Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
I recognise several articles, in particular, the 'whistleblower' airline mechanic etc. In fact I would be interested in info4's comments on this. I believe there has been some speculation about the authenticity of this guy's story....
Check these out:
Original Text (reprinted in Uncensored)
[url]http://www.rbnlive.com/mechanic.html [/url]
Some Discussion:
[url]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/morecontrails.htm [/url]
[Administrator]
melody,
my thoughts exactly. the articles were reprinted right off the internet, mostly from global research canada. i too found the new zealand content to be seriously lacking.
regarding the honey trucks/sprayers fitted for commercial airliners, fwiw: this i do believe. the debunkers best argument is that he is anonymous and that he would "want" to be exposed for his heroics? a dead hero walking? unless he's suicidal, he's playing his cards right. one thing that mankind has constructed to near perfection is the ability to kill one another extremely quickly, silently, and with stealth precision often with little or no physical evidence or contrived autopsy reports.
for example, the great prime minister norman kirk did not die suddenly of any pre-existing heart condition. he was murdered by the trilateralists. kirk was a true leader and "hero" of the new zealand people, probably the last one new zealand had. in 1974, he personally constructed an anti-monopoly bill and petroleum amendment that snubbed the takeover of the great south basin oil reserve off stewart island (yes, it's still there and is estimated to contain over 1 billion barrels of oil, plus more natural gas than twenty new zealands for twenty years could ever use).
kirk wanted to give new zealand back to new zealand. needless to say, he ended up a dead "non-anymous" hero suffering under a lethal dose of sodium morphate. like lbj's reversal of jfk's anti-fed "us currency" bill, prime minister rowling's first order of duty was to reverse the anti-monopoly and petroleum amendments. funny that.
sorry for the digression, but if anyone is interested, the license for this huge reserve has been farmed out to an australian company called magellan petroleum ltd. (talk about carpetbagging nz!)
so, back to anonymity. i can see why anonymity is desired.
fwiw: i do believe that the commercial airline industry is complicit in project cloverleaf. i have seen vapor trails coming off the trailing edges (not the wing tips) of air new zealand 737s at low altitude landing at christchurch airport. normal condensation or some small leaks? will never know for sure.
who is the ex-pilot here? info4? would blue/white smoke coming from the trailing edges (conceivably where those pipets allude to emanate) be normal observation when 100 feet above the ground and landing in dry conditions?
fwiw: i believe that this project comprises both military aircraft (the bizarre and anomalous trails) and commercial craft (normal jet routes). but imho, only a few planes in a commercial airline fleet contain the sprayers.
Rang my bookshop for a copy of Uncensored, but they didn't have it, so cannot confirm if the pictures are mine.
Some years ago, I had contact with Jonathan Eisen. His name was given to me by Ian Wishart who had an article in his Investigate about chemtrails and I had rung him. I believe I sent Jonathan pictures of the trails out here, but that would have been some years ago and I didn't have the digitel then.
Interesting
Gary Cook has been here to the Sanctuary and is a lovely man. I look forward to his contributions in the new mag. Have spoken to Ross Wiseman on the phone and Martin Dutre', both very interested in NZ pre-history.
Hugs Betty
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:35 pm Post Subject:
I'm pretty sure they are yours Betty... Most likely Jonathon would have had them scanned, as he is the editor of the Uncensored magazine. I remembered you mentioning you had sent photographs to him and the skyline and jetty is identical to many of the shots we scanned from your collection following our visit down there.
You might find that the supermarket in Picton stocks it (we bought our copy at a Foodtown).
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:50 pm Post Subject:
Hieronymous Bosch wrote:
the debunkers best argument is that he is anonymous and that he would "want" to be exposed for his heroics? a dead hero walking? unless he's suicidal, he's playing his cards right.
I'm not suggesting that just because it's an anonymous report that it it suspicious. I take your point about anonymity. Having said that, anyone can write an anonymous report and because their identity cannot be verified, they cannot, strictly speaking, be regarded as a whistleblower.
I think it's the fact that a number of airline people, with a knowledge of how the engineers and mechanics work on the aircraft, have doubted the logistics in the guy's account, that casts a shadow over this.
I also think that the comments regarding the absence of correct aviation terminology in the mechanic's account holds water. From our experience, these guys do indeed use aviation terms in normal conversation, even when talking to lay people, it just comes naturally to them. For example, they will most often say aircraft not plane, or as the comments suggest, refer to it by the model. It's often the turn of phrase that will give someone away - not what they say, but how they say it or write it. This could possibly be quite significant.
By the way, info4 is ex aircraft mechanic (and ex air force), not ex pilot.
No I am not a pilot, as I have said earlier. My trade with the Air Force was as an Aircraft Engineer.
In regard to the vapour from the trailing edges, I think you could rule out the leak theory, if it was a leak of that size then the airplane would be in big trouble.
I have personally seen vapour trails off trailing edges many times before on aircraft that are taking off and landing, it is actually something that gives me a buzz when I have seen it. This is quite normal and doesn't happen all the time. I don't know what the conditions need to be but I have seen it even as recently as a couple of weeks ago.
For aircraft from AirNZ and the NZ Air Force being actively used to spray will take some hard evidence before I go along with that theory.
I haven't seen a 737 close up for some time but with regards to other aircraft I have never seen anything that remotely looks like a delivery system and I take care to look for these things now.
I have worked around airplanes all of my adult life and I feel I am able to comment on most things from an engineering point of view but I will say that I don't get to see all things so who knows what else is happening other places (i.e. overseas Air Force and airlines)
With the NZ Air Force ones I guess there is a possibility ( I haven't been in the Air Force for more than 10 years) but still I would find that amazing if this was there as I know from my time before, once again there was nothing that remotely looked like a spraying delivery system.
I will be sure to keep my eyes open as I do suspect something is happening but by who and how is still a mystery.
Hiero, you see a lot of photos on your Internet travels, can you see if you can post a few for us to look at?
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:08 pm Post Subject:
crikey! i had a huge response to this thread, with all sorts of links, etc. but the system logged me out and all the data was lost...
anyway,
i'll cut to the chase:
1. melody, not your assertion, but your link from the "american patriot friends" network.. which oddly sounds like a agent provacateur group.. (wonder if condi rice or john ashcroft are founding members :) this respondent (john) attempts to debunk the story because this guy should be a patriot hero.. and expose himself... otherwise it's worthless. i don't buy that.
2. info4, great information. but how can you deny these!? (all pictures taken by commercial airline pilots)
airliner
airliner. qantas or air canada, i reckon
certainly looks like its being spread across the wing from trailing edges?
now, come on! i've even flown this one..lufthansa. easy peasy!
i'm a commercial aviation nut..and used to watch airliners take off and land at lax for hours on end.. if this is not american airlines... like that ad.. i'll eat my hat!
unless the DOD has hired karen walker to decorate their planes, this one definitely looks more like an airliner than an "all white" airforce one.
other reports make you wonder.. all these aviation fuel contamination reports (australia 2000) plus other areas... even air new zealand refused to fill up in sydney several weeks ago.. even at the expense of flying extra planes into christchurch to send them on their way. pilots said the fuel was contaminated "again".. again? what are the aussie seven sisters doing? don't they know how to add the welsbach chemicals properly? bad transnationals!
a friend in the family flies for qantas new zealand. i once asked him about fuels..he said that up until several years ago..aviation fuel was straw colored.. and now it comes in pinks and blues.. hmm.. wonder why they changed a classic?
sorry, but my mind is made up.. airlines.. (not all)... and commercial aircraft of those airlines (not all of those either) are helping the nato military boys commit aerosol crimes against humanity.
My comment about can you find some photos was directed towards the delivery systems the "mechanic" was referring to rather than the trails themselves.
There is no doubt that some if not all of the photos are commercial airliners.
I have wondered about the fuel additive one for quite a while now and it does seem to be quite feasible.
I would like some clarification though on a few things:-
In reference to the pilot who flys for Qantas NZ, is that the Qantas NZ that ceased to exist some years ago (they bought/used the old Ansett Airlines BAE146's) or is this the Qantas aircraft that fly within NZ today?
Also interested in the comments about the fuel - I used to have to carry out fuel checks on C130 Hercules many times for water contamination. This involved using a large "pogo stick" with a jar at the bottom of it pushed up into a special valve under the surface of the wing and siphoning a small amount of fuel off. On inspection you can see the water in the bottom as it is heavier than fuel. I mention this because the fuel was very clear, not opaque even but clear as water.
I am interested in the comments about the colouring of the fuel as I have never heard or seen this and I have seen lots of aircraft fuel over the years. I will ask around at work and make contact with some engineers over at Qantas.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:49 pm Post Subject:
Hi Hiero,
Some interesting points in this thread, good stuff. :-)
Quote:
fwiw: i do believe that the commercial airline industry is complicit in project cloverleaf.
Yes, wittingly or unwittingly though? We have done enough research to show that there is no straight or clear answer to that. As stated elsewhere in this forum, the predictive scientific model associated with the formation of persistent trails 'stopped working' in the late 90's to the confusion of scientists involved in the study of such things. After some scrambling it was concluded that the reason PTs were forming in conditions that the Schmidt-Applemann criterion said that they could not, was due to the cleaner exhausts of modern jet engines. Many scientists disagreed with this conclusion, based as it was on rather flimsy research, but it remains the public justification.
Our opinion at this time is that the only thing that can reasonably explain the anomalous observations of PTs forming where they shouldn't by commercial aircraft is that the fuel must have been modified. We do not believe that Aluminium or Barium has been added to the fuel, but rather that some substance has been incorporated that creates large quantities of aerosols in the jet exhaust. Without going too deeply into the subject at this time (it's huge), it is our contention that the reason for this modification is to create a 'smokescreen' to mask the real operations. But as to the nature of the additives, we have not as yet discovered a 'smoking gun'. If it was as simple as pink and blue fuel, that would be great, but it seems to be of a nature that experienced ground crew and engineers have not noticed anything out of the ordinary. Whatever it is, it would also seem that not all planes use it - the discrepancy of PTs and no PTs from planes virtually flying alongside. Must be somehow random.
Quote:
i have seen vapor trails coming off the trailing edges (not the wing tips) of air new zealand 737s at low altitude landing at christchurch airport. normal condensation or some small leaks? will never know for sure.
This seems to be due to the flaps being extended and down thus creating low pressure zones which in turn create condensation-trails, like a cloud-chamber effect. I found this Q and A exchange on a website:
Quote:
Question: I read with great interest your explanation (FAQs 20, Q 16) about those trails of white vapor coming from the tip of the wings. Sometimes I notice it coming from under the flaps or beneath other parts of the wings as well from an aircraft in flight or about to land. Your explanation that it was due to air vortices, came as a surprise to me.
Answer: The second type of contrail is caused by the sudden drop in pressure in the center of the wing-tip vortices (twisting rotating eddies). They are usually seen at lower altitude, especially during the take-off run or after take off in moist air condition. Remember, almost all air has some moisture in them. Now, how contrails are formed in these circumstances? The reduced pressure in the center of the vortices increases the relative humidity by reducing the maximum amount of water the air can hold. If the relative humidity gets above 100 %, the extra moisture condenses out as droplets. Such contrails often have a wavy appearance.
Found some Air NZ or Qantas pics that sort of portray this effect, not great, but at least give an indication:
A 757 about to touch down in fog and light rain
A Qantas 747-400 touches down in Los Angeles
747-400 climbs into a heavy Los Angeles overcast sky
Quote:
other reports make you wonder.. all these aviation fuel contamination reports (australia 2000) plus other areas... even air new zealand refused to fill up in sydney several weeks ago.. even at the expense of flying extra planes into christchurch to send them on their way. pilots said the fuel was contaminated "again".. again? what are the aussie seven sisters doing? don't they know how to add the welsbach chemicals properly? bad transnationals!
Yes, there's something in these reports, it seems to us that the changes to the fuel has made it more susceptible to biological contamination in particular.
Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to absolutely prove anything at all in regard to the Chemtrail issue. All we can do is to hopefully eventually be able to prove the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – at least to the jury of the New Zealand public... :?
I find the 2nd, 5th and 6th photos above to be questionable as to whether they are anomalous trails. Having seen a few contrails recently it is hard to discern from these photographs if they are persistent contrails or chemtrails as their full length isn't shown. Also if you refer to the Weather Wars website, which is where these photos have been taken from, there is a note on the 6th photograph as follows:
Quote:
What a brown contrail! The low sun angle just amplifies the sandy color.
I will post more as additional images are sent to me.
Somewhat deceiving to the issue is that this colour is actually not quite the real colour. Also it would be interesting to know what airline the plane is from and if it is actually white as well....
I photographed a contrail over Auckland a few months ago (which is in the photo gallery) of a contrail that looked pink because of the morning sunrise and light of day.
Another thing that occurred to me as well is that most people only see contrails from the ground but these photos are taken up close by pilots. The trails would have to look bigger at that proximity?????
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:28 am Post Subject:
Carus wrote:
I find the 2nd, 5th and 6th photos above to be questionable as to whether they are anomalous trails. Having seen a few contrails recently it is hard to discern from these photographs if they are persistent contrails or chemtrails as their full length isn't shown. Also if you refer to the Weather Wars website, which is where these photos have been taken from, there is a note on the 6th photograph as follows:
What a brown contrail! The low sun angle just amplifies the sandy color.
I will post more as additional images are sent to me.
carus,
fair enough. but let's add the "known variables" to the observations and pictues:
1. photos taken by airline pilots. GIVEN: airline pilots have the experience to know the difference between an anomalous trail and that of a normal contrail. come on! which begs the question, why did they take these pictures? certainly not just for fun. don't buy it.
2. the lufthansa trail is interesting to me as the color of the trail, immediately proceeding the trailing edge is a bluish-green, a color that i have seen several times proceeding aircraft laying chemtrails right above my house in christchurch (especially on crystal clear days with high visibility). normal jet contrails that i've witnessed are white. if it's water condensation, these colors would not be present. full stop.
also, what do you mean about the brown contrail not being its "true" color? please explain. that appears to me to be carbon black, rich fuel burn aerosol. carbon black has been used by the military for 50 years as cloud condensation nuclei for seeding.
why so much resistance to the idea of airlines being complicit? i'm just interested in the psychology here... is it because if we assume the companies we use, invest in, have friends and family work for, or are national icons are complicit, our entire world falls apart? do we reject the notion simply on emotive grounds? after knowing that hughes aircraft developed welsbach material patents for jet engines in 1994, and that aviation fuels have been less than consistent in quality and color since about the turn of the century..plus photographic and observational evidence indicates routine spraying along commercial airline vectors.. all this trumped by emotive reasons?
the commercial flight vector, according to qantas pilot from dunedin to wellington directly passes over south brighton.. i have now mapped the times of the flights to and from dunedin to christchurch and the observed correlation of the aircraft directly above my house and the trails being laid are 100%.
air new zealand flights from dunedin to christchurch:
on a regular basis, i have witnessed these flights at these times. on the balance, more times than not, "persistent contrails" or chemtrails, if you wish, are observed being laid by these craft in the exact positions where they should be.
now, many debunkers will say, "see! chemtrails are a hoax. commercial flights are just laying contrails..and that's what you observe. normal contrails. end of story. so, you can resolve this dilemma without accepting that some commercial flights are contributing to "persistent contrails" or chemtrails. imho, welsbach materials are being used by commercial aircraft, and the barium polymer fiber materials are being used by the military. the military can still use the commercial chemtrails as markers for scalar interference observed from space. this may explain the routine observance by many of us here, of private and military craft "circling" or observing chemtrails right after plumes begin to spread and persist. just a theory.
let's look at our own observations. the highest concentration of observable cts in new zealand appear to be over the center of the country: christchurch/marlborough, west coast of north island/wanganui/levin. continual spraying north south lines. this is the heaviest commercial corridor in new zealand: christchurch over inland kaikoura, over marlborough sounds, west of wellington, up over wanganui, raglan then to auckland. northern bound flights to fiji (from auckland) would pass over northland (whangarei area).
now, if you were the military, and you are developing and or looking for scalar weather modification technologies using contrail markers, wouldn't a wise strategy be to include some commercial flights in these heavy corridors to lay down the markers? i mean, they're already paid for by the public.. plus, you pay the airlines some hush money, and everyone is happy as a spring lamb.
then, the DOD, for the high tech development aspects of the program, runs its own show.. spraying paralell lines, x patterns, circles, anomalous flight paths, like the owaka to haast vector, etc.
this might explain why areas such as poor betty in arapawa, get hammered by chemtrails almost on a continual basis. she just happens to be in the area where most of the commercial flights (auckland to south island vectors) and military flight operations (waihopai/levin base) coincide. just a theory.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but urge everyone to use an open mind, and heart and dig deep into this issue, before writing it off. remember, this program is GLOBAL. can just military spray craft be responsible for all of this? i find it most difficult to believe. persistent contrails have been observed even in india, china, brazil, venezuela, korea, japan, etc.
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:38 am Post Subject:
info4 wrote:
I would like some clarification though on a few things:-
In reference to the pilot who flys for Qantas NZ, is that the Qantas NZ that ceased to exist some years ago (they bought/used the old Ansett Airlines BAE146's) or is this the Qantas aircraft that fly within NZ today?
I am interested in the comments about the colouring of the fuel as I have never heard or seen this and I have seen lots of aircraft fuel over the years. I will ask around at work and make contact with some engineers over at Qantas.
info4,
he is a pilot for qantas new zealand. it's the service that flies regional routes (737s) in new zealand, plus skips over to brisbane/sydney/melbourne.
color. i had asked this several months ago. at that time, he said that most fuels were straw colored to clear (imagined like a very weak ginger ale) and for the last several years (no specifics given) that depending on the airport, fuel depot, the fuel can be either pink or blue in color, while some (don't know if he said most or some) are still straw colored to clear.
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:49 am Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
Our opinion at this time is that the only thing that can reasonably explain the anomalous observations of PTs forming where they shouldn't by commercial aircraft is that the fuel must have been modified. We do not believe that Aluminium or Barium has been added to the fuel, but rather that some substance has been incorporated that creates large quantities of aerosols in the jet exhaust.
john, i too agree with the fuel modification theory. but, do believe metal oxides (welsbach materials) aluminum and barium, according the hughes patent, could be used in the fuels:
thanks for pictures of the flap condensation vortices. as indicated, this was strange phenomenon, which begged for more explanation. both you and info4 have provided sufficient evidence to indicate that this is a natural, albeit, rare, low level landing phenomenon.
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Christchurch
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:45 pm Post Subject:
some more info on jet-a fuel issues:
CRC Group on Synthetic Jet Fuels For Aviation
As background, there is need for a process to get acceptance for new types of jet fuels. This work was in response to Sasol’s request to deliver jet fuel made from coal in Johanesburg, South Africa. A process will be needed as more types of synthetic jet fuels are produced. An investigator presented an overview of the production scheme for the Sasol semi-synthetic Jet A-1. He pointed out that the starting point was really synthesis gas (CO+H2) that Sasol produces by coal gasification, but could also be obtained from natural gas or other hydrocarbon feedstock. He then reviewed the concerns that were addressed in the approval process. These concerns represented a consensus and recognized that there are many properties and characteristics that are not fully addressed in the fuel specifications. The properties and characteristics for the Sasol semi-synthetic fuel were either better than or virtually indistinguishable from the petroleum-derived Jet A-1 base fuel.
A representative from Shell presented information on their production of waxes and liquids from natural gas in Malaysia. The product contains no aromatics or non-hydrocarbon contaminants; it has excellent smoke point and stability but very poor lubricity. However, the product is considered to be too expensive to be used as jet fuel and will be used to produce solvents.
air bp. notice how they stress the dyed color for avgas, but have no data in the data sheet for jet-a fuels. these have always been clear to near clear. but, according to the first page, are clear to amber. that's quite a range. is it just me that finds something fishy with all of this?
finally, weather wars pilot's view... i know same original source story, but here it is:
Jet-A fuel is now found to be clear, pale blue and pale reddish to pink in color. Uncontaminated Jet-A is clear to straw yellow in color. The possibility exists that this additive been uncovered previously.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:53 pm Post Subject:
Hiero,
thanks for your great contributions on this thread, this is exactly what we need on Mysterious NZ, some passionate points of view, together with good research, applied to the Chemtrail issue.
I'm very keen to respond and discuss the points you raise in great detail, today however, we are inundated with work, even an on-location photographic job tonight... :? Just a couple of points in the meantime:
Quote:
john, i too agree with the fuel modification theory. but, do believe metal oxides (welsbach materials) aluminum and barium, according the hughes patent, could be used in the fuels:
This was our theory also, the Aluminium and Barium in the fuel, that is, have read tech info that maintains that it's feasible as it would cause no harm to the engine other than a slight polishing effect on the rotors. Now we are not certain about anything to do with fuel additives. We have conducted fairly extensive research into procedures in the airline engineering facilities, especially ANZ. It does seem that fuel analysis is frequent and exact. We have not heard a whisper of anomalous substances other than certain microbiologicals that are a definite concern to them. Alum and Barium present in the fuel would be cause for much comment. Now of course, it could be said that the results can be kept secret from the engineering staff, this we believe to be unlikely, human nature being what it is.
A quote from your post to Carus in this thread:
Quote:
why so much resistance to the idea of airlines being complicit? i'm just interested in the psychology here... is it because if we assume the companies we use, invest in, have friends and family work for, or are national icons are complicit, our entire world falls apart? do we reject the notion simply on emotive grounds? after knowing that hughes aircraft developed welsbach material patents for jet engines in 1994, and that aviation fuels have been less than consistent in quality and color since about the turn of the century..plus photographic and observational evidence indicates routine spraying along commercial airline vectors.. all this trumped by emotive reasons?
You probably would apply this comment to me also. :( And I'll answer here as if you had, apologies if I've got the 'wrong end of the stick'.
I personally have had a great deal of experience with ANZ and Auckland airport personnel over the years, From ground crew, catering staff, engineers, air traffic controllers (wish I knew them now) 747 captains, plus Mel and I have even had a close friendship with an individual at near the top of the tree of upper echelon management. Because of this I have a better than average understanding of the, shall we say, political or 'class' structure within ANZ in particular. For example we know that Masonic influence is considerable within that company. That is probably not particularly pertinent to our discussion here, however, the disposition of the engineering class towards management is. Not to say they are enemies as such, though close to that.
So if an agreement to allow aircraft to be used for the purposes of the elite, NATO, or US military or whoever, had been made, then there would have been some hint of a leak to those on the ground, especially if alterations to the aircraft engineering or fuel were involved. And there doesn't seem to have been, to our knowledge, which I am the first to acknowledge is not absolute. Upper management would have to be complicit, together with our Government, but engineers? It is most unlikely that they would go along with that without comment or leaks.
BTW the only fuel samples we’ve seen are clear. Not to say that other colours don't exist but we haven't seen them as yet, but are on the lookout. Be good to hear Info4s comments on all of this...
We do in actuality apply the power of emotion to this question and have no particular attachment to our national airline or any other. Our emotion is expressed in a strong desire and commitment to the truth, to persisting in the search for it. There are a few things we would like to be true, such as Alum and Barium in the fuel (it would be great if this was conclusively proven, so simple), but in all honesty can not say this is so at this time and feel that the real additives are disguised as something else, some other additive within the fuel. There are many.
We believe that not all Persistent Contrails are Chemtrails. Once again we feel that the purpose of domestic and international aircraft leaving PTs is as a 'smoke screen' for the Chemtrail programme and craft other than commercial aircraft are used in the programme and mingle with them or operate at night. This is where our years of research have taken us, however we are, I assure you open to an alternative view. Facts must rule.
I've just noticed that you've put up another post about fuels, but will have to study this tomorrow, have already written much more than I intended - work now calls. :)
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:30 pm Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
We believe that not all Persistent Contrails are Chemtrails. Once again we feel that the purpose of domestic and international aircraft leaving PTs is as a 'smoke screen' for the Chemtrail programme and craft other than commercial aircraft are used in the programme and mingle with them or operate at night.
After our last trip to Matai Bay in the sunny Far North, we came to the conclusion that something about commercial aircraft had changed. After years of having holidayed in Northland, this was the first time we had ever seen one persistent contrail being left by a commercial aircraft, let alone the many, many huge ones we saw on that trip. In fact, it left us feeling just a wee bit depressed, as we began to re-examine the whole issue on this basis - feeling that 'the waters' had become a whole lot muddier.
We couldn't say that any of the aircraft we saw on that trip were anomalous, other than the fact they were leaving trails in extremely hot temperatures at what, at times, seemed very low altitudes. On more than one occasion we saw other planes follow in close succession leaving either small 'normal looking' contrails, or none at all, in the wake of a craft that had steamed through leaving a huge trail behind it.
We do know that persistent contrails aren't new - they have been around for awhile. But now, they are much, much more common than they ever were, say in the 80's and before. We also know that due to the much more commonplace nature of these large persistent contrails left by commercial aircraft, many people are now regarding them as normal and forget that they used to be rare. In fact, in many parts of the country, you may be hard pressed to even get people to take an interest in them.
If you were going to engage in a clandestine chemtrail spraying programme, that by necessity, had to be done in the open, what better way to hide it than to make your operations look like something commonplace?! I think that the psychology has been well thought out indeed.
It is reasonable to imagine that much of the PT activity along the flight corridors are the kind designed to condition observers into regarding these things as normal. Where you have the technologies like the grey beams occurring, I don't think we can imagine that the trails being left by those planes (or non-planes as the case may be) are anything like normal. Those flight corridors experiencing the heaviest contrail activity also happen to be in close proximity to some of NZ's secret/spy facilities, where real chemtrail activity could also be occurring, as required.
Nevertheless, commercial aircraft are polluting the skies with their spreading trails, whether or not any sinister substances reside within them. As we have said before, we have seen such trails spread and travel for hundreds of kms - so it's by no means a non-issue and should be of great concern. However, the case for commercial aircraft delivering the toxic additives already mentioned must still, surely, be considered to be an open question.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but urge everyone to use an open[mind, and heart and dig deep into this issue
Maybe my post came across that I am sceptical as to the existence of PT's and chemtrails. Not so, in fact I have been known to readily believe some things of an anomalous nature without question. :lol: Part of being able to properly understand chemtrails and many other things in life is to be able to discern and question without rushing to conclusions - something that can take time and practice. You have obviously spent a lot of time and research (as well as having direct experience) into chemtrails. At times a lot of the information is beyond my experience and understanding particularly from the scientific angle.
However, I think some simple observations from a layman's perspective are important and to remember that things that are obvious to some are not to others.
I'm afraid I still find the 6th picture of the airliner still questionable as it is so close in colour to the trail. Again, it would be interesting to know what airline it is to verify the actual colour of it. Plus the comment refers to the sandy colour being amplified by the low sun angle - hence the note about my observation of a contrail at sunrise. Also I am reminded of how easy it is to enhance and change pictures in programs like Photoshop. Who knows :!:
To back up what Hiero said, I have verified that Qantas NZ is a currently operating airline (must admit I was a little confused here).
I did some searching on the net last night and found pictures of aircraft (they where all 737-300's) and they were referred to as Qantas NZ.
I still wasn't sure of this as the airliner had just "QANTAS" on the side of the fuselage but while I was talking to a bloke at work somebody else overheard my conversation and informed me it was called QANTAS NZ as we invoice them under this name.
I guess this is to identify them as a separate company for invoicing, ordering and so forth.
I've talked to several guys at work, including one engineer with over 30 years experience in the industry who has had the opportunity to travel the world as a Senior Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME). I've personally known these people for 15 years at least and some of the guys I've worked with when I was in the Air Force - I've know these guys some twenty years or more.
None of them have ever heard of fuel colour in jet fuel. A couple of the older guys did recall a colour additive in Avgas but not in normal commercial jet fuel as of today. I have personally never heard of anybody talk about it within the circles that I travel and this has included in the past being involved in maintenance checks myself where I've observed the fuel and I can say it's as clear as water. In fact (as I've said earlier) when we test for evidence of water in the fuel, we use various methods to ensure what we are looking at is actually fuel and not a jar full of water. That's how clear it is.
Engineers talk at smoko times about all manner of things - job related sometimes and other times not. It's my belief that coloured fuel would be such an unusual thing to come across that guys would talk about it. We're just a bunch of people that love working on aircraft.
I can't speak for management about how prevalent the Masonic influence is within the company. We talk about it at times how we think certain people are Masons and we jokingly refer to them as the Air NZ Yacht Squadron. But regardless of any hidden agendas that might exist within management or senior management, we are the ones who still climb around in fuel tanks, take fuel samples, refuel and defuel aircraft and I can't see the guys playing any part in these possible hidden agendas.
I also wrote an email to a guy I know within the Engineering Department of Qantas. He's stationed at the Heavy Maintenance facility in Sydney and has about 30 years experience as well - he has recently moved into the lower levels of management. He replied to me on Friday and said he had personally never heard of it himself (he's avionics trade). But he also asked a friend of his who's a senior aircraft engineer and he hadn't heard of it either.
I've worked with this gentleman previously and have no reason to believe that this information is false.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:57 pm Post Subject:
Info4,
I was hoping you'd get involved in this thread and give us some inside info. :-)
Your post would indicate that, as yet, there is no evidence for coloured jet fuel in NZ, I'm sure you'll continue your investigation as opportunity and appropriateness dictate. But what about the waxy additive referred to in the article referred to in Hiero's post above: 'A Pilots View' by Scott Stevens. Is there any way you can check on this? An extract from the article:
Quote:
I recently had an enlightening conversation with an ex-Air Force pilot who is now flying freight between the US West Coast and Europe. He feels that many pilots may not know that they fly with fuel that is mixed with this waxy additive that appears to enhance the size, duration, consistency, and opacity of the aircrafts exhaust contrail. Jet-A fuel is now found to be clear, pale blue and pale reddish to pink in color. Uncontaminated Jet-A is clear to straw yellow in color. The possibility exists that this additive been uncovered previously. http://www.oas.gov/oassafty/alerts/Alert99-01.pdf Our pilot says it depends on where you fuel-up as to what color you fuel get will be.
I've been researching this coloured fuel issue for about a week on and off and have to say that there is very little that I've been able to find so far to support the contention expressed above.
The only mention of coloured jet fuel is in association with pipeline or container contamination:
Quote:
pink fuel
Since 1994, the IRS has required refiners to dye diesel fuel intended for off-road use, which is not taxable, to prevent its being sold, illegally since not taxed, for on-road use. The fuel is colored by the addition of 11 ppm of a red dye, enough to turn the diesel fuel cherry red, but apparently not enough to damage diesel engines.
Many pipelines used to transport diesel fuel are also used to transport jet fuel. Tests run by GE have shown that 0.5 ppm of the dye in jet fuel can begin to gum up fuel nozzles. There are also concerns that the dye could cause uneven heating, hence turbine blade cracking and catastrophic failure of engines.
The fuel left behind after pink diesel flows through a pipeline can easily cause visible contamination of jet fuel: one part per billion of the dye is enough to give a pink tinge to jet fuel, which is normally clear or white-wine colored. In the absence of better information about what levels of the dye are safe, all the major engine manufacturers (GE, PW, RR) have advised airlines not to use fuel that is visibly pink.
Evidently (read carefully above), the levels at which jet fuel is pink are well below the levels that have been demonstrated to be dangerous. The FAA is unconcerned -- unsurprising, given its decades-long record of irresponsibility. The aviation industry has established its own pink fuel committee to investigate the possible hazards.
And here, with an indication that coloured fuel would be rejected:
Quote:
The FAA was also concerned that the IRS would require dye concentrations high enough to cause a risk that dye from diesel fuel would bleed into jet fuel as it moved through pipelines. This, in turn, posed potential safety risks for commercial jets. Some airlines informed their suppliers that they would reject delivery of any jet fuel with even a hint of dye present, which promised to cause delays at airports.
Jet fuel has a distinctive kerosene scent and is oily to the touch when rubbed between fingers. Jet fuel is clear or straw colored, although it may appear dyed when mixed in a tank containing AVGAS. When a few drops of AVGAS are placed upon white paper, they evaporate quickly and leave just a trace of dye. In comparison, jet fuel is slower to evaporate and leaves an oily smudge.
I am beginning to think that Scott Stevens has accepted some disinformation as the truth. Would pilots of commercial jets be aware of what coloured fuel their planes carry? Would not colour contaminated fuel be rejected by airlines, by ground crew? But we'll keep looking...
Hi John
Just a quick comment on the pilot knowing the colour
I will chase up the pilot I have been talking to recently
My guess would be the pilot could be aware of this from his walk around/preflight inspection.
This would be by talking to the refueller (the guy who is fuelling the aircraft) or maybe he could get a fuel check done on the spot.
Or via feedback from the engineer responsible for his aircraft.
If I saw a colour change you can be sure I would inform my supervisor at the least
