Chemtrails again

[Reheat]

Why do you think there would not be chemical spraying operations to combat global warming or in attempt to control or modify the weather as per the U.S. Airforce Force Multiplier paper?

This is NOT a conspiracy.


It reminds me of the black triangle UFO people reported in the early 80's only to learn it was the F117 Stealth Fighter in development.

This was NOT a conspiracy. I knew about it and what it was. Why didn't you? Could it possibly be that you are not important enough to know minor details, ermmmm, like another event that you're obsessed with?

[LTC8K6]

What sort of lift capacity is needed to carry enough of these chemicals to produce fake contrails?

It would take an enormous amount of white powder to duplicate the look of a typical persistent contrail.

[LTC8K6]

Anyone who thinks chemicals are being sprayed should just get an air sample from their next airliner trip. The cabin air is at least partially from directly outside the aircraft, so just bring a jar or a ziploc bag and sample the cabin air and have it tested. You will have a generous portion of high altitude air in your sample and it will contain any chemicals that are being sprayed.

If you believe the cabin air filters are preventing you from capturing the chemicals or particles, just ask for a used cabin air filter, cut it open, and have it tested.

[Dave Rogers]

What sort of lift capacity is needed to carry enough of these chemicals to produce fake contrails?

I did a quick estimate back at post #196.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3422967#post3422967

It would take an enormous amount of white powder to duplicate the look of a typical persistent contrail.

A horizon-to-horizon contrail contains something of the order 100 metric tons of water, give or take a few sweeping assumptions. Tippit's supposed chemtrails are larger than normal contrails, though, so you'd have to increase that quite a bit. A C-5 could just about do it with a bit of spare cargo capacity, but a C-17 would be struggling.

Dave

[Reheat]

A C-5 could just about do it with a bit of spare cargo capacity, but a C-17 would be struggling.

There is an acute shortage of airlift capacity in the military creating an enormous requirement for civilian airlift supplement to the middle east just as their was during GW I. Just where would these C-5s come from and where are they stored, when they're not spraying their gaseous chemicals which would be ineffective from high altitude anyway.

*This is not a question for you, Dave, it's for a troofer who might offer a follow-up suggestion.

[Dave Rogers]

Just where would these C-5s come from and where are they stored, when they're not spraying their gaseous chemicals which would be ineffective from high altitude anyway.

Nebraska, of course.

Dave

[LTC8K6]

I did a quick estimate back at post #196.

I didn't see that, but others have done it before over the years. The response was that the chemicals are in the fuel, which is even less likely, and the chemicals still have weight anyway.

[Swing Dangler]

Anyone who thinks chemicals are being sprayed should just get an air sample from their next airliner trip. The cabin air is at least partially from directly outside the aircraft, so just bring a jar or a ziploc bag and sample the cabin air and have it tested. You will have a generous portion of high altitude air in your sample and it will contain any chemicals that are being sprayed.

If you believe the cabin air filters are preventing you from capturing the chemicals or particles, just ask for a used cabin air filter, cut it open, and have it tested.

:big: You seriously made this comment? :big:

Reheat
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Why do you think there would not be chemical spraying operations to combat global warming or in attempt to control or modify the weather as per the U.S. Airforce Force Multiplier paper?
This is NOT a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
It reminds me of the black triangle UFO people reported in the early 80's only to learn it was the F117 Stealth Fighter in development.
This was NOT a conspiracy. I knew about it and what it was. Why didn't you? Could it possibly be that you are not important enough to know minor details, ermmmm, like another event that you're obsessed with?

Suuuuuurrreeee you did, Reheat. Sure you did.

Ok so it isn't a conspiracy.
You agree then their are ongoing chemical dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming?

[Reheat]

Suuuuuurrreeee you did, Reheat. Sure you did.

You know, if your opinions were worthy of anything more than a puff of flatulence in a hurricane it would insult me that you've insinuated I'm a liar.

You agree then their are ongoing chemical dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming?

You're assuming that I'll agree with your continued delusions. Not a chance has it ever been anything on the scale that's in your troofer mind.

Would you mind explaining how in the H3!! one or two military airplanes (which is all there are) could do anything about global warming?

For rational minds that might view this thread, there are no more than a couple of aircraft (C-130 type) that can conduct weather modification experiments in concert with their normal weather observation missions in weather systems. Those aircraft are the source of some of the detailed information on hurricanes that are broadcast by the National Weather Service. Most of those operations are conducted over the ocean.

The seeding of clouds to make it rain or to produce more rainfall than normal in specific areas has been ongoing since at least the 1960's, perhaps even earlier. It is nothing new or unusual.

Those operations are in no way associated with what kooks call chemtrails. There is no such thing as chemtrails. They are simply contrails, period.

Here's a link for folks who want to learn about cloud seeding....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

[LTC8K6]

You seriously made this comment?

If I thought I was possibly being poisoned by something being released at high altitudes from airliners I would certainly take these easy elementary steps. What's so hard about getting the air sample?

P.S., the ICP has supposedly already done the cabin air filter thing. They didn't talk about their results, afaik.

[sts60]

You agree then their are ongoing chemical dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming?
Try to realize that most people here see through your attempts to conflate known and relatively small-scale attempts at weather modification, and investigations into contrails' effect on climate, with some sort of massive, secret "dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming". They are not the same thing, and we've seen this tactic many times before.

I will ask you the same thing I asked tippit: Where is your evidence for such a massive, secret campaign? How exactly would you distinguish such from ordinary contrails?

[ElMondoHummus]

Just a quick sanity check, EMH: should we infer that you're undecided on chemtrails? Or did you mis-type the words "Swing, chemtrails are a totally insane idea"?

Dave

No, I am not undecided on chemtrails. Sorry for the accidentally noncommittal language. Here's a better, more direct way to put it:

The chemtrail myth is full of :rule10

I've been shown no evidence exists that the government sprays the skies at all. Swing referred to a document - "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm)" - that discusses the desireability (from the Air Force's point of view) to try and modify weather, but as we know from Northwoods, there's a huge gulf between discussion and actual implementation, not to mention the fact that this paper reads like a "pie-in-the-sky" proposal rather than an actual operational document (I'll let the AF folks here discuss that if they want). And Tippit's discussion about how some contrails are different than others are simply unsupported.

The reason I put together that clumsy statement that way was partially because I was just doing it off the cuff, but also because I was transitioning to the idea of talking about jet exhaust "contrails" as polluting (i.e. "... dunno if chemtrails are deliberately sprayed chemicals, but I grudgingly guess you can say they're jet exhaust if you ditch the other parts of the fantasy... and quit calling it a plot...). If that was the direction the discussion was going, then yes, it's a concern. An everyday, mundane concern about pollution rather than an "OMIGOD CHEMTRAILS" level of alarm, but a concern nonetheless. Turns out the discussion went elsewhere (back to the conspiracy myth... imagine that), but I felt I had to allow for it.

No, I'm not going woo on us. And c'mon... If I went off the deep end, you think I'd use this as my fantasy of choice?? :eye-poppi

[stilicho]

Chemicals sprayed from jets that happen to land on the human population. I don't think it is deliberately done to the population. IMHO it is for weather control or to combat global warming.

If this were true, "they" would be trumpeting their successful resolution of the climate change issue in every news media available. "They" wouldn't be keeping it secret.

Remember, voters like it when you do good things! Especially when there's no taxes needed to pay for it. (Apparently these climate control "pellets" are free).

Or do you think "they" are spraying "pellets" to make the climate change issue worse? Because that is something "they" would definitely keep secret. Suicidal (omnicidal?) bureaucrats are relatively disliked by the electorate.

[stilicho]

An everyday, mundane concern about pollution rather than an "OMIGOD CHEMTRAILS" level of alarm, but a concern nonetheless. Turns out the discussion went elsewhere (back to the conspiracy myth... imagine that), but I felt I had to allow for it.
And at the university in my town, the curriculum in the atmospheric chemistry department includes consideration of jet exhaust. That would be all jet exhaust--not just the ones creating visible trails.

[Hellkat9940]

SO what do these chemicals do?

Red chemtrails burn the eyes, green obscures the vision and causes discomfort, blue induces sleep, yellow paralyzes, and black blinds, sometimes on the span of several weeks.

*wonders if anybody will get the reference*

[Lynx2174]

Yep, but they are regulated now, and instead of lead and other serious crap we only get a mild dose of carcinogens from cars and trucks.

Aircraft are just as regulated in that regard. It's not like they're burning old school leaded gasoline in aircraft. Turbine engines don't knock like gasoline piston engines do, and don't require fuel additives to support some arbitrarily high compression ratio to get their efficiency. The fact that they still burn quite a lot of fuel per passenger mile is another issue, but it's not fundamentally different from people driving cars.

(well, except that aircraft leave contrails that change how much light hits the earth, and they put their pollution directly into the mid to upper-ish atmosphere, for what that gets 'ya.)

If somebody wants to foot the bill to have themselves hurtled across the country at five hundred miles and hour, thirty thousand feet in the air, it's not much different from someone driving an incredibly powerful and fuel-hungry car to get places. There exist emissions standards for both classes of vehicle. I am, admittedly, unsure as to how they stack up in comparison.

If you think it's the government's job to regulate how much stuff somebody can burn to get from place to place, then by all means, vote for someone of like mind, or run for office yourself. It is, of course, more or less a good idea; as it really shouldn't take that much fuel to get from place to place. regulating such, however, does cost people convenience and/or entertainment.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, passenger planes burn between 0.020 and 0.045 liters per seat per kilometer, depending on type. A fairly fuel-hungry car (10km/l), like your average SUV, burns 0.025. So, provided all seats are full, planes are slightly worse than cars, but if a single person wants to get across a continent, it is certainly better to take a plane than driving alone in a car, provided the plane has most seats occupied.

Taking a train would, of course, be by far the best option, pollution-wise (about four times better).

Hans

[robinson]

http://www.areco.org/FuelEssay.pdf

Aviation is responsible for emissions of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide,
naphthalene, benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, formaldehyde and dust particles to mention but a
few. These chemicals may affect the body in various ways depending on the mode of
transmission, for example, naphthalene may dissolve from the air into the lacrimal
secretions of the eye. The eye may be a target organ as a result of its external position in
the organism and direct exposure. Exposure of the eye to naphthalene may damage the
lens and trigger the process of cataract formation. Naphthalene is also toxic to the lung
when inhaled. It is metabolised by cytochrome P-450 in Clara cells (non-ciliated
bronchiolar epithelial cells) to a cytotoxic epoxide intermediate. This epoxide is then able
to bind to DNA forming an adduct which distorts the macromolecular structure of the
DNA and hence its ability to function correctly. This change causes carcinogenicity of
the pulmonary cells.
Another common pollutant of combustion of aviation fuel is nitrogen dioxide. This has
been said to be found in the air in increased levels up to a 20 mile radius away from most
major airports. Nitrogen dioxide can cause peroxidation of cellular membranes causing
direct damage to cells of the respiratory tract as airbourne particles. This damage to the
cellular membranes in the upper airways (trachea or bronchi) can cause a change in
permeability and extensive oedema. When this is coupled to the irritant affect of sulphur-
dioxide and dust particles, also present in aviation fuel pollution, lung function may be
compromised. If considering a patient with an underlying condition such as a child with
asthma, lung function may be dangerously compromised. The sulphur-dioxide and dust
particle irritants may cause an allergic asthmatic response causing IgE mediated
inflammation and sympathetic constriction of the airways. A Swedish study looked at the
effect of NO2 exposure
and wheezing rhinitis and found a link between increased NO2 levels
over a day care centre and the symptoms suffered by the patients living there (Pershegan et al 1995).

This would suggest that people living in the surrounding area of
an airport with increased levels of NO2 due to the combustion
of aviation fuel would also suffer more frequent symptoms of
wheezing rhinitis than the general population.

It as been noted that in addition to the obvious effects on the lung of airbourne pollutants
there are also many systemic effects seen in people exposed to air pollution such as that
created by combustion of aviation fuel. The American Heart Association carried out
research to try and find an explanation for general extrapulmonary effects of pollution by
particulate matter. Pollution by particulates has been consistently associated with
increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the mechanisms responsible
for this have never been well exemplified.

In this experiment the American Heart Association labelled carbon particles with 99m Technetium .
Radioactivity was detected in the blood at 1 minute and reached a maximum concentration between 10 and 20 minutes
and remained at this level until 60 minutes.
Gamma camera images showed substantial
radioactivity over the liver and other areas of the body. This seems to account for the
hepatotxicity and other systemic toxicity caused by some pollutants. The pollutants seem
to be taken up in the lung where the majority of the pollutants cause cytotoxic damage, eg
benzo[a]pyrene and napthylene and then pass rapidly into the circulatory system due to
the fact that the lungs receive 100% of the cardiac output. Pollutants, notably carbon
particles as in this experiment, and other membrane permeable airbourne pollutants are
then free to pass into vascularised organs, for example the liver and kidneys. This goes
some way to explain the systemic effects of some airbourne pollutants.

[robinson]

Contrails, Chemtrails, either way you don't want to breathe them.

[robinson]

I guess I killed another thread.

I'm watching full sky contrails form today. The weather is right for them. It is noon, and already an overcast is forming.

The military traffic is filling in one altitude, the commercial traffic another. Cross traffic is at another altitude, and it is making a pattern, again, the pilots are either avoiding the contrails, or the wind is blowing them.

For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.

[Reality Believer]

.......
For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.
Just shhhhhh! I am sitting on a gross of Kinoki Foot Pads® and I think I have found the perfect target market.

[beachnut]

I guess I killed another thread.

I'm watching full sky contrails form today. The weather is right for them. It is noon, and already an overcast is forming.

The military traffic is filling in one altitude, the commercial traffic another. Cross traffic is at another altitude, and it is making a pattern, again, the pilots are either avoiding the contrails, or the wind is blowing them.

For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.

Chemtrails not pollution! Have you missed the point?

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/index.htm (http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/index.htm)

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm (http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm)

If you like to comment on chemtrails learn more and try again.

Start a pollution thread in science or something, but this is about CTs of chemtrails made up by idiots; some to sell books to idiots and some pure dumb.

You did not kill the thread you are not discussing the OP! You posted off topic pollution junk for politics, or science, or who noes…

[robinson]

Oh please.

[beachnut]

Oh please.
But wait, the paper you cited, it has potential. Oh please? You may of found some nut case environmentalist (but even so, you could start your own thread how some people exaggerate their case to get their ideas; this is a kind of CT; oh yea). But still, most your posts ignore the primary topic of the OP. Pure nut case chemtrail stuff, nozzles and spraying to control the world; or make money selling the DVDs, and books to total idiots. Oops, better hide mine.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm (http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm)

You know the more I read your web site you posted, the more they sound like the chemtrail guys. At least you tried to talk about chemtrails and found a group who is kind of like the nuts.

[robinson]

Don't be dumb. Pointing out the real reason for contrails, how they work what they are like, as well as explaining what is in them, is debunking the CT about chemtrails.

Which is on topic, and effective.

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not going to get into your pedantic argument about what a contrail should or shouldn't look like. It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't.

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.

In contrast, I saw a contrail a week or so later, and it was no longer than perhaps 20-30 lengths of the plane itself, and quickly dissipated under the same conditions.

I made a photobucket of this spraying, it's important to realize that the skies were clear blue before the planes began.

http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/

I'm not contending they're spraying some sort of mass depopulation agent, I'm saying, they're spraying something and I haven't given any consent.Oh, gawd. Tippit, contrails have been existing ever since we started using high altitude planes, which means the middle 1930ties. During WW2, the skies over Europe were zebra stribed with contrails from the bomber streams. These days, you see them in every corner of the world. How'z that for a conspiracy? Worldwide and 60+ years.

The time a contrail lasts depends on the conditions of the moment at the altitude where it is. You may see two planes that seem to fly in the same altitude at the same time, and one makes a lasting contrail, the other only a short one. But only a small change in altitude may make all the difference.

It gets worse, however: Actually spraying an aerosol (or a powder, for that matter) doesn't look like that at all. Stand on a high place, back to the wind and spray from a spray-can (hair laquer is cheap and relatively harmlss), downwind. Do you see a long white stribe drifting towards the horizon? No, you see a fan of quickly dispersing mist. Actually much more like the thing you agree are contrails.

Chemtrail article here (shameless plug): http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/contrails.htm

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Contrails, Chemtrails, either way you don't want to breathe them.However, that is mainly because they tend to form at 30,000 ft, at temperatures below -50 deg C. You don't want to try to breathe there at all.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Chemicals sprayed from jets that happen to land on the human population. I don't think it is deliberately done to the population. IMHO it is for weather control or to combat global warming.

Why do you think there would not be chemical spraying operations to combat global warming or in attempt to control or modify the weather as per the U.S. Airforce Force Multiplier paper?

I'm curious as to why the opposition to such operations?

Because they have not told us about them, and they could not be kept secret. Look at this little calculation:

Area length (km) :4000
Area width (km) :2000
Coverings pr. week:1
Track spacing (km):3
Effectivity:0,50
Flight speed (kph):900
Operative days/year:300
Hours per shift:10
Shifts per day:2
Aircrew size:3
Ground crew size:7
Fuel consumption (l/km):16
Kilometers per annum:277333333
Flight hours:308148
No. of planes:51
Manpower:2157
Total fuel (tons):3697778

This is the logistics for spraying just the US, once a week. It would require a medium-sized airline. Only, this stuff goes on over the entire planet. You couldn't hide an operation like this for ten minutes. You couldn't even get through the planning phase before somebody spilled the beans, and the media would be all over you.

Hans

[LTC8K6]

The document that the ICP can't get past...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093080_1993093080.pdf

The photo I was accused of faking:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/South-Pacific-Airlines/Short-S-45-Solent/0094277/L/

[robinson]

However, that is mainly because they tend to form at 30,000 ft, at temperatures below -50 deg C. You don't want to try to breathe there at all.

Good point!

[Elizabeth I]

The photo I was accused of faking:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/South-Pacific-Airlines/Short-S-45-Solent/0094277/L/

Can I have that car in the foreground? Kthxbai.

[robinson]

I must have missed something. Who accused you of faking a photo? That photo? What?

The contrail document is invaluable. Thanks. I was just talking about something it contains information on, very cool.

[rwguinn]

However, that is mainly because they tend to form at 30,000 ft, at temperatures below -50 deg C. You don't want to try to breathe there at all.

Hans

Try is about all the average person could do...
Although Everest (29012 feet) has been climbed 1 time without suplimental O2 by a crazy dude.

[Spins]

Try is about all the average person could do...
Although Everest (29012 feet) has been climbed 1 time without suplimental O2 by a crazy dude.
Messner and Habeler reached the summit in 1978 without supplemental oxygen. Messner also did it again in 1980 in a solo attempt. I think several other climbers have also reached the summit without supplemental oxygen since then.

They are all definitely crazy though, and no doubt suffer (some) brain damage breathing at those altitudes, with such low oxygen levels, for prolonged periods. I know there was a recent BBC Horizon documentary about some British doctors who climbed Everest (with supplemental oxygen) to do various tests, the blood taken from the doctors that made the summit was actually blue!

[Cuddles]

I know there was a recent BBC Horizon documentary about some British doctors who climbed Everest (with supplemental oxygen) to do various tests, the blood taken from the doctors that made the summit was actually blue!

Unlikely, since deoxygenated blood is still red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Color). Unless they were lobsters of course.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I have, what I am sure is a moronic question. I have been trying to track down this reference


PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.
I have tried to track down the original "law" and I cannot find it - I can find the self references to this quote all over the place but I have not succeeded in finding the actual law.

Anyone actually seen it?

[ElMondoHummus]

I have, what I am sure is a moronic question. I have been trying to track down this reference

I have tried to track down the original "law" and I cannot find it - I can find the self references to this quote all over the place but I have not succeeded in finding the actual law.

Anyone actually seen it?

I found this:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520----000-.html

It lists as "repealed".

I'm no lawyer, so it's sort of a struggle to look legal stuff up, but I do know this: Laws are normally cited/listed/referenced in the manner this page lays out:

http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/lawsandrules.htm

So you need to look up the "Title" (Title 50 in this case), then the "section" (1520 in this case) to get anywhere.

I'll see what else I can dig up, but that's what I've gotten so far.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, great, half the links in Google for that Title and Section are chemtrail woo sites. Yeah, I'll get accurate, unbiased info there. :rolleyes:

I think anything regarding this law would have to be in the hands of a real legal expert, not a chemtrail fantasist. My legal skills pretty much stop dead at looking stuff up.

[Praktik]

Wow. It's amazing how CT True Believers will accept almost anything as long as it comes in a CT wrapper. In an ongoing and rather tense 9/11 exchange over on another board, one of two die-hard troofers there writes the following in response to the question, "What are you doing about it??":

So no. I am not actively challenging this in any traditional way. But I live in awareness and try to help others do the same so the shock is lessened when things become apparent. I certainly don't live a life of paranoia as has been suggested more than once, and I've never owned a tinfoil hat... have you looked up to see the chemtrails recently? They're not going away! Just look up and ask "what are those & why are they there" (hint -- they're not con-trails... those go away...)

Thats the style I'm subjected to regularly. No links, no evidence, just assertions that once questioned, invite the inevitable "connect the dots", "I guess you refuse to open your eyes" responses. Man, he even used the "Im just asking questions" line - why do they all have to say their lines from the same damned script?? The funny thing is that the names Steven Jones, Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin were all news to him: he hadn't even done research on sympathetic accounts of his CD theories!

So I've baited him with a new thread where I post as "PROOF!!" of chemtrails the shots of the airline cockpits here at the start of this thread @ JREF with the "Population Control" buttons...;)

Can't wait to slip him some logic I'll borrow from here once he comes back and asserts the fantastic...;)

[Reheat]

The relevant US Code for this section is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/32/toc.html

You'll find there is no such item as you list.

Section 1520a references Restrictions On Use Of Human Subjects For Testing Of Chemical Or Biological Agents.

The only location I find your specific list of this alleged portion of US Code is on Chemtrail CT sites.

I don't believe it requires a genius IQ to determine why it can't be found elsewhere.

[ElMondoHummus]

Hmmm... in reference to 50 USC § 1520, I wonder if this is another case of selective evidence citation:


SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS <<NOTE: 50 USC 1520a.>> ON THE USE OF HUMAN
SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) Prohibited Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct
(directly or by contract)--
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions.--Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection
against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.

(c) Informed Consent Required.--The Secretary of Defense may conduct
a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance
of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior Notice to <<NOTE: Reports.>> Congress.--Not later than 30
days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense
of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department
of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of
human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological
agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of
those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only
after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is
received by those committees.


Source (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ85.105).

I think this is where I would totally need a lawyer or legal expert to help me parse all this out. This law I'm quoting here (105-85 USC § 1078) seems to be the one superceding the one Deus was asking about (50 USC § 1520), but again, I'm no expert in this. I'm only making quick judgements based on what I'm digging up. I'm so devoid of context surrounding the two laws in question that it's ridiculous.

Anyone know the history of these codes, their applicability in real life, and the interpretations imposed on them vis-a-vis the various conspiracy myths?

[Reheat]

Anyone know the history of these codes, their applicability in real life, and the interpretations imposed on them vis-a-vis the various conspiracy myths?

The US Code is the list of Federal Statutes or Federal Law.

Since when does anything have to make sense to be a conspiracy myth? I thought the fact that they don't make sense was one of the requirement for them to exist! :)

[ElMondoHummus]

Blaaah, Reheat posted while I was composing.

Yes, we all have to note that only the woo sites seem to be making a big deal out of 50 USC § 1520. So right there, I already suspect that context is being stripped, such an act being a hallmark of conspiracy peddling. Again, one place I looked that code up said, very clearly, "Repealed", and another that dealt rationality in response to chemtrail CT referenced 105-85 USC § 1078, which if you all will read it, puts some serious restrictions on the ability to conduct experiments: There must be prior notice, there must be informed consent, the experiments can only be for reasons allowed in the statute, etc.

At any rate, there's still much context missing from these two statutes, but I think it says much that 50 USC § 1520 is cited on those sites, but they make no mention of the fact that it's repealed, nor do they reference 105-85 USC § 1078.

[ElMondoHummus]

The US Code is the list of Federal Statutes or Federal Law.

Since when does anything have to make sense to be a conspiracy myth? I thought the fact that they don't make sense was one of the requirement for them to exist! :)

Blaaah, Reheat posted again while I was composing (what'cha doin' to me, man?! :D)!

Yes, I know what the US Code stands for. That much is made obvious when you look things up.

Heheh... And yeah, you're right, CTs don't make sense once everyone discovers the truth behind them. The fact that they defy logic and rationality seems to be a basic requirement for their existence; when I forget this, all I have to do is look up iAmerican or Terral for reassurance that woo still follows basic principles in assembly. :D

Problem is (now I'm speaking to lurkers and newbies, as usual, since Reheat knows this basic tenant even better than I do, and I don't need to state such kindergarten-level obvious stuff to him) to "capture" believers, the woo does indeed make some sort of sense... in the context-free environment the information is being presented in. That's why people need to stretch their minds and try to discover context as well as out-and-out errors when investigating conspiracy fantasy. In this case, I had wondered if anyone had any knowledge of the history of those two codes; I wanted more context, if such happened to be available, to evaluate what people were claiming about the law. You see, too many fantasists are pushing the first law as proof that the US does chemical experimentation on the US population. The woo-meter spikes at that argument, and I begin to wonder if the reality behind those laws is something very different from what the conspiracy peddlers are making it out to be. Because if the intent was really insidious, why the heck make it a law to begin with? To cover people's butts? That excuse starts to show on the baloney scale when I hear it. When you pass a law about something like this, you might as well put up a skylight and hire a carnival barker, because you're starting to draw attention to the experimentation. How many people does it take to pass a law? And to do the mundane tasks, such as actually physically (or electronically) enter it into the "books".

Anyway, when someone tries to tell me there's a "law" about something that seems unsavory (no, I'm not saying Deus was saying that; rather, that's what those woo sites are trying to tell me), I immediately think I'm missing vital info, or am the victim of out-and-out misrepresentation, because making the law highlights the activity. How many truly secret government projects had such obvious US statutes behind them? That's all I'm saying. It's odd to do something so supposedly "insidious", yet leave such obvious proof (not that that's ever stopped a conspiracy peddler from glomming onto it...). So, yeah, CTs don't make sense... once you discover the real truth behind them.

</pendanticism> :pedant

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm surprized no one has mentioned Dennis Kuchinich and HR2977 yet.

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm surprized no one has mentioned Dennis Kuchinich and HR2977 yet.

Heheh... yeah, I found that here:

http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/


In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:

Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

And:






When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”...... Yet HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of. The reality is that they were simply given a passing mention in bill written by new-age UFO conspiracy theorists and sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”.


I'm finding out more about "chemtrails" than I ever knew before because of this thread.

[robinson]

I thought about this topic last weekend. Conditions were perfect for contrails, and the International airport had hundreds of them around and over it. Curved ones, descending ones, a huge mass of overlapping ones, and a general overcast forming.

You could really see how much cloud cover jets can generate.

[CurtC]

now I'm speaking to lurkers and newbies, as usual, since Reheat knows this basic tenant even better than I do...

</pendanticism> :pedant
A true pedant would know that it's a basic tenet.

[ElMondoHummus]

A true pedant would know that it's a basic tenet.

D'oh! :mgduh

[Praktik]

lol.

So I post that picture of the airplane cockpit from the front of this thread with the title: "Chemtrails: Exhibit A" and no other text. I wait patiently and soon my patience was rewarded:

Would you now like to attempt and disrprove the many times the US and other government militaries have knowingly engaged in chemical and other experiments on unsuspecting populations, their own populations- or would you rather make a joke of serious issues.

I'm just waiting for him to bust out that law you guys were looking for..;)

[Reality Believer]

lol.

So I post that picture of the airplane cockpit from the front of this thread with the title: "Chemtrails: Exhibit A" and no other text. I wait patiently and soon my patience was rewarded:
Would you now like to attempt and disrprove the many times the US and other government militaries have knowingly engaged in chemical and other experiments on unsuspecting populations, their own populations- or would you rather make a joke of serious issues.I'm just waiting for him to bust out that law you guys were looking for..;)
When the eventual picture of the fuselage full of aluminum barrels emerges, hit them with this link to the Boeing 777 flight test program:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/200LR/people.html

[Praktik]

thanks for the tip!

It's amazing how these debates all seem to follow a script eh? I guess its the small pool of resources available to "prove" their case....

[Swing Dangler]

If this were true, "they" would be trumpeting their successful resolution of the climate change issue in every news media available. "They" wouldn't be keeping it secret.

Remember, voters like it when you do good things! Especially when there's no taxes needed to pay for it. (Apparently these climate control "pellets" are free).

Or do you think "they" are spraying "pellets" to make the climate change issue worse? Because that is something "they" would definitely keep secret. Suicidal (omnicidal?) bureaucrats are relatively disliked by the electorate.

1. No "they" wouldn't be trumpeting anything if it is a covert or secret operation. Do you ever remember the first flight of the Stealth Fighter being broadcast in the late 70's? Me neither.

Remember, chemtrails if they are used for climate/weather manipulation could also be used as a weapon against a foreign enemy as well. I don't think the Defense Establishment likes to advertise covert weapon programs.

How are you defining success? "He we broke up a storm front! Yahoo! Lets hold a press conference!"

How many years would it take to determine "success" surrounding a wide scale weather/climate operation?

Do you think they would be proclaiming success on an operation that requires humans being defacto guinea pigs?

Is an operation like this outside of congressional scrutiny? $200.00 toilet seats anyone?

If so do you think "they" would celebrate it publicly.

2. No I don't think they are doing it to make things worse unless of course it was being used to determine the viability of climate control as a weapon of war to be used against the enemies of America.

[ElMondoHummus]

When the eventual picture of the fuselage full of aluminum barrels emerges, hit them with this link to the Boeing 777 flight test program:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/200LR/people.html


Oh! Nice find RB!

And as a completely unrelated digression: Right now, I'm eating an "RB" from Arby's. Mmmmmmm... :)

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, back to the old 'lack of evidence is evidence'.

[twinstead]

Ah, back to the old 'lack of evidence is evidence'.

Well, sheesh, all the best executed and most complex conspiracies have no real evidence to support them, otherwise they'd just be regular run-of-the-mill conspiracies like Watergate or Iran Contra.

Didn't you know that?

[Reality Believer]

Oh! Nice find RB!

And as a completely unrelated digression: Right now, I'm eating an "RB" from Arby's. Mmmmmmm... :)
Yes, it is a good find. Apparently it was the testing program for the 777-CHM. Special derivative version intended for chemical spraying :p

[Swing Dangler]

Try to realize that most people here see through your attempts to conflate known and relatively small-scale attempts at weather modification, and investigations into contrails' effect on climate, with some sort of massive, secret "dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming". They are not the same thing, and we've seen this tactic many times before.

I will ask you the same thing I asked tippit: Where is your evidence for such a massive, secret campaign? How exactly would you distinguish such from ordinary contrails?

Tactic? It isn't a tactic. I simply laid out what I thought and why.
And your logic is comical. In one sentence you recognize that "small scale weather modification" does exist, but yet when it comes to a large scale "weather control ie. modification" can't exist. So with your logic, size does matter! :lolsign:
Rejected.

How would I distinguish one from the other. Excellent question.

1. Time lapse photography of contrails compared to non-contrails.

I've witnessed "trails" remain in the atmosphere for over an hour, spread out, and create a hazy like cloud cover above the area I live in. I've also seen normal contrails remain persistent but never spread out into a hazy cloud cover.
My grandfather, an FAA flight examiner has provided me with plenty of opportunities to observe commercial and military aircraft activity. I live in a high air traffic corridor in the midwest and very close to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. I'm very familiar with "trail" activity.

2. Cross reference condition of the atmosphere with weather radar data. On supposed "chemtrail" days, the sky is a patchwork criss cross of trails usually early in the morning. These trails then combine, spread out, and create a hazy cloud like cover for several hours. Not the typical evaporation rates of contrails. I would question why a weather radar would not show this cloud cover on an otherwise clear day.

3. If "chemtrail" residue is discovered as mentioned in the mainstream media report linked to earlier and can't be shown to originate from another source.
I've come across this stuff but was unable to get it to a laboratory for testing. At first I thought it was spider webs. It was snow white, stringy, on chain link fences and on the ground in different dispersion patterns. After touching it, the stuff dissolved in my hand into an oily slick residue. The string literally disappeared. This removed any suspicion on my part about spider webs at least those native to my location. I've also seen this white thread stuff falling from the sky in small stringy lengths as well. The same thing happened when I was examining it in my palm. This string happened on supposedly heavy "contrail" days.

4. A cross reference of alleged "chemtrail" activity with an increase in upper respiratory ailments. (see the news report I linked to earlier.) It is curious that many amateurs have found above normal levels of barium after heavy trail days.

5. The only true way to ascertain the contents of said trails is to perform chemical tests on the trails themselves or their observed "fall out".

MRC-HansBecause they have not told us about them, and they could not be kept secret. Look at this little calculation:

Area length (km) :4000
Area width (km) :2000
Coverings pr. week:1
Track spacing (km):3
Effectivity:0,50
Flight speed (kph):900
Operative days/year:300
Hours per shift:10
Shifts per day:2
Aircrew size:3
Ground crew size:7
Fuel consumption (l/km):16
Kilometers per annum:277333333
Flight hours:308148
No. of planes:51
Manpower:2157
Total fuel (tons):3697778

This is the logistics for spraying just the US, once a week. It would require a medium-sized airline. Only, this stuff goes on over the entire planet. You couldn't hide an operation like this for ten minutes. You couldn't even get through the planning phase before somebody spilled the beans, and the media would be all over you.

Hans
1. Why do you think "they" would tell us anything or everything for that matter? Non-disclosure means non-existence with your logic Hans. To you then, Area 51-doesn't exist, the Stealth Fighter didn't exist until it was publicly revealed, anything not in the public view then doesn't exist. I'm sure you can see the fallacy in your logic.

2. What were all of those calculations based upon and what in the heck does it have to do with anything? Why do you think the entire U.S. is being 'sprayed'? What leads you to incorporate that into your equation?

3. Your next wrong assumption is that someone would spill the beans if they knew about it. This is a fallacy of course and I'm sure you know why based upon some of the examples I listed above.

[beachnut]

Swing, no wonder you like 9/11 truth CTs. Chemtrail... lol, this is funny; you act all intelligent, you bring in granddad to confirm your kind of nuts for Chemtrails.

A faulty commentary on Chemtrails. But very well put together and many dumb people will follow and buy the Chemtrail CT. You did.

[twinstead]

5. The only true way to ascertain the contents of said trails is to perform chemical tests on the trails themselves or their observed "fall out".

You are right about this. Why haven't those who claim chemtrails exist done this yet?

[Jonnyclueless]

1. Time lapse photography of contrails compared to non-contrails.

:dl:

Much like the time lapse photography of people compared to shapeshifters.

[twinstead]

1. Time lapse photography of contrails compared to non-contrails.


So, if you could tell the difference in order to photograph one or the other and compare why would we be having this debate?

[Alferd_Packer]

I've witnessed "trails" remain in the atmosphere for over an hour, spread out, and create a hazy like cloud cover above the area I live in.

So, how do you know that the weather conditions weren't such that the cloud cover would not have formed anyway contrails or no contrails?

[Alferd_Packer]

You are right about this. Why haven't those who claim chemtrails exist done this yet?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the research work conducted at Carnicom Labs.

http://www.carnicom.com/precip1.htm

http://carnicom.com/flame1.htm

[TjW]

How would I distinguish one from the other. Excellent question.

1. Time lapse photography of contrails compared to non-contrails.

I've witnessed "trails" remain in the atmosphere for over an hour, spread out, and create a hazy like cloud cover above the area I live in. I've also seen normal contrails remain persistent but never spread out into a hazy cloud cover.



The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance caused by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

Flight to Arras Chapter 8
Available in Airman's Odyssey, published by Harcourt Brace & Company
ISBN 0-15-603733-5 (paperback)
Emphasis by TjW


I've posted this before.
The same behavior of contrails was reported 66 years ago.

Was the author an NWO shill?

[Calcas]

Was the author an NWO shill?

Obviously deep cover...

[KDLarsen]

When the eventual picture of the fuselage full of aluminum barrels emerges, hit them with this link to the Boeing 777 flight test program:
www .boeing .com/commercial/777family/200LR/people.htm
Not even the hawaiians are safe: www. airliners .net/photo/Hawaiian-Air/Boeing-717-22A/0175720/L/
;)

[Elizabeth I]

Unlikely, since deoxygenated blood is still red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Color). Unless they were lobsters of course.

I thought lobsters had green blood? (I could be wrong - often am, in fact.)

Here's a thought - since it seems to be the "persistent" form of con/chemtrail that is most troubling, could it be that all clouds ARE REALLY JUST VERY LARGE CHEMTRAILS? Think about it. Connect the dots. All these "clouds" around all the time...What do they really contain?

:boxedin:

[Jonnyclueless]

Do things like Chemtrails remind anyone else how people used to act 1000s of years ago? They would see something they don't understand and make up some wild reasoning behind it like God punishing them for this or that, or the world being flat, or witchcraft, etc?

[twinstead]

Do things like Chemtrails remind anyone else how people used to act 1000s of years ago? They would see something they don't understand and make up some wild reasoning behind it like God punishing them for this or that, or the world being flat, or witchcraft, etc?

Yes. When listening to this silly chemtrail debate, I often have images in my mind of Neanderthals cowering behind a fallen tree cursing a total eclipse of the moon and wondering what they did to get the moon spirit angry at them. Xenophobia at its best.

[Alferd_Packer]

Yes. When listening to this silly chemtrail debate, I often have images in my mind of Neanderthals cowering behind a fallen tree cursing a total eclipse of the moon and wondering what they did to get the moon spirit angry at them. Xenophobia at its best.


So you were watching it too last night, huh?

[twinstead]

So you were watching it too last night, huh?

Yup. And indeed I still am not sure why the moon spirit was angry at me

[Dave Rogers]

Yup. And indeed I still am not sure why the moon spirit was angry at me

Maybe you should have bought her more flowers. Fortunately for me, the sky gods sent forth their shield of clouds to protect me from her wrath. I didn't see any wingèd chariots towing the clouds across, but hey, it might have been chemtrails.

Dave

[twinstead]

Maybe you should have bought her more flowers. Fortunately for me, the sky gods sent forth their shield of clouds to protect me from her wrath.

Man, you are SO lucky.

[LTC8K6]

I must have missed something. Who accused you of faking a photo? That photo? What?

The contrail document is invaluable. Thanks. I was just talking about something it contains information on, very cool.

The ICP (Insane Cloud Posse) accused me of adding the contrail X to the photo as part of my job as a paid government shill.

A little bit later they herded us unbeliever sheep into a section on their website. We decided it was rather like a ghetto.

A little bit later the section was gone and so were we.

There is little tolerance for non-believers in the chemtrails communities.

Many years ago the chemtrail believers were given some nicknames such as chemheads, the chemical brothers, etc. Later the band Insane Clown Posse's name was modified to what seemed a perfect description of the mainstream chemtrail community.

[robinson]

I wonder if the technoparanoia cults have replaced religion? When I was a kid the cults offered odd religion, being special by virtue of "sacred documents", secret knowledge, the truth, etc etc

Now days it seems antigovernment and CT cults have replaced them.

[funk de fino]

Chemtrails are for the comically insane.

I see Swing is onboard

[Cuddles]

I thought lobsters had green blood? (I could be wrong - often am, in fact.)

Well, the Wiki article says blue but that's all I'm going on here. Not red at any rate. Weirdos.

Here's a thought - since it seems to be the "persistent" form of con/chemtrail that is most troubling, could it be that all clouds ARE REALLY JUST VERY LARGE CHEMTRAILS? Think about it. Connect the dots. All these "clouds" around all the time...What do they really contain?

:boxedin:

Well they're obviously not water like the Jews want us to think. There's even a simple experiment you can try at home. Fill up a bucket of water. Now take it to your living room, hold it above your head and turn it upside down. Does the water just float around in the air? Hell no. And yet they expect us to believe that even larger quantities of water can float around even higher in the air. Personally, I think the lobsters did it. Think about it. Water. Lobsters. Can't you people see the obvious? Lobsters must be Jewish. Why don't they want us to know?

[robinson]

Clouds don't fall because the water vapor releases heat when it changes state. Clouds are like hot air balloons, warmer than the surrounding air, so the water droplets are lifted by the warm air. Once the drops are too large to be held aloft, we get rain.

[CurtC]

Well they're obviously not water like the Jews want us to think. There's even a simple experiment you can try at home. Fill up a bucket of water. Now take it to your living room, hold it above your head and turn it upside down. Does the water just float around in the air? Hell no. And yet they expect us to believe that even larger quantities of water can float around even higher in the air.
Dude, there's a firmament up there. God opens windows in the firmament to let the rain fall down. At least according to the Jews.


Well, the ancient Jews.

[CurtC]

Clouds don't fall because the water vapor releases heat when it changes state. Clouds are like hot air balloons, warmer than the surrounding air, so the water droplets are lifted by the warm air. Once the drops are too large to be held aloft, we get rain.

I really hope this is a parody of physics ignorance, and not the real thing.

[Swing Dangler]

You are right about this. Why haven't those who claim chemtrails exist done this yet?

You mean something like this method here (http://www.rebelflyingclub.com/photos/RFC/gliders/2003-08-01/parachute_dolly.jpg)?

[Swing Dangler]

1. Time lapse photography of contrails compared to non-contrails.
Much like the time lapse photography of people compared to shapeshifters.
Oh I get it, bush is a lizard video. No not hardly. Time lapsed like these..from blue to cloudy!

[Swing Dangler]

Flight to Arras Chapter 8
Available in Airman's Odyssey, published by Harcourt Brace & Company
ISBN 0-15-603733-5 (paperback)
Emphasis by TjW


I've posted this before.
The same behavior of contrails was reported 66 years ago.

Was the author an NWO shill?

Hell I have no idea. Thanks for the info! I've been looking for something like this for sometime now.

[Reheat]

Oh I get it, bush is a lizard video. No not hardly. Time lapsed like these..from blue to cloudy!

My gosh, they forgot stir it up well this time. Look at those lumps on the horizon. BUSTED! InSiDe jOb!!!!11111!!!!

[Swing Dangler]

So, how do you know that the weather conditions weren't such that the cloud cover would not have formed anyway contrails or no contrails?

A quick check of the current atmospheric conditions here (http://www.noaa.gov/) and here (http://www.ral.ucar.edu/weather/).

[Swing Dangler]

My gosh, they forgot stir it up well this time. Look at those lumps on the horizon. BUSTED! InSiDe jOb!!!!11111!!!!

I thought HARRP was the blender? ;)

[Reality Believer]

A quick check of the current atmospheric conditions here (http://www.noaa.gov/) and here (http://www.ral.ucar.edu/weather/).
That is for ground weather. What was the temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure at altitude? Those parameters drive visible vapor formations.

[funk de fino]

I can just see Swings face when he gets on a plane on a dark, grey miserable, rainy day and then takes off and then gets above the cloud cover and it miraculously it is a bright, sunny and dry day

OMG, Chemtrails, inside job, weather control.....

Swing, you have been on a plane before haven't you?

[Swing Dangler]

That is for ground weather. What was the temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure at altitude? Those parameters drive visible vapor formations.

:big: WHAT? Did you even look at the data on the page?

Like this particular piece of data at RAP? Upper-Air
See winds, temperature, and moisture well above the earth's surface.
more

Please don't confuse that with "Surface
See the surface weather conditions reported nearest you." from the same site.

[1337m4n]

Oh I get it, bush is a lizard video. No not hardly. Time lapsed like these..from blue to cloudy!

We're eagerly waiting for your detailed explanation of this alleged anomaly.

[Swing Dangler]

I can just see Swings face when he gets on a plane on a dark, grey miserable, rainy day and then takes off and then gets above the cloud cover and it miraculously it is a bright, sunny and dry day

OMG, Chemtrails, inside job, weather control.....

Swing, you have been on a plane before haven't you?
:big: Let me just say your sense of humor is appreciate but misdirected and could use quite a bit of work.

I've been on many planes and flown a few as well. I have a family history in the aviation field. Do any of the following terms mean anything:
AT-6 Texan, FAA Flight Examiner, Grissom Air Force Base-Cadet Pilot Program,
"flying off the books". Those are some of the terms that arise from my family background.

[Swing Dangler]

We're eagerly waiting for your detailed explanation of this alleged anomaly.

Well that anomaly is either from contrails or chemtrails. Take your pick.

[funk de fino]

:big: Let me just say your sense of humor is appreciate but misdirected and could use quite a bit of work.

I've been on many planes and flown a few as well. I have a family history in the aviation field. Do any of the following terms mean anything:
AT-6 Texan, FAA Flight Examiner, Grissom Air Force Base-Cadet Pilot Program,
"flying off the books". Those are some of the terms that arise from my family background.
Do any of the following mean anything to you?

Tornado F3, Skyflash, RB199, Corporal, gulf war, AIM 9L, cock hook and look

These are some of the terms that arise in my career, first hand

Could you have hit the pentagon in that 757?

[Dave Rogers]

Do any of the following mean anything to you?

Tornado F3, Skyflash, RB199, Corporal, gulf war, AIM 9L, cock hook and look

These are some of the terms that arise in my career, first hand

Funk, from your experience in the RAF, can you confirm whether, outside the military aviation industry, the phrase "flying off the books" means "making up a load of complete tripe and claiming it's proof 9-11 was an inside job"? Because, you see, Swing Dangler just used it, and I'd like to believe that's what he meant, and if you, with your expertise, say that's what it means outside your area of expertise, he'll have to admit that's what he meant by it (by his logic).

Dave

[funk de fino]

Funk, from your experience in the RAF, can you confirm whether, outside the military aviation industry, the phrase "flying off the books" means "making up a load of complete tripe and claiming it's proof 9-11 was an inside job"? Because, you see, Swing Dangler just used it, and I'd like to believe that's what he meant, and if you, with your expertise, say that's what it means outside your area of expertise, he'll have to admit that's what he meant by it (by his logic).

Dave

I'd like to confirm, outside the industry, "flying off the books" means he has no proof of having flown a plane.

[robinson]

Why does everything end up being about the Joos?

[robinson]

I really hope this is a parody of physics ignorance, and not the real thing.

It is hard to tell, isn't it?

Some people think little drops of water just defy gravity somehow.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm confused. Were the pictures Swing posted supposed to convince us of something?

[Dave Rogers]

I'm confused. Were the pictures Swing posted supposed to convince us of something?

They certainly convinced me of something.

Dave

[Reheat]

I'm confused. Were the pictures Swing posted supposed to convince us of something?

I think he was pointing out those lumps on the horizon as evidence that they forgot to stir it up....

[Swing Dangler]

Funk, from your experience in the RAF, can you confirm whether, outside the military aviation industry, the phrase "flying off the books" means "making up a load of complete tripe and claiming it's proof 9-11 was an inside job"? Because, you see, Swing Dangler just used it, and I'd like to believe that's what he meant, and if you, with your expertise, say that's what it means outside your area of expertise, he'll have to admit that's what he meant by it (by his logic).

Dave

Completely wrong Dave. This was in reference to my grandfather at Grissom AFB being asked to "fly off the books" in South East Asia in 1962. In this case it meant flying off the record as in not flying in an official capacity with the United States Air Force or for the United States Government. You may want to examine Air America as a reference point. Thankfully my grandfather refused to do so.

See Dave, you just exposed your once respectable self to the level of imbecile in an attempt to tarnish my character, but hey, nice try.


Funk-I'd like to confirm, outside the industry, "flying off the books" means he has no proof of having flown a plane.
Better stick with RAF jargon then , huh?

[uk_dave]

"Right-o, SwingCo, cabbage crates over the briny, what? I say Ginger, steady on."

etc etc

[funk de fino]

Better stick with RAF jargon then , huh?

Its not RAF jargon Swingie

What planes have you flown and where and when did you fly them? Was it solo?

Could you hit the Pentagon in a 757? After laying some chemtrails.

[bje]

This was in reference to my grandfather at Grissom AFB being asked to "fly off the books" in South East Asia in 1962.


Gosh, that makes you an even younger kid than I thought.

[TjW]

:big: Let me just say your sense of humor is appreciate but misdirected and could use quite a bit of work.

I've been on many planes and flown a few as well. I have a family history in the aviation field. Do any of the following terms mean anything:
AT-6 Texan, FAA Flight Examiner, Grissom Air Force Base-Cadet Pilot Program,
"flying off the books". Those are some of the terms that arise from my family background.

Yes. But a Texan is not likely to be flown at contrail-producing altitudes. 24000 feet is on the low side for contrails. Certainly possible, but unlikely, and few people fly right up to the service ceiling anyway.

So far as I am aware, FAA Flight Examiner status is not inheritable, nor does it give the title holder infallibility with regard to aeronautical knowledge.

High altitude airplanes have been leaving contrails which behave in the manner described for as long as they have existed. That you weren't aware of that probably indicates something, but I don't know what.

ETA: This might be a bit more useful for looking at contrail conditions. (http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/mab/soundings/java/plot_soundings.cgi?airport=riv&start=latest&n_hrs=3.0&startSecs=1013277600&endSecs=1013288400&data_source=MAPS)

[Alferd_Packer]

A quick check of the current atmospheric conditions here (http://www.noaa.gov/) and here (http://www.ral.ucar.edu/weather/).

And did you remember to check the conditions at 30,000 feet, not at ground level?

Do you understand the biases and limitations of the data?

[Dave Rogers]

Completely wrong Dave. This was in reference to my grandfather at Grissom AFB being asked to "fly off the books" in South East Asia in 1962.

And, once again, the point goes sailing over Swing Dangler's head.

Dave

[MRC_Hans]

Oh I get it, bush is a lizard video. No not hardly. Time lapsed like these..from blue to cloudy!

Nice pictures of contrails. But ... why do you post those?

Hans

[Elizabeth I]

Oh I get it, bush is a lizard video. No not hardly. Time lapsed like these..from blue to cloudy!

See? I was right! I was right!!! Clouds are just big chunky chemtrails! OMG!!!

[twinstead]

Swing do you have any evidence that contrails can't do exactly what your pictures show, because most people I have talked to who know a lot about weather and contrails don't think anything nefarious is afoot when they see your pictures.