Debunked: KC-10 Video with Aerodynamic Contrails and Flap Track Fairings as Proof of "Spraying"

Jay Reynolds

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The purpose of this thread is to show how despite being informed months ago that the KC-10 video shown at Dane Wigington's has:
-aerodynamic contrails on the wing
-flap track fairings not spray nozzles
-aerodynamic contrails which start and stop due to fling through air with varying moisture content
-that the original content of the video was a prank pulled by genuine USAF pilots on chemtrail believers, not someone filming from a civilian airplane as claimed in the pirated version on Dane's site

Despite being told all of these things, on his website Dane continues to insist that the video shows spray nozzles and spraying from the flap track fairings rather than ordinary aerodynamic contrails.

Here is the video linked to at Dane's site which he refers to during the debate with Mick



from the debate:
[52:00]

John: Hold on, I just want to say one thing. I understand what both of you are saying, and I think I have found something here that maybe Mick could take a look at, it's called "Aircraft Technology and its Relation to Emissions" it clear states that jet engines emit metal particles, including Aluminum, Ti, I don't know what that is, Cr, I guess that is, and Ni, Ba, and these are in parts per volume, which is, at a level through the nozzle of the airplanes, and I'm looking at the document right now, so I'm not sure what the argument is there. It says that these are jet exhaust plumes, and chemtrails, right in the document.

Mick: They are just normal jet exhaust. It's no different from what you get out of the back of your car.

Dane: Okay, so if it's normal jet exhaust, then why do we have films of KC-10s and KC-135s spraying at altitude with the nozzles visible? And turning on and off, how can that be considered normal exhaust.

Mick: You don't have video of the them spraying. You have video of KC-10s leaving contrails. and they turn on and off because they are moving through areas of high and low humidity.
Click to expand...

[55:55]

Dane: How come at the same time there's film of one the two shutting off, and leaving nothing, again, and starting up

[crosstalk]

Mick: because, they are flying out of a region of

[crosstalk]

Mick: it's basically the same answer as before, there's regions of humidity, they are like clouds, if you can see, you can see lots different shapes of clouds and that's how the regions of humidity are, they are exactly the same shapes as clouds, they come in layers, they come in holes...

John: ... so what I understand is that there are pockets of air, that are creating and not creating the the stratospheric [inaudible]

Mick: Pockets of air which are suitable for contrail formation....

Dane: ... let's take that to another level then, how come we see three-engined jet aircraft leaving a single trail. How come we have aircrafts that have have one, maybe they have a jet engine that is mounted crooked on the plane, because you can see the plume shoots far off to one side. And it really is not a jet engine....

Mick: Three engined lanes appear to leave one contrail because the engines are basically very close together, and they merge very quickly, after, like DC-8s, I think.

Dane: [laughs] Well, we have close-up video of nozzles on planes with these plumes coming out, how is that explained?...

Mick: ...I very much doubt that, but I would like to see it do you have the name of the....
Click to expand...
Dane:... even though they're changing altitude as well. You describe that this is all perfectly natural phenomenon, when we see, we have films of aircraft, you know, clear shutting on and off with dispersement that's coming from, we see rear engined jets with trails coming from the front wing. ... we see patterns

Mick: ... that can be explained completely...

[crosstalk]

John: I think he knows, ..., you're going to say ice is on the wing? Right.

Mick: No. That's a, what's called an "aerodynamic" contrail. The decrease in pressure on the top of the wing causes water to condense. It's a well known phenomena.
Dane: So why would that shut on and off then? Because there's video of that shutting on and off...

Mick: ... same reason. It's going in and out of areas of high and low humidity...

Dane: ... why do they need nozzles? Why do they need nozzles on the wings?

Mick: They don't have nozzles on the wings. What you are looking at in that video is flap fairings. Which are, basically little pods on the wings which contain the mechanism, like it's a big hinge, which raises and lowers the flaps for landing. It looks a bit like a nozzle, but it's not. So, it's a flap fairing. Ask any pilot what it is. Show them that video, and they'll tell you what it is.
Click to expand...

On May 18, 2013, in a letter to G. Edward Griffin, and CC'd to DANE WIGINGTON, I discussed and gave links explaining the provenance of the KC-10 video and that the video which Wigington says are "spray nozzles" were simply the flap track fairings. Here is a copy of the email I sent them:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...nformation-freedom-aagreement.267/#post-44668


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also this discussion of the original Hoax video, and the promotion of that video
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/question-about-contrailscience-com-kc-10-tanker-enemy-video.2761/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the letter I sent to Griffin and Dane three months ago when the topic of whether military or civilian planes were being seen :

To: G. Edward Griffin
cc: Dane Wigington

From: Jay Reynolds

Mr. Griffin,
I have been reading the recent exchange of blog postings between you and Dane Wigington regarding your research project using Flight Tracking to identify planes leaving "chemtrails". Today I see that Dane has made another response:

two USAF pilots playing a prank on "chemtrail" believers, you can hear them speak about the joke in the cockpit as they filmed. The footage has been significantly altered by Youtube user "Tankerenemy" and others who have been involved in several video hoaxes. Though the video does show a tanker jet, this is not evidence of "spraying", but rather of the gullibility of Dane Wigington.



The second video he presents is a very shaky video from the ground, which is claimed to be a KC-135 tanker over the French Alps. I examined the video and captured several screen grabs, which when magnified, clearly show the plane is not a KC-135 but rather closely matches an Air France Airbus-380. I base my conclusion on the livery marking of the tail and the fact that the KC-135's have neither flap track fairings nor winglets.



I think that Dane's protestations against your research survey of "chemtrail" planes are most easily shown to be a moot question because on his own website, he features no photos of tankers spraying, as he certainly would if he could. However, in an article about the government spraying Dane does feature a clearly identifiable American Airlines jet HERE. This makes it clear enough that he is aware that the jets which can be identifed as making "chemtrails" are mainly ordinary passenger planes.



I must say that in my fifteen years of following this issue, though I've heard the claim many many times, I have yet to see a clear instance of a military tanker jet spraying. There were none shown in any of the movies Michael Murphy made, and there are none on Dane's website, though both show identifiable commercial jets such as this Cargolux 747:



Mr. Griffin, one point that Dane makes which I can agree with is about "assertions on an issue with such gravity, assertions which are not supported by available data". You may recall that nearly two years ago, 9/29/11, I wrote to you and requested your participation along with Dane, Francis Mangels, and Michael J. Murphy in a formal Freedom of Information Agreement. I described ten incidents over the past fifteen years in which major figures had repeatedly made claims of significance about "chemtrails" which had never been supported. I urged you to all participate and help move from a stymied conundrum towards a resolution. Though you said you were in favor, and suggested cooperation by the others, unfortunately they did not comply.

Dane's point is well taken, if data is available, it should become public. In a sense, Dane is asking for the data which your research has gathered, much as I suggested he should have done before. I might add that Dane should feel free to produce his own study of this subject. I recently heard a discussion on the Global Skywatch conference call where Dane was told by Mark from southern Utah that he had also been able to identify "chemtrails" coming from passenger jets. That group has hundreds of members and could easily mount a large campaign to gather fresh data in an ongoing basis. I am certainly personally interested in reviewing the information you and others will develop.

In closing, let me renew my call for a Freedom of Information Agreement which, if already put in place, could have avoided the confusion Dane seems to have on this subject. You will find a copy of my previous thoughts about that at this LINK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Either Dane has simply been ignoring what he should have paid attention to, has been paying attention but doesn't understand the concepts, has been paying attention but intentionally continues anyway, or he doesn't want to know.

This example clearly shows that there is a great disconnect somewhere for Dane when factual information can be plainly presented to him yet he walks into no-man's-land totally unarmed in a debate.

Are there any other possibilities for why he got this so wrong?
 
I sent a reply to Clare in regards to her assessment of the KC-10 video. It was pending moderation earlier. Somehow I don't that she will allow it to appear?
 
I just noticed she's updated her contact info to include her degree (a masters in psychology, of all things).

Isn't that one of those disinformation traits? "An appeal to authority"? ;)
 
I left a comment on Swinney's blog last week. I linked to the 1975 WMO document that describes persisting contrails, pointing out that this is in disagreement with her own suppositions.
Didn't make it past moderation, either did my two follow up posts asking why.
It is dishonest of her to not post all the facts, especially in light of the claims made by Swinney. I'm finding it hard to think of any sane reasons why a person would act like that.
Page 90 in the pdf (p66 of the doc).
http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_407_en-v2.pdf
 
Clare's similar to MM in that there's no room for dissenting voices on her blog (although she does let the occasional comment through, mostly, I think, so she can follow-up with some irrelevant or illogical points, and then deny any right of reply).

Also like MM, I think she's best left alone.
 
TEEJ said:
Swinney has lost the plot!

'Aren't Chemtrails Chemical Weapons?'

http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/arent-chemtrails-chemical-weapons/
Click to expand...


This is perhaps my favourite post from her, as it illustrates so well her standard of "research".

http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....mages-of-whenuapai-airport-show-white-planes/

Besides being visibly grey rather than white, the means to identify these aircraft are easily available to anyone who cares to look. They make frequent airshow appearances every summer for one. That Swinney doesn't even seem to realise that Whenuapai is an active RNZAF base rather than a civilian airport is telling.
 
One of the more fun sights to see when refueling. Originally uploaded by USAFFEKC10A and of course reuploaded by a conspiracy theorist because it is an aircraft with white stuff coming out the back, so they must be deadly chemicals.

 
Excellent close-in view of how the low pressure area above the wings forms the aerodynamic contrail, and how the amount of contrailing increases/decreases in response to variable atmospheric conditions.

Clearly not coming from "nozzles", Dane Wigington!
 
KC-10FE said:
One of the more fun sights to see when refueling. Originally uploaded by USAFFEKC10A and of course reuploaded by a conspiracy theorist because it is an aircraft with white stuff coming out the back, so they must be deadly chemicals.
Click to expand...

Great shot(s)! Thanks....

That looks like some skilled flying to refuel like that...hard not to get distracted by the contrails etc...(as mentioned)- wouldnt want to make a mistake :)
 
Chemtrails are real! ;)
cropduster.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if Bill is serious or not - if you are serious about including ag spraying as chemtrails Bill, then consider that you breathing is also creating a chemtrail.....and if you are not serious a smiley would be appreciated!
 
MikeC said:
Not sure if Bill is serious or not - if you are serious about including ag spraying as chemtrails Bill, then consider that you breathing is also creating a chemtrail.....and if you are not serious a smiley would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

He isn't serious. The name of the image he uploaded is cropduster.jpg, and at his "new members" post says he's a chemtrail debunker. :)
 
When i was a kid say 25 years ago i would watch plane contrails disappear. it took about 1 minute or 2 but they never persisted for more than 5 mins. even in the winter. Now since about 5 years ago when i began to renotice they dont disappear in summer and winter.
Bill McDonald said:
Notice the condensation cloud that appears above the wing root everytime the contrails appear? This is typical of slow flight at low altitudes in moist air.
Click to expand...
 
swady said:
When i was a kid say 25 years ago i would watch plane contrails disappear. it took about 1 minute or 2 but they never persisted for more than 5 mins. even in the winter. Now since about 5 years ago when i began to renotice they dont disappear in summer and winter.
Click to expand...

Many chemtrail believers say that they remember when "spraying" began in the mid 90s. Are they wrong by over a decade or are you?
 
swady said:
When i was a kid say 25 years ago i would watch plane contrails disappear. it took about 1 minute or 2 but they never persisted for more than 5 mins. even in the winter. Now since about 5 years ago when i began to renotice they dont disappear in summer and winter.
Click to expand...

There is a term for this: "Selective memory".

This is a recent article about Humans' ability to repress memories:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...lective-memory-does-exist-say-scientists.html

This is extreme, as in when terrible events happen, and we wish to forget them. However, the converse can also be true. As in, the suggestion that we "don't remember" something as being similar...usually these are due to current 'memes' that are having influence over what we (most Humans) understand is a flawed memory process. Our brains are incredible, but not infallible.

EDIT: There is more to your personal recollection, no doubt. You may wish to investigate the different technologies of the Low-Bypass Turbojet, versus the High-Bypass TurboFan engine designs, and the sorts of contrail formation that result.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/engine-efficiency-high-bypass-and-contrail-frequency-how-much.226/

http://contrailscience.com/thirty-contrails-forty-years-ago/

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
 
1) I posted this on another thread, but since it pertains to this one as well..

Dane..here are your nozzles, commonly known as flap hinges!

fllphinge1.jpg flap hne 2.jpg


2) And an aerodynamic contrail during air refueling

From the cockpit & From the air refueling pod

kc101.jpg KC=10.jpg
 
The KC-10 flap hinge fairings are very skinny, just basically covering the hinge. Other planes have much more bulbous fairings, sometimes referred to as Küchmann Carrots or antishock bodies. These improve the aerodynamic performance (and hence fuel efficiency) of planes travelling above Mach 0.7 by smoothing out the cross-sectional area of the plane (i.e., so there is a less sudden drop in cross sectional area behind the wing)

More detailed explanation and examples:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0240.shtml

I bring this up because variations in the size and shape of the fairings might seem suspicious.
 
I saw this photo of a C-5 Galaxy flap fairing being pointed to as "nozzles" on Facebook:
f924a49f930d8e9d11a13848c1c5040d.png


The C-5 (the bigger plane below) certainly does have a lot of them - but then it's pretty large.
Screenshot_20140404_103912.jpg


It also has these unusual segmented flaps:
c95b91c0b613e95cbb4eadec7d29d56f.jpg
 
Pete,
It is the C-5 "kneeling"

External Quote:
A "kneeling" landing gear system that permits lowering the parked aircraft to facilitate drive-on/drive-off vehicle loading and adjusts the cargo floor to standard truck-bed height.
http://www.westover.afrc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16559

External Quote:
Figure 2-14 shows the cargo floor and ramp angles for the kneeling condition. It also shows the C-5 nose up when aft-kneeled, nose down when forward-kneeled, and level when level-kneeled.
upload_2014-4-4_21-29-14.png


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/55-9/ch2.htm
 
Mick West said:
I saw this photo of a C-5 Galaxy flap fairing being pointed to as "nozzles" on Facebook:
c95b91c0b613e95cbb4eadec7d29d56f.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, brought back many memories. This is the aircraft, TF-39 engines in particular, that I worked on in the Air Force. Worked the flightline and engine shop. What amazed me about this plane it looked so slow when it was taking off, I wondered how it got the lift. The engines were massive. I could stand in the intake and not touch the top. Learned a great deal at Travis AFB.
 
The bunk meme that the images and videos above represent evidence of nozzles is quickly becoming established as paradigm among the believers. The subject needs an easily understood video and infographic debunking suitable for easy reference.

In fact, this bunk is increasingly being used by Dane Wigington as a "Fallback" position when he becomes befuddled or is confronted by inconsistencies and illogic. He has to resort to a classic Gish Gallop trying to dissemble when the host tried to pin him down on things. watch this video from 5:00 on...
His last resort is seen @ 9:15

 
Jay Reynolds said:
watch this video from 5:00 on...
His last resort is seen @ 9:15
Click to expand...

Yes. The "nozzles" claim is one of his big ones. It would be good to take the visuals which HE uses and compare them to diagrams and pictures of the same types of planes, showing what those parts really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maury Markowitz
The "instant acceleration" video from the VCR era
Replies
2
Views
229
NoParty
NoParty
TEEJ
Ocean County, New Jersey Sheriff's video
Replies
4
Views
402
FatPhil
FatPhil
Mick West
Sitrec Support for Multi-Track from ADSB-Exchange and other Drone Tracking Tips
Replies
5
Views
323
Mick West
Mick West
Candycane7
Video: triangle light formation going fast across the night sky 2024-10-31
Replies
4
Views
669
Tezcatlipoca
T
C
Strange video of underwater "Alien" creature
Replies
16
Views
1K
yoshy
Y

Latest posts

Back
Top