Re: CS>OT-Chemtrails & micoplasma (V101 #550)

[Ode Coyote]

At 01:22 PM 6/6/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Ode Coyote wrote:
>
>> In every single photo presented..without exception..., the characteristics
>> of condensing vapor was present where there was an invisible phase just
>> after the supposed nozzles. This cannot happen with a direct liquid spray
>> where the densest portion of the spray would be directly at the nozzle and
>> getting less dense as distance from the nozzle increased.
>
>Sure you can. You are forgetting the resolution of the photgraph. The liquid as
>it leaves the nossel is thin and almost clear until the turbulance breaks it up
>into fine particles, which then appear as a white mist.
>
>This is right in line with what I would expect.
>
>Also I have watched these planes at low altitude. The stream comes from
>nossles, which are not where the engines are usually. Later they did seem to
>move the nossels to behind the engines, but early on, the mist was almost never
>aligned with the engines. A 2 engine plane would have 1 or 3 or 4 trails, and a
>4 engine plane would often have 1 or 2 trails, usually both on the same side of
>the plane. If you use binoculars you can see an almost transparent stream
>leaving the nossle which breaks up into a mist 20 to 50 or so feet behind the
>plane. This cannot be captured with a camera without shooting through a
>telescope or other magnifying device because of the problem that the stream is
>not only nearly clear (or at least it appear so, maybe because it is so thin),
>but is below the resolution of the camera.
>
>I have seen photos which are quite possibly contrails as well, but then we know
>those exist.
>
>This photo shows no gap from the back of the wing to the appearance of the
>trail, but the trail goes from transparent to white, as I have seen with
>binoculars. http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/Philip5.jpg
#### You're right, this photo is of such low resoulion that no conclusion at all can be drawn from it and the position of the engines is hard to make out, however, it appears that the trail starts at the leading edge of the airfoil at the tail section.>


>This photo show planes which are only putting the trail out on one side of the
>plane. I have seen this many times. How can the humidity be high enough to
>cause a trail on one side of the plane and not on the other? And even if it
>were, why would the trail from the side that is comes from be able to grow into
>the low humidity side? http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/5-15con2.jpg
#### Right hand photos
Top. A bit unusual that the treail would be uneven but not all that rare. Differing atmospheric conditions often have very sharp boundaries. After all, clouds often have very sharp definition in the sky. What did the trail look like further down the line?
Bottom:
Quite normal to see this. The trail is directly behind the engines being mixed with cooler air by tailsection turbulence. It is not at all unusual to see a contrail form hundreds of feet behind an aircraft.
>
>Also, how can a plane cut off its engines and make a complete U turn before
>turning on the engines back on without falling. I have seen this done probably
>30 or more times over the last two years. They often cross overhead, and when
>they reach the boundry of the city the trail disappears, the plane makes a U
>turn, then when it comes back over the city again, the trail starts again. This
>is usually repeated 5 to 10 times before the plane cuts off its engines
>(according to your theory) or spray and moves on out of sight.
### Cities are notorious for being 10 to 20 deg hotter or cooler than surrounding areas. They absorb [heat sink] and reflect heat quite well and create a rising hot air column over head or sinking cool air column in the AM. If it was early morning, the air over the city could be cooler than the surrounding area...hotter in the evening.
One of the major impossibilities is that spraying at altitude directly over a city makes it impossible to hit it unless the air is absolutely still for several hours.
It's hard enough to hit a field with pesticide at low levels.
>
>This photo shows two chemtrails on one side of the plane, and either a contrail
>or a partially stopped up nossel on the other side, which does not appear as
>quickly as the other side, nor does it appear as full.
>http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/markpa1.jpg
## There does appear to be something wrong with this airplane. Perhaps a protrusion on the tail wing [forget what that's called] splitting the exhaust stream?, perhaps a faulty vectoring flap on the rear of an engine? Perhaps a bit of wind shear?
But the contrails ARE directly behind the engines.
>
>This photo shows a 4 nossles spaced unevenly on the wings. Engines would be
>spaced evenly. http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/mikestlou1.jpg
### What I see is 4 engines on a swept wing and the contrails forming precicely relative to the positions of the engines. The plane also seems to be banking into a turn a little giving a very slight spiral effect.

>
>Here is another image where the trails are not behind the engines.
>http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/PurpleCrow/nchem13pc.jpg
>### How on earth can you say where the engines are in this photo? Judging by the contrail, I'd say there were 4 engines on a swept wing and the contrail IS directly behind them...but the engines themselves cannot be made out at all.

>
>This picture show a 4 engine plane, with one trail coming from the tail.
>Absolutely none coming from the engines at all. How can you explain it? Also
>there is no gap from the nossel to the appearance of the mist
>http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/SprayTrail6.jpg
## Ahh! This one does appear to be dumping something. Now, what is it dumping and why...fuel, water, toilet tank?, whos airplane is it and where is it? It it near a "target"? Could it be a firefighting plane that decided it's load was not needed and too heavy to land with easily?
All this photo indicates is that airplanes sometimes do off load various substances while in the air....hopefully not over populated areas. That's no secret or conspiracy.
>
>And here the plane is again with the trail turned off a few minutes later
>http://www.contrailconnection.com/images/SprayTrail12.jpg
### Obviously it cannot off load forever.
>
>Why does the mist NEVER dissipate, even at low humidity, eventually reaching the
>ground?I have seen this many times as well. Why does the mist sometimes burn
>when it comes in contact with ones skin eyes and nose, which everyone in my
>family have experienced several times.
### How can you make a connection between burning eyes/skin and a mist that doesn't dissipate when that mist [ observed at altitude]..if it ever hits ground...will do so hundreds of miles from you where you can't see it? Even spraying a vaporous substance at a mere thousand feet that doesn't dissipate or quickly "fall" out of the sky makes hitting a target very difficult and direct visual connections unreliable.
If I walk through a brier patch and climb a barbed wire fence and discover scratches on my legs even minutes later on...how do I know where any particular scratch came from ? I can't know, but I can make assumptions...and forget about the cat.

Why does the mist cause standing water
>to display what appears to be oil on the sufrace of the water when it settles on
>a bowl of water?
## Where did you observe that effect? A smoking car can do that. Oil vapors in the immediate surrounding air are not all that uncommon. Various mosquito sprays have a petroleum carrier. Your neighbor could have used a herbicide with a petroleum carrier.
A dirty running diesel several blocks away could be responsible..and again, how can a connection be made between that effect and a con/chem trail at altitude...even a fairly low altitude?
>
>None of these can be answered by assuming it comes from the engines.

A correct
>answer must meet all the facts, not just some of them.
## Exactly, but all the presented events are more easily answered by the mundane if not the somewhat unusual.
The ONLY way to get the 'real' answers is to follow a spraying airplane and get direct samples...then, and in the same manner...determine what percentage of the airplanes are releasing agents to get an idea of how wide spread it is in any given area. Maybe even photographing the nozzels [with the planes ID numbers], canvass a large number of airplanes in many locations and taking samples from them would do something at least a little better than what's been promoted.
To my knowledge, this has not been done even though it would probably be cheaper than running TV commercials and the airplanes are 'right there' to be sampled. It would be MUCH easier than catching a UFO in flight.

Ground samples simply will not do in our contaminated society. Anything you look for will probably be found.
BTW, it's been suggested and , at least, partially proven that the poles are a collection point for airborne contaminants making landfall. That atmospheric stuff goes a LONG distance.
Ken
>
>Marshall
>
>
>
>
>--
>The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
>
>To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:
>silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com
>with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.
>
>To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
>Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
>List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
>
>