|
|
iseechemtrails
Joined: 17 Feb 2002
Posts: 1
|
Taking Direct Samples of Chemtrails
 Sun Feb 17, 2002 9:23 pm
|
 |
|
To All,
I asked previously if anyone has taken a direct sample of a chemtrail. A reply came back that it would cost $30,000. Why it would I have no idea. Chemtrails are produced between 9,000 and 12,000 feet MSL. I did a little research on private airplane capabilities. The Cessna 182 Skylane has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet MSL. It typically costs $55/hour to rent one. How difficult would it be to make some tubes with screw tops, rent a Cessna, fly to another part of a state(outside of controlled airspace) at chemtrail level, stick your hand out the window with a sampling tube or two, and then land at the airport and mail the tube for analysis? I would no try it because government agents might be waiting for you at the airport you at which you land. If anyone has the gonads to do this try it! I suspect the cost would be around $150 dollars. You might want to wear an Israeli gask mask when you attempt it lest you become ill. Also, have a decontamination procedure for the airplane and yourself and the pilot. Maybe take along a good camera with a high power telephoto lenss to photograph the aircraft that are spraying. Take parachutes along! The aircraft might get zapped with a EM weapon and fry the electrical system. Would love to hear feedback on this idea! |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Sun Feb 17, 2002 10:53 pm
|
|
|
Dear Iseechemtrails:
Your suggestion brings up some interesting issues.
“Chemtrails are produced between 9,000 and 12,000 feet MSL.”
Most contrails (as opposed to ‘chemtrails’) have been correlated by many people using Flight Explorer with commercial flights at an altitude of between 8000 and 10,000 meters (26000-33000 ft). Our host, the redoubtable Mr. Thermit, has made an extensive study of this, as has another researcher, Ms. Phalen. The difficulty would be in determining, after you have already arranged for the use of the chase aircraft, which of the trails you see in the sky are actually at 8,000 feet; if there are none at that altitude, you’ve just rented a sightseeing tour of the local neighborhood.
“I did a little research on private airplane capabilities. The Cessna 182 Skylane has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet MSL. It typically costs $55/hour to rent one.”
I must confess, although I have flown both the 152 and 172, I have never actually piloted a 182. However, many of my colleagues at work are pilots, and they tell me that a Skylane here in Arizona typically rents for $85/hr. Furthermore, they have no sliding or roll-down windows. You must open the door against a 120+mi/hr slipstream to perform any collecting operations; I doubt if the pilot would agree to that.
“…stick your hand out the window with a sampling tube or two….”
Even if you could ‘stick your hand out the window’ a simple sampling tube probably wouldn’t do the job, because of tremendous vortices which would blow most of the collected air (and whatever contaminants were there) back out the tube again. There are air-sampling pitot tubes available which allow the ambient air to pass through and trap any particulates in a collection area which can be sized base on filter-size, subject to subsequent spectroanalysis, or even put into an agar culture dish to determine the presence of microorganisms. And again, youd need to figure a way to mount the pitot tube on the side of the aircraft, and use a remote-opening and closing technique to actually capture the samples. This could require some modification to the airframe (to which the aircraft owner might object); and would certainly raise the price significantly.
“…government agents might be waiting for you at the airport … have a decontamination procedure for the airplane and yourself and the pilot … wear an Israeli gask mask … Take parachutes along! The aircraft might get zapped with a EM weapon and fry the electrical system…”
I personally do not think that any of those concerns would arise, but, if they were a possibility, it would be an excellent reason why neither you nor I would want to get involved in such an endeavor!
I do believe that in-situ collection of contrail aerosols is the only way to determine whether aircraft contrails are indeed anything but ice and combustion byproducts. But I also think you will probably not have any contrails of any kind at eight to ten thousand feet; and if you did, the cost to collect them in an acceptable manner would be quite expensive – not counting the requirements for a series of chemical analyses by a reputable laboratory. Also, if the potentials for catastrophe are as high as you seem to think, I doubt if you’d be able to talk anyone into going there.
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@home.com
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Duncan Kunz on 02-17-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:43 am
|
|
|
youd need to figure a way to mount the pitot tube on the side of the aircraft, and use a remote-opening and closing technique to actually capture the samples.
In case the reason for this isn't obvious, you only want to take your sample at a particular location. If the pitot tube were open outside the chemtrail, people could accuse you of sampling the air on the airport runway, or just the local smog.
Now I'll put on my Moderator scarf: Welcome, iseechemtrails! It's good to have another sky observer here at Chemtrail Central! I notice that you've also registered as "seeingchemtrails." Since some of us are easily confused, could you please post under just one of your handles, and tell Thermit which one he can discontinue? That way us old fogies won't have to remember that two handles are just one person. Thanks! |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 17, 2012 12:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
