Magnesium and Titanium levels in Rainwater

No, I haven't seen any deception, or lying. I have seen some mistakes which I've seen others make before, and you have graciously admitted and corrected them.
I'd like to understand why you focused on magnesium. Was it because it was the highest out of the elements you sampled for? That is my best guess, but then I wondered why you didn't sample for silicon. That is another common mistake which the Mt. Shasta people made, along with not determining what ordinary levels would be and what influences variability of rain water chemical composition. By the way, they would have concluded that the aluminum levels you found were extraordinarily high. Everyone must have his own demon, I suppose. I've spent considerable time over the past few years familiarizing myself with rain testing, the pitfalls, etc. Hope that what I have learned can be shared. Others simply put out claims and never allow them to be discussed, and I appreciate your openness in doing so, actually.

Because it was higher than normal for this region.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick, frame by fame the trails move back and forth in front and then the back of the plane, you are seeing the digital distortion of the trail. I hate digital zoom for this reason, this is why I am upgrading to a full lens zoom of 780x on a pan and tilt, when it warms up and snow gets off the roof.

It's Mick, not "Nick"

I see no moving back and forth, just an ordinary plane with ordinary contrails.

780x? I think you might be mixing your units there. You can get perfectly good results with 50x optical.
 
Because it was higher than normal for this region.

All elements were slightly elevated for drinking water purposes, but not outside acceptable parameters, except magnesium for our location. They are spiking to levels of the era of acid rain, and magnesium increases ph concentrations. Calcium and Magnesium require a fine balance and altering them even slightly can affect the crops yields. This is why you find wheat, barely, maize and sugar beets in our areas, also know a the bread belt that includes a large part of Asia, low concentrations and good soil content.
 
It's Mick, not "Nick"

I see no moving back and forth, just an ordinary plane with ordinary contrails.

780x? I think you might be mixing your units there. You can get perfectly good results with 50x optical.

Not the close ups you and other would be satisfied with, 50x is way too small but it depends on your format your using.
 
Woody, those lab results are invalid because the collection jar was sitting on top of an old van so you did not collect pure rainwater. The rainwater was contaminated by whatever splashed from the top of the van into the jar, in what must have been fairly heavy rain at times to accumulate .42 inches in a 24 hour period. I don't think Jay is saying that you're being deceptive or lying, but you did use sloppy methodology that doesn't even come close to the quality of sampling method used in the tests you're comparing your results to.

Do you really think test results from a sample contaminated by whatever was on top of the van are actually representative of pure rainwater? If so you're just lying to yourself

And I do have quite a bit of experience with sample collecting and testing so I recognize poor methodology when I see it.
 
This is why you find wheat, barely, maize and sugar beets in our areas, also know a the bread belt that includes a large part of Asia, low concentrations and good soil content.

All of those crops are grown here in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, including sugar beets for seed... a mere 50 miles or so from the Pacific Ocean. One of my favorite breads is called Oregon Grains and 95% of the ingredients are from Oregon, including grain from the Willamette Valley.
 
Woody, those lab results are invalid because the collection jar was sitting on top of an old van so you did not collect pure rainwater. The rainwater was contaminated by whatever splashed from the top of the van into the jar, in what must have been fairly heavy rain at times to accumulate .42 inches in a 24 hour period. I don't think Jay is saying that you're being deceptive or lying, but you did use sloppy methodology that doesn't even come close to the quality of sampling method used in the tests you're comparing your results to.

Do you really think test results from a sample contaminated by whatever was on top of the van are actually representative of pure rainwater? If so you're just lying to yourself

And I do have quite a bit of experience with sample collecting and testing so I recognize poor methodology when I see it.

It's too bad that with hundreds of "chemtrail" samples that have been taken, no standard protocol was ever established, and there are some who label theselves as genius level scientists among the group. It is almost criminal for someone like Woody and there are hundreds like him, to be taken advantage of by not developing a knowledge base which could have been built on and which could have led to some progress.

It has been nearly a year since a fairly well done experiment was done in Maui. They found nothing out of the ordinary, and no correlation of sample results with alleged "chemtrails". Nothing about this study ever made it into the general knowledge base. It was deliberately covered up in order to maintain the appearance that Maui had become a hot bed of chemtrails activism. Turned out the ony one who was getting a hot bed was Michael J. Murphy who had several expense paid trips back and forth. There was never any "Blue Skies Ordinance" introduced to "Ban Geoengineering". Nothing. All lies and coverups of lies.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/337-Debunked-Geoengineering-over-Maui-Hawaii
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All elements were slightly elevated for drinking water purposes, but not outside acceptable parameters, except magnesium for our location. They are spiking to levels of the era of acid rain, and magnesium increases ph concentrations. Calcium and Magnesium require a fine balance and altering them even slightly can affect the crops yields. This is why you find wheat, barely, maize and sugar beets in our areas, also know a the bread belt that includes a large part of Asia, low concentrations and good soil content.

Actually, according to your Extension Service, your soils are not that sensitive. Magnesium is a limiting nutrient if not in sufficient supply.


Most of the Aglime quarried in Minnesota contains both calcium and magnesium. Both of these nutrients are essential for crop production. Calcium requirements of crops are low and Minnesota soils contain ample amounts of this nutrient. There are some who believe that, when lime is needed, only calcitic lime should be used.

This belief originates from a concept which suggests that there is an ideal ratio of calcium to magnesium in soils and any deviation from this ratio will cause problems with crop production. Several field trials have been conducted to test the validity of this concept. The results are clear—the ratio of calcium to magnesium in soils has not had any effect on crop yield in the northern Corn Belt. Wisconsin researchers, for example, varied the ratio of calcium to magnesium from 2 to 8 and found no effect on the yield of alfalfa grown on a sandy soil and a silt loam soil.

The calcium to magnesium ratio is not important in Minnesota soils. However, the supply of magnesium can affect production. Magnesium will be needed in a fertilizer program if the soil test for magnesium is low. The use of dolomitic lime is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways to add magnesium to soils.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC5957.html
 
We use 50 mm for license plate identification at about 100 feet, way too small.

Like I said, you are confusing units.

mm refers to focal length, the actual magnification varies based on the size of the film or sensor, but is usually given in terms of 35mm (film, not focal length) equivalent.

x refers to a multiplier of the shortest focal length of the lens. The Canon powershot SX50 has a 50x lens which is 24-1200mm (1200 = 24mm x 50)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009B0MZ1...iveASIN=B009B0MZ1M&adid=1D0ZY9P2TJERM270K1WB&
Experience the difference that the ultra-zooming power of the PowerShot SX50 HS's 24mm Wide-Angle 50x Optical Zoom lens can make on your everyday shooting. The extraordinary focal length of 4.3–215.0mm (35mm film equivalent: 24–1200mm)
Content from External Source
So 50x is more than fine here, as it's 1200mm.
 
To be fair you can't actually see the engines. However the contrail pattern looks EXACTLY like a 4-engine contrail pattern. There's no way that's a two engined plane.

I see two slight bumps on the forward edge of each wing, directly in front of each trail.

Edit.. ah, consensus reached a while back. To be fair, I see the two on one wing and am extrapolating to the other.
 
Could you be mistaking fuselage-mounted engines with tanks?

Woody, this was my first thought after reading your description. Did the aircraft match either of these? The first is a Learjet, the middle an A-10, the one on the right is an MD-80

Learjet_40_planform[1].jpg6104809606_feaca12d0e_z[1].jpgimagesCANB30BB.jpg

If none of these aircraft match what you saw and you maintain that they were indeed external tanks, how much capacity (volume) would you estimate each tank to be?
 
Like I said, you are confusing units.

mm refers to focal length, the actual magnification varies based on the size of the film or sensor, but is usually given in terms of 35mm (film, not focal length) equivalent.

x refers to a multiplier of the shortest focal length of the lens. The Canon powershot SX50 has a 50x lens which is 24-1200mm (1200 = 24mm x 50)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009B0MZ1...iveASIN=B009B0MZ1M&adid=1D0ZY9P2TJERM270K1WB&
Experience the difference that the ultra-zooming power of the PowerShot SX50 HS's 24mm Wide-Angle 50x Optical Zoom lens can make on your everyday shooting. The extraordinary focal length of 4.3–215.0mm (35mm film equivalent: 24–1200mm)
Content from External Source
So 50x is more than fine here, as it's 1200mm.

Mick, as you may have some concepts of mm lens when it comes to photos, you lack the understanding of my field. Originally all camera's were 1" format, the format is vital because its the size of the pickup of the tube, chips today. So here is how they work, a 1" camera w/12mm lens = 2/3" camera w/6mm lens= a 1/2" camera w/4mm lens and today the standard is 1/3" with a 2.9mm lens. All these will give you a 1 :: 1 view meaning 1 foot wide view at 1 feet away, double the lens and you get a standard 2 :: 1 variable meaning you will view 1 foot wide at 2 feet in distance. A lens from a camera can be used on a smaller format, but can not work the other way around without a black ring around the outer part of the picture, viewing area of the chip is larger than the lens opening, but in doing so the magnification alters meaning that a 12mm lens for a 1" camera can be used on a 1/2 camera giving it the same effect as a 24mm lens on a 1" format. Understand? CCTV is not so simple.
 
Woody, this was my first thought after reading your description. Did the aircraft match either of these? The first is a Learjet, the middle an A-10, the one on the right is an MD-80

Learjet_40_planform[1].jpg6104809606_feaca12d0e_z[1].jpgimagesCANB30BB.jpg

If none of these aircraft match what you saw and you maintain that they were indeed external tanks, how much capacity (volume) would you estimate each tank to be?
I was in the USMC, wasn't no warthog or auxiliary fuel tanks, I know what they look like, saw them all the time. The tanks were orange, 2 jets on the wings, one possibly in the tail. The tanks reminded me of the tanks on a welder but much larger. If you take the lower left photo and attach the engines to the wings and replace them with 2 large tanks on the side like CO2 or Oxygen tanks, one on the left side and one on the right would be closest, but the forward part of the fuselage wasn't that long, shorter distance from the front part of the wings to the front of the plane.
 
I was in the USMC, wasn't no warthog or auxiliary fuel tanks, I know what they look like, saw them all the time. The tanks were orange, 2 jets on the wings, one possibly in the tail. The tanks reminded me of the tanks on a welder but much larger. If you take the lower left photo and attach the engines to the wings and replace them with 2 large tanks on the side like CO2 or Oxygen tanks, one on the left side and one on the right would be closest, but the forward part of the fuselage wasn't that long, shorter distance from the front part of the wings to the front of the plane.

Interesting. Without seeing a photo or having a consensus agreement of what it was that you saw, I can tell you I am highly skeptical of fuselage mounted tanks, simply for the weight and balance issue that would create. Also, it doesn't make sense for creating contrail-sized trails either, as it has been established that no airplane in existence has the capacity to carry enough volume of payload to leave a trail of that size and volume for the distances being claimed, let alone a couple of relatively small externally mounted tanks. Still would be interested to see a photo of the aircraft if you are ever able to get a picture of it.
 
I was in the USMC, wasn't no warthog or auxiliary fuel tanks, I know what they look like, saw them all the time. The tanks were orange, 2 jets on the wings, one possibly in the tail. The tanks reminded me of the tanks on a welder but much larger. If you take the lower left photo and attach the engines to the wings and replace them with 2 large tanks on the side like CO2 or Oxygen tanks, one on the left side and one on the right would be closest, but the forward part of the fuselage wasn't that long, shorter distance from the front part of the wings to the front of the plane.

Woody, overall I've seen such a lack of attention to detail on your part in this thread that I just can't take your word about anything. For all I know, you could be mistaking flap track fairings for wing mounted engines or something. Like when you say "originally all cameras were 1" format" but that statement only applies to TV camera tubes circa 1950's, doesn't it? Not to mention that video is so much lower quality than stills I don't get why people use video to capture images of airplanes anyways.
 
I agree, fuselage mounted tanks either fore or aft of the wings would never work unless the volume was very small. Too many balance issues.
 
I agree, fuselage mounted tanks either fore or aft of the wings would never work unless the volume was very small. Too many balance issues.

If they were going to mount large external tanks they'd be either single belly or symmetric wing. I can't recall any side-mounted external tanks ever. Forgetting weight and balance how about drag?

I'd need to see a picture of some sort.
 
Yeah, fuse mounted would also cause huge drag issues where the tanks joined the fuse. Dealing with the area rule would be a disaster. Then there's the issue of flying around an aircraft that has huge visible tanks on the outside. I thought this was a secret mission. I guess the massive white lines are probably secret too? I'm convicted it's a program designed to identify conspiracy theorists.
 
Yeah, fuse mounted would also cause huge drag issues where the tanks joined the fuse. Dealing with the area rule would be a disaster. Then there's the issue of flying around an aircraft that has huge visible tanks on the outside. I thought this was a secret mission. I guess the massive white lines are probably secret too? I'm convicted it's a program designed to identify conspiracy theorists.

ROFLMAO!

But seriously, can you imagine that beeayatch at V2?

And the tanks were orange???? As well, the underwing pods seen may actually have been anti-shock bodies that do closely resemble engine nacelles. (See Convair 990, B-747 etc.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...px-Antishock_body_on_left_wing_of_747-100.jpg
 
Mick, as you may have some concepts of mm lens when it comes to photos, you lack the understanding of my field. Originally all camera's were 1" format, the format is vital because its the size of the pickup of the tube, chips today. So here is how they work, a 1" camera w/12mm lens = 2/3" camera w/6mm lens= a 1/2" camera w/4mm lens and today the standard is 1/3" with a 2.9mm lens. All these will give you a 1 :: 1 view meaning 1 foot wide view at 1 feet away, double the lens and you get a standard 2 :: 1 variable meaning you will view 1 foot wide at 2 feet in distance. A lens from a camera can be used on a smaller format, but can not work the other way around without a black ring around the outer part of the picture, viewing area of the chip is larger than the lens opening, but in doing so the magnification alters meaning that a 12mm lens for a 1" camera can be used on a 1/2 camera giving it the same effect as a 24mm lens on a 1" format. Understand? CCTV is not so simple.

I'm pretty familiar with focal length and sensor size. I spent about 20 years dealing with the math involved in projection. In 3D graphics you have a virtual focal length and sensor size. It's not really that complicated.



But the point here is that the Canon SX50 at 50x is quite adequate for taking close ups of planes leaving trails. Cheap too. That's why I was questioning your cost of 8000.
 
Last edited:
Water vapor evaporates. Metals and salts do not as a general rule evaporate. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_saltwater_evaporate It is unlikely that a significant amount of magnesium originates from storm formation over the ocean. Maybe a little comes from sea foam driven by the wind, but most comes from dust.
I have to disagree, Steve. Marine aerosols make up the largest portion of aerosols, mainly because the earth is 2/3 covered with water. They mostly come from bubble bursts. Yes,farther from coastal areas they will be less.

sea salt.jpg

here is a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_salt_aerosol
 
Back
Top