Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Feb 26, 2014.
A 747-400 averages 10 T an hour, so 13-14.
And as anyone who reads Chemtrails Global can attest, any time there's a discussion that contains some truth to it, Russ pops in and posts the graphic. He's like the Wiz saying "ignore the man behind the curtain."
Where is that?
Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
It's worth pointing out that the group specifically bans "debunkers and debators [sic]".
In other words, "we thrive on bunk and fear debate".
And, going back to the water issue, I have had people say things like "since when do jets run on water?" It seems the distinction between what goes in and what comes out is hard to grasp for some people.
Jack Baran's LinkedIn page. He has no educational background, and he works at the "Web" as "self-employed". His skills are in "creative solutions" and "problem solving". I guess he produced the "HBTF engines can't make contrails" video as a creative solution to the problem that "chemtrails" can be explained as contrails.
Whenever I ask any of them "Who told you modern jet engines can't make contrails" I get no answer at all. Ever.
Guys, something is wrong here. It wasn't Jack Baran who invented the "high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails" idea. His first video about this is from February 2014. But the idea was introduced on the Global Skywatch page by Russ Tanner (I guess he is the admin there) in August 2013:
Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
Interesting. I had thought it was the other way around.
russ' video link there does say
yea i can totally see Tanner coming up with that, my world makes a bit more sense again.
Apparently it was Russ Tanner who invented the idea that HBTF engines can't make contrails. Maybe it is Russ who should be challenged to debate his statements on this page: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Unfortunately I think Tanner takes such extreme scientific position that debating him is not going to do much.
It's interesting thought that Dane Wigington repeats so many of Tanner's claims.
Tanner features this vid as part of his "proof".
Yes. Seems like Tanner is Dane's source of "science".
I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:
Not to mention the claim that you should be able to see the water vapour on takeoff. You can't see water vapour.
Actually that's one of the main mistakes that I see in articles trying to explain contrails: describing them as being made of water vapour. That just adds to the confusion.
Also interesting that Dane is using graphics from Friends of Science.
Jack Baran is no stranger to flying. He has filmed several videos on international flights.
He also is listed as owning a house in Port Charlotte, Florida, so for whatever reason he is hooked on promoting a hoax I don't exactly know.
Yes, the same organisation that boldly proclaims that they believe that "the Sun is responsible for all climate change?"
Surely that is a basic conflict of belief?
Not if the Sun is behind the NWO. Onwards toward a brighter future!
That's... Quite intentionally misleading.
Implying that all modern jets are actually harmless propellers? Really?
That's like I thought. The claims are about the water, not the temps.
Here's a detailed, in-depth debunking of the high-bypass turbofan claim in a half-hour video. This just indicates how complex the topic actually is.
Very comprehensive, and polite! I'll add it to the OP.
It might work even better with narration.
Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!
Well theirs are usually much longer. What can you say? Possibly one could produce a edited down version which could reference the longer one.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that 2 or 3 sentences of bunk often require a much longer discussion to debunk. But that's why I like bunk While finding out why something is bunk, I learn a lot, or at least I gain a better understanding of the things I know.
Yeah but they don't watch them they just read the titles.
Very good video. Easy to follow and makes logical sense (much more so than other Youtube videos I've seen on high-bypass turbofan jet engines I've had forwarded to me..). A point that is explained very well in that video, that I've never seen addressed by a Chemtrail promotion video is why there is a gap between the engine and the beginning of the contrail formation. Has Dane Wigington or Russel Tanner addressed this anywhere? Or do they just ignore this little inconvenient fact? Surely if reflective materials were being sprayed from airplanes they would be immediately visible as it come out of the jet, probably even more so as the material would be the most concentrated at the release point
Dane has said this:
Full video, here.
I'm not sure how he would justify the growing number of identified planes that use the high bypass turbo fans, and show the gap, throughout the metabunk threads.
Thanks - that's interesting, so he does acknowledge that there is a gap with actual contrails, and that there is even such a thing as "normal condensation trails" (I thought he lectured that contrails are extremely rare - but maybe I'm recalling that from another source). At 1:29 of the full video he shows a photo of a front view of a jet leaving behind large plumes, which he suggests are being immediately emitted from the back of the aircraft and thus aren't normal condensation trails. Maybe I'm getting a bit OT, but what is a logical explanation for that image? Is it the angle (front view, so you can't see if there is a gap)? Or is it fuel dumping? It seems that many of the more impressive images of so-called chemtrails are a front view of the aircraft.
It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/
Yeah it is rather long. I watched it at 2x. Still interesting though. I liked the wide view of mixing curve, as most diagram only show the extreme bottom left portion of this.
A lot of people will just glaze over and click away. But some people will watch, and understand a bit.
Thanks! I should have figured that this would have already been addressed somewhere on this website. I have a follow-up comment on the original thread on this topic.
I just found a video showing condensation forming inside the GE90 engines of a Boeing 777 on takeoff. Which gives some idea of just how much air these engines can move, more to the point it also shows that heat is not the only cause of condensation.
In his "smoking gun" videos, he usually shows aerodynamic contrails. And those have no gap, unfortunately.
Interesting. I think the strong suction creates a low-pressure zone in front of the fan, which causes condensation.
Heat never causes condensation though. Cold causes it.
Indeed, it's quite watchable at 2x playback speed. Of course that is only recommended to people who are already experts at the topic
What a bull, EVERY plane engine makes contrails. Some make many, some make a bit less but in the end all planes are capable of contrails (water vapor)
Separate names with a comma.