|
Author
|
|
Topic: Attention FK--Comment on Ridgefield Sky? | Topic page views:
|
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-01-2003 04:50 PM
   
FK based on atmospheric readings...are they favorable to support these persistent trails above Ridgefield, OR taken at about 11:50 AM today by Bobbie Bonnnickson? Please respond, thank you. 
Looking South 
Looking South 
Looking South 
Looking East 
Looking West 
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-01-2003 05:44 PM
Lulu, Great pics. I wish my digital was this nice. Mine's grainy.I am not at the office but I got one of the guys to print some stuff off for me to look at Sunday. Will get back to you. F.K.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Feelin Kocky on 03-01-2003]
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-01-2003 05:48 PM
Yes the Bonnicksons are exceptional photographers for sure FK. Appretiate you getting the data saved for tomorrow. Will look forward to hearing the low-down 
|
everetteyes
SARS4UPILOT
Everett WA
126 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-01-2003 07:38 PM
Lulu,
Do YOU belive that these are photos of Chemtrails?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-01-2003 07:48 PM
everetteyes,If atmospheric readings indicate that conditions are unsupportive of persistent trails, then yes, I believe these to be chemtrails.
|
justlookup
New Member
NW Oregon
10 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-01-2003 08:21 PM
Great pics Lu. I can't seem to get mine to upload as the file is too large. Again, good shooting.
|
emfx13
Moderator
Hayward Ca.U.S.A.
801 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-01-2003 09:44 PM
I just can't get myself to say"great pic's",they are truly ugly!Thanx for sharing.
|
bigjoe
Weather Observer
Western New York
303 posts, Dec 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 07:55 AM
Lulu,
What would you say if "atmospheric readings indicate that conditions are SUPPORATIVE of persistant trails"?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 09:23 AM
If atmospheric readings are in no way "marginal" or "questionable" but do indeed show supportive conditions for persistence, then these must be contrails bigjoe.No problem emfx. Many thanks to Bobbie for sending these to me ASAP, before Feelin Kocky's data is purged
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 09:28 AM
Morning FK--I see you are at work...so what is your expert opinion sir?
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 09:51 AM
Lulu,Here are my observations: First, I noted there is a lot of cirrostratus in the photographs which is one hint that there was the presence of enough moisture at least at some level of the upper troposphere, at the time the photos were take, with enough moisture to form clouds. At 1200 GMT on Saturday from southwest OR to northwest WA: At 300mb, the Temps were from -47C to -49C with dewpoint depressions (dd) from 10-12 deg. At 250mb the Temps were right around -57C with dd from 9-10 deg. At 200mb Temps ranged from -62C over southwest OR to -67C over norhtwest WA with dd from 7-9 deg. Finally, at 150mb, the Temps were -57 to -58C with dd from 9-12C. Now, over southwestern Canda the station on northern Vancouver Is. (still at 1200 GMT) reported the following: 300mb, -47C, dd of 4. 250mb, -56C, dd 3. 200mb, -67C, dd 3, 150mb, -59C, dd 7. Ok, here is what we have so far. At 5 AM MST Saturday morning over the area in question, we have what appears to be fairly marginal (IMO) conditions for persistent contrails. Based on the observation from Vancouver Is. their appears to be some upstream moisture. Let's continue:
At 0000 GMT Sunday (5pm MST) over western OR: At 300mb, -47 to -48C, dd 4-5 deg. 250mb, -56 to -57C, dd 5. 200mb, -65 to -66C, dd 5. 150mb -58 to -60C, dd 6. Satellite images: I looked carefully at the water vapor loop going back to about midnight MST Saturday morning and ran the loop that covered the entire day of Saturday. What I see is a rapid increase in upper level moisture along the northwest US coast from early Saturday morning through Saturday evening. The upper air plots at 0000 GMT would confirm this. The rapid increase in upper level RH values was probably a result in some upperward motion which would quickly raise RH amounts at that level. So, IMO, adding the presence of high clouds at the time the photos were take, and increasing upper level moisture, I would concluded that persistent contrails were not only possible, but likely. Perhaps canex would like to add something? Gosh I hope all that made sense. F.K.
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 10:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lulu:
Morning FK--I see you are at work...so what is your expert opinion sir?
Edit to add: Good morning to you, Lulu. Soooo, how would you be able to tell if am at work?
F.K.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Feelin Kocky on 03-02-2003]
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 10:12 AM
>>Gosh I hope all that made sense.<<Well I'm not claiming to understand most of what you just said. >>we have what appears to be fairly marginal (IMO) conditions for persistent contrails.<< >>So, IMO, adding the presence of high clouds at the time the photos were take, and increasing upper level moisture, I would concluded that persistent contrails were not only possible, but likely.<< So the conditions grew more favorable to support persistence as the day progressed? this much I understand. Yes, perhaps canex would care to add his expert opinion? I know you are at work because of the spycam installed in your office No seriously FK, the mods can see IPs of who's online...!
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 10:16 AM
>>So the conditions grew more favorable to support persistence as the day progressed? this much I understand.<<That was basically what I was trying to say. F.K.
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 10:19 AM
Thank you FK for taking the time to check out the data.
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 11:14 AM
Anytime. F.K.
|
everetteyes
SARS4UPILOT
Everett WA
126 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 11:19 AM
Lulu,So after talking to your debunker what do you really think? Contrails or chemtrails?
Can you think for your self?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 11:26 AM
Yes I can think for myself, but unfortunately I don't have access to the data that FK has, therefore, I asked him what the data indicated. Based on the data, they are contrails.Can you tell just by sight whether trails are contrails or chemtrails everetteyes? I can't. Why do you call FK "my debunker"? Because his reply doesn't confirm your opinions/beliefs?
|
everetteyes
SARS4UPILOT
Everett WA
126 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 11:27 AM
Lulu,You walk a fine line between a skeptic and a goverment tool,Why don't you just come out and say that you don't belive in Chemtrails?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 11:51 AM
Sorry my reply doesn't please you everetteyes, but that's life. After 3 years involved in this issue, I am at the point where my mindset is very similar to Thermit's ~ quote:
Originally posted by Thermit:
The part of my position that Chemtrail activists will agree with, but skeptics will disagree with is:Chemtrails are real.
The part of my position that many Chemtrail activists will disagree with, but skeptics will agree with is:
Contrails can easily last for hours and hours and obscure the sky.
The rest of my position is probably not accepted by many Chemtrail activists, or any skeptics:
Chemtrails are less common than contrails, and many Chemtrail reports (but definately not all) are mistaken reports of actual contrails. Since this is my position, and in a way I agree with both some of what the Chemtrail activists claim, and some of what the skeptics claim, I feel it is fair and correct that individuals of both points of view are able to participate in our forums.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000546.html >>government tool<< ?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Lulu on 03-02-2003]
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 12:29 PM
Oh oh, Lulu, he figured it out. I will now give you the command to deactivate you, agent Lulu. Clatoo Nictoe bingtah.You may live a normal life, Lulu till once again I activate you for my sinister plans. Buahahahahahaha!! 
F.K.
|
everetteyes
SARS4UPILOT
Everett WA
126 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 12:34 PM
Based on a debunkers data you state that these photos are contrails?....What a joke!
TERRY REED YOU ARE A DISINFO AGENT OR A FOOL !
|
Feelin Kocky
A Member
Underground Weather Control Bunker
537 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-02-2003 12:38 PM
Who's Terry Reed?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-02-2003 12:40 PM
I am Terry Reed FK, states so on my e-mail if ya check it out...you should know this...being that I am a government agent and all...snort!Everetteyes--do you believe contrails can persist for hours?
|
everetteyes
SARS4UPILOT
Everett WA
126 posts, May 2002
|
posted 03-02-2003 12:53 PM
Sure they can,and they can expand to 400% of there original size,They can White out the entire sky in a matter of hours and all of this started less then 10yrs ago.I could be up in B.C. in a matter of hours,I would love to be next to you on a spray day and have you explain to me face to face how these are normal.How does that sound?
|
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 
