Matthew Lewis

"How else is the intersection of multiple paths over a comman nav beacon supposed to look?" The second of these photos gives the exact location of the chemtrails photographed. So if the three lines intersect above a "nav beacon", please tell us where it is and why the planes all must fly directly over it. Jack Perhaps you could translate the German? Please tell us why you think the coordinates given on the photo are anything other than the coordinates of the person taking the picture. The intersection pictured could be 30+ miles in any direction. Planes fly over nav beacons because it easier to give them directions that way. Please tell us why "chemtrail" planes would want to fly in this pattern. Surely it isn't a very efficient way to cover an area. The coordinates given were 6°57'10" O 49°36'30" N Based on a crude Babelfish translation, I'm assuming the O is for Ost which is East and the N is for Nord or North. I don't know what the rest of the caption says, nor do I care. If you want to request (demand) that others do research based on a picture you provided you could at least provide the info in English. Even then, I don't know why I should track down info on something you provided just because you say (demand) so especially when you've shown in the past that you prefer to ignore any information provided that contradicts your point of view anyway. Odd that they would give the East coordinate first when the convention is to give the North or South coordinate first, assuming the coordinates are real. 49°36'30"N 6°57'10"E corresponds to a populated location in West Germany. Plent of airports around Europe and in some places even more heavily congested than over the US. I don't have access to where any navigational beacons would be in Europe and I'm not sure why you think I would. It is also possible given the highly congested nature of air traffic in Europe that it is an intersection without a nav beacon near it. That does happen too. Still I see nothing odd about these multiple pictures of persistent contrails and wonder why I should. Are you trying to imply that commercial traffic flight paths should not intersect? Please tell us why you are ignoring all the evidence that persistent contrails can, do, and have been known to exist.

How else is the intersection of multiple paths over a comman nav beacon supposed to look? Looks like an intersection near a nav beacon (described multiple times already) and a parallel path from either the wind blowing it or just a plane flying parallel (the coordiors are fairly wide) also described multiple times already. Looks like some nice examples of normal air traffic.

Archived RHI data at altitude from that date and time http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cont_p...25&engEff=2 (some instructions for those that would like to use the forcast) As we know from the post above, contrails can persist with RHI as low as 60%. Also note that RHI values well in excess of 100% are possible. Appears to show that persistent contrail formation near the Dallas area was expected. I'm aware that the Dallas area is on the northern edge of the graphic but the resolution is low and the Dallas area is well within the margin of error.

Attached is a chart I found illustrating contrail forecasting. Note that contrails can and will form even at 0% relative humidity(yes, zero) if the temperature is cold enough found here http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resourc...an_student.html Later on that page there is this info (bolding is mine)

Sorry, that is also wrong. If that were true, then how would clouds ever form? A persistent contrail is effectively a cirrus cloud. The article you posted made the wrong assumption that the relationship between relative humidity and contrail persistence is a linear one. It is not. Other variables are temperature and pressure. Further, the correct term to use is relative humidity with respect to ice or RHI although not all sites use the ice term. More info http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm Commercial and military planes are the primary users of Class A airspace but anyone can fly there if they can reach it, have a transponder, radio and file a flight plan.

I have also offered multiple times that he could check the same thing with the commercially available program Flight Explorer. There are other programs out there as well that perform the same function. That has been met with silence as well. Curious.

Are jets not supposed to ever make turns? What's curious is why you think the picture is of a "chemtrail" when by your own definition (which has been shown to be wrong) a "chemtrail" is one that persists and does not evaporate. This contrail appears to be dispersing and not persisting. I'm also curious when you will be taking back the obviously wrong statement you made that I have offered no research.

You can't see the jets in the picture so it is hard to say they were flying in formation. As explained before, it could have been from multiple planes on separate but parallel paths, it could have been multiple planes on the same path and the contrail blown by the wind, it could have also been multiple contrails from a multiengine jet. Since there is nothing in the picture to provide any sense of scale, it is hard to tell how much it is zoomed in.

The question is not what are they spraying. Persistent contrails have been known about since before WWII. The real question is why they are more common now than they used to be. There are many pieces to that answer. 1. Jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70's. It is projected to double again in just 10 years. 2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust. 3. Jets travel higher now (on average) partly due to increased traffic and partly due to increased power allowing higher flight. Higher flight means more contrails. Read this study from 1942 for more explanation on this. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf 4. An increase in traffic increases the amount of exhaust put into the atmosphere. This exhaust has a cumulative effect and results in conditions more conducive to contrail formation over the long run. I unfortunately don't have a reference for this. It is something I remember coming across in my studies while in college but I've been unable to locate it since. 5. Evidence that airlines have changed their engines can be found in the noise regulations that the FAA has put out. Around 2000, Stage 3 regs went into effect. This is a regulation governing the noise output of jet engines and required every airline to either replace their engines or install hush kits. These newer engines are not only quieter but are more fuel efficient meaning again, more water vapor. Incidentally, Stage 4 regs were due to take effect in January of this year requiring even more changes. I haven't heard specifically if Stage 4 engines are more fuel efficient but I wouldn't doubt it. I do know that many Stage 3 engines already met Stage 4 regs though so many airlines did not have to update. Some of those that did have applied for extensions as they can't make their planes compliant in time. The only samples that have ever been taken have been on the ground where it is not only possible but highly likely that the samples are contaminated by other sources. Both aluminum and barium are known air pollutants from power plants and various other industrial facilities. To assume they came from a trail 30,000+ feet in the air when collected on the ground when there are other sources on the ground is bad research at best and deceptive at worst. One thing most forget is anything sprayed at altitude may not come down for days or weeks and definitely not in the area they were sprayed.No one has yet taken a sample from a trail in the air. There is no proof that they are government planes. Quite the opposite actually as anyone can grab a pair of binoculars and see normal commercial flights. One can also get the program flight explorer and compare the contrails they see being formed to the scheduled flights in the program. Persistent contrails are perfectly explained through science. They have existed since planes could fly high enough and pictures exist of them from before WWII. they have become more common lately at planes have updated their engines with newer more powerful and more fuel efficient engines (thus having more water in the exhaust), jet traffic flying higher (Where the air is colder giving more of a chance for contrails to form and persist), and an increase in jet traffic (jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70s and is projected to double again in less than 10 years) making contrails in general more common and forcing more traffic higher to accomodate (again where the air is colder). One can even predict the days and areas where they will see persistent contrails (chemtrails as some would like to call them). If you know what to look for in the weather you can tell if an area will have conditions likely for contrails. I have never seen "chemtrails" show up when the weather was not already likely for persistent contrails. There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

How is asking a question a taunt? What about wondering if you ever actually look at any conflicting evidence? Since you rarely if ever respond to anything conflicting your worldview, one wonders if you even look at it. Again, persistent contrails have existed since planes could fly high enough. The science behind it is well understood and available for anyone that cares to look. It is completely wrong that contrails must evaporate. Your article failed to consider the effects of temperature on persistence. More importantly it made the assumption that the relationship between humidity and persistence was a linear relationship and then basing the rest of the article on that. When you make a wrong assumption you come up with wrong conclusions based on it. Clouds also exist at high altitudes. Why? By your reasoning they shouldn't even exist. Aluminum and barium have yet to be proven to be in any "chemtrail". Again, not one "chemtrail" believer has taken a sample from within a trail. They take samples on the ground and then assume they came from some trail in the sky. How is that considered good research? That is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst. I have yet to see a photo of something that doesn't look like a contrail. I have addressed most but when you show up just to spam the topic with photo and cut and paste articles without responding to anything else I might miss one or two. I present no research? That's funny! Who knew you were a comedian Jack! I guess you missed the multiple posts showing the science behind contrail formation and the pictures and stories of persistent contrails dating back to before WWII. Explained earlier but as we know Jack doesn't appear to bother to read opposing viewpoints I'll explain it again. Air cooridors are large. It is highly possible to have multple parallel pathways within a single cooridor. Also possible is for planes to be following the same path and the contrail blown by the wind. How is flying in an oval pattern stunt flying? Jets occasionally have to fly holding patterns. Wind can blow contrails. I see nothing strange here.

Oh I noticed. As usual, Jack ignores anything presented that doesn't fit his world view. While I take the time to examine both sides of the argument and try to read each link provided I doubt Jack reads much if anything of what I have posted. I would also bet he has not researched both sides. I could be wrong. Jack could easily prove me wrong, but I doubt he will.

The premise that contrails always quickly disperse or evaporate is demonstrably wrong. Persistent contrails have existed and been known about since aircraft could fly high enough. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf Good sites for those that actually want to research the science behind contrails http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/ Another excellent site to read is: http://contrailscience.com/ Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same. The following are pictures of contrails from the past. The first two show persistent contrails and the third shows those contrails dispersing into cloud cover. Unfortunately I don't have a date for the third. Dogfights create contrails over London's St. Pauls Cathedral during the Battle of Britain in 1940- at sixty years one of the oldest contrail photos http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg Crewmen of an American ship watch the contrails as American and Japanese planes fight it out above Task Force 58 in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on June 19, 1944. http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg Satellite image of the North Atlantic corridor shows contrails west of Great Britain and in mid-Atlantic forming preferentially ahead of two different frontal systems due to higher moisture as the front approaches. http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg 1981 NOAA photo of contrail at sunset (persistent spreading contrail from 81) http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg Many pictures of persistent contrails here taken from space on early shuttle missions. (starts an automatic slide show after a few seconds) http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html A navigator's log from WWII. Note in particular mission #24 and this quote "The contrails were dense, persistent - really hard to even see our own squadron." http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html WWII pilot's diary Note mission #33 http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm More WWII pics http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes...es2/Trails6.jpg http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg Another very good website specifically showing evidence of persisting contrails well before the 90's http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-...ding-contrails/ It has some quotes from newspapers in the 40's, 50's, and 70's as well Jack, would you say that persistent contrails do not exist?

Is that the one where they mistranslated a word to mean "chemtrails" when it meant something completely different? Yes, it is. The Germans did NOT admit to "chemtrails". They admitted to using "Duppel". When translated correctly, this means CHAFF. A normal thing used by any military. Whoever made this video felt they had to lie to prove their case.

Yes, you are wrong about much of that. Airspace around major airports is Class B or C airspace. The upper limit is usually 10,000 feet but flyovers are still permitted within that provided they are under positive control and are talking to the tower. Between 10,000 and 18,000, they are often controlled by a regional ATC. Above 18,000 is Class A airspace. Of course none of that really matters when talking about the picture provided as the contrails pictured are likely at 30,000 feet or greater (where the temperature is cold enough to support contrails in general) and well within the normal confines of Class A airspace. So, no, they are not violating any FAA rules. And they are not laying "chemtrails".

How would you know? Have any samples ever been taken from within the trail?

AKA persistent contrails. And why should different planes at different altitudes (you even mentioned that yourself) have the same type of contrails? The air conditions, expecially temperature, are not the same. Are you trying to debunk yourself here? What else would the intersection of two different contrails over a common nav beacon look like? Combo of the intersection mentioned above and planes flying along similar but parallel flight paths within the wide aircraft cooridor. Can also be caused when planes follow the same path but previous contrails have been blown by the wind. Again, Jack, would you say that persistent contrails do not exist? You've been asked this question multiple times in this and other threads.

No and likely nobody would have thought you were, but by mentioning it yet again and attaching names to the phrase "disingenuous deceptive prevaricators", you are effectively suggesting that now. But you knew that already didn't you?

If at first you don't understand the process, throw something that looks like math at it and try to obfuscate it. The author conveniently forgets (doesn't know?) that the extremely cold temperatures at the altitudes of persistent contrails also have an effect on their ability to persist. He also ignores the fact that often when one sees persistent contrails or what he thinks are "chemtrails" at the very same time there are high cirrus clouds at the same altitude. If cirrus clouds can form and exist in those conditions then why couldn't contrails (which are effectively clouds as well) exist in the same conditions? I also found funny this quote from the "article". What the author forgets is that samples collected on the ground (which are all they have ever gotten) are not "atmospheric" samples. Not once has a "chemtrail" believer done the simple task of chartering a plane and actually collecting samples in situ. If just ONE "chemtrail" believer could actually collect a sample from within a trail, and get it analyzed and it actually contained a fraction of what they are claiming it does, I would be interested in listening to them. As it is though, they have been complaining about the trails for at least the past 10 years and nobody has bothered to do so yet (or if they have they didn't like the results).

While the line of questioning was defamatory, I didn't bother to complain about it (I asume someone else did) as I thought it was obvious just how absurd the question was.

Jack, What's the difference between contrails and chemtrails? And what's the purpose of it, if intentional? Thanks, BK Bill...that is simple to answer, but difficult to prove because the program is secret. CONTRAILS have been observed ever since the advent of high flying aircraft. Internal combustion engines, both piston and jet, burn a combustible aircraft fuel, typically gasoline or kerosene. Being liquid, some parts of the fuel enter the atmosphere as hot exhaust. When this heated vapor hits the cold air, it condenses into visible "steam". You have observed this yourself if you ever have started your car on a cold morning, when you see a cloud of steam come from your tailpipe as the hot moist air becomes visible. This steam quickly dissipates as soon as it reaches the ambient temperature of the surrounding air, and quickly "evaporates". CHEMTRAILS, on the other hand, are laid daily in our skies by the hundreds by military aircraft (see attached), which spray a particulate matter of unknown composition to cover the sky with artificial clouds, FOR AN UNKNOWN PURPOSE. Chemtrails DO NOT EVAPORATE but remain in place for hours as artificial clouds, until dispersed by upper level winds. Some of the particulate matter has settled to the ground and been collected; tests have shown it to be mostly thin slivers of aluminum, barium, and other chemicals. There are many theories suggested for this secret program. The leading theory has to do with combatting GLOBAL WARMING by creating artificial cloud cover to shade the earth from heating. This was suggested years ago by Edwin Teller, father of the nuclear bomb, who predicted that an "artificial umbrella" would be needed in the future to protect the earth from the sun. There are several other theories, but most have to do with weather control, HAARP, etc. However, these are just theories; the real purpose remains secret. It is a worldwide program, being reported in every part of the world except China. Jack I thought you said that these "chemtrails" were sprayed by military aircraft? The picture you posted is not of a military jet in service. If they were all sprayed by military jets, then why is it that one can look at them through binoculars and see commercial markings? Why is it that one can use the program Flight Explorer which shows commercial flights in near real time and match them up to flight above leaving these "chemtrails" otherwise known as persistent contrails? For William Kelly, it is interesting to note that the first so called fact about "chemtrails" is a demonstrable lie. They say that contrails evaporate and "chemtrails" do not but ever since contrails were first observed, it was known that given the right conditions contrails could persist and spread out. Also note that the only samples that have been taken have been collected on the ground. How do they KNOW that it then came from these "chemtrails" when there are many other likely sources right there on the ground? Aluminum and Barium are two chemicals both found in industrial air and water pollution. Why don't the believers in "chemtrails" hire a plane and collect a sample from a trail in the air? It has been years since this has first been suggested and this has not been done. Perhaps they are scared of what they WON'T find? William, you don't have to take my word for it. There is penty of science to back it up. I've posted quite a bit of it on this board in this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=11963&st=0 Why would V and X formations be considered odd? Is jet traffic not supposed to cross paths occasionally? see attachment Jack, I've asked before and you've repeatedly ignored the question. Would you say that persistent contrails do not exist?

Or, as the science behind contrail formation says, they had been flying in air not conducive to contrail formation (perhaps slightly warmer or less humid) and entered an area where the air was conducive to contrail formation. this is further evident because there were already contrails in the area.

Oh My Gosh!!! How dare we teach our children science!! Thanks for the laugh Jack!

Since Mr. Lewis is on active duty with the air force, I think he should tell us what active role he plays in the chemtrail spraying operation. The aircraft doing the spraying are clearly military planes. Or is he sworn to secrecy? Why should we believe someone who has a vested interest in maintaining the secrecy of the operation? Jack As I've said before, I know of no "chemtrail" operation. I am an air battle manager on the JSTARS aircraft. Do you have any proof otherwise? If not then I would appreciate you keeping your unfounded accusations to yourself. I have looked at the planes leaving persistent contrails and have seen all sort of commercial jets. Have you? Why should you believe me? I have posted nothing but facts regarding persistent contrails, the science behind them and how they have been seen for decades dating to before WWII. You don't have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence provided yourself. Or you can choose to remain willfully ignorant. The choice is yours. Edit to add: I have not tried to hide my affiliation with the USAF. If I was really involved in some huge operation (that I have pointed out in another thread that the USAF doesn't even have nearly enough planes to carry out something so large) as Jack seems to think, wouldn't I try to hide that I was a part of the organization rumored to be responsible? Also, Jack, is it not possible that I have examined the evidence and simply come to a different conclusion than yourself? Why do you have such a problem with opposing viewpoints? The JStar aircraft are not the planes doing the spraying. See attachment. There are only 12 JStar planes, and I counted that many over Fort Worth this afternoon. The Chemtrail Spray Planes appear to be identical to tanker planes used for refueling other aircraft in flight. Jack Did I say they were? No, it is quite clear if you look at the planes through binoculars that planes leaving persistent contrails are a mix of all sorts of commercial aircraft. JSTARS sircraft can't even get high enough to often leave a nonpersistent contrail let alone a persistent one as the engines are old and outdated. And your information is wrong. There are more than 12 JSTARS aircraft. There are 17. However, less than 12 are airworthy at any given time. For the tankers Jack imagines is doing this "spraying", as explained in another thread, and ignored by Jack, at any given time, at least a third of them are deployed to the middle east doing their job providing fuel to other aircraft in flight. Another third are undergoing maintenance (a problem affecting most aircraft in the air force) and what is left is kept quite busy doing training (you wouldn't want a pilot to have his first air refuel while in hostile skies would you?) There is simple not enough aircraft to carry out an operation the size of which is proposed.

I suspect if one were to examine the weather in the Dallas area today(if I recall correctly that is where Jack is located) particularly at altitude then one would find the conditions were conducive to persistent contrail formation. But what do I know? I'm just basing this on facts and science. Hardly a match for rumor, supposition, innuendo, and pseudoscience.

Since Mr. Lewis is on active duty with the air force, I think he should tell us what active role he plays in the chemtrail spraying operation. The aircraft doing the spraying are clearly military planes. Or is he sworn to secrecy? Why should we believe someone who has a vested interest in maintaining the secrecy of the operation? Jack As I've said before, I know of no "chemtrail" operation. I am an air battle manager on the JSTARS aircraft. Do you have any proof otherwise? If not then I would appreciate you keeping your unfounded accusations to yourself. I have looked at the planes leaving persistent contrails and have seen all sort of commercial jets. Have you? Why should you believe me? I have posted nothing but facts regarding persistent contrails, the science behind them and how they have been seen for decades dating to before WWII. You don't have to take my word for it. Examine the evidence provided yourself. Or you can choose to remain willfully ignorant. The choice is yours. Edit to add: I have not tried to hide my affiliation with the USAF. If I was really involved in some huge operation (that I have pointed out in another thread that the USAF doesn't even have nearly enough planes to carry out something so large) as Jack seems to think, wouldn't I try to hide that I was a part of the organization rumored to be responsible? Also, Jack, is it not possible that I have examined the evidence and simply come to a different conclusion than yourself? Why do you have such a problem with opposing viewpoints?