posted 10-30-2000 04:20 AM            

I admit I have not followed all the arguments on this board; maybe there is agreement between you and the skeptics/debunkers on this. If this is the case, I apologize; bring me up to date, and we shall move on.

However, I do have some concerns about your three statements. Perhaps it is only a matter of semantics. Let me take a whack at each of them.

“Fact1: Chemtrails which are often seen laid down in formation and parallel lines are not made by commercial passenger aircraft.”

Why not? I consider parallel contrails indicative of parallel aircraft. Since many commercial aircraft fly the same routes at the same time, I’d think that most parallel contrails were made by commercial aircraft, not military ones.

Now I admit I haven’t used one of those programs that enable you to determine the identity of aircraft overflying your location, but I know many here and on Mr. Carnicom’s board have. Have any of them done a day-by-day evaluation of overflying parallel aircraft and not found a correlation between them and the scheduled commercial flights? If so, then you have good backing to the veracity of your first statement. If not, you don’t. Again, I don’t have any of this information.

“Fact 2: Chemtrails have unusual refractive properties producing a rainbow or oil slick effect not found in the opaque ice crystals of normal contrails.”

Based solely on my observations (I am not a meteorologist, nor am I an expert on refractive processes) I would disagree. I have seen, under various conditions, prismatic effects around just about every type of contrail imaginable, except for the very tight ones immediately showing up behind an aircraft. I’ve seen these prismatic effects in “dashed” contrails, solid ones, several contrails merged into one, spreading contrails on their way to becoming cirrus clouds, and even virga-producing post-contrail cirrus clouds. My guess is that refractive phenomena are more a function of sun angle and intensity, and thickness of the contrail, than anything else.

“Fact 3: Natural contrails only form in conditions of around -42 degrees Celsius and a relative humidity of a 5 to 7 degree Celsius temp/dewpoint spread.”

That sounds right to me. But inasmuch as none of us (without built-in doppler radar) can estimate either altitude nor weather conditions thousands of meters straight up, I have assumed that the aircraft are following the rules of physics, and that if you see any kind of contrails, you are probably looking at an environment of around –40 degrees and 100 percent RH. From what I’ve heard, that is, more often than not, typical atmospheric conditions at around 9000 – 10000 meters.

Now, again, I am not conversant with all the latest hypotheses here, so maybe all of you (Reynolds, Carnicom, Seeker, Chickie Deb, etc.) agree on the three assertions you made. If so, I’d certainly be more than happy to look at the figures again. Let me know.

Regards,

posted 10-30-2000 08:33 AM            

JR, which shots shall we ask Boeing about? Check these out. Is there a Boeing plant in Ohio? I thought they were in Washington? I doubt very much if Boeing is totally responsible for everything we see in the skies.

ooppps ..... do a search images, just type nikonman.

posted 10-30-2000 10:19 AM            

I have posted numerous explanations concerning the optical effects of contrails. THey do not differ from natural cirrus cloud optical phenomena. The ice crystals in natural cirrus clouds are not opaque just like the ice cubes in your freezer are not opaque. They transmit, absorb, and bend light just like regular old ice. They produce other interesting effects also because of their many different shapes, sizes, and orientations and because of the varied sun-contrail-observer viewing geometry.

posted 10-30-2000 12:30 PM            

Mr. Reynolds, we get pictures on our own Intranet site whenever Boeing rolls out a new aircraft or variant. In most cases, the first or second flight (where there may be a chase plane for publicity photos) is typically at a lower level. When flying a completely new aircraft, like the F-23 or JSF, the first flight often does not involve getting the gear up. My guess that there are few if any chase planes flying at an altitude where either aircraft would produce contrails (i.e., 8000 - 10000 meters).

I believe that Mr. Canex's suggestion that parallel contrails are the result of different aircraft flying parallel routes (separated by ~500 meters altitude or ~ five minutes time) are the most obvious reason for parallel contrails.

Mr. Nikonman, Boeing does not have any large-scale manufacturing facilities in Ohio. Most of our commercial aircraft are built in the greater Seattle area of Washington State, or the greater Los Angeles area of California. Most of our military aircraft are built in St. Louis, Missouri, and our military helicopters are built either in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (tandem rotorcraft such as the CH-47) or Mesa, Arizona (The AH-64D Apache Longbow).

I agree that Boeing is not responsible for everything we see in the skies, but with the majority of both world-wide commercial and American military aircraft being built by my company, a large majority certainly is - with more to come, hopefully!

By the way, can I assume from your handle that you are a photographer? I recently bought a Nikon CP990 and am having a great time with it. If you're a digital-photography person, let me know; we could compare notes.

Regards,

Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net

posted 10-30-2000 01:20 PM            

So you have a picture of 3 Military jets leaving contrails. WOOPIE

So you have a picture of normal clouds reflecting light. WOOPIE

posted 10-31-2000 08:12 AM              

light links: http://physics.about.com/science/physics/cs/optics/index.htm?iam=dpile&terms=%2B"rainbows"+%2B"refraction"
http://1freespace.com/tech/rainbows/
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/blynds/rnbw.html
http://www.polarization.com/rainbow/rainbow.html
http://marijuana.newscientist.com/lastword/answers/lwa114nature.html
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/lc/atoptics/phenom.htm

It looks to me like some of the changing colors might be related to the flat crystals, which can rotate.

It also looks to me like rainbows formed by droplets appear to the observer when facing away from the sun, while ice crystal effects occur at some angle between the observer and the sun.

The links above all show light passing through the ice crystals, and being refracted according to each wavelengh's index of refraction. This indicates to me that such crystals are definitely capable of passing light through to one degree or another, evidently depending on the crystal "Habit", and imperfections, much like any other crystal, mineral or otherwise.

I am composing some questions for our guest.
Am i correct, Thermit, that others besides myself have submitted guest nominations, and that you will invite those you find suitable?

posted 10-31-2000 08:19 AM            

Judging by the other photos of those 3 jets on contrailconnection, I don't think they are flying parallel or in formation at all. I think they are commercial jets. I see no reason to say they are anything else. Two of them are nearly parallel, but not actually, judging from the other photos. Of course, it is difficult to judge how far apart they are, really. I think the 4th jet, visible in the other photos, is much farther away, but again, that is only a guesstimate.

What makes you believe they are flying too close together? Do you have an altitude estimate on any of the jets? I don't see how you figure they could not be normal commercial traffic. Unless you have more information than me, that is.

posted 10-31-2000 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Am i correct, Thermit, that others besides myself have submitted guest nominations, and that you will invite those you find suitable?

---

posted 10-31-2000 12:27 PM            

Thermit, who was that quote from above from ?

and why can't I delete my own message if I want to ?

posted 10-31-2000 12:57 PM              

I am displeased that no one else besides myself has nominated guests to answer the questions about optical effects seen in trails.

I know there is interest.

As I stated twice before, for some reason when I quote or document things some people seem to think that they should not "just take your word for it". Without participation from a broad spectrum of people, the answers might be considered skewed by my choice of sources.

I'm also disappointed that Thermit isn't able to moderate this, which I hoped might ameliorate the aforementioned problem.

I therefore nominate Cydoniaquest to be the person who would invite via email the guests of his choice from the nominations, show them the questions, explain how to post, and be general moderator for the session.

I have nominated five guests. As I didn't save the email I sent Thermit, perhaps he can post it for me so all can see who I chose, or to Cy so that he can choose privately.

This project is unique, I've never seen it done on any of the messageboards before, but is sure to yield sound information that can advance our understanding.

posted 10-31-2000 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Thermit,
Here are my submissiona for guests that you could invite to answer the questions regarding refractive effects in contrails:

Les Cowley, Norfolk, England- LEV@dial.pipex.com

Mike Schroeder, Maine, USA- mscrep@aol.com

These two fellows are authors of a very interesting webpage on halo effects: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/lc/atoptics/phenom.htm

===================================
Dr. Kenneth G. Libbrecht- kgl@caltech.edu
--Professor of Physics, Caltech
--Executive Officer for Physics

Dr. Libbrecht conducts research on snow and ice crystals and here is his
webpage on the subject: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/

===================================
Dr. Alistair Fraser- alistair@fraser.cc
Professor of Meteorology- Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Fraser teaches meteorology and has a strong interest in optics.
He is also talented as a web-based teacher, and has written numerous papers
and articles on atmospheric optical phenomena. http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/cv/
====================================

Dr. David O'C. Starr- starr@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov
Dr. Starr is a NASA scientist who is an expert on cirrus and contrail research. http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/~starr/
====================================

Darrel Baumgardner- darrel@ncar.ucar.edu
Research Aviation Facility Science Group Chief
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dr. Baumgardner studies the microphysics of clouds and aerosols,
he has done much work on measurements of contrails:
http://raf.atd.ucar.edu/~darrel/currentActivities.html http://raf.atd.ucar.edu/~darrel/
curriculum vitae: http://raf.atd.ucar.edu/~darrel/minicv.html
=====================================

Jay Reynolds

---

posted 10-31-2000 06:06 PM            

Only problem with this idea is once you get past the inflammatory statements, there's very few questions to ask....

From NMSR Reports, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 1999

The Attorney General's office recently contacted NMSR member Kim Johnson to help answer questions from constituents regarding the alleged dangers. Here is Kim's letter, reprinted with permission. -editor

M. Kim Johnson

October 31, 1999

Attorney General's Office

State of New Mexico

I have finished a review of letters sent to the Attorney General of New Mexico's office from several writers. In each of these letters, the writers express concern that aircraft are spraying biological or chemical materials into the atmosphere for unspecified purposes. One of the letters quotes anecdotal incidences of sickness that might be tied to the aircraft activity. The letters refer to "chemtrails" as well as contrails.

I have read the letters and reviewed the referenced web pages . In so doing, I have viewed a number of photos purporting to be of aircraft spraying the chemical or biological material into the atmosphere. I have also discussed these letters with another scientist familiar with upper atmospheric phenomena from Sandia National Laboratory and an retired general and fighter pilot who is an Air Force Hall of Fame Member inducted in at the same time as Neil Armstrong and former President Ford.

In summary, there is no evidence that these "chemtrails" are other than expected, normal contrails from jet aircraft that vary in their shapes, duration, and general presentation based on prevailing weather conditions. That is not to say that there could not be an occasional, purposeful experimental release of, say, high altitude barium for standard wind tracking experiments. There could also be other related experiments that occur from time-to-time which release agents into the atmosphere. However, not one single picture that was presented as evidence indicates other than normal contrail formation.

The variation in presentation is explained by the tropospheric conditions and, to some extent, the positioning of aircraft engines. When the troposphere experiences a relatively stable, supersaturated condition (water vapor in excess of 100% humidity without condensation), then any disturbance that causes formation of ice crystals provides nucleation surfaces for the supersaturated moisture to condense upon. When a jet engine burns its fuel, the major byproduct is water vapor. When the exhaust passes over the rear stabilizer of an aircraft, the tips or ends of the stabilizer cause the exhaust to expand rapidly. When it does, the temperature decreases rapidly within a turbulent flow, and ice crystal formation is forced. Generally, this makes it look as if the jet were spraying a cloud from the ends of the stabilizer. If the atmosphere is not at saturation, the contrail will not persist. The formed ice crystals will sublimate into the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, the appearance of a short, well formed vapor trail. If the water content is very low, then no discernible contrail will form at all. All the exhaust water will be absorbed by the atmosphere before there is time to form ice crystals.

If the atmospheric water content is not consistent with altitude (picture atmospheric "waves" of high water vapor content below a layer of low water vapor content much like waves on the ocean), then a jet will alternately pass through air that allows contrail formation and air that does not. This gives the appearance of a dashed line if the plane is flying at, or near the perpendicular to the waves. If the atmosphere is highly supersaturated, then the formed ice crystals may act as nucleation centers for a continual spreading of the contrail. In other words, the contrail actually causes the supersaturated moisture to condense, spreading out from its original path. This causes the formation of a cirrostratus cloud structure, far in excess of what would occur from a simple contrail.

One other phenomenon observed is the formation of contrails off wing surfaces along with the engine exhaust contrails. This can be caused when the air is highly supersaturated and the expansion of the air coming off of the wing surface is sufficient to cause ice crystallization. In this case, it appears that the whole plane is leaving a trail. This can often be observed by a passenger flying in a commercial airplane when entering cold, supersaturated air, particularly in the winter when close to a storm front.

There were no pictures or evidence that indicated anything other than the above contrail formation phenomena. Anecdotal stories of persons getting sick after contrails from obviously supersaturated tropospheric conditions lend no basis for belief that there are chemicals or biological agents being released. This type of story provides as much credence to "chemtrails" as does the belief that drinking milk is causally linked to heroin addiction. (Almost all heroin addicts in the US drank milk as children.)

Please contact me if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

M. Kim Johnson, Physicist

posted 10-31-2000 06:46 PM            

>At this point LTC, why don’t why don't we just save ourselves the trouble and admit that passenger carrying aircraft for hire are not what are pictured here.<

I imagine cy, if either one of you had flight explorer, you would KNOW ....

http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/review.html

posted 10-31-2000 06:47 PM              

My current nominees are listed above.

Any seconds to the nomination?

Additionally, since normal contrails are proven to exist, and normal military aircraft are certainly known at times to emit normal contrails, without further information on the planes and contrails pictured than the photograph alone, no judgement, and certainly no proof can be made regarding whether or not the photo above depicts normal or abnormal contrails.

You guys are beating a dead horse here.

Please accept the nomination, Cydoniaquest, let's get those questions of yours answered to your complete satisfaction, OK?