Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:55pm PT
|
my point is the increase in recent activity. it would be easy to test--take some air samples, get some close-up shots of planes up there. you won't find any of this on the debunking pages. but don't ask me to trust the government with doing it. the difficult part will be getting credible information during our age of terror paranoia when the pentagon nevertheless doesn't have a clue about what this was, except after a week of blogger analysis.
you're accepting the recent activity, mono. i'm guessing that you're young enough to have grown up under such skies, which you consider "normal". i haven't--there's a sea change up there. this didn't happen during the era of the 707, and i don't think changes in jet engines since then would account for it, especially, as some of you guys are arguing, if exaggerated contrails are merely the result of atmospheric conditions.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
yes, i feel bumps on flights. your explanations make as much sense as any. i could accept them, except that i have no memory of these outrageously expansive trails in the places i've lived until about 15-20 years ago. what i do remember are skies with natural clouds, beautiful clouds. now, in southern california, as often as not, the skies are full of obviously straight-laid, airplane-created clouds, and none of them lead down to LAX. and these clouds just expand and expand, weaving into each other and filling the skies. i've lived in chicago and minneapolis, also hubs of air traffic, and all i remember are the "normal" contrails, the ones which disappear shortly after they appear, in spite of your elaborate explanations.
I'm 58 and my father was a United pilot. We lived in Mountain View, Boston, and Chicago while I was growing up and I've never known a time when there weren't contrails. In earlier decades there simply wasn't nearly the level of air traffic there is today, but there has always been contrails. I mentioned all this to him and he got a real laugh out of it and couldn't believe this sort of nonsense was still going on.
Again, you'd have to be lunatic to think it's possible to set up an end-to-end supply chain and the logistics necessary to do it in secret. Tens of thousands of people would have to be employed in the endeavor - to what possible end? For what economic or political benefit? Why would anyone spend the money to do it? If it's been happening for decades what have been the tangible benefits delivered that would sustain funding?
It's obvious to me that if you think that normal jet contrails are anything but that then it's no leap at all to Nessie, aliens, interdimensional sasquatch, 14 secret societies that all rule the earth, and of course god. Or rather really I suspect that maybe it's actually the religion exposure - god just isn't 'real' or active enough and so you feel compelled to fill in all these subdomains to really fill the void for an inactive god - a sort of sub-polytheism. The power of mythology and wives tales is certainly enduring.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
FAA Awards SpaceX First Ever Commercial License to Re-Enter Spacecraft from Orbit
Hawthorne, CA – Since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation was created in 1984, it has issued licenses for more than 200 launches.
On Monday, November 22nd, the FAA made SpaceX the first-ever commercial company to receive a license to re-enter a spacecraft from orbit.
Next month, SpaceX is planning to launch its Dragon spacecraft into low-Earth orbit atop a Falcon 9 rocket. The Dragon capsule is expected to orbit the Earth at speeds greater than 17,000 miles per hour, reenter the Earth’s atmosphere, and land in the Pacific Ocean a few hours later.
This will be the first attempt by a commercial company to recover a spacecraft reentering from low-Earth orbit. It is a feat performed by only 6 nations or governmental agencies: the United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Space Agency.
It is also the first flight under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to develop commercial supply services to the International Space Station and encourage the growth of the commercial space industry. After the Space Shuttle retires, SpaceX will make at least 12 flights to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station as part of a Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract for NASA. The Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft were designed to one day carry astronauts; both the COTS and CRS missions will yield valuable flight experience towards this goal.
The license is valid for 1 year from the date of issue.
About SpaceX
SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles and spacecraft that will increase reliability and performance of space transportation, while ultimately reducing costs by a factor of ten. With the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, SpaceX has a diverse manifest of launches to deliver commercial satellites to orbit. After the Space Shuttle retires, the Falcon 9 and SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft will start carrying cargo, including live plants and animals, to and from the International Space Station for NASA. Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed to one day carry astronauts.
Founded in 2002, SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and Valor Equity Partners. The company has over 1,100 employees in California, Texas and Florida. For more information, and to watch the video of the first Falcon 9 launch, visit the SpaceX website at SpaceX.com.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
|
what pressure tony the higher you get the less pressure there is. planes - jets make there own pressure as they push through the air. thats how they fly- high pressure under wing low pressure above the wing. if you spent your childhood looking out at the pacific ocean from l.a. - s.f. - s.d. you would have seen many of these con trails.
there is nothing new here -but if you want something to talk about go for it.
for the nuts that said there were no planes in the sky in that area - there are at least 6000 aircraft over the U.S. at any time & at least 400 aircraft coming to the U.S. form the east at any time.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:38pm PT
|
"so phule, let's make a few rules. first, tell us what a carabiner is for."
Do people have do to everything for you? You make claims but never ever seems to do any research by your self. Please read my old posts or shut up.
Why is my climbing credential even important to you?
"second, try putting all these links in your own words instead of making me look at webpage after webpage."
Sorry, I should do exactly everything for you. I made a link to a research paper from 1970 that talk about what you call chemtrails, I have talked about the wiki page and given you a link to some pics. Is that really to much for you to look through?
"there's this basic rule of thumb: if you can't put it in your own words, you don't understand it, you're just reading what someone else wrote and agreeing with it."
One rule in regard to you is that you show that you are completely clueless almost every time you use your own words.
What should I do to make you happy?
Science is not allowed.
Links are not allowed.
My short explanations are not allowed.
What really can I say? Air humidity places a large role in contrails formation (and all cloud formation). A convective cloud or contrail in very dry air would vanish fast because the high concentration of humidity/water dropplets/ice dissipate to the air around and the cloud disappear.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 01:41pm PT
|
"you're accepting the recent activity, mono. i'm guessing that you're young enough to have grown up under such skies, which you consider "normal". i haven't--there's a sea change up there. this didn't happen during the era of the 707, and i don't think changes in jet engines since then would account for it, especially, as some of you guys are arguing, if exaggerated contrails are merely the result of atmospheric conditions. "
But people wrote scientific articles about it 1970... Did you read article or is reading articles simply not your style?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 02:32pm PT
|
"so--does that mean we can discount the vapor-exhaust arguments entirely?"
Why didn't you even read the explanation in mono's pic? It was also about the vapor-exhaust.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Near Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 02:51pm PT
|
Tony B, when was the last time you were in an airplane that goes above 30,000feet?
Or was it also the government's idea to put chemicals in that Southwest 737 to spray over the lands.
Commercial planes under FAR 135 HAVE to be at Max Fuel Weight prior to taking off. Sometimes those trips aren't long enough to burn all that fuel, and these Air Carriers ALSO have a MAX LANDING WEIGHT, which is why they have to dump all that fuel. Maybe those are the chemicals you're talking about?
|
|
MisterAnswers
Social climber
Ark on the Moon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 02:55pm PT
|
Question: What important Internet Forum Law has Raymond Phule forgotten?
Answer: Arguing with idiots on an internet forum makes you an idiot.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Near Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
|
Ron Anderson, you must be wrong.
It's the government obviously spraying everyone over the ocean. Gosh.
It'll be way too hard to explain the whole Thrust / Speed / Weight thing. And people will still think it's a UFO / Crop Duster / Swamp Gas.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 03:26pm PT
|
Just a reminder Ron,,,
The bottom right in your pic is a known flight, Dec 31st, last year, not the mystery 'missile'.
You let your eyes fool you again. Here it is enlarged.
And viewed from an angle:
twas a jet
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 03:48pm PT
|
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 08:21pm PT
|
your climbing credentials are important, raymond. got any? it would make you a lot more credible, at least to me. if you're not a climber, that's fine. admit you're here to stomp on conspiracy theorists because you hate them. honesty is good for the soul. i'd be much more comfortable with you, if that's all the case, and you own up to it. however if you're a climber, talk about that too. you never know when having something in common like that can help a discussion.
no, links are not okay, except for background and reference for people who wish to pursue them. they do not constitute the core of any discussion. if you read all the books i've read in my life you'd probably be thinking exactly like me, but i don't expect you to do that. i could link you to any number of web pages which take chemtrails seriously, but you probably wouldn't look at them either. frankly, none of them are that good, but i still think the subject is worth taking seriously, not only because of what i notice in the sky but because of our increasingly manipulative and lying government.
as for that 1970 article, all i'm getting from your link is a brief abstract. sorry, doesn't seem to say a hell of a lot.
michaeld, i fly 2-3 times a year. i notice that temperatures at 30,000 are generally quite a bit colder than -30, which someone mentioned previously. seems like it's more like -60 to -70. they post those things on the trip log. and the flying has been pretty smooth. maybe i hit good weather.
you'll have to explain some of that other stuff. we're getting fuel dumped at random across the world's environments on a regular basis just so the planes meet a landing weight requirement? gawd, the things you can learn on ST. chicken little should wear safety goggles.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
|
Raymond, you have to understand the conspiracy droids here are very paranoid, so when they see a new name in these threads they assume you are a government agent. I've been accused, as well as GC. Tony even thought the people behind contrailscience were reading this thread and reacting.
Funny isn't it?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 09:13pm PT
|
Shouldn't contrailscience be spelt contrail "science"?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 09:19pm PT
|
We know you guys are tools of tricky dicky Cheney ......
We also know you buy your turkey from him for this thanks the giving stuff .....
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 10:13pm PT
|
I fly 3 to 5 round trips to various places every month.
I live in Reno so I know what flying in turbulance is all about.
Tony, what is the point of stating a fact if you are simply going to dismiss it and stating that you don't believe it with no evidence to support your position?
You won't look at any link we post cuz of your scepticism, yet you state that you have read many books....How were you able to tell truth from lie in the books you've read? Or did you think they were 100% accurate....cuz it's a book?
Monday when I fly to Denver, should I ask the pilot some pointed questions and see if I can catch him in a lie? ;)
I should be like..."Hey, where's that chemtrail switch again?"
Hahaha!
|
|
tomtom
Social climber
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 11:25pm PT
|
Please folks, don't ignore the real truth. The government is hiding it from you.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 12:34am PT
|
Please folks, don't ignore the real truth. The government is hiding it from you.
Which real truth is that?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2010 - 12:38am PT
|
So do you guys (no women on the whackjob threads) agree that there was or wasn't a rocket, that may have been a plane, and that it did or didn't have a contrail?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!