posted 03-18-2001 02:43 AM            

Well that's nice of you to say Mr Sky!!!......Thankyou

I'd never make court reporter though, my grammer stinks when I type fast!

I wonder if Canex has read Thermit's report yet? It will be interesting to get his take.

By the way, that was a tip I didn't think of Thermit...and probably the easier way of doing it from what I was saying to do....See, I still learn something new about software and these electronic boxes every day!

posted 03-29-2001 12:43 AM            

My apologies for not responding to your report earlier; as I’d mentioned, I’m working out of town for an extended period, and the press of work has cut into my time to access the Internet.

I did want to mention again how appreciative I am (and I’m sure that many agree) of your hard work, painstaking research, and well-presented report. I hope that it will be only the first of many by the Chemtrail community, and I am sure that other researchers will continue your work and publish their findings.

My review of your data confirms an extremely high level of statistical correlation between contrail persistence and lack of aircraft identification (“non-reported”) on the Flight Explorer program. Although I am not familiar with that program outside of what I’ve read on these and similar fora, I understand that it (1) tracks ALL commercial flights; and (2) tracks NO military flights. If this is true, then you have shown an excellent correlation, equal to five sigma, between military flights and persistent contrails.

I am aware that military flights range on both sides of the typical commercial jet passenger aircraft altitude envelope. One possible conclusion that could be drawn from your observation would be that the “non-reported”, i.e., military, aircraft show persistent contrails because of an atypical atmospheric environment at a higher altitude than the typical commercial, i.e., “reported” aircraft.

But that conclusion would seem to be false, because, even if you agree with the statement that many military aircraft fly outside the commercial altitude envelope, not all of them do. Even assuming that, say, 75% of military aircraft flew in an atmospheric regime substantially higher that that of civilian aircraft, it would mean that 25% of them did not, and that 25% would be reflected in your correlation results. But it did not.

Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that, based on your data, the correlation stands for persistent contrails versus military aircraft per se, NOT their altitude. In other words, there’s something unique (or at least strongly correlative) about military aircraft and persistent contrails.

It’s at this point that we leave the realm of science and, willy-nilly, enter into speculation. There are three possible reasons that immediately come to my mind for this correlation.

(1) There is something unique to persistent contrail-formation in the military aircraft engines or aerodynamics;
(2) There is something unique in military aircraft fuel that would explain the high incidence of persistent contrails;
(3) There is additional particulate / solute matter leaving military aircraft, either mixed with the exhaust gases or sprayed separately that could result in the persistent contrails.

I can say from first-hand knowledge that hypothesis (1) is highly unlikely; I know of no difference between the engines of military aircraft and commercial aircraft. They are typically GE, P&W, or RR engines, and, outside of basic differences such as afterburners (which, of course, are absent on most large aircraft -- whether military or commercial), there is nothing I know of that would cause the formation of persistent contrails. I also consider it highly unlikely that differences in airframe / wing construction would result in persistent contrail formation, since I have been all over and inside many large military and commercial aircraft, especially those built by my company.

I cannot speak with any certainty regarding hypothesis (2). I understand that there are many additives to military jet fuel to make it more hygroscopic and less of a breeding ground for certain micro-organisms; but I assume that, if those additives are good for a military engines, they are also good for civilian engines, so that the same additives would be available to both military and commercial aviation.

This brings us to hypothesis (3). If there is additional particulate / solute matter added to the aircraft’s exhaust, what is it? I have no idea whatsoever. My belief (again, based on my background) is that there is little to no chance that these aircraft have been modified to “spray” anything outside of engine exhaust (except, of course, for fuel dump, refueling probes in the case of a tanker, or overboard dumping of waste, etc. in the case of passenger-carrying aircraft).

And as to what the composition of this putative material is: any speculation would be just that, speculation. I believe I have spelled out in detail why I consider the entire concept of a government ‘plot’ to be highly questionable; I shall not repeat it here.

However, none of the comments above can take away from your truly ground-breaking research. You have certainly opened up a new avenue of investigation, and I commend you highly for it. Your research certainly shows correlation between military flights and atypical contrail formation. SOMETHING has to be causing that correlation!

I would hope to see much follow-on work done, which can only build on your baseline efforts, and could well result in unexpected and surprising results.

Regards,

Duncan Kunz
Utsunomiya City, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan
duncan.z.kunz@boeing.com

posted 03-29-2001 06:52 PM            

Duncan said: "In other words, there’s something unique (or at least strongly correlative) about military aircraft and persistent contrails."

This is a fact. Passenger jets are not causing the trails we refer to as Chemtrails. We have known this, and Thermit's Chemtrail Research Report backs this up with logged data.

posted 04-03-2001 01:09 AM            

Thanks for making my life better.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 04-03-2001]

posted 05-26-2001 11:01 AM            

quote:

---

Mark

I have read your research again. It is obvious to me it was performed by a passionate and idealistic man whose main concern is truth. That said, I will give you my opinion since you asked for it. I categorically state that chemtrails do not exist and do not account for a malady known as chem influenza.

Your first sentence stands out for many reasons. "For several years the existence of an unusual type of aerial activity has been reported, generally termed Chemtrails." My questions to you specifically are: Beginning when does several years commence? B-17s produced massive contrails while forming up to bomb Germany during WWII.
Why is it unusal aerial activity than say WWII B-17 contrails? These aircraft did not use jet engine technology yet they produced some of the most prolific contrails ever seen. With the advent of jet engines and commercail airline traffic how have contrails chnaged significantly to give rise to a chemtrail conspiracy?

Who are these witnesses to "alleged" chemtrails? What are their credentials? Are they credible? For the record perhaps a non-believer such as BEE might like to question them? BEE--don't you have an advanced degree in Environmental Engineering? It was good talking to you again--btw.

Your ref to VFR is not germane to the issue since you say contrails occur only in Class A airspace. Ever see an F-18 landing on a high humidity day? Lower wing loader aircraft produce more contrails than higher wing loader aircraft. Your sample size is small and is limited to military flights only categoried by Flight Explorer. For the record, I have never used FE and do not know its limitations and capabilities but I would hesitate in calling it a valid source for all air traffic in Class A airspace. Does not "alleged" spraying occur at low altitudes? Your research fails to take into account the phyical properties of the atmosphere. How do winds aloft impact contrails? What was the forecast the observation day?

The pictures. Ah my favorite. Yes military aircraft tend to fly away from one another when not close to the base. We are required to maintain standard formation (no farther apart than 1 mile and within 100 feet) when in Class A airspace. Unique patterns? Spherical patterns occur when we are undergoing air-to-air refueling. X patterns occur because there is an aid to navigation located there and a jet route probably crosses it. Many aircraft file and fly across these navaids a lot!! GPS and inertial navigation systems now let us file direct and deviate course to save time and fuel. Did you know if a navaid was located where you were photographing?

What was the forecast contrail level for the day the pictures were taken? As far as the pictures go--I did not observe anything unusual. Personally when we train we hate flying in the contrail level as it gives our adversary an early tally-ho!! The pictures prove nothing and are anecdotal at best.

Mark nice attempt but your research is very inconclusive.

---

posted 05-28-2001 02:25 PM            

I have met with financial ruin for my research work into chemtrails. Not just due to some type of .gov influence or agent counter agent stuff but from the time I gave to the research. It was very expensive and nearly made me lose site of important things like eating and having a place to sleep.

I was at that time near the end of 2000 spending about 6 hours per day doing research. My business suffered since I did not meet deadlines for completing other work I was to be paid for. This is just bad use of time and poor judgment for the most part.

What strikes me most about Mark's research using flight explorer is the time involved to complete this work. I would bet he spent far too much time on this to the detrement of other projects.

Or perhaps Mark is just some what time, and money independent, and does not share my conventional constraints. Good work Mark.

posted 04-11-2002 11:27 AM            

Here we are again. The latest allegation of fraud that supposedly invalidates the whole report is this: The report lists several of the unidentifable jets that left highly persistent trails, with their details including time observed. Two of these observations are in the late afternoon. The allegation states that since these observations are late in the day, there is no way that one could say that they persisted for 4-8 hours.

The shorter a trail lasts the more accurately it's persistence can be measured. The contrails from normal jets were always less than 30 minutes, so most of these measurements are accurate to the second. A contrail that lasts less than a minute can be measured multiple times, and the results averaged for accuracy. The trails from unidentifiable jets that lasted and lasted and lasted, could not be measured with the same accuracy. Although one trail was actually observed to persist for at least 8 hours, and others for hours, I did not have the luxury of spending all day chasing each of these highly persistent trails in a car to attempt to exactly measure it's persistence. In general, these trails (from the unidentifiable jets) appeared to have no tendency to dissipate, and thus their persistence is listed as ~4-8 hours. (The "~" symbol means approximate.) If a trail is observed to persist for an hour or two, and is then obscured from view, I don't think it is suddenly going to dissipate. Thus these trails are categorized as they are in the report based on the commonality of their being created by the unidentifiable jets and their tendency to not dissapate. This is explained in the report...

"Length is a generalized range as the exact value is difficult to determine due to the large scale of persistence."

I think the characterizations in the report are reasonable.