Matthew Lewis
-
Posts
611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Matthew Lewis
-
-
Leave me out of your pathetic little flame war. I have not belittled you. Everything I have said on this forum has been backed up by facts.
If there is a flame war going on here , then it was started by Evan with his "belittle" comment and then as usual, continued by Craig with his constant insults directed to me, which always get worse when he is proven to be wrong .
As for your flame baiting comments about me, they are posted on the Apollo Hoax forum, where you and your pals ridicule every CT who ever dared to post Apollo hoax evidence .
I have yet to see you post anything that proves him wrong. When is that expected to start?
-
You belittle yourself.
Now why would I do that when I have you and Dave and Craig and Kevin and Matthew to do that for me ?
Leave me out of your pathetic little flame war. I have not belittled you. Everything I have said on this forum has been backed up by facts.
-
Let's see. They want to send people back to the Moon and stay for LONGER times. Is it really so hard to believe that radiation might be a bigger problem when the length of stay is measured in months instead of days?
-
I see no figures in that article. Are the levels of x-rays or gamma radiation found on the Moon high? That article doesn't say but you assume they are anyway.
-
I thought this was settled a long time ago when it was shown that the object seen, traveling North to South would have been in a polar orbit and therefore couldn't have been Apollo anyway. Oh well, what's one more thing for Duane to ignore?
-
I am also struck by what may be Matthew's innocent misreading of the report cited by Jack. Nowhere therein is it suggested that, as Matthew would have it, chemtrails are "falling out of the sky immediately." (emphasis added) Thus his "'[c]hemtrail' believers want to have it both ways" conclusion is is shown to be based on at least one false assumption (another is that all chemtrails would be expected to exhibit identical compositions and air-to-ground descent characteristics), and thus qualifies as sophistry.
I have read these reports before as well as many others. The people involved collect samples on the same days as "chemtrail" sprayings neglecting the fact that particles released at high altitudes would likely stay aloft for days if not weeks. There is also a problem of concentration. If something is sprayed at high altitudes and spends time spreading out and dissipating in the upper atmosphere, how is it then found in any measurable concentration on the ground let alone clumps which some reports I have read would have you believe? It is highly likely that it is from another source.
Matthew's silence on established precedents for government testing, via aerosol spraying, of biological agents on an unsuspecting population dating to the late 1940s reflects what I would suggest -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- is an unsophisticated and uninformed appreciation of deep political structures, agendas, and methods. His mocking of Jack White -- the straw man of choice for disinformationalists who regularly prowl these cyber-pages -- is at best cheap and unsavory.I haven't the slightest idea what "chemtrails" are. Yet. But anyone who does not acknowledge the needs for an open-minded approach to this issue and impartial scientific analyses of its components by definition raises some very large red flags.
Charles
I am well aware that there has been government testing via aerosol spraying. What I am also aware of is that any such spraying would be done at low altitudes (less than a few thousand feet) in order to aim correctly, have it reach the target in any decent concentration, and so that it is not rendered inert by long exposure to sunlight on the way down. Spraying at high altitudes like the "chemtrail" supporters would have you believe would run into all of these problems.
-
So they collect something on the ground and somehow assume it came from a perfectly normal trail in the sky? This is some of your funniest stuff yet Jack!
"Chemtrail" believers want to have it both ways. On the one hand they say that the "chemtrails" are staying up in the sky too long, spreading out and forming clouds (which is something normal contrails have been known to do for over 60 years) and on the other hand they want us to believe they are at the same time falling out of the sky immediately to be picked up on the ground. Can you not see the contradiction here Jack? Got any more humor for us?
-
Thanks for CONFIRMING what I said. CONtrails are formed basically by CONDENSATION OF MOISTURE IN THE AIR.
That is why the volume of a CONtrail is so miniscule.
The volume of CHEMtrails on the other hand is released in huge quantities from tanker planes and is unrelated to
mositure condensation in the atmosphere.
Jack
Wrong Jack. Contrails can constitute large or small volumes depending on the conditions they are formed in. "Chemtrails" are mythical. As mentioned before, more water vapor in the exhaust means more water vapor for the moisture already present in the air to condense upon.
](A contrail) forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. [/b]When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.And as mentioned by Dave Greeer
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html
"Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. "
If I didn't know better I would think you were being deliberately obtuse.
-
Quick chemistry lesson for Jack. Any hydrocarbon (fuel) when burned chemically changes into other compounds. The burning breaks the bonds of the hydrocarbon which releases energy and forms smaller, simpler compounds. When a fuel is not burned very cleanly or efficiently, the resulting compounds will have less water vapor and carbon dioxide and more carbon monoxide and other various pollutants. Jet fuel when burned efficiently forms carbon dioxide, water vapor, and smaller amounts of nitrous oxides. Newer engines burn fuel more efficiently and produce more thrust as they are burning more fuel overall so much more water vapor is in the exhaust. More water vapor in the exhaust means more water vapor for the moisture already present in the air to condense upon.
From here
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-...ding-contrails/
(A contrail) forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud. -
God Forbid they may actually understand the science behind contrail formation and understand there is nothing sinister about it.
Jack, do you believe that persistent contrails do not exist? Especially given the evidence posted in this thread that shows that there is science behind persistent contrails and photos and reports of them dating back to the 40's?
-
No, no, no. The Chemtrails are genetically altering your cat into another creature and your cat is rejecting the process.
-
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
The News, Frederick, MD, March 7, 1944“Contrails frequently have a tendency to cause a complete overcast and cause rain. In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted“
One of the earliest reference to contrails covering the sky is from the Mansfield News Journal, August 11, 1957, Page 29:“Within the past few years, the weather bureau has begun to report the trails as actual cloud layers when there are sufficient trails to cover a portion of the sky.”
the Arcadia Tribune, April 29, 1970:Aircraft contrails begin to streak the normally bright Arizona sky at dawn. Through the day, as air traffic peaks, these contrails gradually merge into and almost solid interlaced sheet of cirrus cloud - an artificial cirrus cloud that is frequently as much as 500 meters deep.
All of those people were just lying back then though right Jack?
-
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
http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm
http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/
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 autmatic 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
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 that study from 1942 for more explanation on this.
4. An increase in traffic increases the 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've read some studies about it and will try to find them, though not everything is available online.
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.
I've also seen a video of a Phil Collins concert in 1987. The camera pans up in the sky and some persistent contrails can be seen.
-
Oh. I'm sorry. Jack apparently can do something no one else in the world can. He can tell the altitude of a plane from the ground with nothing more than his eyes.
Jack, I've asked before and I'm asking again. Would you say that persisent contrails do not exist?
I do NOT know the altitudes nor the size of the planes...BUT IF the planes were of equal size,
they appeared to be the same size in the sky...a barely visible black speck at the
end of the 'trails. If the planes were different sizes, their altitudes were slightly different.
If the planes were the same size, they were at about the same altitude.
Jack
It is nearly impossible to know the altitude of a plane from the ground with the naked eye. Even if the same size, a plane at 30,000 feet will look almost exactly the same as a plane at 35,000 feet. And again, as I've mentioned, different planes with different engines could leave different contrails even at the same altitude.
Again, would you say that persistent contrails do not exist?
-
Oh. I'm sorry. Jack apparently can do something no one else in the world can. He can tell the altitude of a plane from the ground with nothing more than his eyes.
Jack, I've asked before and I'm asking again. Would you say that persisent contrails do not exist?
-
I honestly see no problem with contrails in the same sky persisting different lengths of time. I see it all the time. Contrail persistence is highly dependent on temperature and moisture content of the air. Both can and do vary with altitude and the difference can sometimes be seen in just a thousand feet. The type of plane and engines can also have an effect. There is no reason to think that two different planes that are at unknown altitudes (likely not the same) should have the same type of contrail.
-
So different planes that are likely at different altitudes leave different types of contrails. So what?
-
Do yo ueven read what other people write? Or are you just so sure that you're right and everybody else must be wrong that you skip over everything they say? Jim Oberg agreed that the picture was in the book! That is not a question at all. This has been mentioned on this thread multiple times. What he asked for is any proof that the picture is claimed to be genuine. He never asked to be shown a copy of the book with the picture in it. He knew it was there. He asked for any proof that it is claimed to be official! Here is the quote from James Oberg provided by Evan in post #8
Dear Mr. René:This letter supplements the one I mailed two days ago, but concentrates on the single issue of the “Collins EVA Image”. I am focusing on this issue because YOU chose to make it your lead-off argument in your book, and to establish that NASA has a policy of falsifying photographs, of ‘lying’. In the book you returned to it several times later, and have mentioned it during interviews.
I have been able to confirm your assertion that the undeniable altered zero-G airplane training image – reversed and with background blacked out – is indeed in the photo insert of the 1975 Ballantine paperback of Collins' 'Carrying the Fire'. There is one photo insert, 8 pieces of paper (16 sides), between 238 and 239. I have the 1974 hardcover edition from Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, which has an 8-page photo insert between pages 196 and 197, a 4-page insert between pages 358 and 359, and another 4-page photo insert between pages 422 and 423. The altered image there is on the ‘second frontispiece’, just after a two-page spread of moon craters out the window.
You had written: “I will bet you $10,000 that I can produce these photos in situ in an 8 page photo section (16) photos between pages 238 & 239. But maybe I not only lie, cheat and steal but I bluff too.” There is no need for such a bet because I can verify your statement about finding the images.
The very first picture in the Ballantine photo insert is an EVA suit against a complete black background. It has no caption and no description. 4 pages later there is a very similar picture, but only the bottom is black and above him you can see the zero G airplane interior. The caption of this one is "The zero-G airplane - sickening". The suit looks exactly the same. The first image is unquestionably derived from the second image.
First question: Where does Collins or anyone else allege that this image shows him on his EVA, as you state that he does and is this “a xxxx”. Please provide citation to the book’s text or to any public statements made by Collins in discussing his book. You write that the picture was “allegedly taken during a space walk”. Please cite that allegation. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?
Second question: where does NASA present this image as portraying the Gemini-10 EVA? Is there any press release photograph, any publication, any non-NASA publication citing NASA as source of this image, any website, that presents this image with NASA’s explicit description of it as showing the Gemini-10 EVA. You claim they have done so, and your exact words: “Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?” Please cite exactly where this lie originally occurred. Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that you can find such explicit evidence?
Third question: If in fact there is no documentation for either Collins or NASA asserting that this image is an actual photograph of the Gemini-10 EVA, how can you allege that they IMPLIED it when in fact Collins explicitly states (on page 254 of the Ballantine edition) that there WERE no photographs of his EVA: “One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]” Therefore, by Collin's own account, can’t we conclude that any picture of him in a spacesuit is not that of the Gemini EVA?
What do you see that is sinister in this? Presumably they wanted an illustration of what the EVA looked like for the front of the original book, and since no photos of the real EVA were available, somebody at the publisher’s office re-touched the training photo they had, and mirrored it to make it look better given its position in the book. I can find not one single attempt to pass this off as an in-flight photograph, and in fact the text explicitly states that there are no flight pictures. Honestly, if they were trying to pass it off as real, it would be really stupid to include the training picture from which it was derived just a few pages later.
Can you clarify and defend your allegations and accusations about deliberate lies about this image? If not, as a man of intelligence and integrity, can you alter your judgment on this particular historical issue, based on verifiable evidence, or lack thereof? Or do you want to accept some wagers regarding such evidence?
How can you possibly get from this that he doesn't believe the picture is in the book? Others here have also agreed that the picture is there, including comments from someone selling a first edition that also agrees the picture is there. The only logical explanation seems to be that you don't even bother to read any of the comments of those replying to you. Perhaps you should do that first.
-
True. And they keep getting higher as jet engine designs improve allowing civil aviation up higher and more airspace is needed to ease congestion. It is not uncommon for a new civilian airliner to cruise above 40,000 feet. Conversely, the jet I fly on, the E-8C, rarely flies above 30,000 feet due to the extra weight we carry with the radar and the older jet engines we have on an ancient airframe. In my 900 hours of flight I remember going to 35,000 feet only twice and that was on the way home with low fuel. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to get up that high.
-
I have only seen skywriting once while in Panama City FL. They were spelling out "Will you marry me?" I think it is becoming a much rarer event to see as it is expensive to hire somebody for the purpose and airspace is becoming more and more restricted. Interesting to see.
-
Other problems with releasing pathogens or chemicals at high altitude are aiming and dilution. Particles released at above 30,000 feet could take days or even weeks to reach the ground and by then would be halfway around the world. Those particles by the time they reach the ground would be in such small concentrations to be effectively useless. Plus the UV radiation on those particles would render many substances harmless by the time they reached the ground. If they really wanted to spray the population and do it accurately and actually have some effect, they would need to do it from less than 5,000 feet. Even then it would easier to put something in the water supply or food.
-
Peter, Charles:
A good site from the UK from a researcher who studies contrails:
http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm
Another excellent site to read is:
Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same.
Those are two very good sites. Especially the first. I hadn't seen either before. Thanks!
-
Another interesting thing to note is in each of those pictures with persistent contrails that Jack posted there are also high cirrus clouds. If the conditions are such that high cirrus clouds exist, then it is highly likely that contrails will be persitent at similar altitudes.
-
All looks like normal air traffic to me. Or do airlines not follow navigational beacons where you are? Even the one with parallel travel still looks like they have more than the legal required separation. Check out the attached picture. Plenty of X's, crosses, and parallel lines. Especially when you consider the fact that the jetways depicted by lines can be 20 or more miles wide and legal separation is only a few miles laterally or 1,000 feet vertically. But what do I know? Its not like I have studied this for years and my livliehood depends on knowing how it all works. Oh wait, it is like that. (I controll aircraft in my job and I have to know how airspace works or people can die)
Apollo whistleblower revealed at last!
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
You have any actual evidence for this statement or is this just another accusation without substance?