1. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    The controls look like they are for a weather radar system.
    The control on the right may be for antenna elevation up or down in degrees; "ALT". The left one may be the gain control (?).
    The CRT screen seems to be multi-function; radar and a message display.
    Can anybody identify the panel?
  2. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Weather radar. The CRT screen is the third CDU which is used for ACARS messaging and accessing the maintenance computer. The giveaway on the message is the carets at the start of the line..... which indicate that the line has been typed in ready to SEND. This is not a message that has been received by the aircraft.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Gimli, maybe there is something obvious I am missing but how do you determine that a contrail is 10,000 feet? The best rangefinder I have seen in any catalog goes to2,000 meters max.
  4. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    It never ceases to amaze me when one claims to be able to "debunk" chemtrails using photographs and patents to prove a point. Especially when one fails to read the whole patent - I.E. US741315B2 (BTW the B2 designator is also part of the patent) On page 7 of 12 it clearly and concisely states the following: "In one aspect of the aerial delivery system, the fluid and/or material from at least one of water, gel, powder, decontamination compound, weather modification compound . . . . " Ooooops, was that "weather modification compound" Gracious, now what would that be? Seriously, go to the Evergreen site and you will also note that "Weather Modification" is but one of many that they advertise. Ever hear of the Air FOrce White paper called "Owning the weather in 2025" try googling that one up as well. What other delivery system would be effective in spreading any of the these listed compounds other than an aircraft. Why are forest fires burning hotter than ever? Why is aluminum, barium, strontium and other particualtes off the chart on the ground, in the water, snow and ice? Since none of these are naturally occurring in the magnitutde they are seen, then where does it come from? Ever hear of geo-engineering? How about David Kieth (Geo-Engineer) Debunk this, after you have had a chance to review all the data, and you will see that it IS happening, and has been done for years by the US, Russia, China and other NATO countries as well. Look up an article published in the Wall Street Journal called "Weather made to order" by a Russian COmpany. Now lets see if you have the testicular fortitude to post this and let everyone else research it as well.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Weather modification is cloud seeding. Cloud seeding has been going on publicly for 60+ years. They even take out ads in the paper when they are going to do it.

    It's a totally different thing from the "chemtrail" theory.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Hi unregistered, you've basically given a laundry list of the sorts of thing chemtrails believers usually say. Try searching through through the site - all of the things you brought up have been addressed many times. If you like, choose one topic to discuss, and start a thread on it.
  7. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I love it, LOL. This is a CDU from a Boeing is it not? 747 perhaps?

    But now theorists are going to go crazy over this and no matter how much you try to tell them it's a prank, they are even going to be more convinced...
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  8. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Its always funny to me when people mention Evergreen. I am pretty sure they only have one- 1 - plane capable of Weather Mod- one Supertanker.

    ...and yet somehow this is the smoking gun for all the "chemtrails" in the World.


    UNReg- actually EVERYTHING you mentioned- has been thoroughly examined. I suggest you read through some...or all...of the articles here- and then let us know what you think:

  9. Billzilla

    Billzilla Active Member

    It's a Boeing of some sort, I'd need to have a better look at the panel to see which one. But it'll be a 747-400, 767, or 777.
    The top panel is the radar control panel, the lower the screen from the Honeywell FMS.
  10. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    • Like Like x 4
  12. Simon Swain

    Simon Swain New Member

    I would watch the video but it is now (sadly but unsurprisingly) private...
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  14. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Massaria pulled the video himself after the mistakes in it were pointed out. He also asked me to remove the the thread about it, and was getting incredibly upset about it. Must have been rather embarrassing for him. Since the thread actually contained nothing new, despite it's length, I've removed it for now.
  16. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Interesting that he was so upset. I guess 'Indigos' may come not have as much patience as we normal folks do.
  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I told them it was pulled by the author because he was embarrased about the errors it contained. the comment is awaiting moderation.....

    Mick I have to disagree with you removing the thread sorry - while it is embarrasing for Massaria it is also evidence that he pulled it himself for the reasons stated rather than it was done by TPTB to silence him or anyone else.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, I might put it back if this "censored" story gets any legs.
  19. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    This has been covered here, hasn't it? (Still learning my way here)

  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's Nitric acid. If you mix it with jet fuel it will burn and/or explode. It's used in bipropellant liquid fueled rocket with kerosene, such the the Scud missile. It's not used in jets.



    HNO3 would be the oxidizer, and kerosene (jet fuel) the fuel.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  21. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It didn't sound right to me. I am busy with a lot of RL stuff today, so I didn't check for myself. Thanks
  22. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Wiki page on liquid rocket fuels - HNO3 was used very early on and then replaced with an inhibited version that had a little Hydrogen Fluoride addded - and can you see the CT's fuming at that??!!

    The formula given for the inhibited mix on the wiki pages is:

    Where IRFNA stands for Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid

    Its heyday was when ICBMs were stil using liquid fuels in the 60's, although it was still in comon use in SCUD missiles at the time of the Gulf War.
  23. hemi

    hemi Active Member

  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've emailed Derek to see if he'll send me the letter from his MP :)
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I agree.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    • Like Like x 3
  27. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I agree, so that folks can see WHY John pulled it
    • Like Like x 4
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 10
  29. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    John Massaria has posted his version of the events which were moved to the closed thread. It is rambling and somewhat incoherent, as well as containing numerous inaccuracies and misleading statements.

    I also see that despite having taken down the video in embarrassment from his own site, John Massaria is still personally promoting his original hoax video on other Youtube channels, complete with the ballast barrel hoax pictures as he originally created it:


    Michael J. Murphy is also promoting the original version of Massaria's "Ballast Barrel" hoax video:

    Massaria says he has allied with Dane Wigington, who is sill carrying the hoax story that claims Youtube removed John Masaria's original Ballast Barrel Hoax video:

    However, Wigington's website no longer hosts a copy of John Massaria's original Ballast Barrel Hoax video:

    So, what we have here is evidence that John Massaria, Michael J. Murphy, and Dane Wigington are knowingly participating in what should henceforth always be referred to as:

    John Massaria's Ballast Barrel Hoax video

    We need to recognize that there is no reasoning with people like this who are willing to knowingly pervert photos of ordinary equipment used to safety test passenger airliners to promote this hoax. These people are irredeemable, there is no cooperation with them, no sweet-talk, no explanation, and no changing them once they reach this point.

    They are morally bankrupt. All you can do is to fight them with the truth, backed up with documented facts.
    Their worst fear is the exposure of what they are doing, and they will make every effort to prevent that.
    Do not waver in your opposition, or else they and the lies they represent win by your default.
    • Like Like x 5
  30. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    He publicly humiliated himself . and he is continuing to do it. Now most of his followers won't understand, but at least he isn't using a REAL science page to promote his nonsense
  31. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    Wait? What? This is metabunk he's talking about here? Who're the intimidating 'agents' from the UK?
  32. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    Can't decide whether he wants to be famous or (more) accurate can he?
  33. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I think he wants attention. Playing the martyr is a common tactic, when they get their rears handed to them.

    I have been trying to get some the oil spill conspiracy folks to come over here and they don't seem to want to, for some odd reason
  34. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    That's... disappointing.
  35. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Yes, very disappointing.

    I don't think anyone here would say that. Water vapor is invisible. I think we said that the trails are comprised of ice that is the frozen condensation of the water vapor in the exhaust (and some from the environment). I do hope the moderator on corrects him on that point.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think John is basically new to the whole Chemtrail thing, and he's just trawling through the old stuff without checking to see if it has been debunked. It's an unfortunate pattern - a well meaning individual jumps into a topic they know nothing about, and just start regurgitating through the usual suspects because they don't take the time to check things out. I see on Facebook he's posted the hoax "letter from an airline mechanic" that's 13 years old, as if it were something new.

    John's post:

    13 year old post from Rense:

    It's very unfortunate.
  37. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    I like that analogy that old long debunked and discarded chemtrailer claims are like old fishermen's driftnets still floating about in the sea/internet, capturing and entangling and half drowning unwary newcomers to the scene, whilst the more experienced recognise what they are and just swim around them.
    • Like Like x 3
  38. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I am not convinced this conclusion is correct. At some points in the discussion with John, I sensed that his conviction was shaken.

    The point I want to make is that people who are about to question fundamental things about themselves and their beliefs tend to be more sensitive in their perception of tone and emotion. I had moments in my life where I had that first-hand experience, and it was a hard and week-long process to accept negative judgement from others, even if they had a point.

    What I'm trying to say is that there may be moments when special care is advised.

    The fact alone that one believer faces several eager debunkers may induce the perception of being overwhelmed or even threatened, notwithstanding the best intentions. I don't know how this can be solved without serious self-restriction, to be honest - in an ideal case, one or two debunkers would reply to the believer's posts, with 'bystanders' contributing arguments in closed communication with the 'speakers'.

    However, I suggest that in these 'sensitive' moments, particular restraint should be applied regarding the tone of the discussion. Why not send a signal of sympathy to ease the way?
    Insisting of concession is not helpful, I am pretty sure about that. And there are moments when the 'strict teacher' approach is inappropriate (side glance to you, Jay).

    Not every character is alike, of course. But why not try a little empathy first before getting tough?

    I may be an atheist, but I'm also a preacher's son and I think that some 'friendly techniques' are effective to soften up a conflict.
    • Like Like x 5
  39. SeanDWalker

    SeanDWalker New Member

    It is a actual technique though, one which has been previously tested even if not occurring now how can you know (forgive me i've not read the thread) that THIS picture OR any others aren't ones of a actual plane which is designed to do something which can happen? even if it isn't a general thing which happens constantly?
  40. SeanDWalker

    SeanDWalker New Member

    Quickly looked through, OK, i take your point about those pictures - but surely a chemtrailing set up would look the same? I mean they're running tests, or were - *tries to find study* with ships which pump sea water in the air to achieve the same effect somewhere on the coast of the USA. they clearly do want to get to grips with the tech, so do you all deny that they perhaps test it from time to time with planes and metals?