posted 12-07-2000 02:31 PM            

The majority of air traffic in this area are low-level flights arriving at and leaving from Hobby (HOU) and Bush Interncontinental (KIAH) airports. A main flight corridor runs over my house (2,000-4,000 ft.) with flights descending for landing at Hobby. I have found that there is typically not very much traffic above the 30,000 ft. level relative to all flights shown on FE. This can be seen on the screen captures shown below.

Commercial traffic leaving approximately 1-2 minute persistent trails have been observed at 35,000 to 39,000 ft. Also 5-10 second contrails have been observed as low as 31,000 ft.

Very persistent trails noted in the Houston area appear to be well above 30,000 ft., possibly over 40,000 ft. using comparable identifiable traffic as a guide.

Flight Explorer does not report military flights.

With regards to trailing, I have found:

• Planes leaving no trails are correlateable to commercial/passenger/private flights shown on FE.
  
• Planes leaving trails with persistence in the 5 second to 2 minute range have been correlated to flights shown on FE.
  
• Planes leaving trails with persistence of half an hour or more could not be correlated to flights shown on FE.
  

Key to FE screens shown below:

• The first three digits shown next to each plane represent the altitude. Values are shown in 100's of feet, so just add 2 zeros to the number to read height.
  
• An arrow following this number will represent acending or descending altitude depending on the direction of the symbol.
  
• The second number shown is the ground speed in knots.
  
• The red lines are history lines that will show up to the four last positions of the flight.
  
• The color of the plane indicates Active for orange and Arrived for blue.
  

Case 1: Unidentified Trailing Plane
11/21/00 5:10pm, path of Jet traveling west by southwest indicated on the image with drawn-in arrow. This plane could not identified with FE. Trail persisted for at least half an hour.

Case 2: Unidentified Trailing Plane in Semicircle Loop
11/21/00 5:34pm, This aircraft was observed in the west heading northward, from my vantage point it appeared as a ~45 degree diagonal trail headed upward and to the north, plane began arcing and coming closer until it was seen heading eastward to the north and finally curving to the southeast. Path of Jet travel indicated on the image with a drawn-in arrow. This plane could not be correlated to any flights shown on FE. Trail persisted for at least half an hour.

Case 3: Pair of Unidentified Trailing Planes Flying in Formation.
12/02/00 11:00am, two parallel trails observed to the south and headed to the west. The beginnings of these two trails began very near to my vantage point, although there were trails in every part of the sky, including east of where they suddenly start. No evaporation of these trails was noted for over half an hour. These trails were photographed for reference but aren't available yet. These two parallel planes were not shown on FE.

Case 4: An Identified Trailing Plane.
12/02/00 11:00am, United Airlines Flight 1012 was identified traveling at 37,000 ft. This plane was leaving a trail that persisted for about 1-2 minutes. This trail also contained a gap which only appeared as the trail began fading out and lasted only a few seconds. This shows that "broken" trails can occur as the trail "evaporates", however the suspicious broken or matchstick trails that I have seen have been persistent on the scale of half an hour or more.

Preliminary Observations

I have observed that commercial/passenger traffic can leave trails that persist for up to two minutes in my area. They may leave trails that last longer, however this has not been observed. It is of note that, based on local atmospheric soundings and FE, that I have seen planes fly through altitude bands that are ideal for highly persistent trails (identical temperature and dew point with respect to water) and produce only two minutes of persistence.

I have found that jets that leave trails that persist on the scale of half an hour to several hours and eventually become cirrus aviaticus clouds have not been correlateable to any flight data on FE.

These two aforementioned ranges of trail persistence have been observed to coexist at the same altitude ranges. On one occasion a ~2 minute trailing plane flew through an old persistent trail and was seen to intersect as the less persistent trail became temporarily stuck within the older trail where they overlapped.

It is my opinion that some trails that have been labeled by some, including myself, as Chemtrails are truely contrails. Based on this new comprehension I no longer consider or label these barely persistent trails as Chemtrails.

It is also my opinion that there is an apparent anomalous situation, with regards to the unidentified planes which produce the highly persistent trails, that warrants continued research with atmospheric soundings and Flight Explorer.

posted 12-08-2000 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Thermit, isn't it already well known that commercial jets produce persistent contrails that become cirrus clouds?

---

posted 12-08-2000 10:22 AM            

"however, based on my FE studies so far, I have only observed this trail-to-cirrus process occuring as a result of highly persistent trails from unidentifiable aircraft"

UNIDENTIFIABLE? I have watched contrail to cirrus formation a dozen times now. In every case, the display came from the 400 mile commercial flight corridor from LAX to SFO.

Why do you continue to IGNORE the following:

By 1996, NASA scientists using GOES-8 satellite measurements reported that "in certain heavy air traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20 percent."

In addition to producing vapor trails that can stretch thousands of miles across the sky, jet exhaust also triggers the formation of artificial clouds by "seeding" the atmosphere with cloud-forming aerosols -- droplets of sulfuric acid and particles of soot. http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1997/12/120997/1209fea_20122.asp

Using new satellites, researchers tracked contrails and found that they can expand to cover tens of thousands of square kilometers and persist for several hours. In effect, instead of simply dissipating as previously thought, the planes' thin contrails turn to large cirrus clouds -- the kind of clouds that tend to trap heat in the upper atmosphere.

In New Mexico, for example, satellites tracked one concentration of contrails that turned into a cloud covering 13,000 square miles for more than 14 hours. http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1998/09/093098/jets30_23744.asp

posted 12-12-2000 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

I just read your report. This is the kind of civilian intelligence (CI) that goes a long way toward giving our concerns and claims credibility.

GREAT JOB.

The overzealous folks who scream chemtrail everytime they see a plane with a contrail would come to the same conclusion you did (and I) if they would observe a bit more objectively. I see lots of planes making normal contrails that are persistent in the Austin area, but the ChemTrails are very obvious in their nature and method of dispersal. Evaporation of ice crystals does not
enter the equasion in chemtrails. A normal contrail does not drop 10,000 feet and spread out to produce cirrus type clouds that last up to 12 hours before they leave the area or become so thin you can't see them.

---

posted 12-12-2000 01:58 PM            

But.....

That is exactly what normal contrails do, as shown by many studies. So what should I believe? I have seen contrails do that all of my life. No chemtrails in my sky yet.

BTW, Jay tears into Cliffies' barium garbage pretty good on his website. I wonder why Cliff bothers to put such obviously wrong information up?

posted 12-12-2000 04:17 PM            

This way, there were no doubts in my mind that these jets were leaving an exhaust of some petrochemical base.

Christy

posted 12-12-2000 06:58 PM            

From my observations here, the contrails that linger longer are few and far between any more and have been correlated to high altitude airliners. But of course, military, DEA and Coast Guard planes patrolling the gulf and coasts won't show up on FE, maybe that's why we don't see high altitude mystery planes here. Not much to patrol in Indiana except corn.

posted 12-15-2000 12:26 AM            

and you need to know humidity and temp to KNOW if it is normal....Duh....

posted 12-15-2000 12:47 AM            

It was quite interesting when I had my tracker, which was approx a year and a half ago. There was a lot of multiple jet action up there...making formations like basket weaves or tic tac toe boards. You could clearly see the commercial fleets from Tampa International leaving absolutely no trail at all, and finding them on the tracker with no problem. The jets leaving chemtrails ALL had trails and could not be tracked. Also, many of these jets were flying LOWER than the commercial flights, leaving trails under commercial jets that did not have any trailing.

posted 12-15-2000 01:33 AM            

Vigilante sez....

>My point was, regardless of the humidity, the trailing jets do not show up on the software. Duh back at ya.

So in esscence you are saying that you know for sure (conclusively) jets were leaving x-straneous material at a lower altitude than permitted by normal contrails formation standards ?

These sightings were not showing up on a device that monitors' aircraft flghts ?

That said software excludes military tracking ?

Flight Explorer shows zones of MOA area's and restricted area's , are you saying your software shows the same data as F/E and you verified that all these exclusions were of fact ?

Is there another type of craft that shows up that is unknown ?

Duh ba ya'.....

>Also, many of these jets were flying LOWER than the commercial flights, leaving trails under commercial jets that did not have any trailing.<

Now distance judging is something that is certainly of question, I'll bet Thermit thought the one's he see's were lower too....

This is for elvis....and distance judging....

T/S

posted 12-15-2000 07:13 AM            

What are you trying to prove....and why are you dissing Thermit's good work, objective observations and Christy-shoo's non-threatening comments? Are you disagreeing to be disagreeable?

posted 12-15-2000 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:

Now distance judging is something that is certainly of question, I'll bet Thermit thought the one's he see's were lower too....

---

I'm not sure if your are implying before or after FE analysis, but I didn't really have any idea about the altitude before using FE, and never hazarded a guess, but after using FE, and being able to actually see what different altitudes look like...

quote:

---

From Report:

Very persistent trails noted in the Houston area appear to be well above 30,000 ft., possibly over 40,000 ft. using comparable identifiable traffic as a guide.

---

However this doesn't discount Swedishoo's observations, since, if Chemtrails are real, they are laid by different groups of pilots in different parts of the country, thus accounting for different modus operandi being observed by geographically disparate areas.

posted 12-15-2000 11:10 AM            

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It has been clearly seen that passenger jets of a higher altitude, having no contrail which so ever, while at the same time, viewing non-commercial jets at a lower altitude leaving trails. The standard of temperature and humidity that permits the formation of contrails, do not exist with the higher or the lower flying jets, however, as mentioned above, the lower flying jet will produce trails.

These sightings were not showing up on a device that monitors' aircraft flghts ? That said software excludes military tracking ?

That's right. Not showing on the monitor, as it also excludes military tracking. I do not know if military jets can fly over non-designated areas, if it is within their rights to do so, but if not, they are out of their territory.

Flight Explorer shows zones of MOA area's and restricted area's , are you saying your software shows the same data as F/E and you verified that all these exclusions were of fact ? Is there another type of craft that shows up that is unknown ?

posted 12-15-2000 12:05 PM            

>What are you trying to prove....and why are you dissing Thermit's good work, objective observations<

Where was the 'dis' ?

>and Christy-shoo's non-threatening comments?

I like to know exactly where people stand Christy is taking an approach that says F/E is a waste of time,I merely cleared the water...do you have a problem clearing the water ?

I have a hard time believing that you are a repub, when you take the approach you do.

In the future don't comment on threads I post unless they are directed to you...it is true waste of time....

go get some hemp and chill.....

T/S

posted 12-15-2000 10:56 PM            

Then why are we here Christy ?

Is this just a ...game ?