1. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I'd be interested in the interpretation of peple with a bit more knowledge of weather radar than me about this site - http://watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm

    I know some of it is untrue - ther is cloud radar available and lidar is not a necessity for researching cirrus clouds.

    And some of it is at least not supported by hte abstract they quote - their conclusion that

    means they are not water-based cirrus is simply not supported by the abstact that they have taken that quote from - I can't find the full article online to check the context tho.

    But that's about as far as I get - any further analysis would be gratefully received.


  2. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Are there any photos of visible trails of some kind that coincide with the radar echoes, and that look like the "chemtrails"?
  3. jayreynolds

    jayreynolds Guest

    Man years ago I challenged the chemmies to do just this. Their premise that highly reflective particulates were being sprayed would indeed show up on radar images worldwide as streaks propagating across the sky at aircraft speed, which could be correlated with visible images.

    It is good that they took up my challenge.

    However, I think the keys to evaluating here wil be that in the cases shown the radar is in "clear air" mode, which is prone to collecting anomalies such as ground clutter and even insects and birds, and also the speed of propagation.

    I am at sea and can't view the movies, so can't evaluate the speed of propagation.
    Chaff releases are a possibility they have pointed at before. They usually have a point release and a tadpole shape wider in the downwind direction at speeds much lower than airspeed of an aircraft.

    I have asked m friend letxa to weigh in on this as he is very familiar with the subject:

  4. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Ok, the Phoenix image of 2/3/06 (~1300MST) is only correlated with Tucson upper air data, sloppy work, maybe.
    and no wind direction is given. Perhaps there is no UA archive for Phoenix.

    The San Diego image of 11/18/2004(~1900PST) has upper air(Weather Data link) data showing winds at ~250 degrees, which coincides with the direction of the linear radar returns.

    The Phoenix image of 2/16/06 with Tucson data shows wind coincidental with directions of the linear radar returns:

    Same case for these returns:
    Phoenix 02/17/2005
    Phoenix 10/23/2005
    Phoenix 12/08/2005
    Phoenix 01/26/2005
    San Diego 05/04/2005

    I was able to download some of the videos, my connection through Asuncion, Ecuador is slow, but the ones I saw did not show the linear returns actually being formed, but did show them drifting downwind.
    It's duppell.

    The San Diego chaff incidents go back a long time:

    Of course there are NO military operations taking place over Arizona..............


    Jay Reynolds

    PS- I just wrote Robert from watchthesy.org to ask if he had any commentary.
  5. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    It occured to me overnight that the whole train of logic just isn't right.

    If the radar can't pick up cirrus, then what it's showing is not cirrus - that's fine.

    But radar needs particles of a decent size to reflect off - IIRC about 1/10th the wavelength. Weather radar is normally centimetric (5-10cm wavelength), so any returns would have to be particles at least 0.5mm in at least 1 dimension.

    Anything metallic that size seems unlikely to stay in the sky for very long....but that's just my supposition - how long does chaff float around for?

    alternatively it is likely that it is picking up precipitation within clouds at lower level than cirrus - which is what it is designed to do after all. Rain & hail can be lifted and dropped within clouds. I don't know what altitude the reflections are at, but virga is well known as precipitation from clouds that doesn't reach the ground without hitting the ground, so why wouldn't it be that? Maybe I'm missing something obvious?
  6. jayreynolds

    jayreynolds Guest

    Here is some info for you:

    What is interesting to me is how Robert created the site, very well done when it comes to ordinary contrail formation, but doesn't mention at all even the possibility of chaff.

    This is possibly due to:
    - just another case of chemmie lies by omission
    - just being misled, I note he links to radarmatrix, weatherwars, bariumblues, and chemtrackingusa, all of which are beyond science 'woo-woo' sites
    - just another case of the chemmies seemingly being unable to self-correct each other, and their failure to learn over time when hypotheses should be discarded. This is a symptom of the worst aspects of groupthink, and is reinforced by their reluctance to even criticize within the confines of the group. They are afraid to "rock the boat", and in some cases (the messageboard chemtrailtrackingusa) any skepticism or criticism at all, no matter how minor, is a bannable offense.

    So, Robert, which one is it, and now that you have been called out, what are you going to do?