Debunked: Why In The World Are They Spraying - Wingtip Fuel Dump Photo

[Mick]

Michael J. Murphy, the producer of "Why In The World Are They Spraying" posted this image on his Facebook page on July 5th, 2012. He also added this comment to a shared copy of the image:

Content from external source:

This is a screen shot of a graphic in our soon to be release film Why in the World are They Spraying?

He claims it's a "chemtrail", but it's just a plane (probably a Boeing 747) dumping fuel. We can tell this because the location and shape of the trails looks exactly like those in known photos and videos of 747s dumping fuel.




It's a shame that most of the chemtrail photos are taken with low resolution cameras. It would take very little money, just a few hundred dollars, to be able to take photos like the one on the right below (source):



Here's a video of a similar incident, quite possibly the same one inaccurately used by Michael J. Murphy:

Content from external source:

Delta 747- Flight 275- lost Engine #2 after takeoff DTW today [video dated Oct 23 2011]. Flew big ovals just West of Ann Arbor at 7,000ft dumping fuel. Crew sounded busy but calm. Asked ATC for normal approach after safe landing weight was achieved. Impressive sight of 747 with vapor trails at only 7,000ft.

And another from a closer perspective:


And here's a full list of things that are not contrails, but are also not chemtrails:
http://contrailscience.com/things-th...or-chemtrails/

[scombrid]

Not only does it look exactly like known fuel dumps, it looks exactly unlike the persistent contrails that form primarily aft of the engines that appear in 99.9% of "chemtrail" photos and videos.

[Mick]

Yes, it's quite interesting that photos of things that hardly every happen are taken as evidence of things that supposedly happen all the time. Like Asperatus Undulatus clouds are supposedly evidence of total HAARP control of the weather, and yet I've only ever seen them once. Most people have never seen them, just the dramatic photos.

Likewise most people have never seen a fuel dump.

[Jay Reynolds]

Reference: ATC jettison procedures-
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...C/atc0904.html

I doubt that any date, time, and location will be given by Murphy.
Fuel jettisoning is probably reported and wouldn't be so hard to look up.
That would take all the 'mystery' out of it, which isn't in Murphy & Co's. interest.

Just like Murphy has known for over a year that his colleague G. Edward Griffin has already found that ordinary jet airliners can make contrails no different than what they are calling "chemtrails". That sort of knowledge has been actively covered up by the leadership within the "chemtrail" people, bad for the conspiracy business to solve any open issues.....

[Mick]

One thing you see a lot with the fuel dump being mistaken for a "chemtrail" is that they somehow think the plane is flying under 2000 feet. They have no real idea of what a 747 at 2000 feet looks like. The DFW Delta 737 flight in the video above is at 7,000 feet, and they still got a clearer shot than MJM's picture.

[Mick]

Interesting Audio of QF74 out of SFO having to dump fuel and return after an engine failure. It's at FL 200 (20,000 feet), and it's directed to the RAINS hold point



Here's some discussion:
http://theaviationist.com/tag/qf74/

[Jay Reynolds]

I see Michael J. Murphy is using a photoshopped picture to advertise his new movie. Using such an image which is clearly different from what his followers are seeing and obviously faked is a sign that he is unable to maintain his claims without faking stuff up.

[Jay Reynolds]

It's a shame that most of the chemtrail photos are taken with low resolution cameras. It would take very little money, just a few hundred dollars, to be able to take photos like the one on the right below (source):

Mick is correct above. Getting an accurate ID of planes at altitude is entirely possible using good photographic equipment.

This was brought out to G. Edward Griffin, Michael J. Murphy and Francis Mangels in an e-mail over a year ago:

From: Jay Reynolds <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: I was your caller yesterday

Hobbyists, notably in Europe, have demonstrated that you can identify aircraft at high altitude:
http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25
Here is an example of how to do it:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail.htm
Here is an example of the equipment:
http://www.skystef.be/scope-setup.htm
As you can see here, sufficient resolution is available to see the aircraft identification numbers:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail4.htm
This page shows US Air Force jets up to 38,000 ft in which the tail numbers are visible:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail/unite...-air-force.htm

Despite his claims that he is interested in solving the conundrum of "chemtrails", over one year has passed since these people were given information which could eliminate all doubt about the exact identity of the planes they are seeing.

This would be invaluable information, and would not be ignorable if properly documented.
Instead, Murphy &Co. have denied this information to their followers.
They have, in effect, been engaging in a cover up by doing so.

The only logical explanation for this is that they do not want to know.

This is an example of such a photo, taken at ground level:

[PCWilliams]

Reference: ATC jettison procedures-
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...C/atc0904.html

I doubt that any date, time, and location will be given by Murphy.
Fuel jettisoning is probably reported and wouldn't be so hard to look up.
That would take all the 'mystery' out of it, which isn't in Murphy & Co's. interest.

Just like Murphy has known for over a year that his colleague G. Edward Griffin has already found that ordinary jet airliners can make contrails no different than what they are calling "chemtrails". That sort of knowledge has been actively covered up by the leadership within the "chemtrail" people, bad for the conspiracy business to solve any open issues.....

The reasons for a fuel dump, like an engine outage, would be reported in FAA logs. When i was controlling, such things as an engine outage is reported and logged. It becomes a permanent part of the days records.

Except in emergency situations, we (air traffic controllers) had to increase the vertical separation minimum UNDER the aircraft dumping fuel from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet. Additionally, when an aircraft dumps fuel, we had to broadcast the location, direction and altitude of the aircraft dumping fuel. The broadcast was done on the air traffic control frequency for all aircraft to hear. We had to continue broadcasting this information, in intervals, until the fuel dumping was terminated.

See FAA Order 7110.65, Chapter 9, Section 4 (Fuel Dumping).

Bottom line is, if these chemmies wanted to truly investigate whether an aircraft overhead was dumping fuel they could do a FOIA for FAA written records for that day, FAA audio records or just monitor the air traffic control frequency while they're watching the aircraft in question. Fuel dumping leaves a paper, audio and data trail longer than a chemtrail.

[Unregistered]

The fact that these pictures may not be an exact representation of the chemtrail agenda is an interesting observation, but inconsequential when taken in context with the larger picture. Of course, accurate pictures of spraying should be easy to attain. The important thing to not lose sight of is the accompanying research regarding air quality, soil sampling, etc. This research should not be ignored as it is a clear indicator that there ARE drastic changes happening in the air we breath and in the soil in which our food is grown. Perhaps chemtrails are not the cause, yet there should be a high urgency placed on determining the exact cause of these changes and to put a stop them.

[Mick]

The important thing to not lose sight of is the accompanying research regarding air quality, soil sampling, etc. This research should not be ignored as it is a clear indicator that there ARE drastic changes happening in the air we breath and in the soil in which our food is grown.

Could you be more specific? Maybe provide a link to the studies that show this?

[Jay Reynolds]

This research should not be ignored as it is a clear indicator that there ARE drastic changes happening in the air we breath and in the soil in which our food is grown.

This "research" you speak of has been looked at and found lacking. here is what the "researchers" don't want to address, they are fully aware of the deficiencies in what they say, and are hiding this information from you. Real research requires re-evaluation when contradictory information is received. Read these and see the fallacies, then hold their feet to the fire and make them accountable because this is where they fail:

Monsanto's aluminum resistant GMO's:

http://metabunk.org/threads/341-Debu...and-Chemtrails

Michael Murphy's most recent desperations:
http://metabunk.org/threads/71-Micha...nt-desperation

Aluminum composition of rain and snow:
http://metabunk.org/threads/135-Chem...-rain-and-snow

Aluminum oxide in Zeolite:
http://metabunk.org/threads/241-Anth...llular-Defense

Debunked- Why in the World Are They Spraying:
http://metabunk.org/threads/300-Debu...-They-Spraying

Regarding my request for Lab Test Results:
http://metabunk.org/threads/267-Prop...agreement-quot

The claims of Francis Mangels:
http://metabunk.org/threads/154-The-...al-Examination

The claims of Dane Wigington:
http://metabunk.org/threads/282-Dane-Wigington-s-speech

Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests:
http://metabunk.org/threads/137-Shas...Aluminum-Tests

Normal levels of barium in soil and water:
http://metabunk.org/threads/247-What...Soil-and-Water

How did barium get into chemtrails?:
http://metabunk.org/threads/210-How-...nto-chemtrails

The Claims of Michael J. Murphy- A Factual Examination
http://metabunk.org/threads/172-The-...al-Examination

A Conversation with Dr. Lenny Thyme of WITWATS:
http://metabunk.org/threads/249-A-Co...-Spraying-quot

Debunked- What In The World Are They Spraying:
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-t...they-spraying/

[scombrid]

The fact that these pictures may not be an exact representation of the chemtrail agenda is an interesting observation, but inconsequential when taken in context with the larger picture.

Offered as evidence of "the chemical agenda" the fact that these pictures are not actual "spray" is consequential. These pictures are offered alongside equally fallacious soil and water "research" to "prove" that the trails left by aircraft in certain conditions are a "chemical agenda". That the evidence is incorrect and/or fake in most cases undermines the whole theory.

This research should not be ignored as it is a clear indicator that there ARE drastic changes happening in the air we breath and in the soil in which our food is grown. Perhaps chemtrails are not the cause, yet there should be a high urgency placed on determining the exact cause of these changes and to put a stop them.

Chasing sham "research" is a distraction from real pollution problems that need to be addressed. It may even serve to undermine environmental causes when the conspiracy theorists repeatedly try to take over public hearings and harangue officials with bogus evidence. Those officials are going to start to see any activist in a negative light.

Or perhaps you have research that has yet to be shared by the "What in the World Are They Spraying" folks and company? Be curious to see it if you have it.

[Mick]

And despite this photo being fully explained, he's just posted it again today:

http://www.facebook.com/WhatintheWor...03300596362449

[Mick]

And now he's deleted my comment and banned me. It lasted about 10 minutes.

[Jay Reynolds]

This shows that Michael J. Murphy knows he was wrong. He can't counter any of what you said and acted as the Thought Police, sent you down the Memory Hole. He is clearly bent on maintaining a false reality amongst his followers.

[Jay Reynolds]

This video at Harold Saive's chemtrailsplanet youtube channel is likely to get trotted out. As usual with Saive's videos, the provenance of the video and what it actually portrays isn't mentioned. He
What do you think it is?

[Danny55]

There is also a new Facebook page for "Why in the world are they spraying?"

http://www.facebook.com/#!/WhyInTheWorldAreTheySpraying

And also a website

http://www.whyintheworldaretheyspraying.com/ through which you can send a question to them.

[MikeC]

This video at Harold Saive's chemtrailsplanet youtube channel is likely to get trotted out. As usual with Saive's videos, the provenance of the video and what it actually portrays isn't mentioned. He
What do you think it is?

I'm pretty sure it is video from the aerial test of wake vortices covered in this article at Airdisaster.com - although I haven't found the video itself the description is spot on.

Edit: Found it:

[Mick]

That video reminds me of this:



Which I repost as A) it's amazing, and B) it has some wingtip contrails, which fuel dumps are sometimes mistaken for.

(let me know if this video does not work, YouTube says "not available in all countries". Might need to repost with different music)

[Unregistered]

...So if all of these "chemtrails" are planes dumping fuel shouldn't we still be concerned? I'm seeing loads of these types of trails everyday and I'm pretty sure dumping tons of jet fuel in the sky every day can't be a good thing for the environment can it?

Also I thought Jet fuel was very expensive. Why would pilots just be dumping it?

[Mick]

...So if all of these "chemtrails" are planes dumping fuel shouldn't we still be concerned? I'm seeing loads of these types of trails everyday and I'm pretty sure dumping tons of jet fuel in the sky every day can't be a good thing for the environment can it?

Also I thought Jet fuel was very expensive. Why would pilots just be dumping it?

They are not all planes dumping fuel. Fuel dumps are very rare, and probably account for far less than one in ten thousand visible trails. They also look very different to contrails (which is what most "chemtrails" actually are).

Planes dump fuel when they have to land early, usually in an emergency situation.

[MikeC]

Fuel gets dumped because aircraft have a maximum landing weight that their landing gear can handle, but the takeoff weight of large long range aircraftwith heavy fuel loads can be many thousands of pounds greater than that.

So if they have to land shortly after takeoff for any reason (usually an emergency) they need to dump fuel in order to get below the maximum landing weight.

[captfitch]

Fuel is expensive yes, but it is actually less expensive to dump it than fly around for ten hours which will burn it but also add ten hours to the airframe and engines which costs something per hour. Additionally, an overweight landing inspection may cost tens of thousands of dollars and take the aircraft off line for days.

Or, Why are we coming back? If there is any chance that the plane could be damaged in the landing I would want to be as light as possible with the least amount of flammable stuff in the wings.

[ottomaddick]

Was there any information as the the nature of the fuel dump on the continental 777? The reason I ask is fuel dumping isn't permitted below 5000' unless an emergency exists. This plane is clearly on final and the ONLY reason to dump fuel would be to get the plane to or below maximum landing gross weight. For those that may not know, the maximum take-off weight and max landing weight are different. The impact of a heavy plane on the gear is much greater on the landing. Without more information, I would suspect that this plane had a problem shortly after t/o and had to return to an airport before it burned off enough fuel and had to dump it.

[ottomaddick]

I too have been banned from a FB page labeled Chemtrail Research after suggesting that facts and logic should be considered in their reporting. In fact just for entertainment, I created my own page. ChemTrail Myths. But funny how the truth remains illusive to those that need it the most.

[Mick]

Was there any information as the the nature of the fuel dump on the continental 777? The reason I ask is fuel dumping isn't permitted below 5000' unless an emergency exists. This plane is clearly on final and the ONLY reason to dump fuel would be to get the plane to or below maximum landing gross weight. For those that may not know, the maximum take-off weight and max landing weight are different. The impact of a heavy plane on the gear is much greater on the landing. Without more information, I would suspect that this plane had a problem shortly after t/o and had to return to an airport before it burned off enough fuel and had to dump it.

This one?

Content from external source:

A Continental Airlines flight bound for Tokyo made an emergency landing at Newark Liberty International Airport today about an hour after takeoff, following what officials have called a hydraulic problem.Continental Flight 9, which departed Newark at 11:25 a.m., landed back at the airport at 12:15 p.m., said Julie King, a Continental spokeswoman. None of the 275 passengers or 16 crew members was hurt. The plane had been bound for Narita International Airport in Tokyo.