Dear Mr. Skousen,
In an effort to fully inform your readers, I am taking this opportunity to correct some false information you have put out to your readers
regarding 'chemtrails'. I will address some of these found in a recent article here:
http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/2002/0111.html
My responses will be in BOLD
Mr. Skousen wrote:
"1) Chemtrails occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur. According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, "for even short-lived condensation trails to form, we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more.""
MY RESPONSE:
A QUICK SEARCH USING MR. SCHLATTER'S NAME AND CHEMTRAILS BRINGS ME TO THIS EXCELLENT LINK WHERE
HE IS PROPERLY QUOTED:
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html
HE SAYS:"At temperatures lower than about -76 degrees F, contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected.
The persistence of contrails depends upon temperature, relative humidity, and the vigor of mixing between the exhaust plume and the ambient air. At low temperatures, with high humidity, and with stable temperature stratification (which inhibits vertical mixing of the air), contrails persist for many hours."
ADDITIONALLY, THIS DOCUMENT, A BRIEFING PAPER FOR WWII PILOTS DESCRIBES WHAT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SIXTY YEARS ABOUT CONTRAIL FORMATION/PERSISTENCE CONDITIONS:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474/
Skousen continues:
"(He’s correct about the temperature, but humidity at altitude is rarely that high. In any case, humidity is only relevant to how long a contrail persists--not to its initial formation. The initial contrail is formed by the jet exhaust of the aircraft which provides the source of moisture--a byproduct of fuel combustion. It is this water vapor that freezes and turns into contrails.) Chemtrails usually occur at altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet, which is usually too low and warm to support contrails."
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT WWII BOMBERS SUCH AS THE B-24 BOMBER WERE PLAGUED BY CONTRAILS,
WHICH ALLOWED PLACEMENT OF ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE.
SINCE THE OPERATING CEILING OF THIS PLANE WAS
28,000 FT HISTORY PROVES THAT FOR THE LAST SIXTY YEARS, NORMAL CONTRAILS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO FORM AND PERSIST AT THOSE ALTITUDES.
THE CURRENT NATIONAL TEMPERATURES AT 30,000
FT MEET CONTRAIL FORMATION TEMPERATURE MINUMUMS(-40F) NATIONWIDE:
http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_30000ft.html
MORE LATER,
JAY REYNOLDS
What was the name of the disinformation agency you work for?
I don't work for any agency, actually I don't even have a job, or want one right now for that matter.
I was a chemtrail believer at one time, but after applying some serious research persistently and consistently, I have to say that "chemtrails" are a hoax. With chemtrails being a hoax, then all these assumptions for what their purpose may be are - assumptions based on a hoax.
http://worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb/
http://cdebsjournal.topcities.com/leadpage.htm
I invite anybody to disprove my research observations, based on "chemtrail" reports from across the United States of America. You can e-mail me at CDEBGO22@Hotmail.com
It must be nice to be indepedentally wealthy (or well funded)ah Deb or was that alias Jay or alias Deb???? Lets see now...what was isn't...and what is isn't what it was...now I got it straight Deb...or was it Jay...just what is your adgendi???
Deb,
Were you trying to disprove chemtrails, or merely prove the existence of contrails. From what I could gather, you have not provided any positive evidence that chemtrails don't exist--only that you don't think they do. Now, tell us something we don't know.
Jay Reynold's corrections are valid. They do not, however, invalidate the overall criteria I stated about distinguishing between contrails and chemtrails. I have personally witnessed spraying at altitudes and temperatures lower than that required to form contrails. The two tankers I saw flying in formation, turning their spray tips on and off cannot be duplicated by aircraft flying at contrail altitudes and temperatures.
It is true that a contrail can stop and start if it encounters a wave of warm temperature penetrating the cold upper atmosphere, but the cessation and startup of the contrail is never abrupt--it will take several miles. Two aircraft flying in formation would experience the same effect. What I observed could not be accounted for in this way. The interval of the cut-off of spraying and the start-up was only a few hundred yards, at the most--and the other aircraft, flying at the same altitude beside it was still spraying. About 30 seconds later, it stopped spraying and the other aircraft started. This cannot be explained by uniform whether phenomena.
I appreciate the corrections, but I object to someone attempting to discredit the total package based upon a couple of errors which do not change the entire result.
Joel Skousen
Dear Mr. Skousen,
Thank you for the opportunity to expesss myself.
While I have not yet discredited your whole package, your acceptance of my corrections
shows me that you are reasonable enough to
be able to accept factual information when presented in a documented form, even if it proves your previous statements were incorrect.
Continuing, in your Centrex article(see above URL), you wrote, "2) Chemtrails persist for many hours and spread out continuously until wide areas of the sky are covered. Contrails spread out only slightly and evaporate within 10 seconds to an hour, depending on the upper air humidity and temperature."
MY COMMENT: YOUR STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT,
NORMAL CONTRAILS HAVE BEEN KNOWN FOR OVER SIXTY YEARS TO SOMETIMES PERSIST FOR MANY HOURS. IN 1999
I SURVEYED SEVERAL WWII PILOTS WHO, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, AGREED. ONE SAYS, "We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. " - Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group
FOR MORE TESTIMONY SEE:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/deception5.html
ALSO FOR EVIDENCE OFFIVE HOUR PERSISTENCE IN 1987:
http://www.royal-met-soc.org.uk/weatherclub/secondary/scisky3.html
BESIDES PERSISTENCE, CONTRAILS CAN AND DO OFTEN SPREAD OUT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF WIND SHEAR AND CAN EVEN GROW WHEN THE WATER VAPOR ICE CRYSTALS
ACT AS SEED NUCLEI FOR SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITION.
SEE:Minnis, P., D. F. Young, L. Nguyen, D. P. Garber, W. L. Smith Jr and R. Palikonda, 1998: " Transformation of Contrails into Cirrus during SUCCESS".Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 25, April 15, 1998, pp. 1157-1160.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Transformation.pdf
"A CLUSTER OF CONTRAILS FROM COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT LASTED OVER 17 HOURS.... THE COMMERCIAL CLUSTER REACHED AN AREA OF 35,000 SQ. KM."
AND:
Jensen, E. J., A. S. Ackerman, D. E. Stevens, O. B. Toon and P. Minnis, 1998: Spreading and Growth of Contrails in a Sheared Environment ". J. Journal of Geophysical Research , 103, 1998, p. 31,557-31,568.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/jgr_jenson_dec1998.pdf
More later,
Jay Reynolds
Clarification.
My research is well rounded with the use of several tools available to anyone.
What my research shows is that conditions were favorable for contrails where "chemtrails" were reported.
"I have personally witnessed spraying at altitudes and temperatures lower than that required to form contrails."
Mr. Skousen, I would like to know what controls you used to determine the altitude of the planes and the temperature at that altitude? From the ground, it is impossible to determine the true altitude of a plane. Even if your estimate of the altitude was close, how do you know what the temperature and relative humidity were at that time? Are you basing your conclusion on one observation, or two or three?
"The interval of the cut-off of spraying and the start-up was only a few hundred yards, at the most--and the other aircraft, flying at the same altitude beside it was still spraying. About 30 seconds later, it stopped spraying and the other aircraft started. This cannot be explained by uniform whether phenomena."
This is easily explained because the weather at flying altitudes is not uniform. Relative Humidity and temperature vary greatly. The on and off effect of a contrail happens when pockets of relative humidity are present.
And BTW, I am Deb. I answered that way because I'm always accused of working for some agency or being funded or whatever. (That's why I use free websites.) My time, like everyone else's is limited and there is so much more I can add to my website, and would like to.
I fell for the hoax too but decided to look beyond what I was being 'told,' and learned not to believe everything on the Internet. And it took me 6 months of serious, daily study before I even left (actually I was banned) from the chemtrail camp in October of 2000. Since then I created the website and learned as I went along. I found a new hobby and I enjoy the heck out of it.
So instead of flaming me, again, I invite anyone to disprove or show contrary evidence to my findings.
Forgot to add that I developed my own system, and had to learn about aviation and weather on my own, something I knew nothing about. Now that I understand it and saw the results for myself, I still haven't seen a chemtrail, only contrails.
Deb,
You are flat wrong in your explanation of "pockets of humidity" as a possible explanation. Pockets of humidity are not as small as they would have to be to produce clean cut-off of contrails and restart again in the short time span I witnessed--neither are their boundary layers precise enough to produce the kinds of sharp stop and go spray tracks I witnessed.
Besides, as I clearly explained to you, I witnessed two aircraft at the same altitude flying side by side, turning off and on their spray tips--at different, alternating times. The were flying through the exact same air mass in close proximity. There is no way one could stop contrailing and other keep spewing out ice crystals in the same airspace.
Second, you refuse to tackle the tough questions-- irrefutable evidence such as the photos on carnicom.com of spraying emanating from the entire wing rather than from behind the engines. Contrails can only come from the back of the engine itself.
Third, the two studies you quote from in a prior post are both NASA driven studies. What they are calling contrails appear to me to be too irregular and manmade appearing to qualify as airline tracks. Who is to say they weren't laying down chemtrails and calling it a contrail study. No content analysis of the composition of the clouds were proven. Their statements that cloud particle size increased over time also does not match ice crystals. I'd be a little more suspicious that this may be a red herring.
Joel Skousen
I am writing down my thoughts regarding chemtrails.. The patterns, shapes and forms of these markers in the sky are completely different than those markers(contrails) that i have witnessed over the last quarter century.. Something is obviously going on here but i have yet to read any material which points to which agency of our government is running this operation.. I'm not talking about planes that make these chemtrails and whether it is the US military or private contractors.. What i want to know is WHICH AGENCY is funding this project.. If its black budget then we will not know, but if there are public records such as the Federal Register then we can find out.. I do have one question for those who have written to this forum, "Do chemtrails have anything to do with The UN Wildlands Project?" A few more thoughts on this subject... I notice that these chemtrail sprayings leave a filmy residue on the ground.. Could these residues be able to hold and keep active biological agents whereas normal weather might destroy these pathogens such as sunlight or extreme cold temperatures.. I have a suspicion that these chemtrail residues are part of a global and future depopulation program, but there isnt alot of material that supports this view... In conclusion i know for a fact that chemtrails and contrails are not the same.. I have witnessed these sprayings firsthand right over Tampa Bay Florida.. The patern and shape of these markers are the same as those viewed over the internet.. Ted
Mr. Skousen,
What controls did you utilize to determine the altitude of those 2 planes, the temperature and relative humidity at the time? That's the most elementary place to start. I have seen "on and off" strips of contrails many times, can immediately identify the planes from which they are coming, the altitude they are flying at and determine the temperature and RH at that altitude right here from my computer. Because there are so many conspiracy theories, I have dedicated my time to one, "chemtrails."
Sorry, but I'm going to go with real science than the observations and photographs of a former surveyor turned "chemtrail" researcher.
Deb... You are not paying attention to the answers being given by Mr. skousen.. When he tells you that the planes spray on/off it means that the pilots are directing the shape and form of the white trails in the sky.. For example, i have seen trails in the form of a large 'X' MORE THAN A FEW TIMES!! down here in Tampa,Fl. When you see a contrail form there is ONLY one plane that makes the trail and it is ALWAYS a straight line of white crystallized vapor going in ONE direction! You observe the plane moving in ONE direction with the contrail forming DIRECTLY BEHIND the engine of the plane.. The chemtrails that form like the 'X' mentioned above and i have seen this, are the result of a pilot TAKING HIS TIME to form this pattern.. Now why would a pilot do this? Is he bored with nothing to do? Have you ever seen an anarchy symbol? This is another chemtrail formation that i observed once down here in Florida.. Now you know what it looks like, a large capital letter 'A' with a line across it.. Are you telling me that this is a contrail? No Way! In my previous post i wrote that over the last 25 years and more i always saw contrails in the sky.. They all looked the same all those years.. And you have seen them too! One plane with ONE LINE OF TRAIL, very high in the sky.. The chemtrails are LOWER in the sky with different shapes and forms to them, which suggests that the pilots are devoting more time to make these trails.. Remember also, alot of people have seen debris fall from the sky from these chemtrails and have been collected and analyzed in a lab.. Now when was the last time you read or heard of debris falling from the sky when a CONTRAIL WAS FORMED? YOU HAVE NOT!!! I really dont know what else to write here.. Its obvious that i have stated my case and am mystified as to why you still dont believe in the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.. And you stated that you have done extensive research on this subject? Ted
Deb,
You are misleading yourself when you say you are staying with real science. I cannot verify the altitude--it is irrelevant, because of the other factors that I mentioned that prove they were flying at an altitude that doesn't not produce contrails: The shutting off and on abruptly and sharply (not miles apart) of one of two aircraft flying side by side and then the other aircraft, is PROOF that the aircraft were producing the trail, not the atmospheric conditions. That is why I could make the statement that vapor trails were being made at an altitude that cannot produce contrails. You cannot shut off contrails side by side with another aircraft that is producing them. Why can't you see that?
I also notice that you refuse to answer the other tough question which contradicts your insistance on disbelieving in chemtrails: that of vapor trails coming from the wings of aircraft and not the engines. That is impossible with contrails. You have the pictures before you, let's have an explanation. You cannot claim to "go with real science" and simply disregard the photographs of someone you disparage as a "former surveyor turned chemtrail researcher." Photographs are evidence. Answer the evidence, please.
Joel Skousen
Mr. Skousen, if photos are evidence(they can be if documented and properly analyzed), then this photo will be of interest to you, it depicts a formation of B-17 bombers over California during the 1940s, and if examined closely some make trails and some do not. This should satisfy your puzzlement that such a thing might happen.
SEE PHOTOS #1& #2:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/gallery.html
=======================
The most plausible reason why this might happen is differential engine effciency- less efficient engine generally means hotter exhaust and less water vapor production due to lower fuel eficiency.
===========================
Additionally, the WWII-era briefing document I previously referenced, 'Contrails, what they are and What can be done about them, describes 'aerodynamic contrails' formed along tips and trailing edge of wings due to low pressure areas causing condensation of moisture in the air. These are falsely called "MEGASPRAYERS" by the 'chemtrail' crowd.
SEE:http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474/
=========================
The article I previously cited containing testimony from WWII pilots describes aerodynamic contrails this way(note altitude
of 21,000ft.):
"As we neared Berlin at that altitude we began to stream contrails from the wing tips, the tips of the tail assemblage, and the tips of the propellors on each of the 4 engines. We were, in effect, clouding the sky over Germany . In an effort to eliminate this phenom we were told to go to "Angels5" which meant that we were to add 5 hundred feet to our scheduled bombing altitude. So we went to 21,000 +500 or 21,500 feet and the problem did not resolve. If anything it got worse! We kept adding 500 foot increments to our scheduled altitude until our aircraft reached 27,500 feet, still trailing contrails."
So, now that irrefutable photographic evidence,
expert testimony, and documentary information has been presented is it not abundantly clear that it IS possible for two aircraft of identical type and nearly identical altitudes to one emit normal contrails and one not?
And has it not now been shown using photographic and expert testimony that normal contrails can also be formed from other than the engines, called aetodynamic contrails?
Regarding your insistence that air masses do not differ enough from one location to another to allow contrail formation unless "miles apart";
is it not self evident that
clouds have distinct edges on the order of far less than "miles apart", so that enough difference
in the air mass exists to form distinct cloud edges? The edge of a cloud clearly shows that one parcel of air inside the cloud differs enough from the parcel just outside the cloud, enough indeed so that saturation occurs and the cloud forms
WITH A DISTINCT EDGE.
In fact, if such a difference were not present,
I propose that no distinct clouds could exist, and that the sky would be forever murky.
I note you reference that you are a pilot. Would you please tell us what rating you currently hold, the hours flight time you have, and when was the last time you piloted an aircraft?
Mr Skousen, you say, "I cannot verify the altitude--it is irrelevant, because of the other factors that I mentioned that prove they were flying at an altitude that doesn't not produce contrails."
If, as you say, you cannot thus far verify the altitude of any contrail you have seen, and that such a verifiaction is irrelevant, how can you then use any sort of rule of altitude(which rule you have admitted was incorrect anyways)?
Your statement does not follow logically, you cannot say altitude is irrelevant, then use a rule of altitude, however incorrect, to distinguish between putative "chemtrails" and normal contrails, especially if you have never even actually measured the altitude in the first place.
Am I correct that you now state you were able to identify as military tankers two airplanes flying at 25-30,000 ft, and you were able to view some sort of "spray tips" along the wing surface?
Does it not now begin to appear that you may be incorrect about the basics of normal contrail formation? It seems that most of the things you have said about 'chemtrails' are long known to be attributes of normal contrails.
Were you aware that Clifford Carnicom has never identified purported "chemtrails" as coming from a military jet? And that all the contrails he says are "chemtrails" have been measured by photogrammetric analysis and found to be far higher than 35,000 ft? Did you know these two facts? Have you ever actually seen any real documented and certified laboratory analysis to support the claims of aluminum, barium, or other component of claimed "chemtrails"?
I now offer you $1000.00(the sum of one thousand dollars) to produce such documentation(along with a free gift subscription to your newsletter retail value $24.00-just kidding)
Again, I enjoy the stimulation this discourse
has engendered, and the opportunity to discuss factual information with you, Mr. Skousen. I will continue to answer your questions as factually and politely as possible.
Jay Reynolds
Deb,
Part of the problem you are having with evidence--which you are deriving from Chemtrail debunking websites, is that you don't have enough experience to analyse what is really happening with the photo evidence you present. I am a Navy Pilot with over 3,000 hours flight experience, including orientation flights in Air Force bombers and Aerial refueling tankers.
As a high performance fighter pilot, I can tell you that the B-1 bomber photo you choose to counter my argument about chemtrails not matching the engine exhaust is not a valid example. What this picture shows is high-G wing lift (not straight and level flight) which causes a a brief and forceful separation of the moisture from the rest of the air. It does not form contrails behind the aircraft at any distance. I watched these occur all the time in high-G fighter engagements I was involved in.
If you will look carefully at the photos on Carnicom.com, you will notice numerous differences with the photo you claim explains my challenge. 1) Spray trails are formed behind the aircraft for long distances. The selective picture you referenced was purposely cropped to make sure you could not see how brief this aerodynamc condensation was. 2) the distance in back of the wing at which the wing spray features appears is significant. The aerodynamic condensation you reference is immediate.
You also fail to see the details in the pictures your reference about WWII bombers, some with contrails and some without. They are NOT at the same altitude as you claim. The ones without contrails are flying straight and level at lower attitudes. The others that are climbing and evading fighters are obviously higher.
Lastly, relative to my use of the word "altitude," it was a general and variable criteria that I referred to. The altitude at which contrails will form varies according to temperature. Because I personally saw aircraft flying which turned off and on their spray valves (an assumption due to the fact they were not aligned with the engines--they could not be visible) I can deduce that they must have been at an altitude lower than that required to form contrails. The actual altitude reading is irrevelant. Logic dictates that any aircraft flying without producing contrails either has his engines turned off or he is below the necessary altitude criteria.
You continue to erroneously analyze my comments about different air masses. Your uses of distinct cloud outlines (which are moisture pockets) is not the same as temperature boundaries, which are not so precise. I have flown hundreds of hours at contrail altitudes and know what it looks like to stop and start contrailing. I never looks like the photos on Carnicom.com nor what I personally witnesses. When it does happen, the contrail tapers off slowly over a mile or so. If it comes back, it is is also gradual. You can hypothesize all you want and convince yourself that what I saw was natural and normal, but you simply don't have the experience to judge these things properly.
You've got me on the chemical analysis. I don't have access to that personally. I will always be skeptical of those claims as well until I have my own sample. But rather than challenge me to produce one, why don't you spend your money running down some of those have published sampling results? I'd be most interested in your results.
Joel Skousen
Mr. Skousen,
The writer of the posting you last replied to was me,
Jay Reynolds, and not Deb. I respect your service
as a former pilot, but am curious as to why a man with your experience would write false information such as:
"According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, "for even short-lived condensation trails to form, we're talking temperatures lower than about minus 76 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity at jet altitudes of 70 per cent or more." (He’s correct about the temperature,..."
AND
"Contrails spread out only slightly and evaporate within 10 seconds to an hour, depending on the upper air humidity and temperature."
I am also curious about your statement:
"Analysis of chemtrails, in contrast, has uncovered a variety of chemicals and other substances, including barium, aluminum oxide, microscopic fibers and oil-based products, none of which are intrinsic to normal jet fuel."
Are you telling me that you produce for your readership hearsay and rumor of such an "analysis"
while never seeing or even seeking verification of such an analysis? I offered to pay William Thomas
for a copy of any analysis he would have. He refused.
Mr Skousen, you have not answered these questions
previously posed:
"Were you aware that Clifford Carnicom has never identified purported "chemtrails" as coming from a military jet?
And that all the contrails he says are "chemtrails" that he measured by photogrammetric analysis were found to be far higher than 35,000 ft?
I agree that I have no information on the B-1 bomber's altitude or maneuvering at the time
that it was making the aerodynamic contrails shown, this is an example of a photo which does not actually prove anything because it cannot be documented, perhaps it was engaged in a dogfight.
However, you must admit that the WWII pilot's testimony is compelling, those planes were in practically level flight, only climbing 500ft at each step, and the contrails coming from the fuselage were NOT from the engines, the same as you say you saw. In other words, it IS possible
for such an occurrance to happen.
Lastly, in your article you wrote:
") Aircraft dispersing chemtrails always fly back and forth over a set area, creating circular or zig-zag patterns of vapor in the sky. Often many chemtrail aircraft can be seen in one area, flying in crisscross patterns laying down vapor trails before flying off over the horizon. Large airliners operating under Air Traffic Control fly on set airways and do not make such patterns in the sky. Government representatives have tried to pass off reports of crisscross chemtrail patterns as merely the convergence of airliner contrails at normal air traffic intersections, but this is false. For one thing, almost all airways in the US run in straight lines, east to west. Neither do airliners fly in close formation with other aircraft. In addition, chemtrail sightings almost never come close to normal airway intersections."
My friend, Deb, uses commercially available software that allows her access to Air Traffic Control radar images. She recorded normal traffic for one hour over SaltLake city today. It is evident that you are incorrect on several points.
SEE:
http://chickiedeb.topcities.com/SLCJR.htm
US airways do not almost all run in straight lines, east to west,as you say.
Modern GPSatellite navigation allows some airliners to fly direct, off airways altogether.
Commercial airliners do cross each other's paths,
and if making contrails, would form a grid.
In the second to last screen at the URL above, where two planes(VIR43 and OPT 450) headed south off airways cross over the main east/west airway west of Salt lake City.
Jay Reynolds
Mr. Skousen-
Greetings from yet another debunker. (sigh)
As a fellow fighter pilot, I suppose that you will grant me the benefit of the doubt and listen to what I have to say.
First off, Jay and Deb both know me, as do many in the chemtrailer camp. I am an F-16 pilot who is current and qualified in the jet, and I've been flying aircraft for the better part of my life. Among other things, I've got hundreds of hours in the skies of New Mexico, including Cliff Carnicom's home of Santa Fe.
I've been on climb out from an airfield and I've seen aerodynamic contrails come off of my own jet and my wingman's that look exactly like Cliff's "megasprayer" photos. With a thin wing and high humidity you should know that you can fly straight and level sometimes and see aerodynamic contrails comong off of your wing. Surely as a Navy fighter pilot you've seen this. Check six often?
I've been on several sorties flying to and from the Cato MOA when I've caught up to Southwest 737s making "start and stop" contrails that would make a chemtrailer run and get their gas mask.
I flew one day on a 4VX DCA sortie and made some pretty heavy cons while in the CAP. After landing, debriefing, and going on another hop in the same day, I saw my contrails downwind, still there 5 hours later. Surely you can see how a couple of jets conning in a CAP would look like some of these pictures on Cliff's site and others.
(1) How do you think that pilots would knowingly spray toxic substances on their fellow countrymen (who by the way are also their friends and families?)
(2) Also, how do you figure that no one has even heard so much as a peep from anyone that a sparaying operation is going on? It's one of our least-kept secrets that the O'club is the best place to gather intel. How would such a large operation be covered up so well, from the air traffic controllers to the pilots to the chemical manufacturers to the mechanics to the crew chiefs to the security personnel to the refuelers to the operations personnel to the dispatchers all the way down to the aerospace ground equipment troops?
There must be, even with a small fleet of planes literally thousands of people who would have to be read in somewhat to the operation who haven't said a word about anything. And, this isn't even beginning to consider the many troops who were involved at one time with the program but are not now.
For me, the simplest, easiest to verify answer works for me. These are nothing more than ordinary contrails. After all, I make them myself.
Thanks for your time.
Maverick
Mr. Skousen:
I disagree that photographs are evidence. I have hundreds of photographs. If you don't understand what is going on at the altitude where the trails are being laid, at the time you see them and the photos are taken, then the matter is moot.
Ted said: "The chemtrails are LOWER in the sky with different shapes and forms to them, which suggests that the pilots are devoting more time to make these trails.."
Ted, Go back and look at any day on my journal page. Those maps demonstrate the relative humidity and temperature at flying altitudes. These are the factors that determine not only the appearance of contrails, but why they look different at each altitude - the weather changes with the altitude. It's not the pilots. Although these maps of relative humidity aren't exact, as recently explained, http://cdebsjournal.topcities.com/RHaltitude.htm
they do show RH areas and temperature ripe for contrail formation over the same places where "chemtrail" reports have been posted.
As for the so-called lab sample analysis, the only work I know of is from low-flying aircraft, not the ones at altitudes where trails form.
http://www.moonbowmedia.com/ei/ct/chemfacts.htm
There have been a couple of attempts to collect money for research funds. The latest, after 8 months, had 19 contributors and less than $1,200, far short of the "$20,000 and $30,000" estimates for taking a plane up to collect a sample.(by Lorie Kramer)
Jay said:"Have you ever actually seen any real documented and certified laboratory analysis to support the claims of aluminum, barium, or other component of claimed "chemtrails"?
I now offer you $1000.00(the sum of one thousand dollars) to produce such documentation."
I will match that $1,000.00 (One Thousand and No/100's Dollars).
Me too.
Maverick
Mr. Skousen,
In your Centrex.com article, you wrote:
"3)Contrails are always pure white and never exhibit any halo effect. Chemtrails have an oily glint to them, with rainbow-like color effects (reddish or pinkish tint) as the sun shines through."
It has long been known, and I'm sure you would not disagree, that normal contrails are composed of ice crystals formed from the byproducts of combustion. It has also long been known that ice crystals in clouds, depending on the shape size, and orientation, can produce optical effects such as iridescence, halos, parhelia, sundogs, etc.
I contend that the "rainbow-like color effects" and "halos" you say are never found in normal contrails, are entirely normal effects caused by the ice crystals known to comprise normal contrails.
Do you have documentary evidence to support your contention that, "Contrails are always pure white and never exhibit any halo effect" ?
If you cannot provide any factual basis for your position, then you will have to admit you are incorrect on point #3.
I eagerly await any answers you can provide to clarify your position on all the questions you have been asked by myself and the others. I understand that you may be busy, but will check back often and am sure that the subject of possible illegal spraying of our nation with toxic substances is important enough to merit your reply.
More later,
Jay Reynolds
The silence is deafening.
You can find more information and links over here:
http://pub31.ezboard.com/bcontrailsandchemtrails22884
and here:
http://www.worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb/
and (last but certainly not least) here:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/
The way this is going reminds me of a Canadian forum on gun control I used to read and post to until it was given up and closed down. Some guy calling himself Toronto Bob got on and both covertly and overtly ridiculed and attacked any posting he could, and tried to discredit whoever he could. I once asked Joel if he had gotten an IRS audit in response for his efforts. He hadn't, but a concerted effort to discredit him is probably overdue in coming. The tone of the ridicule - choice of language, etc., leads me to this thinking. I ran into the same thing to a lesser degree for my efforts to expose and publicize the Pearl Harbour conspiracy.
Who's going to be responsible when one of these believers makes good on his threats to shoot down a "chemspraying" airliner full of ordinary citizens? This is far from the only threat believers have made:
********************
Message 80722 of 80724
Reply
I've noticed this for years
now
johnmacedojr
(27/M/Tinton Falls, NJ)
1/30/02 12:56 am
I've tried pointing this crap out to people, and I CANNOT BELIEVE how
many people don't even look up in the sky AT ALL!!!!
I live in NJ and every morning, every clear blue sky that starts as such, is
quickly canvassed and criss-crossed with long lasting, whispy, spreading
CHEMTRAILS on a daily basis.
The freakin jets are so ••••••• high up there, it often looks like they are
shooting up into space when in actuality, they are merely flying level to the
ground at such a high altitude.
I would love to acquire a Grail SA-7 S.A.M. and just pull over on the side
of the road one day and take out one of these freakin things!!! BOOM !!!
View Replies to this Message
Message 80722 of 80724
======================
johnmacedojr's profile
Last Updated: December 30, 1999
My Email
johnmacedojr@aol.com
On Yahoo!
· Messenger
Basics
Yahoo! ID:
johnmacedojr
Real Name:
John Macedo
Jr.
Location:
Tinton Falls,
NJ
Age:
27
Marital Status:
Married
Gender:
Male
Occupation:
Network
Technician
More About Me
Hobbies: Computers, Movies, TV, Music,
Theature, Cooking, Motorcycling, Inventing,
Writing, 3 things I look for in a woman...Brains,
Nice Smile and Cute Feet!
Latest News: I shall never forget 1999. It was the
most incrediblely difficult and transformational
year of my life. Job changes, car accident, new
house, new car and of course a beautiful new
wife...beware of thos
Favorite Quote
"When asked what the most powerful force in the
universe was, Albert Einstein replied, "Interest,
compounded daily...""
Links
Create your own home page at GeoCities!
· Home Page: No home page specified
· Cool Link 1: www.thehungersite.com
· Cool Link 2: www.sharkyextreme.com
********************
Also:
"The resultant stopping and starting of contrails is therefore quite gradual and takes at least a mile of air travel to complete."
Should we tell him that's only 6 seconds? Should we ask to see documentation of the 1 mile number? Should we ask how a cloud can be so well defined (extra points for the sharp definition of a front)? Should we ask if air has updrafts and downdrafts? Should we even mention wind shear?
Will heads explode? Will they ask us to prove a negative? (Ooops, skeptic already did that again!)
Wild Bill
Nobody is attempting to discredit anybody, only seperate fact from fiction. It's the fiction that has led people to make malicious threats because of their own ignorance. When making accusations or leading people to believe something so extraordinary as "chemtrails," the burden of proof is on the accuser, which includes credibility. The critical thinking mind examines every detail before making a judgement. In the case of "chemtrails," it's easier to follow, assume and believe than it is to provide tangible proof. The power of suggestion goes a long way.
>>>"But in the rare event you're telling the truth, stay safe and good luck wherever you are, whether it's on a jet over Afghanistan or sitting behind a cozy desk at some government agency. <<<"
Atypical. I know who Maverick is, but since some of us have received actual death threats, computer hacks, and other assorted attacks (like being 'agents' as mentioned in my first posts above), he chooses not to disclose his identity. If you read his numerous posts at Chemtrail Central, you will find, just by sharing his knolwedge and experience, he is the real deal.
My name is out there as is Jay Reynolds, just 2 average citizens. The chemtrail hoax is so insignificant, no agency could be bothered. Actually, it is amusing for people who know better and visit the websites and message boards for a laugh.
Deb Phalen
Plainfield, IN
Mr. Skousen,
It was good to see you make a public correction of some of your previus statements:
http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/2002/0125.html
In the URL above, you wrote:
"The important point here is that rarely do chemtrail observations match airway intersections or major air routes."
I have never seen any documentation of this claim, from you or anyone else. Can you back this up with even one factual example?
Also at the URL above, you wrote,
"Third, contrails at altitude can stop and start again, but this only happens when aircraft are flying at the boundary of contrail temperatures, which is no always even or uniform. The resultant stopping and starting of contrails is therefore quite gradual and takes at least a mile of air travel to complete. Such a phenomeno does not explain the abrupt, sharp cessation of spraying at altitude that I witnessed or that has been documented by the photos at www.carnicom.com. "
Please see:
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/bilderarchiv/SIL/figure025-l.gif
The graphic above is from this webpage:
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/bilderarchiv/SIL/
description of the graphic reads, "Figure 25: Perspective view of the tropopause (blue colours) at 0000 UTC 12 October 1993, defined by 1.6 potential vorticity units and envelope of tracer distribution (red-brown colours) resulting from aircraft emissions released the day before (see Petry, Institut für Geophysik und Meteorologie, Universität Köln, DLR-Mitt. 97-04, 1997) ==============
Looking at this image, the tropopause, which is the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere, one sees that two distinct spikes are seen in blue. These spikes represent intrusion of the troposhphere well into the stratosphere. An aircraft flying through such an air masses represented by the blue spikes would encounter temperatures significantly different from that of the surounding air mass. The change would be abrupt. At the same time, distinct troughs can be seen in blue, representing deep intrusion of the stratosphere down into the troposphere, with the same results. These cases graphically show how a normal contrail can start or stop due to abrupt differences in air mass temperatures.
Mr Skousen, can you show any documentary proof
that the measurements shown on this image is incorrect? If not, you should correct your previous assumption, as you have done in the other
instances in which I showed with documented factual information that you were incorrect.
Jay Reynolds
Dear Jay, Deb, Maverick, etc.,
I think I can speak for most of the readers of this forum when I say to you GOOD SHOW! Some of us were actually beginning to believe that we had something to worry about with this "chemtrail" thing. Thanks to your humble, polite and informative sharing of undoctored information regarding this phenomenon, we can pull the cloak of comfort back around us that the US Government is here to protect us.
In fact your service to this sector of humanity is greater than you might suppose. Since you have so thoroughly debunked this "chemtrail conspiracy" you have set our minds at ease regarding many other atrocities the US government has been accused of. We are now confident that the US Government did NOT purposefully, and under the guise of "national security" expose many thousands of innocent and trusting civilians to radiation in the middle of the last century. Can you believe that some of us also were beginning to believe that during the 60's the government also sponsored the testing of mind altering drugs like LSD on unsuspecting prison inmates and college students? We are truly in your debt. In fact, we now have renewed confidence that since our government has blessed China with Most Favored Nation Trading status, that we have nothing to fear from this avowed communist hation. We are certain that the rumors of the Chinese furnishing terrorists, rogue nations, and gangs in the US with weapons to carry out terrorist warfare must indeed be false. We are also certain that Russia is indeed our friend, and we have nothing to fear from our buddies in Moscow.
Since Sept 11, some of us were also losing some confidence in the ability of our government to protect us from our enemies. We are now certain that with vigilent military people like yourselves on the job, we have nothing to fear. You are even combating dis-informatiion such as this "chemtrail" thing.
I think I speak for most of the readers of this site when I offer you my heartfelt thanks for straightening us out, and encourage you to take your most convincing arguments on to other web sites that sorely need salvation.
Dear Eric,
I am not military or gov associated. Actually, I am just a housewife from Indiana. Like you, I was interested in the same topics you list above, which when discussed on some message boards were "enhanced" by the chemtrail hoax. I was a chemtrail believer also until I did some long and thoughtful research on it.
Granted, we should always be watchful and aware citizens, but discernment and critical thinking must be applied when believing what we are 'told' on Internet websites, and by whom.
This particular topic on this thread is "Chemtrails Misinformation" and I have not even visited any other threads on the message board, but I probably will out of personal interest. As long as there is a First Amendment, I will do what I can and where I can to expose this hoax because it has become dangerous and accountability is a big factor.
Thank you for taking the time to evaluate the information provided and I hope you will share it amongst chemtrail believers if and when you may encounter them.
Deb
Eric,
Substantial proof of many of the incidents you speak of has been proferred, in fact, many are backed up by sworn testimony. With "chemtrails", however, all is hearsay, rumor, speculation,
conjecture, and outright falsity.
Let me just pose a question and see what happens, OK?
Mr Skousen,
In your original column, you described a personal experience,
"I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation. When numerous witnesses called KSL--TV in Salt Lake City to investigate, KSL dutifully parroted the government’s official response: that the aircraft was a government contractor flying a Lear jet and doing experiments on ice crystal formation."
I would like to personally investigate this incident, and need the following information, which, given the gravity of the charge, that harmful chemicals were being sprayed upon numerous persons, I am sure you have documented.
Please give me the date, location, time, direction of flight and estimated altitude of the aircraft, name(s) of witnesses, contact at KSL-TV, government official's name and office, government contractor's name,and any other pertinent facts that would help me in this investigation.
Jay Reynolds
Eric, we have been banned from several chemtrail sites because we don't believe, so we are largely unable to accomodate you. CTTUSA, for instance, will ban you if you even hint that you don't agree. First we were allowed to post anywhere on the sites, then we were cordoned off into "unbeliever" areas, finally we were banned outright. Most likely the cordoning off was so that we could be deleted all at once.
Jay Reynolds termed the areas "ghettos". He turned out to be right. We were gassed after all, but not by airplanes.......
Dear Jay, Deb, LTC8K6, etc.
One final post for me and then I'll shut up. I would judge from the initial tone of your postings that you haven't known Joel Skousen for long if at all. You probably don't realize that this is not a "chemtrail" site. In fact, Joel has stayed on the sidelines regarding chemtrails until he had personal experience. Perhaps he may be mistaken. Perhaps you may be. Perhaps 50 years from now, our posterity may get an apology from the government for experimenting on their fathers and mothers. I grew up when contrails were new, and I assure you that in the past few years there are contrails that look different than they did forty years ago. And perhaps there is a plausible explanation amidst all the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).
You may not realize it, but Joel is very conservative with regards to jumping on every wild eyed theory that comes along. He doesn't typically rush to judgemnt. Your concerted debunking efforts were considerably out of place, and you probably alienated more people than you helped.
I would suggest you browse the rest of this site, and subscribe to Joels "World Affairs Brief". It's quite interesting and informative and inexpensive. And, if he turns out to be wrong about chemtrails, he'll be the first to admit it. If you desire to contact him, he has made no secret of how to do it. In the meantime, the rest of us will keep watching the sky.
No point continuing watching the sky when you don't understand what's going on. This is exactly why people believe in "chemtrails."
The debunkers of chemtrails in this forum haven't proven a thing.. All you have done is learn how to argue points and counterpoints.. In particular no one has really responded to my main thesis that in the last few years persons from all over the United States have seen and photographed very irregular patterns of white trails that obviously are much different than the normal contrails which have been observed the last quarter of a century.. Why all of a sudden are we seeing aircraft flying unusual patrols in the sky? Why are these pilots up there in the sky for long periods of time? How come no literature and grass roots campaigns addressing the chemtrail spectacle existed 20,30 or even 50 years ago? These are very simple questions which must be answered by all you debunkers out there.. So far none of you have come forward, instead some of you wisecracks are questioning whether Mr. Skousen was a Navy pilot or not; easily getting off the topic.. Instead of relying all the time on scientific data? to argue your point, why don't you debunkers instead rely on your own keen observations and do your own thinking.. In particular the aformentioned questions that i have asked you in this post.. It will be real interesting to read your answers and replys.. I have a good idea what your responses will be(sarcasm noted here)... Ted
Ted,
What is there about the correlation of aviation and weather at flying altitudes on my journal pages that you don't understand?
http://cdebsjournal.topcities.com/leadpage.htm
NASA has simplified it-
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html
Perhaps you might want to start at the most elementary place, identifying the planes and understanding what you are seeing-
http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/index.html
I hope that wasn't too sarcastic for you.
Deb
Ted, to be honest with you, I didn't takeyou very seriously after you seemed so perturbed when you saw what you believed was an "anarchy" symbol
in the sky, and said that a lab analysis had been done. First of all, neither you, Mr. Skousen, or anybody else I have ever heard of has ever seen
such an analysis. Even the lady who says she had it done, Erminia Cassani, has disavowed her prior association with Wliiam Thomas, and says her up-till-now unrevealed analysis DID NOT come from a "chemtrail". Regarding the "anarchy symbol", please go to the fight explorer capture for Salt Lake City previously cited, and draw lines along the flight path of each normal commercial plane's
route. If each plane were leaving contrails, and some of them do, I'm sure you could pick out almost any random symbol you could imagine.
Still, perhaps I should have taken you more seriously. Perhaps you just don't understand some
basics about aviation.
You wrote:
"Why all of a sudden are we seeing aircraft flying unusual patrols in the sky? Why are these pilots up there in the sky for long periods of time? How come no literature and grass roots campaigns addressing the chemtrail spectacle existed 20,30 or even 50 years ago?"
You are witnessing the increase in aviation traffic which has grown rapidly over the past decade. You are witnessing the advent of "free flight", which allows aircraft equipped with GPS to fly direct from destination to destination off
now over-crowded airways. If you are indeed serious about learning whether or not the traffic you see over Tampa is normal, or not, I can make no better suggestion to you than to try answering your own questions by subscribing to Flight Explorer for yourself,
http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/review.html
and actually becoming able to identify what you see, rather than remaining in the dark. Should you personally choose to not educate yourself about what is normal, I cannot take your belief or your claims of abnormality very seriously. To see the capabilities of this tool, please see a study of normal flight patterns Deb and I made in response
to a "chemtrail" claim.
Contrails over the Northeastern US - March 12, 2001:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/brendt1.html
Flight Explorer Study of Air Traffic Over Parsonsfield, Maine on a Monday Between
12 Noon and 1 PM:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/brendt2.html
Jay
You debunkers continue to amaze me.. First of all let me comment on what your responses have been to my BASIC QUESTIONS.. DEB- Why do assume that i visited your journal pages when in fact i never did? Did i communicate to you that i was going to? No i did not.. In regards to identification of planes and what i have observed over the years, i will say again that contrails were located very high in the sky forming a straight path and the plane was going in one direction.. These aircraft were not commercial airliners because they fly lower and you can here them at ground level.. They are also larger and bulkier and going a slower speeds.. The planes that make the contrails are smaller,faster and have different aerodynamics and usually had white markings on them.. Let's keep this simple.. My argument in these posts has been the same one.. I'm telling you debunkers what I HAVE OBSERVED OVER THE YEARS AND WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE SEEN IN REGARDS TO CONTRAILS.. Therefore there cannot be any disagreement among any of you because what i have stated are facts based upon the simple observations which we both have made.. Let's stick to the issue at hand and not go off track,but remember to please understand and pay attention to what i have been saying.... Ted PS- Jay: I will reply to your comments concerning me in my next post... Ted
Jay- I never said that a lab analysis was done on that specific anarchy chemtrail marker that i mentioned in a previous post i wrote.. I was talking about what other citizens and investigators have confirmed.. You told me why i was seeing different shapes and forms of trails in the sky above me which was due too increased air traffic in our skys with pilots using GPS navigational directed routes.. But this isn't true based upon what i have seen in the skys above me in Tampa Bay,Fl.. First of all i have been living down here in Florida since 1984 and know very well the flight patterns of planes that arrive and depart from the three civilian airports nearby.. Planes that arrive at the Sarasota Airport fly directly over St. Petersburg heading south towards Bradaton/Sarasota.. Airliners going to Tampa International fly over St. Petersburg and turn a tight right going east towards Tampa.. Clearwater/St. Pete Airport has less traffic but cannot observe planes arriving or departing because location is 10 miles north from my residence.. The other airport is an Air Force Base in Tampa called MacDill but they have no planes there because it's an operational,control and command center whose function is to run the war effort in Afghanistan.. Sometimes a C-130 cargo plane or some fighter jets fly in from other bases but that's it.. Why have i given time here to mention these airports in this post? Because i have seen these planes fly overhead for the last 18 years!! If i'm outside on a particular day and hear and see a plane above me i can immediately tell you which airport i'ts going too.. I now make my point again to you debunkers.. These chemtrails that i have seen above the skys of Tampa/St. Petersburg,Fl. DIDNOT OCCUR BETWEEN 1984-1998.. THEY STARTED IN 1999 DURING THE SUMMER, AND HAVE CONTINUED ON AND OFF WITH MORE FEQUENCY SINCE THEN!!!!! Are you paying attention Jay and others to what i have been saying all along? Is it crystal clear in your minds? The air traffic above Tampa has not really increased that much since the 1980s AND NO STRANGE IRREGULAR PATTERNS OF TRAILS IN THE SKYS WERE SEEN BY ME DURING THIS TIME PERIOD UNTIL 1999!!! In conclusion i want to add that i'm telling the truth and my eye sight is very good.. I have kept it simple for you people to understand where i'm coming from, thus avoiding the prevailing traps that happen when we get bogged down in scientific jargon,which leads to arguments and nonsense.. If you debunkers think you can question what i have said in my posts- then go ahead, but your only making yourselves more absurd which by the way you already are!!!! Ted
Ted, for what it's worth, I used to rant your same argument. Get Flight Explorer, have some fun, visit my journal pages and learn about aviation and weather at flying altitudes. It's not scientific, just a fun hobby for me. Since you seem to have an interest in planes and jets, I highly recommend it.
I have studied the Clearwater/Tampa area for some time now. Did you know there is a large Special Use Area out over the Gulf directly west of Clearwater? Did you know that flights with other destinations in Florida from points north and west use the same airways as flights arriving at PIE, but at 36,000-41,000 feet?
Here is a capture of just the high altitude airways (Black) and Low Altitude airways (yellow) over your area.
http://chickiedeb.topcities.com/FEADDSetccaptures/Captures2/TampClrFEairways.gif
There are several studies on my journal page of different areas in the CONUSA. You might want to take a look BEFORE you make judgement.
Deb
Ted,
years ago, I bought a used Mercedes Benz 300TD,
I figured nobody else in this part of Arkansas had one. Since then I see them everywhere. Things sneak up on you sometimes. There is one in each of the two small towns I live between, and each has a population of only 500.
Like Deb has said before, "you don't know what you don't know". Make use of the tool that allows you
to identify planes. You will be happy you did.
Drop me a line when your jaw drops. I'll bet Joel Skousen had no idea the sort of traffic he had over Salt Lake City.
Jay
Jay
Ted Says-
"If you debunkers think you can question what i have said in my posts- then go ahead, but your only making yourselves more absurd which by the way you already are!!!!"
I have one for you:
"The other airport is an Air Force Base in Tampa called MacDill but they have no planes there because it's an operational,control and command center whose function is to run the war effort in Afghanistan.. Sometimes a C-130 cargo plane or some fighter jets fly in from other bases but that's it.. "
McDill Air Force Base is home to the 6th Air Refueling Wing, which equates to a bunch of KC-135Rs. While you're right about the command and control center, there are a lot of planes that are based there. I've flown in there before, and the ramp is quite crowded.
Your linking of "chemtrail" aircraft and the airports in your area is an "apples and oranges" argument. Planes flying high enough above your city to cause contrails are headed to and from destinations at least a hundred miles away from where you are viewing them at. If the planes above your head are at less than ten thousand feet, then they are probably departing or arriving in the local area.
Maverick
still waiting.
Jay Reynolds