Matthew Lewis Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.Jack At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was. De-icing tests. A single tanker that had the refueling probe temporarily modified. Odd that some claim it is for "chemtrails" aka persistent contrails when those are clearly seen coming from the engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Stanford University addresses Chemtrails...http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/geomanhattan.pdf Jack Jack, Can I ask you to quote what that quoted article had to do with what you are insist are "chemtrails"? I don't have the time to read through the whole thing (86 pages), so I did a word search instead. "Chemtrails" - zero results. "Contrails" - zero results. Just what is it saying? If I have not searched correctly, please point me to the section on "chemtrails". Thanks. I read it. Anyone who is interested is invited to read it. Jack I would but I'm currently deployed and the page is blocked on the network as a "Personal Page". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.Jack At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was. De-icing tests. A single tanker that had the refueling probe temporarily modified. Odd that some claim it is for "chemtrails" aka persistent contrails when those are clearly seen coming from the engines. I don't know what it is, but I doubt it is used for chemtrails. Lewis is likely correct that it is a refueling probe. Sloppy research which misidentifies equipment muddies the waters. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.Jack As always, Jack was wildly wrong. The Air Force's spray tanker is a KC-135 aircraft equipped with a 2000 gallon water tank and used in trials, amongst others, at the Glenn Research Center in 1982. It was used in de-icing trials (resulting in the ATR-72 undergoing recertification because of icing problems), and also to simulate heavy rain on the Space Shuttle's tile system in flight. Image No C-1982-5997, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler. Image No C-1982-5998, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.Jack At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was. De-icing tests. A single tanker that had the refueling probe temporarily modified. Odd that some claim it is for "chemtrails" aka persistent contrails when those are clearly seen coming from the engines. I don't know what it is, but I doubt it is used for chemtrails. Lewis is likely correct that it is a refueling probe. Sloppy research which misidentifies equipment muddies the waters. Jack Sloppy research? Or deliberately deceptive? I first saw the images a few years ago and it was determined then exactly what it was used for. Those pushing the images should have no excuse by now to have corrected their mistake. That many of them refuse to do so says something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 25, 2008 Author Share Posted April 25, 2008 As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.Jack As always, Jack was wildly wrong. The Air Force's spray tanker is a KC-135 aircraft equipped with a 2000 gallon water tank and used in trials, amongst others, at the Glenn Research Center in 1982. It was used in de-icing trials (resulting in the ATR-72 undergoing recertification because of icing problems), and also to simulate heavy rain on the Space Shuttle's tile system in flight. Image No C-1982-5997, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler. Image No C-1982-5998, taken 13 OCT 82 by Donald Huebler. Thanks for identifying the images. It really hurts the credibility of chemtrail proponents when they make mistakes like this. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 My apologies, Jack - you DID say that you thought it was not used for your "chemtrails". I was presumptuous and did not read your comments correctly. We have, however, identified what it is and what it is used for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 I just watched an exellent documentary on CHEMTRAILS. Click on... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...881114646406827 Included are two government documents which say it all. One actually uses the word CHEMTRAILS. The other sets out the govt reason for CHEMTRAILS. Here are the two frame grabs described above (but watch the video). Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 27, 2008 Author Share Posted April 27, 2008 Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet. Jack "chemtrails in the sunset..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet.Jack "chemtrails in the sunset..." Interesting that some of us actually have a life and can't constantly respond to Jack. Google video is blocked on the network I'm on so I can't see it anyway. Jack you seem disappointed that you're not immediately being debunked. If you want a quicker response then maybe you should consider paying somebody. Regarding the picture, I just see persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you keep speaking of? Edited April 28, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) I just watched an exellent documentary on CHEMTRAILS. Click on...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...881114646406827 Included are two government documents which say it all. One actually uses the word CHEMTRAILS. The other sets out the govt reason for CHEMTRAILS. Here are the two frame grabs described above (but watch the video). Jack Based on what I can see in the frame grabs (the video is blocked on the network I'm on), the document is Owning the weather by 2025, part of a much larger school project. Yes, school. ” Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025 by Col Tamzy J. House et al. (August 1996): http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm” (link is not current, here is a link to the whole project http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/ ) What was not said is where this paper came from. Notice the “AU” in the link. That stands for “Air University”. Air University is the section of the Air Force responsible for all professional military education. For a paper written by a Colonel, it was most likely written at Air War College (AWC). AWC is attended by Lt. Cols and Cols in preparation for squadron and wing command and to move on to General. It is a 10 month school in which they are awarded a Master’s degree upon completion. Many papers are written by many students there every month. Very, very few (much less than 1%) are ever followed or paid attention to. What about the other hundreds of papers on that site? Should we believe everything in those is being implemented too? More importantly, where is the funding for this supposed massive chemtrail project? Where is the other research? If the Air Force were to really want to own the weather by 2025, there would be many more papers and hard research, not just one paper. I encourage others to find the many other parts of the 2025 project. Also note this disclaimer "The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government." Some of the stuff contained in there is laughable, (the weather paper as well as the entire project) especially considering the massive budget cuts being faced in the Air Force right now and of course the lack of planes necessary to perform this massive operation as I have mentioned in previous posts. Not to mention that there is plenty of proof in pictures that commercial as well as military aircraft leave persistent contrails aka "chemtrails" and happen to do so on days when the weather is conducive to formation of persistent contrails. Imagine that. Why would you need some mythical "chemtrails" to make clouds when all you have to do is have any traffic (commercial or military) just fly higher to increase the chances that persistent contrails would form? The first screen grab though appears to show the bill that was submitted to the House mentioning "Chemtrails" by Dennis Kucinich. It is interesting to note that subsequent versions of the bill did not have "chemtrails" in it. Apparently somebody came to their senses and realized the folly of outlawing something that has no proof of its existence. Nobody knows who put the term there in there in the first place. Perhaps one of Kucinich's staff that helped to write it was taken in by the "chemtrail" tripe found on the internet? Perhaps Kucinich himself? It still means nothing as it provides no proof of any existence. Edited April 28, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 28, 2008 Author Share Posted April 28, 2008 Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet.Jack "chemtrails in the sunset..." Interesting that some of us actually have a life and can't constantly respond to Jack. Google video is blocked on the network I'm on so I can't see it anyway. Jack you seem disappointed that you're not immediately being debunked. If you want a quicker response then maybe you should consider paying somebody. Regarding the picture, I just see persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you keep speaking of? No excuse...I posted two of the relevant govt documents. Address them. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet.Jack "chemtrails in the sunset..." Interesting that some of us actually have a life and can't constantly respond to Jack. Google video is blocked on the network I'm on so I can't see it anyway. Jack you seem disappointed that you're not immediately being debunked. If you want a quicker response then maybe you should consider paying somebody. Regarding the picture, I just see persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you keep speaking of? No excuse...I posted two of the relevant govt documents. Address them. Jack I did Jack (even before your demand). Calm down. I've seen them before, years ago. As I already mentioned, I have a life. I also already mentioned that I am deployed and as such I have less time to access the internet than I usually do. Again, calm down. Edited April 28, 2008 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 30, 2008 Author Share Posted April 30, 2008 When I awoke this morning, the Texas sky was a deep unclouded blue. By the time I drove to lunch, 4 to 6 chemtrail planes were at work, spraying huge Xs in the sky.I saw a total of 3 Xs, all approximately over south Fort Worth, all of which rapidly morphed into fast moving cirrus clouds by the high westerly winds aloft, spreading out toward Dallas. After a two month hiatus, chemtrails have returned to Fort Worth. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 (edited) When I awoke this morning, the Texas sky was a deep unclouded blue.By the time I drove to lunch, 4 to 6 chemtrail planes were at work, spraying huge Xs in the sky.I saw a total of 3 Xs, all approximately over south Fort Worth, all of which rapidly morphed into fast moving cirrus clouds by the high westerly winds aloft, spreading out toward Dallas. After a two month hiatus, chemtrails have returned to Fort Worth. Jack I.E. "I saw some contrails today, and called them chemtrails". Jack, why don't you gather evidence? See if you can get a small amount of money donated, then have samples taken from the so-called chemtrails, and then have those samples analysed by an independent firm? Have a firm chain of evidence established? That way the results could be presented without ambiguity. You could state: "The sampling aircraft, a LR35, trailed behind the aircraft making the chemtrails, a KC-135, tail number 67-12345. The trails were being made in position xx.xxxN yyy.yyyW at 1000 CST on 23 JUL 08, at an altitude of 35,000 feet, whilst the KC-135 was traveling from VPS to LAX on a heading of 302 degrees magnetic, speed 285 KIAS. The samples were taken using method XYZ under the supervision of Prof B. Rainy, accredited as a chemtrail investigator by the Arizona Department of Chemtrail Investigation. The sample, under chain of evidence procedures to ensure no contamination could take place, was analysed by the US Chemical Testing and Analysis Labs of Buckmeister, AZ. US CTAL is accredited as a a Grade A facility under Regulation 123 of the US Chemical Testing Regulations. The analysis, shown in Annex A, show abnormally high levels of suspicium (Sm) and conspirion (Cp). The recorded levels were 3000 and 5000 parts per million, respectively. These are respectively 1000 and 2000 times higher than the normal safe limits according to data published by the EPA, FDA, and NOAA (see Annex . There are no activities within 500 miles of the sampling area that are known to release suspicium or conspirion." That would be evidence.... yet so far, no-one - let me repeat that: NO-ONE - has actually done the necessary evidence gathering exercise. Now why would that be? Edited April 30, 2008 by Evan Burton Corrected spelling errors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now