"Hovering" C-130 Spraying in Corpus Christi, Texas

muttkat68

Member
On Jan. 23, 2012 the weather in Corpus Christi seems like it was conducive to forming aerodynamic contrails and I've watched them form under similar conditions... Cool-moderate temps, humid, cloudy/overcast/hazy, near/over water. Then we have a large airplane performing who knows what kind of landing procedure at a training base for naval aviators. C-130 pilots don't learn to fly C-130's at NASCC but that doesn't mean that some sort of C-130 training doesn't happen there at times or that even a routine landing might look odd from a particular angle.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Knowing the approximate time of day would help to better understand atmospheric conditions at the time.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I saw in Corpus was pertaining to spraying, not contrails. I just saw it spraying.

Contrails is what you see in the distance, in the sky. On the contrails, cloud seeding part, I'll start another thread on that, but I have to get my notes in order.

I wasn't trying to say anybody was training in a C-130 and that they even trained there, just that there is a navy training base nearby. Sorry if I confused ya on that part.
 

muttkat68

Member
The existence of secrets does not validate the existence of any secret you can imagine.

I think people are just trying to get you to see there are viable alternative explanations, and that everyone's vision and judgement is fallible.
Optical illusions are a universal reality, but secret hovering spraying aircraft programs are much less so; and are an unproven assumption for which there is only poor evidence.
There is a benign interpretation, can you give a good reason for dismissing that? ('fast and furious' does not really qualify)

Now its optical illusions? What part was that? Do you see thru my eyes?

PEOPLE GET OFF THE HOVERING!

The govt always has secrets until it gets unclassified or until it gets caught........Watergate for example.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Now its optical illusions? What part was that? Do you see thru my eyes?

PEOPLE GET OFF THE HOVERING!
But the point is that people see things through their eyes which are not actually true representations of what is happening; this is scientifically studied, and you need to at least entertain the possibility this may factor in to your recollection. The point is a hovering plane is a new phenomenon, a small optical illusion in relative motion/perspective is not and relatively mundane.

Okay, say the hovering is a non-issue and we'll forget it was ever mentioned - what makes mosquito spraying as an explanation impossible in your opinion?
 

muttkat68

Member
But the point is that people see things through their eyes which are not actually true representations of what is happening; this is scientifically studied, and you need to at least entertain the possibility this may factor in to your recollection. The point is a hovering plane is a new phenomenon, a small optical illusion in relative motion/perspective is not and relatively mundane.

Okay, say the hovering is a non-issue and we'll forget it was ever mentioned - what makes mosquito spraying as an explanation impossible in your opinion?

The time. The date, according to the newspaper article in CC. The one site above stated the military sprays at sunset and this was at noon. I briefly checked if there had been rain recently....2012 but I don't think there was, but I'll recheck that being I have been checking the weather in 10 cities and might of gotten the days confused.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It sure is, but people keep bringing it up to make fun of me. I guess thats all they've got to go on.
Huh? They keep bringing up watergate or other state secret scandals to make fun of you? I thought you were the only one to bring that up.
Can you quote the posts that make fun of you in your opinion, just in the interests of site feedback?

Look, no-one is making fun of you (well they shouldn't be), they are trying to widen the possibilities you consider in evaluating what you saw; you really shouldn't feel 'made fun of' just because there are other possibilities to consider which include possible observer error.
No-one is having a go at you - human fallibility (which is *universal*) is just the first thing that should be accounted for or ruled out if possible in any 'odd' scenario.

Without any further information that can be independently verified there's not much else to suggest.
A covert and probably illegal spraying operation happening over a population centre is just less likely than a known routine mosquito spray. Perhaps some more details will be found.
 

KAT

Active Member
It looks to me that Muttkatt lives in that area. But this was the only time she saw this strange behavior of the C130. So it would not be part of a long-term campaign of odd activity.

Nothing said about optical illusions explains what the plane was doing, spray-wise.

I will state with confidence that whatever it was, was NOT SECRET, seeing it was done in broad daylight.

Check up the local newspapers for surrounding days, to see if they said anything.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
OK they're spraying for mosquitos.

I saw this on Jan 23, 2012, almost a year and a half before, at noon. The Callertimes article is dated June 19, 2013. There hadn't been any rain and the military sprays around sunset according to your article.

I can understand aerial spraying but this doesn't match the criteria for doing so.

I responded to you based on the information that you had provided. If you saw what you say in January then I doubt it was mosquito spraying.

It may not have been spraying at all. Could have been aerodynamic contrails or could have been sooty exhaust if they throttled up in a turn. Conditions were pretty saturated that day.

Soley's weather link indicates that the wind was NE to E from 8-9AM through the remainder of the day on Jan 23, 2012. Very likely that a plane heading to NAS Corpus Christi would have banked over Nueces Bay in the vicinity of downtown so that it could approach the main strip with a headwind (front quartering in the case of ENE winds so the plane would have been working the throttles a bit).
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Here's a shot of one coming into Patrick with a gentle evening SE seabreeze providing some crosswind. Even in that condition there's a bit of smoke while they work the throttle.


How would you characterize the "spray" you witnessed?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.

Check out this approach to Patrick. Look how low he was and how close to the air strip when he banked for final approach. I can imaging how that would look if one made a turn and final approach like that over the bay and someone was viewing from the other side of the buildings.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
What am I suppose to say? It was going fast, not close to the rooftop and I was having a moment of relative motion and I didn't see it spraying?

People have given plausible explanations for the plane's apparent lack of motion and distance from rooftops.

What remains, is to address the "spraying". Your objection to the mosquito spraying explanation seems to be that you saw your plane at noon, and you claim that the military only sprays for mosquitoes at dusk. Does that sum things up about right?

Corpus Christi has a population of about 300,000 people. Do you know of anyone else that saw a low level C-130 spraying downtown Corpus Christi at noon on Jan. 23, 2012?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
C-130 "spraying" (smoke from engines)


When a plane is flying somewhat toward or away from you then
  1. It looks like it is moving more slowly
  2. The exhaust, if a bit smokey, is a lot more visible.
Planes generally smoke most on takeoff.
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
I would add, that since he was on approach he was most likely fully configured and it would take more thrust to correct a speed problem. That might cause a smoky trail while the engines spooled up. Especially if the engines had been at a low power setting for awhile.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I saw in Corpus was pertaining to spraying, not contrails. I just saw it spraying.

Contrails is what you see in the distance, in the sky. On the contrails, cloud seeding part, I'll start another thread on that, but I have to get my notes in order.

I wasn't trying to say anybody was training in a C-130 and that they even trained there, just that there is a navy training base nearby. Sorry if I confused ya on that part.

I said aerodynamic contrails which often, but not exclusively, occur during landing or takeoff in cool humid conditions. I've watched planes landing at PDX producing aerodynamic contrails on approach. Smoke from the engines is another factor to consider as others have mentioned.

I already knew that NAS Corpus Christi is a training base. I was simply pointing out that because it is a training base there is a possibility that a C-130 was performing a specific landing maneuver, such as a tactical landing, that might look odd, especially when viewed from certain angles.


 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Watch a few Youtubes on that plane. It's absolutely astounding what those things can do, for their size and bulky appearance. It looks impossible.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
C-130 "spraying" (smoke from engines)


When a plane is flying somewhat toward or away from you then
  1. It looks like it is moving more slowly
  2. The exhaust, if a bit smokey, is a lot more visible.
Planes generally smoke most on takeoff.

the engines on C-130H (and previous) and P-3 Orion a/c are notorious for still being smoky these days, when most engines have long since ceased making visible smoke - it's a function of heir basic technology which dates to eth 1950's and an era where visible smoke was common.
 

muttkat68

Member
The existence of secrets does not validate the existence of any secret you can imagine.

I think people are just trying to get you to see there are viable alternative explanations, and that everyone's vision and judgement is fallible.
Optical illusions are a universal reality, but secret hovering spraying aircraft programs are much less so; and are an unproven assumption for which there is only poor evidence.
There is a benign interpretation, can you give a good reason for dismissing that? ('fast and furious' does not really qualify)

You used the word HOVERING so everything else you're saying means NIL!
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
OK heres a video of some airtankers joyriding and the FAA didn't know about it:


I'm not sure why you posted a link to a "doctored" contrail video after up thread you said:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I saw in Corpus was pertaining to spraying, not contrails. I just saw it spraying.

So back on the topic of this thread I ask again:

Have you any comment on the posts regarding C-130 operation as it may pertain to what would be seen in the vicinity of a Naval Air Station?

Plenty of posts have moved beyond "hovering" and instead focus on a C-130 that you saw flying at low altitude with low air speed that you percieved to be spraying a particular building. Do you have any desire to discuss that as the thread topic?
 

muttkat68

Member
People have given plausible explanations for the plane's apparent lack of motion and distance from rooftops.

What remains, is to address the "spraying". Your objection to the mosquito spraying explanation seems to be that you saw your plane at noon, and you claim that the military only sprays for mosquitoes at dusk. Does that sum things up about right?

Corpus Christi has a population of about 300,000 people. Do you know of anyone else that saw a low level C-130 spraying downtown Corpus Christi at noon on Jan. 23, 2012?[/QUOTE

I asked around on the local Corpus....at the beach facebook page and got no reply but I have asked 3 people if they have ever seen any aircraft flying close to the tall downtown buildings and they said no.
OK. Then how would you explain the C-130's behavior?


Wrong time, wrong location, wrong spraying.
 

muttkat68

Member
I'm not sure why you posted a link to a "doctored" contrail video after up thread you said:



So back on the topic of this thread I ask again:

Have you any comment on the posts regarding C-130 operation as it may pertain to what would be seen in the vicinity of a Naval Air Station?

Plenty of posts have moved beyond "hovering" and instead focus on a C-130 that you saw flying at low altitude with low air speed that you percieved to be spraying a particular building. Do you have any desire to discuss that as the thread topic?

Is that a doctored contrail video? I was just making a point about if the FAA didn't know the other planes were flying......it was a secret....I have been.
 

muttkat68

Member
On Jan. 23, 2012 the weather in Corpus Christi seems like it was conducive to forming aerodynamic contrails and I've watched them form under similar conditions... Cool-moderate temps, humid, cloudy/overcast/hazy, near/over water. Then we have a large airplane performing who knows what kind of landing procedure at a training base for naval aviators. C-130 pilots don't learn to fly C-130's at NASCC but that doesn't mean that some sort of C-130 training doesn't happen there at times or that even a routine landing might look odd from a particular angle.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Knowing the approximate time of day would help to better understand atmospheric conditions at the time.

Thank you for doing my homework for me. lol
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Is that a doctored contrail video? I was just making a point about if the FAA didn't know the other planes were flying......it was a secret....I have been.

Not correct. (Did you not read those other two threads?)

The edited video (the one posted by "TankerEnemy", a notorious "chem"trail promoter and liar) that is full of completely misrepresented text and interpretations added to it. That original footage was shot onboard an Air India airliner, and NOT aboard a FedEx jet.


Also...you mentioned the FAA? This footage was NOT shot within the United States. Another thing....at the time of the filming these flights were all in a NON-radar environment.

As a pilot, I know and understand this from listening to the ATC communication (that is FedEx 5034 we hear on the radio frequency from the Air India overhead speakers in the cockpit. The FedEx flight is requesting a different altitude from ATC). There is a delay, because in a non-radar environment, ATC must take some time to review the locations and routing of other nearby traffic to be able to ascertain whether or not the requested altitude is clear of traffic conflicts.

This happens DAILY all over the world, where there is little or no radar coverage.

Adding....listening again, when FedEx calls ATC I think I have finally been able to understand what facility he is addressing. Sounds like he says "Ankara" when beginning his call. That would mean they are somewhere near Ankara, Turkey.

Here is an Aeronautical Chart with Ankara centered. While there might be radar coverage within the radius of that major city, ATC coverage will extend for many more miles, and could lack radar availability. (Especially in mountainous terrain...Turkey is very mountainous). On the "map", look for a faint blue line just west of Ankara...it is labelled "Ankara LTAA" one side, and "Istabul LTBB" on the other. That line denotes ATC airspace boundaries.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=39.9518589252358,32.687622073203606&chart=304&zoom=4

The video from "TankerEnemy" is a prime example of the lengths these "Chem"trail enthusiasts will resort in order to continue to spread the lie of "chem"trails. Don't fall for their obvious nonsense.
 

muttkat68

Member
Huh? They keep bringing up watergate or other state secret scandals to make fun of you? I thought you were the only one to bring that up.
Can you quote the posts that make fun of you in your opinion, just in the interests of site feedback?

Look, no-one is making fun of you (well they shouldn't be), they are trying to widen the possibilities you consider in evaluating what you saw; you really shouldn't feel 'made fun of' just because there are other possibilities to consider which include possible observer error.
No-one is having a go at you - human fallibility (which is *universal*) is just the first thing that should be accounted for or ruled out if possible in any 'odd' scenario.

Without any further information that can be independently verified there's not much else to suggest.
A covert and probably illegal spraying operation happening over a population centre is just less likely than a known routine mosquito spray. Perhaps some more details will be found.

I may have to go to that bank and ask if anybody saw that plane when I get the nerve to. lol Thats basically all I have left to do and/or put this info out on some of the local channels again and see if I get some feedback. I did find other witnesses seeing low flying planes (but not all are C130's) by high rises and lots of military helicopter drills in downtown areas. I guess the US govt is practicing attacking its own citizens.

http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php/7737-Military-Planes-Over-Dallas-Fort-Worth

This article mentions planes generally should be within 1000 feet of tall buildings unless there is special permission.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02...-willis-tower-gives-downtown-workers-a-scare/

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...e/comment-page-58/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

There have been alot of military helicopters drills being performed in downtown areas. I would post some more sites but now my tabs are getting stuck on my computer.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
This article mentions planes generally should be within 1000 feet of tall buildings unless there is special permission.

You mean "should NOT be within 1000 feet...."

But, those two articles (A) were reported by laypersons who were not clued in (and had no need to be warned in advance) and (B) had permission (most likely, in the Chicago case) and most certainly in the New York instance.

Still, the C-130 that you saw is perfectly legal to be below the height of the tallest building, as long as the lateral distance limit is maintained.

Perspective and gauging relative depth and distance again comes into play.


I guess the US govt is practicing attacking its own citizens.

UTTER rubbish!! Just a ridiculous comment.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Practicing attacking its own citizens... with an unarmed aircraft.

Even assuming the practice was for an operation using an AC-130 and not a C-130, none of what you describe resembles an attack maneuver that's useful in a plane designed to do pylon turns to broadside a fixed point, and as far as I'm aware, the C-130B doesn't exist anymore.
 

muttkat68

Member
It looks to me that Muttkatt lives in that area. But this was the only time she saw this strange behavior of the C130. So it would not be part of a long-term campaign of odd activity.

Nothing said about optical illusions explains what the plane was doing, spray-wise.

I will state with confidence that whatever it was, was NOT SECRET, seeing it was done in broad daylight.

Check up the local newspapers for surrounding days, to see if they said anything.

Local news, different part of state:

http://www.kiiitv.com/story/19298343/bees-spraying-for-west-nile


This states aerial spraying was done 20 years ago:

http://www.kztv10.com/news/nueces-county-considers-aerial-spraying-for-mosquitoes/

Being I can't find anything pertaining to any spraying on the media, then we can use the phrase HIDING IN PLAIN SITE. Being I don't live in Corpus, I don't have a telescope at home to see that far...some 20 miles away.
 

muttkat68

Member
Have you any comment on the posts regarding C-130 operation as it may pertain to what would be seen in the vicinity of a Naval Air Station?

I can understand most of the questions asked and statements made. I wouldn't consider downtown being in the vicinity of the Naval Air Station if you're looking at it from a city point of view. I've seen planes flying across the bay to land at the base for decades. If you lived on Ocean Drive they use to scramble your TV reception years ago.
 

muttkat68

Member
Not correct. (Did you not read those other two threads?)

The edited video (the one posted by "TankerEnemy", a notorious "chem"trail promoter and liar) that is full of completely misrepresented text and interpretations added to it. That original footage was shot onboard an Air India airliner, and NOT aboard a FedEx jet.


Also...you mentioned the FAA? This footage was NOT shot within the United States. Another thing....at the time of the filming these flights were all in a NON-radar environment.

As a pilot, I know and understand this from listening to the ATC communication (that is FedEx 5034 we hear on the radio frequency from the Air India overhead speakers in the cockpit. The FedEx flight is requesting a different altitude from ATC). There is a delay, because in a non-radar environment, ATC must take some time to review the locations and routing of other nearby traffic to be able to ascertain whether or not the requested altitude is clear of traffic conflicts.

This happens DAILY all over the world, where there is little or no radar coverage.

Adding....listening again, when FedEx calls ATC I think I have finally been able to understand what facility he is addressing. Sounds like he says "Ankara" when beginning his call. That would mean they are somewhere near Ankara, Turkey.

Here is an Aeronautical Chart with Ankara centered. While there might be radar coverage within the radius of that major city, ATC coverage will extend for many more miles, and could lack radar availability. (Especially in mountainous terrain...Turkey is very mountainous). On the "map", look for a faint blue line just west of Ankara...it is labelled "Ankara LTAA" one side, and "Istabul LTBB" on the other. That line denotes ATC airspace boundaries.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=39.9518589252358,32.687622073203606&chart=304&zoom=4

The video from "TankerEnemy" is a prime example of the lengths these "Chem"trail enthusiasts will resort in order to continue to spread the lie of "chem"trails. Don't fall for their obvious nonsense.

OK, thanks for letting me know.
 

muttkat68

Member
Practicing attacking its own citizens... with an unarmed aircraft.

Even assuming the practice was for an operation using an AC-130 and not a C-130, none of what you describe resembles an attack maneuver that's useful in a plane designed to do pylon turns to broadside a fixed point, and as far as I'm aware, the C-130B doesn't exist anymore.

I wasn't describing C130's to doing attack exercises. That was the military helicopters exercises. I would think if they would use C130's in combat against jets we would pretty easy know that outcome.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I can understand most of the questions asked and statements made. I wouldn't consider downtown being in the vicinity of the Naval Air Station if you're looking at it from a city point of view. I've seen planes flying across the bay to land at the base for decades. If you lived on Ocean Drive they use to scramble your TV reception years ago.

Close enough. It's nine miles from the end of the main runway to down town. That's close enough for a plane to be making a low altitude turn pretty close to the city for final approach when the wind is out of the east. Did you see the video of the C130 approach to Patrick to see how close they were when they turned? Put that turn over the bay in Corpus Christi with the bank between you and the plane. Plane is going to look like it is about to hit the building.

I grew up in a rural area 12 miles wsw of Langley AFB. The heavy jets would pass over my house looking like they were skimming the tree tops.



C5 Galaxy makes a sound you don't forget. And when you are 7-8 years old playing in the woods on cold misty Nor'easter kind of day that sound about give you the willies. Shoot, sometimes it sounded like they were going to land in the living room. 9 miles is pretty close to an airport.
 

muttkat68

Member
You mean "should NOT be within 1000 feet...."

But, those two articles (A) were reported by laypersons who were not clued in (and had no need to be warned in advance) and (B) had permission (most likely, in the Chicago case) and most certainly in the New York instance.

Still, the C-130 that you saw is perfectly legal to be below the height of the tallest building, as long as the lateral distance limit is maintained.

Perspective and gauging relative depth and distance again comes into play.




UTTER rubbish!! Just a ridiculous comment.

Whoops I left out "NOT".

They quoted a FAA spokesperson.

Practicing against its citizens utter rubbish? Didn't there use to be something called Posse Comitatus?

The DHS buying all those hollow points for target practice is a joke, besides its against the Geneva Convention....

Besides the US govt isn't worried about securing the borders when its known that the Mexican Cartels are assisting Middle East terrorists and we'll be having another "We didn't know" pre 911 scenario and then come out with Patriot Act 4, 5, 6....Instead the military is too busy playing war games or spraying in downtown areas terrorizing civilians. Anyway this is another topic I will start.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/c...ddle-east-terrorists-to-mexican-drug-cartels/
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
In the meantime, you have a low flying C130 making a turn and then descending nine miles from a Naval Air Station. You suspect that plane was spraying.

Everybody else thinks it was making an approach to the air station with either (or maybe both) smokey exhaust (evidence that c-130s do this is provided) or aerodynamic contrails (any plane makes those when the air is saturated).

We know it wasn't mosquito spray since after you finally provided the information necessary to make that judgement. So how exactly would you characterize the 'spray'?

Do you think you can draw the plane's flight path as well as your viewing position on an aerial image?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Is the photo on the other plane looking north from the intersection of Peoples St. and N. Shoreline is the viewing position?
 

muttkat68

Member
Close enough. It's nine miles from the end of the main runway to down town. That's close enough for a plane to be making a low altitude turn pretty close to the city for final approach when the wind is out of the east. Did you see the video of the C130 approach to Patrick to see how close they were when they turned? Put that turn over the bay in Corpus Christi with the bank between you and the plane. Plane is going to look like it is about to hit the building.

I grew up in a rural area 12 miles wsw of Langley AFB. The heavy jets would pass over my house looking like they were skimming the tree tops.



C5 Galaxy makes a sound you don't forget. And when you are 7-8 years old playing in the woods on cold misty Nor'easter kind of day that sound about give you the willies. Shoot, sometimes it sounded like they were going to land in the living room. 9 miles is pretty close to an airport.

Planes don't fly where I saw that C130. I should know, I lived there for decades.

If you are in the path of airplanes landing then thats all fine and dandy but where that plane was, wasn't. It was off course. Thats in Patrick not CC. Being I live in a rural area, I usually check out the planes flying overhead and pay attention to drones flying overhead so I can flip.....lol
 
Top