Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's"Smokers" video

[WeedWhacker]

Utter nonsense of course,

What? Could you be specific, please? Because, I wrote a lot there. Is it "nonsense" that I have 37+ years in aviation, and am therefore somewhat an 'expert' in what I am discussing, as it relates to airplanes, flying and such?

 

[WeedWhacker]

I don't think posting my personal information is useful, professional, needed or responsible. I am happy to answer any questions you have. The only advantage it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history.

I would be MORE than happy to share any of my personal information with you. I have nothing to hide.

I do, though, slightly resent the implication in this statement:

"...it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history."

That ( ^^^ ) is actually rather insulting...not only to me, but to the other members of this Forum.

 

[Jazzy]

I don't think posting my personal information is useful, professional, needed or responsible. I am happy to answer any questions you have. The only advantage it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history.

You could stick an "s" in multi-disciplinary.

 

[JRBids]

It would appear you are confirming the theory of aerosol injection with this comment? That is exactly what we believe to be happening. The 3 nozzles located on the pylon of Airbus belonging specifically to members of the 3 airline alliances, are being used to eject matter into the exhaust plume of the engines.

Where do they store the chemicals?

I was just thinking, when the SST used to fly out Kennedy Airport, those of us on the end of the island would hear a sonic boom when it reached supersonic speeds. Wouldn't there be evidence of these booms if planes were flying as fast as you say?

 

[JRBids]

I would be MORE than happy to share any of my personal information with you. I have nothing to hide.

I do, though, slightly resent the implication in this statement:

"...it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history."

That ( ^^^ ) is actually rather insulting...not only to me, but to the other members of this Forum.

I would never reveal my personal history on this forum. As I've said before, but Ian probably doesn't know, I have been phoned and threatened, and the same person left a message on my manager's phone saying I was stalking her.

 

[Hama Neggs]

This is an amazing image. Here we see 3 planes, all commercial jets, leaving massive long, thick, black trails of smoke. Now unless technology has reverted back to coal in recent months, this really should never happen. I think anyone with a reasonably well functioning brain, even without any knowledge of jet propulsion, will understand that. Thank you again for sharing this. Very helpful.

Let us just clarify for the audiences here that all the debunkers of chemtrails have been screaming condensation for the last few years... need I say more.

Loo-Up.org.uk

Yes, you need say more. In particular, you need to say how you determined that the trails behind those aircraft consisted of "smoke".

 

[WeedWhacker]

Here we see 3 planes, all commercial jets, leaving massive long, thick, black trails of smoke.

Dear Mr. Ian Simpson:

RE: The sentence I 'quoted' just above. Can you please inform the audience the exact methodology used to determine that those contrails were "black trails of smoke"....and not simply given a shadowed appearance as a result of the angle of the Sun. Thanks.

Addendum:

Photos of clouds, that appear dark and sometimes even "black" (although this is a subjective term), due to shadows and Sun angles:

https://www.google.com/search?q=dar...T3YCoCQ&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1763&bih=864&dpr=0.9

 

[deirdre]

Dear Mr. Ian Simpson:

RE: The sentence I 'quoted' just above. Can you please inform the audience the exact methodology used to determine that those contrails were "black trails of smoke"....and not simply given a shadowed appearance as a result of the angle of the Sun. Thanks.

Addendum:

Photos of clouds, that appear dark and sometimes even "black" (although this is a subjective term), due to shadows and Sun angles:

https://www.google.com/search?q=dark clouds in daylight&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS499US499&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mqsbU4GmM8yEogTT3YCoCQ&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1763&bih=864&dpr=0.9

it doesn't matter, no one is gonna buy that bit at 6:30. IF they can even get that far with that...what is that?...music? 12 billion tunes in the universe and they pick that. ; /

 

[solrey]

Here's a space shuttle launch at sunset showing the lower part of the contrail noticeably darker than the upper portion in sunlight at higher altitudes. Also note the darkness of the low clouds in the distance. The shuttle's contrail was thick enough to produce an anti-crepuscular ray pointing straight at the full moon for a truly awesome shot.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Here's a space shuttle launch at sunset showing the lower part of the contrail noticeably darker than the upper portion in sunlight at higher altitudes. Also note the darkness of the low clouds in the distance. The shuttle's contrail was thick enough to produce an anti-crepuscular ray pointing straight at the full moon for a truly awesome shot.

Wow! What causes that ray? I don't quite understand what I'm seeing there.

 

[solrey]

Wow! What causes that ray? I don't quite understand what I'm seeing there.

I suppose technically it's an anti-crepuscular shadow.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/anti1.htm

Crepuscular rays appear to converge on the sun, anticrepuscular rays converge in the opposite direction and you must have your back to the sun or sunset point to see them. They appear to converge towards the antisolar point, the point on the sky sphere directly opposite the sun. Like crepuscular rays they are parallel shafts of sunlight from holes in the clouds and their apparently odd directions are a perspective effect. Think of a long straight road, it converges towards the horizon but turn around and it also converges to the opposite horizon. Crepuscular and anticrepuscular rays behave in the same way.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Wow! What causes that ray? I don't quite understand what I'm seeing there.

Ah, well explained already. It seems counter-intuitive at times...the way the atmospheric conditions can interplay with light, and shadow.

Not to harp on the subject, but from my experience as a pilot, I've seen such examples so many times, never actually thought to look up the specific technical definition ("crepuscular", or even "anti-crepuscular"!)

Here, I learned some new scientific terms and nomenclature that describe something that I inherently already understood to be, basically in the minimalist of explanation...a "shadow".

I do so enjoy learning new things....and I would hope that many others do as well, should they be fortunate enough to read this thread some day.

 

[Jazzy]

Here's a space shuttle launch at sunset showing the lower part of the contrail noticeably darker than the upper portion in sunlight at higher altitudes. Also note the darkness of the low clouds in the distance. The shuttle's contrail was thick enough to produce an anti-crepuscular ray pointing straight at the full moon for a truly awesome shot.

If you think about it, the Full Moon is the only thing the "shadow" could possibly point at. It seems really weird, doesn't it? But if you watch a few launches you see it happen quite a lot without the Moon in the picture.
@WeedWhacker do you know of atoptics.com?

 

[WeedWhacker]

If you think about it, the Full Moon is the only thing the "shadow" could possibly point at.

Wow!! You are absolutely spot on!! It makes perfect sense, when you take the time to simply envision the distances involved, knowing that the Sun is the primary light source, and of course, the Moon, only a reflector. (Of course, this presumes that the person you are explaining/describing this to understands the heliocentric nature of the Solar System, and the Earth/Moon system, within that larger system, as well).

Not to tend off-topic, but this is important in multiple ways in how to debunk the Apollo "hoax" conspiracy claims, too.

It's odd how so many scientific principles can sometimes merge, to cover a multitude of "debunks"!

 

[George B]

Here's a space shuttle launch at sunset showing the lower part of the contrail noticeably darker than the upper portion in sunlight at higher altitudes. Also note the darkness of the low clouds in the distance. The shuttle's contrail was thick enough to produce an anti-crepuscular ray pointing straight at the full moon for a truly awesome shot.

Fantastic photo!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mick West]

Wow! What causes that ray? I don't quite understand what I'm seeing there.

It's related to the "black beams" you see in front of contrails sometimes. I discussed it here (and use that photo) a few years ago, skip to #3
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/

The photo on the right is a rather dramatic illustration of this effect. The "dark line" here is caused by the slab of shadow cast by the portion of the upper part of the exhaust trail of the space shuttle Atlantis that is lined up roughly in a flat plane with the camera and the sun. The sun has just set, so the rays of the sun are almost parallel to the ground, so the upper portion of the plume is casting a long tall shadow through the air towards the horizon. This is viewed edge on from below, and so looks like a dark line. Since it's a full moon, the sun is directly opposite the moon, so the "shadow" looks like it's pointing at the moon (if you look closely, you'll see it continues past the moon). This is particularly dramatic because of the combination of the setting sun and a vertical exhaust trail. With normal contrails, the sun has to be higher in the sky to cast the slab of shadow downwards.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It's related to the "black beams" you see in front of contrails sometimes. I discussed it here (and use that photo) a few years ago, skip to #3
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/

I think this subject (of shadowing, or the more technical "crepuscular" term), among many other phenomena leads to far too many misconceptions.

Of course everyone may recall a recent "viral video" about the so-called "Double Rainbow", where the video maker waxes nearly ecstatic, almost ... and in fact, it is simply yet another easily explained optical effect.

OK...in case no one has seen what I referred to (at the risk of straying from topic):


EDIT: "Hey cow!" (Points at cow) "Look at that!!" And, "Holy cow! No offense."

Ooops....I think I found a spoof video, of the original. Hmmm....

OK...I was fooled, but I think THIS one is the original, and the one that was spoofed:

 

[George B]

I think this subject (of shadowing, or the more technical "crepuscular" term), among many other phenomena leads to far too many misconceptions.

Of course everyone may recall a recent "viral video" about the so-called "Double Rainbow", where the video maker waxes nearly ecstatic, almost ... and in fact, it is simply yet another easily explained optical effect.

OK...in case no one has seen what I referred to (at the risk of straying from topic):


EDIT: "Hey cow!" (Points at cow) "Look at that!!" And, "Holy cow! No offense."

Ooops....I think I found a spoof video, of the original. Hmmm....

OK...I was fooled, but I think THIS one is the original, and the one that was spoofed:

I have seen triple rainbows in Alaska before, one sees doubles there all the time. The low angel of the sun even in the summer promotes the increased refraction of sunlight.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I have seen triple rainbows in Alaska before, one sees doubles there all the time.

Naturally. I guess my "point" was (if there was a "point") that when it comes to many examples of perfectly ordinary displays in the 'sky'....there is always a scientific explanation.

Alaska is at a very high latitude...as are many Scandinavian countries...etc, etc. Conversely, there are people (albeit a somewhat smaller percentage of the world's population) who live in southern latitudes, approaching the Antarctic Circle. There seems, in popular "western" culture, to be a bias in favor of the Northern Hemisphere of our planet.

This is not a criticism, just an observation.

 

[Pete Tar]

Rainbow characteristics are a function of latitude?

 

[David Fraser]

Rainbow characteristics are a function of latitude?

Well of course. I have heard that they have spectacular ones in Oz.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Rainbow characteristics are a function of latitude?

LOL!!

I hope that was....oh, wait!! OK...I get the humor.

Sometimes, though...it seems important to write for the 'broader' audience, in these threads. In order to assist them, and give some common ground of understanding, as they encounter this site.

Hence the problem (sometimes) with discussion Forums. When we write, and cannot use our usual language skills, of nuance in tone, and hand gestures, occasionally the "intent" can seem...or appear to be, misinterpreted.

But, I think we've all been there!!

 

[deirdre]

Sometimes, though...it seems important to write for the 'broader' audience, in these threads. In order to assist them, and give some common ground of understanding, as they encounter this site.

I think that ship has sailed on this thread. if I cant understand what you guys are saying, theres no way this Ian dude can!

 

[Pete Tar]

Unfortunately, no, that wasn't a joke.
You wrote...

Alaska is at a very high latitude...as are many Scandinavian countries...etc, etc. Conversely, there are people (albeit a somewhat smaller percentage of the world's population) who live in southern latitudes, approaching the Antarctic Circle. There seems, in popular "western" culture, to be a bias in favor of the Northern Hemisphere of our planet.

I thought that you were implying rainbows at latitudes closer to the polar circles have different characteristics that people in latitudes closer to the equator aren't used to seeing, which is news to me if that is so.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Unfortunately, no, that wasn't a joke.
You wrote...

I thought that you were implying rainbows at latitudes closer to the polar circles have different characteristics that people in latitudes closer to the equator aren't used to seeing, which is news to me if that is so.

No, sorry for any misunderstanding...wasn't my intent. I chalk it up to the very commonplace lack of clarity that can (sometimes) persist in a written forum, as compared to a face-to-face conversation.

This has been on my mind of late...when I was reminded that YouTube (for example) had only recently celebrated its (nearly) ten-year anniversary...wow, even when fact-checking, I realized I had lost the plot...YouTube only started up in 2005! And here, I was about to congratulate them on their "ten-year" anniversary! (Before I double-checked...here on a post dated 8 March, 2014).

I guess the fact of the Internet has, in a way, "steamrolled" into our consciousness. I hate to steer off the target here, but...perhaps we all could take a moment and ponder the implications. The "implications" of how the Internet, something that so many of us now take for granted, wasn't even much of a factor in most of our lives, just over a decade ago!!!

EDIT: Oh, yes....I remember AOL, in the late 1990s. Even before that, with my first PC...the "Online Service" that seemed to be "the one"!! "Prodigy". LOL.

But, really...it was the early 21st century when the Internet really "took off"!

 

[Pete Tar]

So errr, what did higher latitudes and northern or southern hemispheres have to do with rainbows?
Are intenser rainbows a function of latitude and lower sun angels, or not?
I'm confused because from the reaction I got it seems like it was a naive question, everybody just laughed.

(and yeah, the internet, like, WTF right?)

 

[WeedWhacker]

So errr, what did higher latitudes and northern or southern hemispheres have to do with rainbows?

Nothing, kind sir or madam! In fact, I dunno how we got de-railed, here. Although...looking at your question...rainbows will exist in either hemisphere, in Earth's atmosphere, only factors depend on POV and Sun position...and of course, precipitation (usually rain or mist) in the atmosphere, to act as teeny, tiny BILLIONS and BILLIONS of prisms (a slight 'homage' to the late, great Carl Sagan there...).



Oh, I remember going off onto the siding (railroad reference)...we were discussing how clouds, and also contrails, can appear "dark" due to the angle of the Sun, and the POV of the observer. This relates to the claims of "dark smoky chemtrails", which we know we can prove are merely a "trick" of the light.

For the audience, if you've ever seen some YouTube videos that claim contrails are "blood red"...because (according to the assertions) they consist of actual blood? Well...similar principle. Just as clouds can appear "dark" because of shadowing effects, depending on the angle of the Sun...in other circumstances, usually when the Sun is low on the horizon, then the clouds can be illuminated with a reddish "glow".

Certainly, at some point, anyone who has been to a seacoast has seen this effect?

 

[Pete Tar]

You mean a sunset?
It makes me sad to think there's people on earth who can be confused by things that would never occur to those familiar with a sunset.
To be fair, those who are claiming clouds are full of blood because they're red must only represent the fringe of the fringe.

 

[WeedWhacker]

You mean a sunset?
It makes me sad to think there's people on earth who can be confused by things that would never occur to those familiar with a sunset.
To be fair, those who are claiming clouds are full of blood because they're red must only represent the fringe of the fringe.

Yes, "Pete Tar"...and not only a sunset, but also a sunrise.

Recall a sailor's ditty:

"Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.
Red sky at night, sailors' delight"

(Or any variation, thereof!!)

(EDIT)...this relates also to the lore of "early weather forecasting", based on the knowledge and experience of many generations at sea. And, based on keen observation of weather patterns, and trends. WAY before we had orbiting satellites.

 

[deirdre]

For the audience, if you've ever seen some YouTube videos that claim contrails are "blood red"...because (according to the assertions) they consist of actual blood? Well...similar principle. Just as clouds can appear "dark" because of shadowing effects, depending on the angle of the Sun...in other circumstances, usually when the Sun is low on the horizon, then the clouds can be illuminated with a reddish "glow".

are you making that up?

 

[WeedWhacker]

are you making that up?

Huh? No, I am not. Here is a YouTube video to illustrate:

(I REALLY hate to give this video any extra "views"...but, that is the double/edged sword when linking YouTube vids!)



Note the title: "Chemtrail Pilots SPRAYING BLOOD Cause Face to Face Near Mid-Air Collisions!"

Seems appropriately "provocative", doesn't it? EXCEPT, in just the first 60 seconds, the lie of this video is exposed....because, HERE is the original (and, this is already a topic on another thread at MB...somewhere):



OK...regarding the first VID...later it shows normal contrails, lit by either a setting or rising Sun, and calls those "blood chemtrails".

This is a tiny example of what we're dealing with.

 

[TWCobra]

Ian,

You have observed a track on FR24 that can only be explained in one of two ways;

1. A computer glitch,

Or,

2. The existence of Hypersonic chemtrail spraying aircraft that have normal airline airframes but are fitted with pulse jet engines that allow them to fly in excess of Mach 5.0.

Option one is not compatible with your hypothesis. Option two isn't either due to some aerodynamic data that you are not aware of.

The fastest manned aircraft was the SR71 which traveled at approx Mach 3.0;still well below the speed you claim these aircraft are going. The Blackbird had a max structural speed of 450 KEAS. This was mainly temperature related. It could not reach Mach 3 below 60000 feet.

What this means is that a Mach 5 aircraft with a similar structural limitation could not reach hypersonic speed much below 100000 feet. What altitude are these aircraft showing up on FR24?

Mach 5 at 40000 feet is an EAS in excess of 1400 knots, over 3 times what a purpose built aircraft such as the Blackbird was built to withstand.

It is simply not possible for something shaped like a commercial jetliner to survive at these speeds, no matter what engine is bolted on to it.

Please review your hypothesis in the light of these facts.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Ian,
You have observed a track on FR24 that can only be explained in one of two ways;

TWCobra:

Looks like you might not have replied directly to Mr. Ian Simpson, and he may not receive an e-mail notice as a result.

Unless, of course, Mr. Simpson is reviewing this thread regularly, in which case, he will no doubt be compelled to reply to a challenge, as set forth.

 

[deirdre]

What this means is that a Mach 5 aircraft with a similar structural limitation could not reach hypersonic speed much below 100000 feet. What altitude are these aircraft showing up on FR24?

QUOTE] does that have to due with the "the air is thinner up there" stuff?

 

[WeedWhacker]

does that have to due with the "the air is thinner up there" stuff?

"deirdre", I can't presume to speak on behalf of "TWCobra", but...

Basically, anything that exceeds Mach...in the temperature and pressure altitude that is equivalent...will make noise, in the form of a pressure wave that will propagate through the atmosphere, such that we Humans would recognize it as "sound".

Hope this helps explain?

 

[Pete Tar]

I think she might be asking about the fact that speeds can be achieved at higher altitudes that cannot at lower, because of differences in air resistance.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I think she might be asking about the fact that speeds can be achieved at higher altitudes that cannot at lower, because of differences in air resistance.

Oh.....yes, I understand now. Well, that gets into the realm of "hypersonic", and there...I'm as much a "Noob" as any other person not trained in that realm.....

 

[Balance]

Please review your hypothesis in the light of these facts.

re the speeds:

There was a further claim that PDPS have been reported (elsewhere) as being capable of supersonic speeds (we said hypersonic but supersonic is probably more accurate).

Even prior to this admission, there's

The fact that we have witnessed many planes travelling at hypersonic speed on FR24 (Flighradar24.com), and under commercial passenger flight details, would suggest that either military craft are operating covert missions under civilian guises, or that some commercial jets, and we suspect the larger Boeings, have been modified to travel at least faster than their normal stated speeds if not actually at hypersonic speeds. The catch is exactly as stated... how do large cumbersome craft manage to travel so fast, or if they are military craft, then how do they carry the cargo as they would be smaller if fast, or also slow if large.

 

[Jazzy]

Why is it you all have fun while I'm a'sleeping'?

Since it's a full moon, the sun is directly opposite the moon, so the "shadow" looks like it's pointing at the moon (if you look closely, you'll see it continues past the moon).

That's because the Moon isn't on the plane of the ecliptic.

If it were, of course, there would be a solar eclipse somewhere on earth for fourteen out of every twenty-eight days. Half the time.

The reason why height allows faster speeds is that the higher you go, events, in the way of air molecules to interact with, get spaced further and further apart. It's the number of air molecules the airframe deals with which determines the lift, the drag, the dynamic heat generated, and the power needed to do this in the first place.

As has already been stated, a subsonic airframe would crumple and collapse if pushed to move quicker. They are NOT designed to exceed the speed of sound.

Another reason why subsonic aircraft can't go hypersonic is the Power Law. The power needed by the airframe rises to the fourth power of the speed.

To double your speed requires you increase your power sixteen times over.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Why is it you all have fun while I'm a'sleeping'?


That's because the Moon isn't on the plane of the ecliptic.

If it were, of course, there would be a solar eclipse somewhere on earth for fourteen out of every twenty-eight days. Half the time.

I think it would mean an eclipse every month, once, not 14 times per month.