1. Rett

    Rett New Member

    I wanted to ask a question about this page:


    in particular the first video shown. I see the comment just below it stating:

    My question is this: I see the claim that USAFFEKC10A is the original poster if this hoax video, and his join date on youtube and states “Joined Mar 11, 2011”under the “About” tab. How then could this video be uploaded on July 17, 2010 by "Rosario Marcianò" here:

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2013
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    USAFFEKC10 (Tim) originally posted the video as a joke, on July 14th, 2010, as confirmed by Tanker Enemy:

    USAFFEKC10 continued the hoax by writing to Tanker Enemy:
    He later deleted the USAFFEKC10 channel, and creates one USAFFEKC10A (with an 'A' on the end), where he posts irrefutable proof that he took the video - namely some still photos that are not in the original, and additional footage of a similar occurrence close up.


    Tim also said:
    See Also:
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Rett

    Rett New Member

  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  5. Rett

    Rett New Member

    If it’s the same person, why don’t you state this on your website, contrailscience.com?

    Can you provide proof that tankerenemy.com is affiliated in any way with tankerenemy.blogspot.com?

    Also, I’d like to know why you shut down comments on contrailscience.com?

    It seems odd to me that I have to come here after multiple detours to get the information which could be readily available on your site.

  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It seemed obvious that it was the same person. I'll have to update the page.

    I'm not sure that anyone has ever suggested that the blogspot TE site was not TE. Again, it seems obvious. Has anyone ever suggested otherwise?

    I shut down the comments on contrailscience because there was too much duplication between here and there, and this is a far better forum for discussion.
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  8. Rett

    Rett New Member

    As far as "obvious", no it does not seem so.

    Anyone can create a youtube account with one letter added to the end of another’s name and say they are the same person.

    Also tankerenemy.com is in Italian and tankerenemy.blogspot.com in typed in English. I am on tankerenemy.com right now and cannot find a single link to tankerenemy.blogspot.com. Have you not looked into this?

    Anyone can create a website with anything they want on it, one can only hope a source like youtube could be credible enough not be manipulated, which I’m sorry to say, you seem to be masking on your website with USAFFEKC10 and USAFFEKC1OA.
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The photos prove he's the original source of the video.

    It's all rather irrelevant, as it's clear that the trails are aerodynamic contrails. It's also very very clear from the audio that the pilots are joking. TE missed this as he's not a native english speaker.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The page I linked above had one, which is why I posted the english excerpt from blogspot:

    The "here" link goes to:
    • Like Like x 1
  11. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    how about this from the BlogSpot site:

    also tankerenemy.blogspot is published by Zret - and Zret's own blog is linked on TE's own site in the list of blogs on the right.

    the Zret blog is in Italian, links back to Tanker enemy - including the same funding appeal graphic for TE's "documentary":

    A google search of "who is Zret" found this blogger profile - which seems to identify Zret as the same person as TE - since Zret claims all the TE blogs and mirrors as his own sites (assuming I am reading this correctly)
    • Like Like x 2
  12. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Rett, you do know your avatar is a perfect example of the phenomenon of aerodynamic contrails don't you?
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I picked it. I give people an appropriate avatar if they don't after a few posts.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Yes, Rett, anyone can create a website with anything they want on it. It's very good that you are checking things like his out. Mick did seek to clarify his site after your confusion, and it really should be clear that tankerenemy has multiple sites, even at least one Facebook page too. I'm curious what is this "masking" that you speak of. If ou want to check out the USAFFEKC10 guy, I see he has offered to even meet people in person face-to-face. There certainly won't be any masking if you are willing to do that, and sometimes you have to follow a story that far.

    The bottom line here as I see it. Tankerenemy has lied when he put out a video purporting to show "spray nozzles". Even though many thousands of people have watched that video, very few of them actually even seemed to notice that the aerodynamic contrails shown are easily seen to NOT be coming from the (falsely) alleged "spray nozzles". The aerodynamic contrails are forming in the exact low pressure area above the wings, exactly where aerodynamic contrails are ordinarily seen to form. I made the above comment on tankerenemy's video over a year ago, it was deleted by tankerenemy. Many others have done the same thing. He doesn't want people to know that he is in error. He monetizes his videos and makes them endlessly to make some money, seeks donations to make some money, but deletes people's comments when they don't agree. Go ahead, make a comment on his youtube channel asking him why there is no spray coming from the "spray nozzles" while there are aerodynamic contrails coming from the upper leading edge of the wing. See if he deletes your comment. Test him out yourself. Get back to me on what happens.

    You also need to know that time and time again Dane Wigington, one of the leaders of the chemtrails movement has cited the tankerenemy video as the ultimate proof of chemtrails. He usually does this when challenged on his other claims and they fall short. Basically, if the person he is dealing with has factual or logical answers to his other claims, Wigington pulls out the Tankerenemy video, claims they show "spray nozzles", and says that no further proof is needed. Now that you know the tankerenemy video doesn't show any spray nozzles and that Wigington still is claiming that they do, how do you assess Wigington's credibility as a leader of the movement, in fact, since none of the other leaders call Wigington out on this large error, what do you make of the entire leadership cadre of this movement? Do they correct each other when they see their fellow man making a great error, or do their actions match a bunch of 'yes-men"?

    Good luck.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    Here is a link to another thread on this forum, he had another username before that one

  16. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    Here is a better view of the aerodynamic contrail that will form over the leading edge of the wing. This one I took over Lajes refueling another KC-10 after our drogue assembly had a malfunction. We were in IMC, and the contrails were steady and quite amazing to watch

    Metabunk 2018-12-03 08-07-46.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    That's a really cool shot. You should post that photo in the "Photos of Planes and Contrails" thread.

  18. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

  19. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    Couldn't help it, I have over 3,000 hours on this aircraft, but have never "fulfilled" another plane

    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    The infamous "spray nozzles" also known as the flap hinges, I dropped the flaps after landing from 9 hours over Afghanistan today and took some pictures!

    flap hne 2. fllphinge1.
    • Useful Useful x 5
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Just an off topic comment here: This kind of post is extremely useful but also illustrates the reasons why the Chemtrail hoax and the stuff that Pilots for 9/11 Truth still peddle have still not died. Aviation is a great mystery to many. I still learn things about it every day.

    I see things posted here such as the SU30MK's supposedly chemtrailing and I didn't know initially what to make of it. To someone with no idea about aviation, even the thought that an aircraft might want to dump fuel and to do it via the exhaust would seem "made up". To actually research the alternatives is almost impossible.

    Most people don't even know why a KC-10 has flaps; much less the method of extension and retraction. It makes debunking someone like Dane Wigington so much more difficult. A debate with him on these issues would be one sided and technical (read:dull) to any audience. Mick explained the flap tracks to him but in his latest video of a presentation he made, there he is again proclaiming the KC-10 was undeniably spraying chemtrails.

    I don't know what the answer is. It is a little disheartening.
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think the answer in part is to make focussed debunking posts that are very easy to find, and explain quite simply, with pictures, exactly what is going on. Like for example the SU-30 post I did (with your help):

    Now of course you are not going to convince everyone, some people are immune to reason. But having these concise debunks goes a long way toward helping people not fall in the rabbit hole, and even help some people slowly climb out.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    From the other day, a bit closer view of the aerodynamic contrail, and a picture of my fuel panel. ( to mods: If the second picture goes against the spirit of this board, let me know, I will edit, just trying to have some fun:) ) 1620653_10202468925383304_778010865_n.

    • Funny Funny x 9
    • Winner Winner x 2
  24. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    Nawty and you know it! But did giggle
    • Like Like x 1
  25. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Yes it's funny but we all know what will happen here....
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Let's wait... how long I wonder?
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Hardcore-Believers will spread this out to the world as "the Evidence!!!"...

    ... and 99% of all viewers to this "evidence" would think "Are you nuts to present *this* as an Evidence?"

    BTW: I´m a little bit confused about the switch secured with a chain on the right side. How long would it take to unblock this switch and to use it?! ;)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    The chain looks like it is on a spring clip that goes through the metal guards either side of the switch and holds it in 1 position - it is designed to be removed and replaced - so the chain holds the clip in position so it doesn't get lost.

    To undo the clip - a few seconds at a guess - FE will be able to tell us.
  29. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    The switch is no longer used. It was for when the SR-71 existed and the KC-10 would refuel it. The SR-71 carried JP-7 fuel that was not compatible with that of the KC-10, so the switch was used to basically isolate one of the body fuel tanks from the rest of the KC-10's fuel system, preventing the FE from accidentally transferring the JP-7 to the KC-10's 3 main fuel tanks, which supply fuel to its 3 engines. The JP-7 could only be offloaded from the one body tank, through the boom into the SR-71.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  30. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Which switch fuels Aurora? o_O:p
  31. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Thanks for that. I was aware that the SR71 had its own dedicated KC-135s (due to the JP7) but didn't know the KC 10 could refuel it as well. I was reading about the SR71 a few days ago and it mentioned the high flashpoint of JP7, which made it unsuitable for more conventional aircraft.

    Just for my own clarification, tankers supply fuel from their own fuel tanks, correct? Ie, there are no dedicated tanks for offload? (Apart from the KC135Q which I suspect have been modded back to fleet standard)... But you can obviously isolate some tanks if required?
  32. KC-10FE

    KC-10FE Active Member

    You are fully correct, whatever fuel we offload is from our own supply. On the KC10, fuel for offload is carried in the 3 body tanks, where the air refueling pumps are located. These tanks are connected to the three main wing tanks which feed to the engines, so I can transfer back and forth as required. Once the offload is complete, I transfer all the body tank fuel (CG permitting) into the main tanks, since it is not needed anymore.

    Because of the special fuel requirements of the SR71, the KC135Q-model was designed to isolate two separate fuel types within its fuel cells. This design gave the KC-135Q the distinction of being the only airplane capable of refueling the fastest airplane in the world. All KC135Qs were modified from the original version, the KC-135A. In 1984 the KC-135A was refitted with new CFM-56 engines, making it the KC135R, which is what is flown today. The KC135Q in turn was redesigned the KC135T, with updated engines and avionics.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1