|
|
Ellyn
Joined: 16 Jul 2000
Posts: 4458
|
Chemtrail Hall of Shame (a Web Site)
 Mon Sep 16, 2002 1:08 am
|
 |
|
CHEMTRAIL HALL OF SHAME
Documenting Illegal Spraying Operations above the Pacific Northwest
Feature Abstract: 2002 Chemtrails over America
The most comprehensive research report on Chemtrails and the military applications to date.
http://lookupabove.tripod.com/chemtrailsoveramerica/
This report differs from most research on Chemtrail because of the credentials of the sources and the extent of the research. If you are unaware of this blatant disregard for the atmosphere and biosphere.... then this synopsis is a real eye-opener. Read how our leaders insist on playing GOD, without permission or safeguards. - Lightman
http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/hos.html
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Ellyn on 09-15-2002] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:08 am
|
|
|
That site is the same old blather about military operations or hypothetical scenarios that have nothing to with the awesome contrail pictures that are posted therein. Putting a bunch of military pictures together with a few weather radar pictures with bad displays and pseudi-scientific gibberish about barium salts is reminiscent of a cheap 50's sci-fi film. Quit showing us contrail pictures and give us some good old-fahioned chemtrails. If this stuff were secret and coherent, you wouldn't know about it and neither would the highly respected researchers who are so thoroughly documented on this site. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:43 pm
|
|
|
C'mon Canex... surely someone at NASA must have an inkling as to what is going on...
Questions:
Do 'we' have the capability (opportunity) to create artificial cirrus clouds via aerial injection?
Do 'we' have any interest (motive) in doing so?
Has any military think tank recommended that we agressively pursue weather engineering? Have they analyzed the political and public health ramifications (goes to credibility)?
Do we not have the capability to suppress persistant contrail formation? If we wanted to?
And given the choice, would you rather have blue skies or...
Thanks for the link, Ellyn. I thought the site was very well done.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 09-16-2002] |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:38 pm
|
|
|
Questions:
"Do 'we' have the capability (opportunity) to create artificial cirrus clouds via aerial injection?"
Yes, commercial and military air traffic create artificial cirrus clouds every day somewhere in the world by injecting exhaust from their jet engines into a cold moist atmosphere.
"Do 'we' have any interest (motive) in doing so?"
Not that I know of. Contrails would not be an effective means for suppressing global warming. Most likely, they enhance it.
"Has any military think tank recommended that we agressively pursue weather engineering? Have they analyzed the political and public health ramifications (goes to credibility)?"
Possibly, but military think tanks recommend all sorts of things that are neither feasible, well-thought out, nor likely to be implemented. The military or anyone else wants way better-than-average odds. Large-scale intentional weather modification won't happen for a long, long time because the outcomes are too unpredictable. If they were, you would have a highly accurate weather forecast for the next 3 months instead of one that is only accurate to 80% in the next 24 hours.
"Do we not have the capability to suppress persistant contrail formation? If we wanted to?"
There may be some stealth technology that can suppress contrails. If there is, then it is too expensive or secret (probably both) to use on regular aircraft. Planes could fly higher or lower or around the conditions that form contrails but that would require a much better air traffic control system, not to mention a vastly improved weather prediction system. Or you could quit flying. Not a whole that can be done about contrails right now. If the motivation were higher (proved climate change effects maybe) then perhaps some money would go toward new technologies. But the case has not been made and spending billions on new technologies won't happen if all we can do is show pictures of contrails and complain that we have fewer blue skies than we used to have. The health effect argument won't work, because there is none. The climate impact is about the only argument to warrant big investment and it has not been made suffciently yet.
|
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Tue Sep 17, 2002 12:00 am
|
|
|
quote:
Contrails would not be an effective means for suppressing global warming. Most likely, they enhance it.
Yes, that has been my observation as well.
quote:
If they were, you would have a highly accurate weather forecast for the next 3 months instead of one that is only accurate to 80% in the next 24 hours
I predict heavy trail activity and artificial cloud coverage for the Tampa area six out of seven days for each week for the next 90 days. Wanna bet that I run a better average than 80%?
quote:
There may be some stealth technology that can suppress contrails. If there is, then it is too expensive or secret (probably both) to use on regular aircraft
This capability was well advertised by the Weather Modification Test Technolog Symposium (1997) so I don't know how secret it can be. As far as expense is concerned, I doubt a fuel additive would be prohibitively so.
quote:
The climate impact is about the only argument to warrant big investment and it has not been made suffciently yet.
No, and it doesn't seem likely that it will be...
"Contrails are denser and block sunlight much more than natural cirrus clouds," said Travis, who conducted the study with Andrew Carleton of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. They reported the findings this week in the journal Nature.
"And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out," he said. "When this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 09-16-2002] |
| |
|
|
Unhappy Trails
Joined: 10 May 2002
Posts: 256
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:47 am
|
|
|
Lightman's cool. |
| |
|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
|
Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:59 am
|
|
|
I 2nd that! |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:20 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by canex:
"Do 'we' have any interest (motive) in doing so?"
Not that I know of. Contrails would not be an effective means for suppressing global warming. Most likely, they enhance it.
You know canex - I remember years ago hearing daily reports that we were heading into a new ice age and things were getting steadily colder and now - the same crowd is saying that the earth is getting warmer and we need to do a great many things to keep it from happening. When we get this peculiar cloud cover that we've been getting persistently for months now as well as the persistent trails that are seen almost on a daily basis now, the temperatures are anywhere from 10 to 20 degrees above normal. On the rare days that there is no cloud cover and lack of trails, the temperatures are normal.
If anything, there seems to be a movement to make global warming a reality and not to suppress it. To make us think that we, the United States is poluting the environment when other countries, that now have the majority of out heavy industries, are doing a lot more damage than we are. Hell, some countries still use leaded gas.
People keep mentioning that the ice caps are melting in the arctic and are saying that global warming is causing it. Yes they are melting, but not because of the temperature of the air, but the temperature of the water that is most likely being caused by volcanic activity.
One would think that if the Arctic was getting warmer, then the Antarctic would be getting warmer as well. Well it isn't.
Check out this thread for reference. http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum22/HTML/000051.html
quote:
A discovery that it is much colder over the South Pole than believed has exposed a major flaw in the computer models used to predict global warming, a new scientific paper claims.
U.S. scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station say they have measured the temperature of the atmosphere 30 to 110 kilometers (18 to 68 miles) over the pole and found it is 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade (68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than computer models showed.
Now information like this makes me think that one component of this chemtrail operation, that you say doesn't exist, is to control the weather including temperature as well as rain fall as some of us have suspected for a while now.
There's also the matter of this Vortex project that NASA has been working on and that little photo that just happened to be on the NASA web site 
though, no information concerning it was available on the site. Yes it was supposedly a real project that was first reported by the Chritian Science Monitor in 1997.
Tuesday December 9, 1997 Edition
NASA Project Seeks to Save Air Travelers 700,000 Hours
Richard Bachus, Special to The Christian Science Monitor HAMPTON, VA. -- Who couldn't use more time? NASA is spending $12 million to save air travelers 700,000 hours in the next decade by landing planes a little closer together.
One way to do that is to better understand a phenomenon called wake vortex - the turbulence that spirals off aircraft wings, forcing air-traffic controllers to space out landings.
Decreasing the spacings may save only half a minute or so between individual flights, but the long-range benefits of the wake-vortex project are sweeping. At 10 major airports researchers studied in a computer model, the time savings over 10 years would not only save passengers hassle, but also save air carriers hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel costs and other expenses as planes spend less time in holding patterns.
The program is still in its early stages, but one of the biggest defenders of airline safety has already given its seal of approval.
"The capacity and safety sides of things are all in one," says Michael Lewis, director of NASA's aviation-safety program. "The only way to get increased capacity is if it can be done safely."
NASA's Aircraft Vortex Spacing System, which is being run out of the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., is one of three programs aimed at helping the industry increase airport capacity by as much as 15 percent.
Preliminary tests were held at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport in October, and all three programs are scheduled to end by 2000.
The system is expected to improve airport capacity primarily during poor visibility, when pilots rely on their instruments instead of their eyes - conditions that NASA researchers conservatively estimate exist about 12 percent of the time.
When pilots must rely on their instruments to land, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that inbound planes be spaced 2.5 to 6 nautical miles apart. These distances could be cut if the project can more accurately predict how long it takes wake vortices to dissipate.
Typically, the bigger the plane, the stronger the vortices it leaves in its wake. Smaller planes following too closely behind a larger plane can lose control if they encounter a strong wake vortex. But vortices can also be unruly as wind conditions change.
"I can show you pictures that have these things all over the sky," says Brad Perry, a NASA project manager. While wake vortices are blown out of the flight path quickly if there is a crosswind, they can hang in the air for minutes during calm weather.
Through their research, the NASA scientists hope to develop a system that will be able to predict what happens to wake vortices in various conditions, so air-traffic controllers can line up planes earlier.
"Once a plane is aligned with the runway, it is too late to adjust," says Dave Hinton, the NASA aerospace technologist heading up the program. "
Controllers are controlling the airspace 25 to 50 miles out, and they coordinate with controllers who direct multistate air traffic. Our system will be able to make wake predictions for [15- to 60-minute] periods, based on weather.
"According to a 1994 National Transportation Safety Board report, at least 51 incidents in the US between 1983 and 1993 were the result of "probable encounters with wake vortices."
In those incidents, 27 people were killed and eight were seriously injured. And although NASA's primary concern is capacity, officials say their research may improve wake-vortex safety through the system's ability to predict turbulence problems before they happen.
Indeed, one possible spinoff of the research could be airborne-detection systems that would allow pilots to see wake turbulence in their flight paths.
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/12/09/us/us.3.html
According to the article, the research was scheduled to be completed by 2000 and yet I have not seen too mmuch information from NASA concerning it.
Why bother with doing research into something that doesn't seem to be a major problem anyway?
quote:
"According to a 1994 National Transportation Safety Board report, at least 51 incidents in the US between 1983 and 1993 were the result of "probable encounters with wake vortices."
In those incidents, 27 people were killed and eight were seriously injured.
Something here just doesn't seem to make sense.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-17-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Thu Sep 19, 2002 3:52 am
|
|
|
Wake turbulence is a serious problem...while there haven't been too many deaths, there have been many scares, and many overstressed airplanes. I've personally been tossed about 90 degrees of bank by a departing 737...scary when you're only a few hundred feet from the ground, but luckily my episode occured a couple thousand of feet up.
One little heads-up on NASA programs....those of us that fly 'real' airplanes and have 'real' jobs (most NASA guys deal with academic subjects) view NASA projects as simply "nice idea, but not really realistic". There's currently several programs being studied that are simply way to far ahead of their time. One would be the new synthetic vision, which would replace windows with a computer screen so the pilots could see "outside" in any weather....but the technology simply isn't reliable enough to make it safe.
Another program is the future light airplane being developed by NASA, whereby they hope they can make an airplane that is dummy-proof fly as a car is to drive.....knowing how stupid humans can be, it's not likely to work.
Then there's that mythical "free flight" program...we've gone a long ways (by using GPS technologies and starting to implement TCAS and RVSM), but we've got an even longer way to go to get there. I'll be retired by the time "free flight" comes online.
So yeah, NASA does alot of interesting research, but very little of it actually has any direct and immediate impact on everyday flying. And most of it is so complicated and expensive that it's just not feasible. |
| |
|
|
GAS_MASK
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 151
|
|
Thu Sep 19, 2002 5:45 am
|
|
|
quote:
So yeah, NASA does alot of interesting research, but very little of it actually has any direct and immediate impact on everyday flying. And most of it is so complicated and expensive that it's just not feasible.
Since when has that stopped the goverment?  |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 2:02 am
|
|
|
back to the original topic...on lightman(watcher)'s chemtrail page it claims :
"Regardless, each day these illegal aerial spraying programs introduce countless tons of toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil. The substances quickly contaminate the human , bird and animal populations assimilating through the lungs, skin and digestive systems"
but if you go to the lightwatcher's home page there is a link to the most recent news about how humans are living longer than ever before...
http://www.lightwatcher.com/index.html
can't have it both ways you know...lol...
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
KrissaTMC2
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Location: Greenwich, CT, USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 4:03 am
|
|
|
Maybe that's the problem T/S, we're living too long.
There's no major plagues like there used to be ...yet or major high casualty wars like we used to have ...yet. Oh hell, one tecate with a lime coming up.
It's all like any government project, multi- faceted and tailor made to those who are funding it. Look at most of the bills in congress or that classic Honeymooners "chef-of-the-future" episode. "I know it can cause a drought --- but can it knock a few years off someone's life? --- and even more importantly.... http://www.pusboil.com/coreapp.wav
As far as NASA is concerned ... you just can't trust anyone who says that they paid over $10 for a toilet seat. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 4:19 am
|
|
|
lol...
hey now I paid more than $10 bucks for one of those fancy wooden seats...
It's all like any government project, multi- faceted and tailor made to those who are funding it.
or (regarding spraying) absolutely normal commercial expansion of air traffic...and twist that lime for me sugar
mmmmmm
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
KrissaTMC2
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Location: Greenwich, CT, USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 4:50 am
|
|
|
Well that's a wood one T/S. I'm talkin' about he average cheap plastic ones. Things that cost us under $10 seem to cost them over $100.
I wish that it was just normal commercial expansion but hell T/S, when you see a parade of jets all making trails that lasts over an hour with the majority of them traveling in the same direction with one appearing as the other one goes out of sight like Dan, my sisters and I did, you tend to doubt that it's just "normal." - I've been on and around jets before - ducking for cover as they prepare to make their runs... and been pushed out of a big old plane more than once and when you see these supposedly "normal commercial jets" fly in formations of 2 or more - equally spaced, same direction, speed and altitude, then you know it just can't be "normal".
Twisting that lime now 
|
| |
|
|
Yodabreath
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 67
|
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 3:47 am
|
|
|
quote:
I wish that it was just normal commercial expansion but hell T/S, when you see a parade of jets all making trails that lasts over an hour with the majority of them traveling in the same direction with one appearing as the other one goes out of sight like Dan, my sisters and I did, you tend to doubt that it's just "normal."
That is normal. This is exactly what you'd expect to see from airline traffic approaching or taking off in accordance to ATC published approach corridors and standard instrument departures. If they are making contrails then they are most likely flying on published airways having reached contrailing altitudes.
Jets can appear from the ground to be flying in formation, when in reality they are complying with ATC vectors or approved IFR flight plans and flying well within proper ATC sequencing and separation standards for IFR aircraft.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Yodabreath on 09-20-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 4:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
