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
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:49 am Post Subject: About those black beams...
I call them beams because Ive seen one that was most certainly a beam. It was witnessed by my girlfriend also and a French backpacker named Fabien.
It was seen over Nelson in December 2004 during the afternoon.
It was running straight through a long straight chemtrail that was broken overhead, the break in the trail was maybe 2km long at the most, it is hard to judge the distances by sight but there was a definate break of blue sky for a length in the trail overhead.
The beam was just slightly wider than the trail and was clearly visible running through the break of blue sky in the chemtrail, it was a near black colour. The 3 of us stood there looking for a moment and then exchanged looks and briefly discussed what we were seeing and it just switched off/disappeared/completely vanished right before us.
It was an extraordinary sight not forgotton by myself or my partner.
So I can safely say that mystery has not been solved.
Further more I am confident more detailed photographs of this phenomena will come out that will verify our sightings of this thing. I have not yet scored a pic of this thing but wish I had on this day.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:28 am Post Subject:
Those pictures show the phenomena fairly well. On the day I witnessed this over Nelson the sky was not hazy from chemspray, they had only just started spraying trails and to the naked eye the "beam" was more defined and a little darker.
The fact that the sky was clear when 3 of us witnessed it is proof enough for me it was no shadow. You cant get a shadow off blue sky or thin air.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:39 am Post Subject:
The 'beams' we have seen are just like the ones in your photos, and have been in cloudless clear blue sky and in both the cases, the sun was basically in front of the planes, not behind them.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:54 am Post Subject:
You can see the plane, contrail and beam do not occur against a backdrop of cloud or haze, even though there is some cloud nearby:
http://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=25&pos=2
I have seen other examples where the contrail is quite obviously producing a shadow cast on cloud cover behind, like a sort of drop shadow effect. Anyone who has seen the genuine black beam phenomenon knows it is quite different to that.
When ever (if ever) the sun, the contrail and the observer (that is you and your camera) are all in the same 2-dimensional plane in space, the contrail will cast a shadow that will appear to you to be an extension of either end of the contrail. It does not matter if the aeroplane is moving towards or away from the sun or you.
Do you recall when you took those photos where the contrail was in relation to the sun? The contrail went right through or very near the sun, didn't it, meaning that the sun, the contrail and you were all in the same 2-dimensional plane. That is why you saw the shadow. The shadow defines the 2-d plane. It's like a crepuscular ray in reverse. Instead of the sun shining through a hole (in stratocumulus usually), it is shining everywhere else except in the shadow cast by the contrail.
If you are not in the same 2-d plane with the contrail and the sun, you won't see any "beam", but you may see the shadow cast on the ground if the surface is suitable and you have a high enough vantage point, like on a hill/mountain, another aeroplane (even the one making the contrail), or a satellite.
The first video cited by elevate over in UFOs is a pretty good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IZUfszhK7o
You get a sun shot with the contrails almost across the disk, then the camera pans along the contrail... and there! two[i/] "beams"! Thanks, elevate!
It's not really science, but here's some. Why do you think the sky is blue? Because the atmosphere scatters light in all directions, more so at the blue end of the visible light spectrum. If it did not, the sky would be black, like was for Neil Armstrong et al on the moon, or at night when there is no light to be scattered. (The red end of the spectrum is not scattered so much, so at sunrise and sunset you will see red colours in the general direction of old Sol. The higher refraction of red light at a low incidence angle in the atmosphere also contributes to the redness.)
The relevance to the "beams"? That part of the sky looks dark because there is relatively little light getting to there, so it's not scattering from there, it looks darker - it's in the shadow of the contrail! It's all pretty simple really... when you [i]think about it for a little while, calmly, logically.
Remember also that you are looking up; an evolutionarily usual direction to be looking for danger or food, or any thing else. I raised this in another post somewhere when discussing cloud forms with Carus.
Do some experiments with a straight stick (the contrail) in a smokey room (the atmosphere) with a single light bulb (old Sol). You will be amazed to be making your own "beam"... right there in the kitchen/lounge/garage! Remember, your eye has to be in the same 2-d plane as the light and the stick to see it, otherwise you won't.
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Wellington, NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:39 am Post Subject:
Hector, if the black beams are this 'reverse craptacular rays' then what on earth is in these contrails that blocks out the sun to such a degree?
Doesn't sound very good for you health hmm, thick clouds that spread out like they do (and we do see them, a quick visit to the photo gallery will prove that).
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:51 am Post Subject:
Where do you get all this bollocks from Hector, do you make it up as a "spoof"? Mate if it was simple your explaination above then everyone who looked up on a regular basis would see these things all the time.
Ive been scanning the skys every day for over 4 years now observing the chemtrail operations and I have only witnessed this phenomena twice for sure.
It is a rare occurence inspite of millions around the world constantly watching the sky.
What it really is, I believe is a secret technology tied in with the secret chemtrail operation and probably a part of the "Star Wars" programme of the US military.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:04 am Post Subject:
And dont forget myself and 2 others witnessed one of these on a clear bright day "switch off" in an instant just like a light bulb goes on/off when you flick the light switch.
Your theories do nothing to explain this hector.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:36 pm Post Subject:
I think that smash's point about the rarity of such a sight is an important one. Crepuscular rays for example, are indeed a common sight, and, I would imagine, almost everyone could have attested to seeing them when viewing a sunset in particular, at some time.
Hector wrote:
Do you recall when you took those photos where the contrail was in relation to the sun? The contrail went right through or very near the sun, didn't it, meaning that the sun, the contrail and you were all in the same 2-dimensional plane.
I expected this response from you. Because for there to be any remote chance of the line being a shadow, the contrail has to cross the sun or be very near it.
Of course we noticed where the sun was in relation to the contrail, in fact as commercial photographers, we happen to very aware of things like light, sun, and shadows. You may notice in my post above I mentioned that the sun was basicially in front of the planes and therefore the contrail as well.
We have the metadata in the photo that confirms the time, an exact location from Google Earth and a software program that documents the exact position of the sun from that particular day and time. The plane was travelling on a vector of 20 degrees true, the sun was at approx 343 degrees true from our own location, leaving an angle differential of 37 degrees. If there was any shadow it would have to have been to our left, not in the position of the beam.
Not only that, but many planes came through on a similar trajectory over several hours, leaving contrails (existing in the same sky at the same time) but no black beams and no shadows. Absolutely no crepuscular rays that day whatsoever.
We have looked at hundreds of photos of crepuscular rays on the net, and not one that looks anything like the black beam phenomenon.
The first black beam we saw came from the direction of approx 160 degrees. We observed the beam itself emerge from the horizon for quite some time before the contrail actually appeared over the horizon and appeared to exactly follow the beam. In a sense it was going more towards the sun.
Our photographs, maps, diagrams etc related to our experience of this occurrence, together with pictures of the various types of shadows, crepuscular beams and other people's accounts, will be published in due course. In the meantime it should be obvious even to a hardened debunker like yourself that your explanations do not hold water.
Black beams are a genuine phenomenon that in nearly four years of research we are yet to see a satisfactory explanation for.
I can tell that you (all) are becoming a little irritated by this particular argument, and for that reason I'm just about ready to drop it... until "due course" eventuates.
It was perhaps a mistake to make an association with crepuscular rays; that has only caused unnecessary confusion.
However, you said,
Quote:
The plane was travelling on a vector of 20 degrees true, the sun was at approx 343 degrees true from our own location, leaving an angle differential of 37 degrees.
Well, that is correct. Unfortunately there is not quite enough information to do the necessary calculations to fix the location of the shadow (or its 2-d plane)relative to you. Would you be so kind as to indulge me and provide the latitude and longitude (or a map grid reference, or the distance and baring from some landmark) of your location, the date and time, and somehow identify which flight route the aeroplane was on. I also need the altitude of the aeroplane, but a contrail analysis for the day and location would at least provide an estimate of the lower bound.
I would be most obliged.
Sorry to be such a pedant,
Quote:
Black beams are a genuine phenomenon that in nearly four years of research we are yet to see a satisfactory explanation for.
Actually, you may well have already seen the explanation. Perhaps your point is that you have yet to see one with which you find satisfactory.
I'll let "hardened debunker" pass. That's harsh. I have seen the label "debunker" used on other less accommodating sites and it's not pretty.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:38 pm Post Subject:
Hector wrote:
Unfortunately there is not quite enough information to do the necessary calculations to fix the location of the shadow (or its 2-d plane)relative to you
So you can make sweeping pronouncements of anyone's observations of the beam phenomenon, announcing them to be shadows, based upon very little information at all and based on your lack of direct observation (using terms like 'self evident' etc) - yet, when given information which would force you to acknowledge that these particular observations on this day and at this location cannot possibly be shadows, suddenly 'there isn't enough information?'.
In the same manner, you make sweeping pronouncements about the likelihood of contrails forming in an area, literally hundreds of kilometres away from the location you are basing your data on and say that contrails should or should not form (as in your analysis of our Far North example) - now you say that the forecasts can't be relied on because there may be "a horizontal temperature gradient between the sounding location and the flight track"...
Hector wrote:
Would you be so kind as to indulge me...
No we are not going to indulge you. There is no point. Based upon the criteria you have used to debunk these sightings and pronounce them as shadows, you have plenty of information Hector. Besides which, the calculations we have given you have been derived from grid references and flight tracks - how else do you imagine we came up the figures?
And surely you don't need any more information to figure out that if the so called 'shadow' is emerging from behind the horizon, the contrail behind it not yet even visible and the sun is virtually at the opposite position, it couldn't possibly be a shadow of any kind, no matter what 2D plane it's on. Perhaps you could do your little experiment with the light bulb :idea: for this example and take a photograph of the impossible cast shadow for us.
These are not shadows (ANY form of shadows), they are not crepuscular rays or anti-crepuscular rays, they are not distrails - they are a genuine mystery.
[Comments from Hector relevant to the current thread, copied from elsewhere]
Hector wrote:
Melody said on Wednesday (above, way above!),
"Hector wrote:
Quote:
Melody said something along these lines in a post about another matter and in another topic
https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=753
I have to contradict both of you and say that the method is not 'unreliable' and there very much is a point in doing it.
You are deftly sidestepping the point of my comment in the post you refer to. We were discussing the black beam phenomenon, not the nature of the contrails that were seen."
(Quoted quotes with the tags don't work very well.)
The previous evening in the topic referred to (About those black beams...)
Melody said (in part):
Quote:
In the same manner... - now you say that the forecasts can't be relied on because...
It is that paragraph that I was referring to with the phrase "along these lines" when I took up a defence of contrail analyses.
I said in my post immediately before that (on Tuesday):
Quote:
I'm just about ready to drop it...
and, since you refused my beg for indulgence, I did drop it, then and there... especially after smashdracs chimed in with his contribution. It would be churlish and an abuse of hospitality to continue.
Perhaps I could have made a definitive announcement, but I had already re-announced a "drop" due to the sensed irritation so I saw no need to.
We refused your request for indulgence because it was irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which was not contrails, but the black beam phenomenon, and hoped that you would continue to focus on the points in hand - the anomalous set of observations detailed in that post.
We don't buy your remark that you were dropping your comments because you think it upset a few people - that has never stopped you before and in fact, you seem, at times to have taken great pleasure in making provocative and judgemental comments about some of the individuals here. If you are going to dish out it out, you have to be prepared to take it and to see it for what it is. We don't allow these forums to degenerate into slanging matches, but we try to allow a reasonable amount of freedom of expression.
You may have also missed smashdrac's post above where he says that he feels it is valuable having a resident skeptic here and that it has inspired him to be more diligent and observant with his own reporting. We happen to share this viewpoint and value your contributions here. So if we were you, we wouldn't take his 'so there' comment too personally :-)
As professional photographers, with more than a passing knowledge of the laws of physics and navigation, as well as lighting and shadow, we know what we saw and understand the anomalous nature of the observation. Looking at the angles of the sun, the contrail and the beam, the only genuine conclusion is that we don't know what it is - given the observable facts, it is not explainable.
With regard to the black beams, the two of us, since our observations in 2003, have done our best over that four year period through our research, to arrive at the truth and to try and understand what these things are or might be. They are not explainable, other than as some secret technology for purposes unknown.
Yes, we do understand that you may think otherwise of us:
Hector wrote:
Actually, you may well have already seen the explanation. Perhaps your point is that you have yet to see one with which you find satisfactory.
We do feel you are dodging commenting on some of the aspects. We also think that you believe these things don't exist and are therefore, as a skeptic, forced to draw certain conclusions - some of which might be that:
1.) We are mistaken about what we saw
2.) We are misrepresenting what we saw or lying about it
3.) We are faking or indulging in some sort of hoax
4.) We are just naive plebs who see something in the sky and jump to all sorts of conclusions, well meaning but misguided and ignorant
5.) We are impressionable and so hungry to believe that everything is a conspiracy that we we cannot be open minded about the facts
It would be unfortunate if you were to take any of these viewpoints as we take our contributions here seriously and make our observations with great care. We would hope that you would have gathered this about us by now - our Flight Vector map being a case in point.
We prefer to taken an inquisitorial approach, rather than an adversarial one. And we would hope that you would also choose to take this on board, rather simply turn this into some sort of challenge to shoot others down.
We do our best to adopt this inquisitorial approach in our life and prefer not to take a stand on something and then simply defend it all costs. This is why that despite all the experiences we have had, we haven't published yet, even though we intended to much sooner. We have now reached a point where we are virtually at an end of the investigating it is possible for us to do. We have read every report and account we can get hold of, looked at all the attempts to explain them away,looked at every possible scenario for what it could be...
We are not going to enter the discussions of the points elevate raises because that sort of back and forth, as you must realise, is almost entirely futile. People have their views, the result of their own experiences and investigations in life. We don't personally tend to accept anything in its entirety, and are often hesitant to form strong opinions,particuarly in these areas. They are also areas for which there can be no real way of ascertaining the truth to any great degree largely because of the information that is not divulged in the pubic arena.
Back to the point. You were certain that our contrail had to have crossed or been very near to the sun in order to have any chance of explaining the beam out the front of the plane as a shadow. We came back and restated that it didn't and wasn't - giving you precise angles. You then decided to drop the conversation, just when we were getting to the nitty gritty? What's going on Hector?
This (next two paragraphs) is an outline of my (and most people's) approach here. Please bare with me... I am not trying to insult anyone in any way.
Basically it is "the scientific method". That is, one observes some phenomenon and based on the observation proposes a hypothesis that attempts to describe the nature of the phenomenon. That hypothesis may suggest some implications and directions for a search of related information... the geo-political situation, thermodynamics, air routes and scheduling, and so on.
The next step in the method is to examine, test and question the hypothesis and its implications by further observation, experimentation... push its boundaries. Based on the results of such examination, the hypothesis can be refined, and its limitations can be highlighted for focused attention.
This is, as you say, the inquisitorial approach.
In these forums, we have two, maybe more, hypotheses about the nature of the long, narrow, cloud-like things we see forming behind high-altitude aeroplanes as they traverse the sky. I am talking about contrails/chemtrails in general here, and not about beams in particular. I will come to them later.
I think what happens here is that, after a while, arguments about the merits of the two hypotheses degrade into the adversarial approach, especially when observations on new properties, and new information about the phenomenon becomes scarce and exhausted. And robust argument invites robust response.
I do appreciate smashdracs' comments about what I have contributed here, both in substance and examples of methodological rigour. I apologise for not acknowledging sooner. I was busy keeping up with elevate. The 'So there' post after Melody's was brilliant; I laughed. Excellent, we don't need to be too serious.
I don't think the label "sceptic" is particularly helpful, useful or contributes to the discussion. Outside this and similar forums (fora?) most posters here would be described as sceptics with regard to their views about the phenomena being discussed. The term could be considered a border-line judgemental comment about the subject individual.
Back to beams...
There are two hypotheses about a beam-like feature extending in front of some aeroplanes flying at high altitude. My hypothesis is that they are a shadow cast by the contrail that is forming behind the aeroplane. Melody and John's (and others') hypothesis is that these are energy beams of some kind. They both have their merits, and subscribing one or other hypothesis does not reflect in any way on the motives, politics, intelligence, or anything else of the individual. On the other hand, once proposed they (the hypotheses) can and must be subjected to examination and testing. That is the inquisitorial approach.
Now, the only experience I have of these beams is from photographs and video clips. I have not had the opportunity to directly witness the thing and make a note of all the relevant information and data to be able to test my hypothesis properly. To make any progress towards verifying my hypothesis I need to obtain some numbers to quantitatively test it.
My contribution about this so far has been necessarily limited to re-stating in clearer terms what my hypothesis is, and how some (not all) of others' observations are consistent with it. I say "not all" because I have not been given sufficient information about them to adequately test my hypothesis.
Melody and John have apparently made several direct and recorded observations of the beams so they have that advantage. They have some measurements and some qualitative observations as well. All these can be tested against either hypothesis.
I asked for the data so that I could further my testing with actual data. That has been refused, so in the absence of having any, or obtaining any of my own, I am at a block. That's what's going on. Perhaps I could position my self in a place and at a time when I could make the necessary observations and measurements, then I could present them. That would give the shadow hypothesis the impressive property of being capable of predicting where and when these beams would be visible.
One further thing. The beam hypothesis does not seem to require that the aeroplane is producing a contrail, or that there is already a contrail somewhere in the sky. The shadow hypothesis does require this. All the photographs and video clips I have seen involve an aeroplane and a contrail. I think this is why Melody insists that I am avoiding or sidestepping continuing discussion by talking about contrails and not beams. In my hypothesis the 'beam' is directly a result of the presence of the contrail, conditional on certain circumstances of the location of the observer.
Until I can obtain some complete quantitative data I am unable to materially advance my hypothesis, and so I am more or less obliged to temporarily withdraw from the discussion. I'm not avoiding anything, except perhaps repeating myself. Anyway I would prioritise any further work on beams after I have had a look at the references that elevate put up.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:15 am Post Subject:
Good post Hector. We will be tied up with things until the end of the week, but will look at posting some more data for you. We are thinking that we might also conduct some practical experiments as you suggested.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:41 am Post Subject:
Before anybody/person suggests here that "beams" from the front of jets are outside the realms of possibility I would like to prove once and for all that the truth is far from so.
See here...
A Lockheed Martin Space Systems engineer in the company’s Sunnyvale, Calif. facility inspects the Turret Ball Conformal Window on the Flight Turret Assembly for the Airborne Laser. The window is the exit for the High Energy Laser and exit and return window for the Beacon Illuminator and Tracker Illuminator lasers.
Shown here is a surrogate of the first fully-integrated flight turret ball for the Airborne Laser program, being prepared for end-to-end Beam Control/Fire Control system integrated testing at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company's Sunnyvale, Calif., campus. The Airborne Laser is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles. The Beam Control/Fire Control system will accurately point and fire the laser with sufficient energy to destroy the missile while it is still in the highly vulnerable boost phase of flight - before separation of its warheads. Photo credit: Russ Underwood, Lockheed Martin
Photos shown above can be viewed on the following website...http://www.lockheedmartin.com
Now normally I never like to "Rain on anyones party" but I think it is very important to the discussion that everyone knows that the technology to "Beam" from the front of jets is not a myth or theory.[/img]
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:46 am Post Subject:
Shown here is a surrogate of the first fully-integrated flight turret ball for the Airborne Laser program, being prepared for end-to-end Beam Control/Fire Control system integrated testing at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company's Sunnyvale, Calif., campus. The Airborne Laser is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles. The Beam Control/Fire Control system will accurately point and fire the laser with sufficient energy to destroy the missile while it is still in the highly vulnerable boost phase of flight - before separation of its warheads. Photo credit: Russ Underwood, Lockheed Martin
Thanks, smashdracs, for those photos and the link. Very impressive. Sure beats my puny, half a watt, laser-in-a-pen toy!
Quote:
Now normally I never like to "Rain on anyones party" ...
Don't worry too much about that. Perhaps I didn't emphasise enough the "refinement" part of the scientific (or inquisitorial) method/approach. The important feature of the scientific method is that it is prepared to modify, or even completely abandon, a view (hypothesis) in the light of better observations. That's happened many times in the history of science.
Anyway, the BIG laser Turret Ball on the B747-400F... more grist for the mill, as they say. Would someone like to examine the two hypotheses that we have about the cause of those shadows or beams, that are sometimes seen projecting from the front of aeroplanes, in the light of this new information/observation?
And does anyone have any ideas about the purpose or meaning of the coloured stripes on the Flight Turret Assembly? Red, black, green. What about them?
... and perhaps to indicate to someone looking from the cockpit what the alignment is, roughly. From the Coastguard Day Skipper Course I did a few years ago, red is on the left or port ("No portleft in the bottle.") side of the aeroplane/vessel, and green is on the right side. This means that the Flight Turret Assembly is shown in the photo rotated 90 degrees to the left, and so the black stripe will normally be at the bottom. That being so, and looking at the ball arrangement, it would appear that its 'normal' mode of operation would be pointing somewhere between ahead and up/left/right, but not down (relative to the longitudinal axis of the aeroplane).
But what does all this new information mean for the two hypotheses we have for the beams/shadows?
You already know the answer to that question Hector. They are merely pointing out that the technology exists to create the beams whereas you are assuming and suggesting it is a trick of the light. So why ask the question?
On the face of it, the beam technology shown in the photos does not look good for the shadow hypothesis... but wait a minute; it's a B747-400 - it has 4 big high bypass engines, which in the right conditions will form contrails. According to the shadow hypothesis, if an observer is in a favourable location, he will see a shadow that appears to be a grey beam projecting from the front of the 'plane. So the existence of this 'plane mounted laser beam technology does not discount the shadow hypothesis at all.
Now, the beam hypothesis... Whenever these beams have been seen or photographed they are described/appear grey or black and project directly in front of the 'plane. We don't know what colour the laser is in the Turret Ball; it may well be grey or black. Also, the beam has never been observed to project in any other direction than along the longitudinal axis of the 'plane. But that Turret Ball appears to be able to direct the beam in any direction at all except any sense of down or very much back. So while it would seem that beams from 'planes are a technical reality now, there is still the question of the colour of such beams and the rigidity of the direction of the alleged beams that have been observed.
Shadow hypothesis - no change.
Beam hypothesis - some questions.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:30 am Post Subject:
Those photos dont discount the possibility/probability that this technology can be mounted on any aircraft of suitable size. We cant say that they are only on such and such a jet, they could and probably are mounting them on jets different from the one pictured.
We have no proof that the technology shown above is indeed the culprit behind the blackbeams some of us have seen and photographed.
Could the "blackbeams" be the visual consequence of such a laser weapon being fired, ie is it the reaction of the air/atmosphere in the line of the laser rather than the laser itself that we are witnessing with these beams (If it is lasers that we are witnessing in this circumstance)?
As for the directional capabilities of the lasers, its fair to say that Hector is probably right in assuming they can point in more than one direction, it certainly appears they can from the photos, again though we cant prove that right now, it is an assumption.
What we can say for sure is, there are now jets up there that can beam high powered lasers from the nose of the craft.
Having personally witnessed a blackbeam/line myself I am already sure Hector is well down the wrong track with his shadow theory on this one and we now have some evidence to lend weight to the beam theory.
John and Melodys eyewitness testimony of a blackbeam over Marlborough and their assertion that the sun was in front of the plane further erodes the shadow theory.
The same goes for my sighting, there was only blue sky around, how do you get a shadow off blue sky?
What we can say for sure is, there are now jets up there that can beam high powered lasers from the nose of the craft.
Several of these 'beams' have been seen and photographed in this country that pre-date this (see the photos of the B747 above) technology. Please post the photo of just one aeroplane, any type, with this equipment installed, parked on an aerodrome apron somewhere, anywhere, in New Zealand. Just one. One!
Oh yeh; of course; it's secret. Duh!
smashdracs said:
Quote:
The fact that the sky was clear ... You cant get a shadow off blue sky or thin air.
The sky was not clear! No one is suggesting that there is a shadow off thin air. You can plainly see from the photo that there is a contrail in the sky. The sun (not in the photo) is behind the contrail which is casting a shadow, and you were lucky enough to be looking at it edge-on by your position relative to the sun and the contrail.
The dark area is a shadow because less light is being scattered from there (than elsewhere), because there is no sunlight getting there to be scattered; that part of the sky is in shadow. That's what a shadow is; where direct sunlight is being prevented from reaching by some opaque object, in this case a contrail. Why is this idea so hard for people to grasp?
It is entirely feasible that an aeroplane could be flying the reciprocal flight vector and come into view from below the horizon right in the same line (from your point of view) as the shadow. It would then appear to be projecting a 'beam'. It is even feasible that the 'beam' did not appear until after the aeroplane on the reciprocal vector did. I could be that the contrail drifted across the sun at the same time that the aeroplane came up over the horizon. Bingo! This would explain Melody and John Anderson's situation with their 'beam'.
Now, here are some cases of the beam/shadow associated with a contrail, and no aeroplane involved at all. The first is from the highway from San Diego out to Palm Desert in southern California, United Sates of America.
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/sandiegochemtrailsdarkline29nov06.shtml
Photos 1 and 2 (photo 3 is the same as photo 1) are views out the front of a vehicle along the highway.
Photo 4 shows the first view of the beam/shadow. First, notice that the contrail passes in front of the sun which is at a moderately high elevation in the top-right of the photo. The aeroplane that formed the contrail is too small to be seen in the photo, or is completely out of the scene at the time it was taken. However, the 'beam' starts well back from the end of the contrail and is thicker than the contrail. Where is the aeroplane that is projecting this 'beam'? The other important thing to notice is the 'beam' touches the ground in front of the hills in the distance. If it were a 'beam' projected along the line of the contrail, it would not touch the ground but disappear over the horizon.
The shadow, being cast by a line (the contrail) is a plane, and the observer (a camera here) is looking at the plane edge-on. In fact, the camera is in the plane of the shadow.
Photo 5 is another view from further along the highway. The caption says "another angle", but the camera is still in the plane of the shadow; it's actually the same angle. The 'beam' is still starting some way back from the end of the contrail, and still in front of the hill in the distance.
Photo 6 is another view from still further along the highway. The 'beam' is still starting some way back from the end of the contrail, and still in front of the hill in the distance.
These 3 photos are all of the same contrail shadow.
The only conclusin from these observations is that it cannot be a beam, and it must be a shadow cast by the contrail.
The first comment is by a Jason Barnett, apparently of New Zealand, and gives a reference to part 1 of several videos by secondfield of this forum. Jason draws attention to a view 1:50 into the video of a 'beam'. This is also a shadow. The sun is at a low elevation and the observer (camera) is in the same plane as the sun and this short contrail, and therefore in the same plane as the shadow. The shadow is rendered visible because we are looking at it edge-on. The aeroplane that formed the contrail is way gone, so what is projecting the 'beam'? It's a shadow.
The next comment by a Philip Gorman correctly identifies the phenomenon as a shadow and gives a good explanation. He then describes sighting of a shadow/beam instance by a trusted friend and his girlfriend. No photo, can't comment, except that it sounds like a shadow to me.
The last comment is by a Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone, who phonned it inn fromm annnothahhh plannnet.
Here is another case, again from somewhere in Unites States of America.
http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/6982/picture6qu.jpg
A large image and no caption or comment that I could find. And where is the sun? Look at the glint on the insulators. The sun is at a high elevation in the sky and a shadow is being cast by a dense part of the old contrail. The jet aeroplane is well gone. There is a black thing above the pole and against the other end of the old contrail. Who knows what that is, a bird? a bug? who cares? It has nothing whatever to do with the contrail or the shadow, and is not projecting a 'beam'.
Summary:
The shadow hypthesis only requires the presence of a contrail. An aeroplane does not have to be anywhere near. The two American cases demonstrate this.
The beam hypothesis explicitly requires an aeroplane to be actually projecting the beam. In these two American cases there is no aeroplane in such a position.
The beam hypothesis is looking shakey and needs some fixing to make it fit the observations, or needs to be discarded completely.
I don't really care either way which one survives - all I want is an hypothesis that simply explains all the observations.
April 14 2006, Good Friday, I awoke and checked the neodymium magnetic compass. The thirty centimeter pointer read 036 the highest deviation in fifteen months since the Mount Ida vortex started. Normally the nautical terms "deviation" on an iron ship is caused by the hull but with the iron poor pumice and basalt of the volcanic ridge called Mount Ida, the deflection is not ferromagnetic. I have had the compass' 000 set at true north for over two years. For ten months magnetic north drew the needle to 019 until February 2005 when the vortex grew in strength.
All of Good Friday I felt head pressure. I felt it was related to seismic pressures and the potential for an eathquake. Forty-two years earlier a 9.1 quake in Anchorage Alaska struck on a Good Friday. Midnight April 14/15 the reading on the magnetic compass was 029. The deviation had lessened by seven degrees in eighteen hours. I had talked to a number of people who had felt headaches during the day.
8:00 AM April 15 the compass read 033 a gain of four degrees in eight hours. Over the next three days the magnetic compass seesawed between 030 and 033 three times. It was as if the vortex had suffered a major magnetic earthquake with three aftershocks. As there were no earthquakes reported on TV by today April 22, maybe the vortex had alleviated seismic pressures in the crust in conjunction with a worldwide grid of vortice? Definitely I was not feeling the head pressure which I associate with earthquakes. Often I feel the head pressure two or three days before a tremor. Vortices as cosmic shock absorbers dampening earthquake activity?
On April 20 2006 at 2:00 PM PDT I had been working outside and keeping my eye on a fuzzy lenticular cloud just over the west peak of Mount Ida. It had been sitting in place for about thirty minutes. Chemtrail activity included about six trails from a single KC 135 tanker. A number of earlier trails had been laid over Mount Ida and the fuzzy lenticular cloud. Sylphs were chomping away at the trails and some of the smeared trails were being spiralled into wispy lozenge shaped clouds for transmutation.
At about 2:00 PM something caught my eye overhead. I looked up and saw a gray line cutting through the fuzzy lenticular, smeared chemtrails, and scattered small white cumulus clouds on a NNE line from the top of Mount Ida. This was the fourth DOR line I had seen since the start of chemtrail spraying in 1998. DOR is an abbreviation for Deadly Orgone. Five years ago Don Croft had determined the gray lines were made of DOR. While I looked very intently at the DOR line the KC 135 tanker laying a chemtrail flew through the fuzzy lenticular also on a NNE heading. I wish I had had a camera. The fuzzy lenticular was bisected by both a DOR line and chemtrail at the same time. The KC 135 continued to follow the DOR line from beneath and about two wing lengths to the west. The pilots would have had a clear view of the DOR line. It was as if the big plane was "bird-dogging" the DOR line. The tanker continued to follow the gray line as far as I could see through the light cloudiness.
I looked at the gray line and saw it as a cylindrical hole in both the smeared chemtrails and cumulus clouds. In the areas where it was backlighted by blue sky it appeared to be a shadow. The DOR line was moving with the clouds in a easterly direction and the gray was spreading and smearing. Within a few minutes the gray line had traveled further to the east than the minutes old chemtrail beneath it. I could no longer see a gray shadow against the blue sky and the gray blur was fading in the clouds. The new chemtrail was expanding and I could not see sylphs overhead. They had scattered. I looked back at the fuzzy lenticular and asked "inwardly" if they were troubled by the DOR line and chemtrail? The reply was, "No Problem." The chemtrail was now to the east of the fuzzy lenticular still parked above Mount Ida. The wind had carried the spew to the east but the lenticular stayed in place even though they had both occupied the same airspace earlier. The lenticular would remain in the same position for many hours and the sylphs would return to make the sky blue again.
What is the DOR line? I slept on it.
The gray shadow is air cooked into a smog of nitrous oxides by a high energy laser aboard the KC 135 tanker. The DOR line is definitely lethal. A split second blast from such a laser could cut a jet in half. With the targeting of the fuzzy lenticular it appears the weapon is being aimed at UFO and potential UFO clouds? Sylphs were never bothered by this weapon as they would clear the range as soon as the charger coils started to energize. I would suspect that most UFO would likewise scatter at any warning of a firing. The UFO in the fuzzy lenticular did not care if it was hit as the disrupter beam did not affect it.
What good is a weapon when the intended prey can easily avoid it? Is the firing on strange shaped clouds a ruse?
Is the chemtrail program a cover for a SDI boondoggle? A Maginot Line in the sky? Who is the enemy? Why was Mount Ida fuzzy lenticular a target after the manmade earthquakes did not materialize?
Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone
This talk of Sylphs has got me looking at my environment more intently...very intently 8)
