple.
Contrails are short and evaporate quickly.
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474.pdf
Note the top of page 5 (internally numbered page 4) which specifically mentions persistent trails. Since I've posted this study multiple times before in threads you've participated in I can only believe that you have purposely ignored it.
Jack White Wrote:Chemtrails are hundreds of times bigger, emanate fromReally? What about all this evidence showing CONTRAILS from times long before "chemtrail" believers say they started, and from before Dr. Teller proposed anything, which show and describe the same things other people say are "chemtrails"?
spray nozzles instead of engines, turn into cirrus clouds,
and do not disappear, but form a hazy, milky sky.
The milky sky is what Dr. Teller proposed to prevent
"global warming".
Simple.
A post from another person on a completely unrelated forum that mentions proof from 1981 ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's)
Quote:The Peterson Field Guide Series A Field Guide to the Atmosphere Houghton Mifflin Company 1981.Older movies showing persistent contrails ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's)
Has many interesting things about contrails in it.
Photograph page 132 Pl.145 V - Condensation trail from a jet plane that produces its shadow on a diffuse mass of ice crystals extending downward below the contrail and the sun.
(This shoots to hell the dark "chemtrail" BS chemtrailers try to pass and not only shows one in 1981 or earlier but also explains why the phenomenon occurs.
Photograph page 132 Pl.146 - The condensation trail of a jet plane that is growing where the moist air is supersaturated with the respect to ice. This show that the contrail is located below the thin streamers of ice.
This photo is the same as many posted by many chemtrailers that they claim can ONLY BE the result of "chemical spraying". But here we have an example from 1981 or earlier that shows these phenomenon were seen a full decade before claims of chemtrail spraying.
now for some text from page 137:
In this era of high-flying aircraft, condensation trails - contrails - are a commonly observed feature of the sky. Sometimes they are ephemeral and dissapate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus. Sometimes they maintain their integrity as a line of cloud formed in the wake of the rapidly moving aircraft; at other times they develop a series of pendules from which streamers of precipitation are observed to fall.
Contrails are a fascinating subject for study, sufficiently complex to challenge the expert and sufficiently variable to intrigue the amateur observer. Properly understood they yield a wealth of information about the current state of affairs in the high atmosphere, where it is difficult to locate weather instruments. Observed systematically, as a function of time, contrail information is a valuable adjunct to forecasting the weather.
Many other examples and photos showing phenomenon claimed by chemtrailers as only being possible by nefarious ways. In text and photos from 1981 or earlier.
Basically this information shoots down most claims made by the chemtrailers. Shoots down and tramples in the earth.
The Peterson Field Guide Series was sponsored by the National Audubon Society.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065670/goofs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066740/goofs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044413/goofs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057940/goofs
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068421/goofs
Newspaper articles describing spreading persistent contrails from the 40's 50's and 70's here ("chemtrail" believers again claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's)
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
Life magazine photos from the 40's and on showing persistent contrails ("chemtrail" believers claim there were never persistent trails before the late 90's)
http://contrailscience.com/life-magazine-contrail-photos/
Persistent contrails from 1940
http://contrailscience.com/fightercontrails-over-kent-1941/
Persistent contrails from 1967
http://contrailscience.com/thirty-contrails-forty-years-ago/
Pre WWII description of lingering contrails that turned to cirrus and showed rainbow colors (both things "chemtrail" believers say only happens with "chemtrails")
http://contrailscience.com/pre-wwii-contrails/
1991 photo of a pendulous contrail (or sawtooth as Jack called it in a previous post) with a short explanation of the cause
http://consci.s3.amazonaws.com//wp-content/uploads/1991-day-p47-2.jpg
Clouds before powered flight that look a lot like clouds "chemtrail" believers claim are man made
http://contrailscience.com/clouds-before-planes-cloud-studies-1905/
Jack White Wrote:Contrails are formed when heated moisture in engine exhaustWrong.
condenses in cold air. There is little moisture left in exhaust
after fuel is burned, so contrails are small.
Chemtrails are particulate matter and chemicals which expand
in cold air, making huge clouds. There is NOT ENOUGH MOISTURE
IN JET FUEL TO FORM CHEMTRAILS.
Same study as above
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474.pdf
Page 2 and 3 (internally numbered page 1 and 2)
"When aviation gasoline is burned in an engine, about 1.25 pounds of water is formed as vapor and discharged with the exhaust for each pound of fuel burned."
Anyone familiar with chemistry can tell you that is typical of any hydrocarbon. When burned the exhaust is composed of water and various levels of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide depending on how completely it is burned.
Again, I must conclude that you have purposely ignored these FACTS.
Jack White Wrote:Chemtrails come from sprayWhy do the majority of pictures on "chemtrail" sites purporting to show "chemtrails" show them coming from the engines?
nozzles, not engines.
Simple.
Jack
Chemtrails - Jack White - 11-08-2010
Fanatical defenders seem to have a hidden agenda.
Chemtrails - Matthew Lewis - 11-08-2010
Jack White Wrote:Fanatical defenders seem to have a hidden agenda.Just a love of aviation and an abhorrence of ignorance.