posted 10-22-2000 06:16 PM            

quote:

---

What's odd about this is that there were just two bits of the trail as in the first picture for at least 4 minutes before the trail started again and continued up and over. I checked, there were no scheduled launches from Vandenburg. This was a little south from Vandenburg anyway. Anybody got any suggestions of what left this contrail?

---

posted 10-22-2000 07:53 PM              

So many photos are taken after the fact that one just can't tell much in retrospect sometimes.

posted 10-22-2000 10:19 PM            

I think Elvis has cracked the case on this one, notice how the lead plane is emitting no trail...

posted 10-22-2000 11:12 PM            

Look very close all you "nozzel" spray-proponents.....

Are you looking....good....now see how the smoke comes right out of the nozzel...right at the plane...

Now that you see this and see it clearly show me one contrail/chemtrail photo that exhibits this same 'at the plane' dispursement.....

No clifford carnicom retouches please !

Ha ! click..click....

posted 10-23-2000 03:09 AM            

I consider some of those commercial flights and most definately non-sequetor...

One of them is retouched...

Some of them reflect an aircraft in distress ?

Pulling up...maybe ?

I'm glad someone caught the gravity of that question.....

It is huge !

I do question Carnicom and Thomas' integrity.

out

posted 10-23-2000 10:07 AM              

Carnicom states "This plane, to the best of my ability, is currently being identified
as a Boeing 757."
" Assuming this is the case, the altitude of this aircraft during spray conditions has been calculated photogrammetrically at approximately 40,000 ft. above mean sea level. This is the third altitude computation which has been completed, and the results range from 39,000ft to 45,000 ft above MSL."
"The majority of aircraft identified with telephotos under spray conditions (Santa Fe NM) thus far appear to be of the Boeing 757 class, but this assessment is subject to revision if additional information is provided or becomes available"
"These photos show once again emissions which extend across the entire wingspan, and consequently they can not emanate solely from the engines of the aircraft, which in this case are rear mounted (tentatively identified as a MD80, a derivative of the originally identified McDonnell Douglas DC9; further identification assistance has been provided by a pilot of 10000 hrs military, civilian, and commercial time)."
"

It is interesting to note that by the summer of 1999,over one year ago, I notified Carnicom of theusefulness of Flight Explorer http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/review.html
to identify commercial flights. He and Charles Warren were the first to be notified
of this software, which was available FREE for a two-week trial. They rejected use of it at that time, because they said it did not track MILITARY flights. To date, carnicom has not mentioned use of this software, though I believe that under oath, he would be forced to testify to using it and identifying planes which conform to his "chemtrail" definition as normal commercial flights.

***************************************
I, Jay Reynolds, herein challenge Clifford Carnicom to confirm or deny if he has in fact made use of fight explorer software and if so, to disclose the results of such usage.
*****************************************

posted 10-23-2000 10:25 AM            

quote:

---

One of them is retouched...

---

posted 10-23-2000 01:40 PM            

cy, it is not my place to prove of disprove, as I said carnicom's pictures don't count because his credibility is suspect....

Find a picture with the trail coming directly from the craft,If carnicom is the only one that has these type pictures that should tell you something...shouldn't it !

Thermit I will retract nothing, now if clifford would send me the negatives of all those pictures...after examination, if they are genuine, I would retract....but I won't retract out of respect, because I have none for the man.....

LTC, butt in any time...I remember the "tree frog" hoax of cliffie......

make it a good aday everyone !

posted 10-23-2000 09:51 PM              

I do have one other comment. Though I have seen contrails start an stop behind the plane, many of the most abrupt "starting-stopping" photos look like aging contrails long after the plane has passed.

In other words, the contrail may have been continuous when created, but as it decayed, some sections persisted, and some disappeared altogether.

Such a situation could not be used as evidence of "shutting off pumps, valves closing, etc., because the original trail would be continuous.

Often times failure of the photographer to catch in-progress shots as well as later images leaves great gaps in possible interpretation.

posted 10-23-2000 10:07 PM            

Number 5 looks fake mainly because the 'grainy' look seems to be background and the trail and the really white commercial plane show no signs of graininess....hmmmm...

Any possibility all of these megasprayers are planes in holding patterns dumping fuel...

Sounds more logical to me than the NWO reptilians spraying black mold.....

posted 10-24-2000 08:24 AM              

Klaus Gierens and Johan Stroms
DLR, Institut Physik Atmosph
D-82234 Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University,
S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden

Aircraft condensation trails are usually thought to form mainly from condensation of ambient water
vapor onto soot and other aerosol particles that originate from the fuel combustion in the jet engines
(e.g. K\"archer et al.1996). However, aircraft are also able to produce large concentrations of ice
crystals without involving exhaust particles. An example of such a phenomenon, termed APIP
(Aircraft Produced Ice Particles; see e.g. Rangno and Hobbs, 1983; Sassen, 1991; Foster and
Hallett, 1993) occurs when an aircraft moves through a super-cooled cloud. The mechanisms
thought to be responsible are splintering on leading surfaces and adiabatic cooling near the aircraft
and propeller tips.

It is interesting to note that the mere disturbance of the air by the aircraft is able to form cloud
particles. Aerodynamic cloud formation might not be restricted to temperatures warmer than
-30~\Celsius, for which the APIP phenomenon has been studied so far. In the temperature range
between -30 and -60~\Celsius\ which corresponds to the crusing altitudes of commercial airtraffic,
the most important ice nucleation process seems to be freezing of haze droplets at relative humidities
near water saturation (i.e. above ice saturation). Thus, is it possible that the turbulence alone from an
aircraft flying through a metastable atmosphere, with reference to humidity, can form an APIP trail?
The magnitude of the vertical air motion caused by the trailing vortices behind a big airliner can be on
the order of meters per second, which results in very strong turbulence (evident to anyone who have
been flying close behind an other aircraft). If an airparcel in the wake of the aircraft is lifted to the
point where the humidity is increased enough for homogeneous freezing to occur, a cloud would
rapidly form.

To test the hypothesis: that it is possible for an aircraft to form a contrail by the aerodynamic effects
from the aircraft alone, we have performed numerical simulations of ice cloud formation in the wake
of an aircraft flying at cruise altitude. The engine exhaust has been excluded from the simulations in
order to study cloud formation due to aerodynamic effects. The ice is formed via homogeneous
freezing nucleation of ambient haze droplets in the upwelling limbs of the vortex pair behind the
aircraft. Properties of wake ice clouds are compared with properties of contrails obtained with in situ
measurements and recent simulations. In particular, we find that aerodynamically induced ice clouds
are similar in microphysical and radiative respects to contrails that are formed from the nucleation of
exhaust particles. The results show that significant fractions of contrails as young as 2 to 5 minutes
may originate from aerodynamic effects and not only from nucleation of the exhaust particles.

posted 10-24-2000 06:23 PM            

"Hey, I notice that you didn't respond to my remarks regarding aircraft in fomation flight, and the FAR I cite that expressly prohibits this activity in commercial aircraft (which you seemed unaware of)."

I would love to see that PHOTO you have of those commercial airplanes flying in formation.

roflmao.....