posted 10-03-2001 05:43 PM            

"This shot was strange to me also as I barely could see thru the viewfinder what was happening and it did not reveal itself until developing. The plane as I originally had focused in on it was leaving engine
contrails but they were of the type that "turn on and off" (which, if you do a lot of observing you know what I mean-even more evidence in my mind of something
fishy) This makes it very hard to track with the telescope since without the trails the plane virtually dissappears from view thru the lense as I try to sweep the sky-so the very trails themselves are helpful in
locking on to the plane. So, I had this particular plane in view, along with the engine contrails, but as I was waiting to take the photo the normal trails ended (were shut off?!) and revealed the single bottom
sprayer you see in the picture. Weather this was "on" all along and hidden from veiw due to the engine contrails, or weather this bottom sprayer was turned on when the others were shut off, it was not clear from my observation. I noticed the abnormal bottom
spray as I took the picture and I wanted to advance for another shot of that plane but its' path took it behind a row of pine trees that line the large parking lot I use and I missed it. As frustrating as only getting one shot was, I still felt happy that the one
I did get proved what I witnessed in real life: the mysterious bottom spray.

As to weather this ended up turning into a typical chemical trail I can tell you that it did not appear to. From what I could tell it dissapated entirely very close behind the plane- I'd say by within 3-5 plane lengths it was totally invisible."

Anyone care to comment on what this might be? Search for Raven's photos in the image database; incredible photography!

posted 10-05-2001 12:49 PM            

I did a quick search of some of the more accessible databases and could not find out where the waste-dump orifices are. My guess, though is that what we see is not waste dump trails. Here is my rationale:

Even when you add in all the water-dump from the galleys, etc. to the effluent from the toilets, you aren't going to have that much mass over a single flight. Also, the stuff coming out is going to probably be primarily a liquid with macerated solids, or else a slurry of some sort.

This is important, I think, because something that's not highly vaporized will not spread out as it freezes as would a contrail. Instead, given the ambient temperature (typically -40 deg) and wind chill factor (typically -200 deg equivalent) the effluent would be flash-frozen into little clumps and streamers. In other words, it probably wouldn't be a spray after all.

The reporter was rather vague in describing the image acquisition. He / she first says that "...it did not reveal itself until developing" Then, he reports that "I noticed the abnormal bottom spray as I took the picture..."

This is not nit-picking. If the photographer did not notice the line until developing, i would assume it was a developmental artifact, i.e., some scratch or light flare. This is because the line is not a straight line as you would expect from a bunch of particulates in a 550-mi/hr wind shear. Instead, the line wavers around a bit. I don't think you'd see that if it were actually something -- vapor or slurry -- that actually came from the aircraft. Also, the fact that it is such a completely different color and contrast in what is an extremely degraded view leads me to believe that it is the result of inadvertent post-processing contamination.

But, on the other hand, the report suggests that the photographer actually saw the artifact as it was formed. Given the confusion in my interpreting the report, I can't say for sure what it is coming from the aircraft; but, based on the lack of straightness of the line, the different color and contrast, and the photographer's first comment, I would propose that the line is a post-processing artifact.

Regards,

posted 10-06-2001 11:36 PM            

But inasmuch it doesn't stay around for a long time, it chouldn't be chemtrails, n'est-ce pas?

Regards,

posted 10-07-2001 01:57 AM            

you have to be kidding ? ahemmm...no your not...the above statement is why chemtrails will never be taken seriously by any recognized group, you can't say well it's this...and later say it's that...simply that's why william thomas and clifford carnicom are not reliable sources regarding evidence of spraying...because their cause of why and how changes daily....

Although one chemtrail participant did choose to take a realistic approach...

The goal of this research was to determine if there was a type of trail that was inconsistent with normal contrails, especially with regard to increased persistence.

Defined parameters...what a concept...observe, theorize, attempt to prove....

The thing is if board participants far and wide are concerned about environmental issues they should just say so, and not hide behind a mystical all emcompassing veil of "chemtrail spraying" to address their concerns on the stability of our health and ecosystem...

returning you to your regular progamming...

T/S

posted 10-07-2001 03:11 AM            

Professional comment on the pink "plane pee" photo coming shortly...

what I meant was what I said...I'm funny that way...

T/S

posted 10-09-2001 10:40 AM            

I'd like to find out what telescope system Mr. Raven is using for his photographs.

I have a Nikon 990 digital which I've mated to an 8-inch SC telescope; obviously, that would not work for long telephoto work of anything other than astronomical objects.

My bride is looking to buy a spotting scope and adapter for her birdwatching; I figured anything that would work for that should work for taking photographs of high-altitude aircraft.

Any advice, either from Mr. Raven or anyone else, who has actually used a particular scope for photography, would be welcome. I was thinking about a 20X - 60X Swarovski spotting scope, but we're talking over $500; I'd like to be able to get a cheaper one if it will do the job. Hope to hear from you!

Regards,