posted 09-03-2001 02:51 AM            

If somebody walks in to a bank and and pulls a gun on a teller, and the prosecution plays the security tape in court, the defense doesn't sit there and say "that isn't evidence!"

ok, but you know what the implication is as of what they are doing...you don't here, and unusual means not an everyday occurrance...I've never seen in person an air frame contrail...

if you can get me closer to a conclusion be my guest...

posted 09-03-2001 03:09 AM            

So, either you are going to have to write your own dictionary and convince the english speaking population to adopt your self-serving definition or...

...you are going to have to accept the sumbission for what it is; evidence.

As defined by Webster's dictionary and accepted by the whole of Western Society.

That's all I ask.

posted 09-03-2001 03:15 AM            

evidence of what?...that's what I'm asking...

and why I'm still lucid, what is the deal with all these photos, carnicom's was taken at 9:00am but looks like an evening shot....ie, color or contrast adjustment has been used on them...

posted 09-03-2001 04:10 AM            

I cite Thermit's Trail Research Report, as evidence, to support my assertion that these are not commercial aircraft engaed in dispensing these 'unusual' trails.

I cite eyeopen's video and Raven's photograph, as evidence, to support my assertion that these are not fuel dumps, optical illusions or airframe contrails being videotaped and photographed by concerned citizens across the United States.

I submit that through comparitive analysis, the possibility of this being a fuel dump has been ruled out.

I submit that through comparitive analysis, the possibility of this being an optical illusion based on perspective has been ruled out.

That leaves airframe contrail, a rare phenomena which you attest you have never witnessed. I witnessed my first airframe contrail three days ago, as a commercial airliner made it's approach to Sea-Tac airport. It bore little resemblence to the phenomena depicted in the video footage or the the identical photograph submitted by Raven. Neither does it resemble the photos you have submitted of aerodynamic contrails.

Combined with the patents for powder contrail generation that have been previously submitted, the successful and well-publicized aerial spraying by Dyn-O-Mat, inc. for weather modifcation purposes, the USAF's staed goal of 'owning the weather' by 2025 and the Department of Defense's aerial spraying of Salt Lake City last year with biological simulants, I conclude that what we are observing is in all lilkihood a combined aerial spray program for weather modification and anti-biological/chemical weapon purposes.

I submit that such a program would be kept secret from the American people because to reveal it's existance would mean losing the strategic edge that US military deems fundemental to completing it's mission.

I further submit that the program described is a direct violation of the Geneva convention as it applies to human experimentation.

Until such time as Congressional hearings are held on this matter, the veil of secrecy will remain largely intact. Anyone that is interested in taking this debate into the national spotlight and making an honest effort at resolving the issue should certainly support such an inquiry.

posted 09-03-2001 11:32 AM            

the photo does not show ANYTHING, either pro or con, beyond a shadow of a doubt. it is a picture of something that could be any number of things (including a chemtrail) but you have somehow eliminated the "normal" explanations. how?

this disussion is going no where fast. you have yet to explain why the photo cant be explained by either the angle of the photo (as a matter of fact, a very similar but higher res pic was presented that shows that this is probably what it is) or aerodynamic contrails. why chem, why? why wont you admit that it is a least possible and consider the explanations instead of telling myself, TG and TS to do your work for them and prove that it is one of the explanations. you dont even state that it "might" be evidence. you stated that it is absolutely evidence. its sounds like to me that you are willing to latch onto anything as "proof".

i have asked this before and never got a response. but would a chemtrail supporter please post a photo of a contrail. how about an aerodynamic contrail. how about a photo of a jet that is low on the horizon producing a normal contrail. there has to be some out there. not EVERY trail is chem related is it?

posted 09-03-2001 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

you have yet to explain why the photo cant be explained by either the angle of the photo (as a matter of fact, a very similar but higher res pic was presented that shows that this is probably what it is) or aerodynamic contrails. why chem, why?

---

I have explained, repeatedly, that it was not possible for the perspective of the witness in relation to the aircraft to account for the appearance of the trail in the video. It was suggested that a 'side view' of four contrails being emitted could produce such an illusion.

Perhaps, but the video was not taken from such a perspective. It was taken thousands of feet below the aircraft. Not from the side. To further support my conclusion, I posted Raven's photo, which is quite clear, of an identical megasprayer-style trail. It speaks for itself: this is no optical illusion based on perspective we are dealing with.

So we're back to throwing out multiple explanations, eh DD? If it's so 'normal', why in God's name, can't you at least submit one explanation with confidence and stick with it?

Why, Dirk, why?

posted 09-03-2001 04:20 PM            

the other photo was of a much higher resolution. if the photo in question was of a similar res then you MAY be able to diferentiate the seperate trails. obviously the aircraft is thousands of feet above the camera, but it is also many miles laterally seperated. lets do some math, shall we. if an aircraft is low on the horizon, it may be
20, 30, 40 even 50 miles away laterally. if the same aircraft is at a normal cruise altitude, say 31,000 ft, then that puts it roughly 6 miles above the service. so now our aircraft is 6 miles vertically and, for argument sake, 30 miles laterally. do you still believe that the photo is not from the side? maybe not completely but in reality the camera is more from the "side" than it is from below. thus the low angle.

does this make sense?

"So we're back to throwing out multiple explanations, eh DD? If it's so 'normal', why in God's name, can't you at least submit one explanation with confidence and stick with it?"

what in hell does this have to do anything? there are many possible "normal" explanations. so what? but if you want to use this logic, let me ask you something. if there is soo much evidence of chemtrails, then why cant the chemmers agree on one hypothesis? there are about 50 different theories. if you expect me to give you only one explanation, then surely i could expect the chem crowd to norrow things down a dozen or so possibilties.

now, back to the original topic. i believe that the explanation for the apparent "1 trail" photo lies in the aspect ratio of the photo. maybe 75% chance. but there is also the chance that the photo depicts an aerodynamic trail (maybe even a combination of the two, who knows). you have yet to explain why this cant be a picture of this type of trail. you only ask me to prove that it is. i cant. but it looks similar to the many other aerodynamic trails i have witnessed. but explain to me why it absolutely is not.

DD

posted 09-03-2001 04:44 PM            

The picture shows an identical phenomena when compared to the trail: an enormous trail displaying a prismatic effect. In no way can this picture be explained by your perspective hypothesis. Can it?

posted 09-03-2001 04:55 PM            

Aerodynamic contrails form by the momen-tary reduction of air pressure in the airfoil vortex. If you have ever seen the Navy Blue Angles or the Air Force Thunderbirds during a low-level demonstration, then you have probably noticed these contrails trailing the wing tips, especially during high-speed turns. These contrails appear as the vortex creates a partial vacuum, lowering the air pressure sufficiently to bring it to satura-tion. They dissipate rapidly as the pressure in the vortex returns to normal behind the aircraft. We will not be concerned with this type of contrail.

posted 09-03-2001 05:24 PM            

you are referring to these type of contrails at LOW altitude. i have witnessed these aerodynamic contrails persist at altitude many times and from up close. i am not talking about wake vortices. i am referring to the condensed air over the wing caused by lift (common in high lift maneuvers such as a climb) while i'll admit that you dont see it everyday, it also could not be classified as rare. it happens, chem11, and they SOMETIMES persist. the reason your observed trail didnt persist the other day was because the conditions evidently were not condusive to this. water vapor is water vapor no matter what caused it to form. if the conditions are right, the trail persists, if not then it doesnt.

are trying to tell me that all of these types of trails that i have witnessed over my career were actually chemtrails.

posted 09-03-2001 05:47 PM            

Now, theseeker has been at this as long as anyone. He's never seen an airframe contrail. I've been paying extremly close attention to aircraft and contrail formation for the last three years. And I hadn't observed this phenomena until just recently. So I think it's fair to describe them as 'rare'.

I was actually searching for a photo of one earlier and had to settle for the explanation of their formation and description of their persistence, linked above.

Believe me DD, I would much rather come to the conclusion that there is a prosaic explanation for what I and so many others are observing. But I am, thus far, unable to do so.

posted 09-03-2001 07:43 PM            

You know your stuff, Delphi. As I understand it, the Forrestal diary is in the possession of the United States government and is classified 'Most Secret'... but that's another story....

posted 09-03-2001 08:04 PM            

roswell, now there's a conspiracy theory that interest me.

as for my observations being at odds with science, this is just not correct. i will try to find a website explaining this phenomona, but dont hold me to it. i'll have to search around a little. i am not sure if seeker is a pilot or not. but i spend a lot of time up there and you eventually see a little of everything.

posted 09-04-2001 01:30 AM            

A pilot that used to be in the same squadron as me did have a close encounter with something once while flying, but in the short time that I knew him I never got it out of him exactly what he saw or what happened. I'm hoping to run into him again so I can get the story out of him over a few beers.

I have had radar tracks do some interesting things. I was on a cross-country one day and was over northern Mississippi at about 30,000 feet. I had a few radar "hits" at about 40 degrees off my left side, 20 miles or so away and 10,000 feet above me. I locked one of the blips up, and it went from a standstill to around 800 knots in about ten seconds. Soon, it was off my screen. I locked up another blip in the same area, and the second one did the same thing. I had no more radar hits in that area after that.

I kept my eyes in that direction but never did see anything. Of course, they would have had to be rather big for me to see them at 20 miles.

I don't know what it was that I had on radar that day, but I know that it has never happened before or since.

Dirk and other eevil debunker types, or whoever wants to lurk: Hop on over and join in on the conversation at Mav's Halfway House for Wayward Debunker-Types.
http://pub31.ezboard.com/bcontrailsandchemtrails22884

Chem11, I'm in the chat room. Fight's on.

Mav

posted 09-04-2001 01:53 AM            

Damn birds...lol...