I wouldn't go by the lowest temps that have been happening in recent years. I think thats where part of the problem is with the USDA zones. They only used part of their data. Although they do have a reason behind it, I still think that for the areas that do have more data they should have just used them anyway. Thats too small of data to be very accurate in my opnion and do not take into account if they have been recording a warming or cooling trend. And if thats the case are they likely to continue? And what about record cold winters and how often they will play out? Its hard to say. But what I like to do is look at as much info as I can and take the average of all data collected about each years low in an area. I tend to think it is more accurate and gives a better picture of whats going on and what to expect. The USDA is just one tool or a guide to help you out.It may have its erros. But at least it narrows down the list and keeps those that don't know so much about gardening from wasting money on things that will never have a chance.(although that doesn't stop people like me from zone pushing or trying anyway. lol)It was never meant to be set in stone. Each year is different and so is each area. Best ways to truely understand your zone/climate is trial and error. As well as looking around and see what other people are growing long term. But I am down for a better system. Anyone else? lol Unfortunatley I don't think any system will ever truely be accurate. Theres just too much to consider other than temps. Youn have soil, elevation, moisture, health of plant and list goes on. And not to mention each local micro-climate... - US_Marine

Got me curious about contrails (vapor trails) I read (not an expert). They mainly occur at very high altitudes when humidity is over 60%, temps are subzero and the condensation is triggered when the water produced from combustion both freezes and comes in contact with other particulates that resulted from the combustion . I never liked the term chem trail but it is..... in a way accurate? In addition, Hydrocarbon jet fuels main products from combustion are water and co2. I was shocked to read that one gallon of this fuel burned can create 8.5 kg or over 16 pounds of co2!! I then read that an air bus may use somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000 gallons in a flight from NY to LA. A 747 can burn a gallon per second. 4000X8.5=34,000kg of co2 for one flight. Its no wonder things just keep getting stranger and stranger with the weather. I don't believe everything I read so now I'm looking at some crazy equations to see if this is really the case. Now look what you've done to me. I come seeking a chile sanctuary and I'm doing math Sheeeeesh!! Ha ha. ........while looking up the chemical composition of jet fuel for my calculations, I found this. He did the math for me!! Yes! He explains it all way better. https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/tag/kerosene/ dj This post was edited by djoy on Thu, Aug 21, 14 at 3:45

Well, as kind of a public service announcement, there is good news on the camera front. Apparently it realingns itself. I turned if off and on probably a dozen times yesterday after the drop, and it kept having the shadow. But, gave it a try to get a little shot that popped up a little before sunrise this morning, and had this result Still a little shadow in the far upprer corner, but not too bad. It may never be quite the same, but, I think it will be ok if it keeps going like that. (And, fwiw, the jet contrail was even a more vivid red to the naked eye.) Thanks for all the info and imput.

Can you see Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean a Submarine Captain.......... .............. saying "OOPs wrong button! Why do we have that stupid button there anyway?". or On the phone with the Commander and Chief "I'm sorry Mr. President, I didn't know Sailor Phillips was colorblind when I told him to push the blue button." Seriously though.......... I've seen a lot of launches missiles and rockets and this was a rocket/missile. I did not see anything that looked like it had "altered" course as the guy Pike said "The object could not have been a rocket because it appeared to alter its course." Sure it did we believe you. Liz said it will be interesting to see if someone comes up w/ some sort of trajectory and we can trace it back. ~ From the report tracing it back the launch came from an area about 35 miles off the coast of Los Angeles north of Catalina Island I'm more interested to see/know where it went! I think this one One expert called it an optical illusion. "It's an airplane that is heading toward the camera and the contrail is illuminated by the setting sun," said John Pike, director of the U.S.-based security analyst group globalsecurity.org. is the biggest laugh yet and how stupid do the PTBs think we are to even suggest it? Swamp gas, a swarm of bugs, a flock of migrating seagulls, optical illusion, skip reflections of a spotlight off the clouds. Sure we believe what ever were told. LIL