|
|
julianpenrod
Joined: 07 Mar 2002
Posts: 303
Location: west caldwell, new jersey, united states |
contrail sizes
 Fri Dec 27, 2002 5:05 am
|
 |
|
Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net
December 26, 2002
To all:
There can be many aspects to an issue and, unless you look at all of them it is likely that you will not fully understand the matter.
A crucial part of the "debunker" insistence on the putative "normalcy" of "chemtrails" is their role as one of a spectrum of legitimate contrail types. The "argument" is that contrails can persist for a wide range of times. The most often observed contrails are those that persist for, perhaps, only about five to ten seconds. But, it is suggested, contrails can last for fifteen, twenty, thirty, even more seconds. At the extreme end of the spectrum, however, are contrails that can last for indefinite periods of time.
For the most part, commercial jets actually fly at somewhere around 300 to 400 mph. That works out to about 525 ft./sec. Since the average jet is around 150 ft. long, that means they cover more than 3 1/2 times their length in one second. Flying directly overhead, at a height of about 35000 ft., then, a line representing one second's worth of flight would subtend an arc of about .015 radians, or about .86º. The end of a contrail dissipates at the same speed as the plane that left them. As a result, by the time a point on the contrail will start to dissipate, the plane will be that many seconds away from that point. The duration of persistence of a contrail, then, would correspond to a trail of some multiple of .86º. A contrail that lasts one second will be only about .86º long. A trail that persists for two seconds before dissipating will be about 1.72º long. For a contrail that lasts 5 seconds, the trail will be about 4.3º long, and so on. If a trail dissipates after ten seconds, it will have a size of about 8.6º, which is about 1/21 of the entire 180º arc across the sky. If a contrail, supposedly, lasted about 20 seconds, then, it would stretch almost across the entire sky, the end of the trail moving in tandem with the plane 180º ahead of it!
For contrails to cover a spectrum of periods of persistence, then, they would have to cover a wide range of traveling arcs. For contrails, for example, that last a minute or so, they would have to stretch past the horizon, and have dissipating ends moving along them, almost like the end of a fuse burning down.
But there are, in the record, absolutely no indications of such long trails. Contrail photos have only covered a few degrees of length. There are no pictures of contrails any longer than that. The "debunkers" may try to argue that chemtrail opponents take pictures of chemtrails longer than 180º and say that they are stable, when, in fact, the dissipating end would appear over the horizon only a second later. But there are no pictures of contrails covering, say, 25º or 30º or 45º! Those would be obvious. Certainly, chemtrail opponents would provide pictures of those, since they would be so dramatic! But there are none!
No contrail, then, it seems, persists for longer than about ten seconds!
Any representation of contrails as covering a wide spectrum of durations, then, is utterly specious, and, apparently, nothing less than a transparently fraudulent attempt to depict chemtrails as a "normal" form of contrail!
The evident deceit of the "debunkers" must not be allowed to sway those who wish to respect the rights of the people!
Julian Penrod |
| |
|
|
julianpenrod
Joined: 07 Mar 2002
Posts: 303
Location: west caldwell, new jersey, united states |
|
Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:14 am
|
|
|
To all:
A point of correction.
In the previous post, the time for a typical contrail, as usually described, to cover the 180º of sky should take about 210 seconds, not 21.
Julian Penrod |
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:00 am
|
|
|
jp,
Ever looked at a satellite photo of contrails.
They come in all different lengths.
E.g., http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass.html |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:20 am
|
|
|
Hey CANEX....
How do YOU know that they are just plain "contrails"? |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Dec 28, 2002 8:57 am
|
|
|
how do you know they are not mech ?
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:42 am
|
|
|
Julian
You might want to rework your math, because 300-400 knots is a bit on the slow side for most commercial jets.
At altitude, our Learjet cruises at Mach .75. That works out to be about 430 knots true airspeed (I could get into the differences between true, indicated, calibrated and equivalent airspeeds, but why bother). Our highspeed cruise is Mach .81, which is closer to 500 knots.
Most larger airliners (Boeings and Airbus's) fly around Mach .80-.88, while the smaller regional jets (Embraer and Canadair) fly around Mach .75-.78.
Since 1 knot equals 1.15 miles per hour, an aircraft travelling at 500 knots is moving along at 575 miles per hour. An aircraft cruising at Mach .88 or .90 (high speed cruise for the Boeings) is travelling over 600 MPH. There are a few business jets, like the Cessna Citation X that cruise around Mach .93...over 600 MPH easy.
The only way I could see a jet flying at 300 miles per hour in relation to the ground was if they had a direct 200 knot headwind. To date, the heftiest headwind I've had was around 150 knots. Typically in the winter, headwinds vary from 40-100 knots, while in the summer they vary from 20-70 knots (winds out of the west, usually).
Just a few weeks ago, upon returning from San Antonio (to Montgomery AL), we were cruising over the face of the Earth at a brisk 603 knots. That translates to 694 MPH, or about 11.6 miles per minute. Kinda skews your estimate of 300-400 MPH? |
| |
|
|
julianpenrod
Joined: 07 Mar 2002
Posts: 303
Location: west caldwell, new jersey, united states |
|
Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:36 pm
|
|
|
Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net
December 29, 2002
To all:
Circumstances can have many levels, and the unethical cannot be relied upon to act honorably on any of them. When it is a matter of simply presenting facts, even there, they can fall conspicuously short of even the most basic decency.
I recently placed a post on the Chemtrail Central site, addressing the assertion - propounded by "debunkers" to give chemtrails the appearance of "normalcy" - that contrails occur in a wide spectrum of persistence periods. Using this, it is, evidently, intended to suggest that chemtrails are merely contrails at the extreme end of the spectrum.
If a trail has a constant time until dissipation, that means that a spot on the trail will last only so many seconds, after being emitted, before dissolving. The dissipating end of a contrail, then, would always be that many seconds’ worth of flying time from the jet. The temporal duration of the contrail, then, would be directly related to its size, or the arc it subtends to someone looking, on the ground. Assigning about 350 mph flying speed to a commercial jet, I concluded that a trail one second long would represent an arc of about .86º to someone on the ground. The appearance of trails taking longer to dissipate, viewed from, essentially, right beneath them, could be found by multiplying the number of seconds they last by .86º. A trail that, supposedly, lasts 20 seconds, then, would cover an arc of 17.2º, which is massive. It is the evident absence of any trails in photographs with such long lengths that argues against the suggestion that contrails cover a spectrum of persistence periods, and that, therefore, chemtrails are only one phase of contrail formation.
In response, and evidently trying to “debunk” the point about the attempted misrepresentation about chemtrails, PacerLJ35 posted a message taking issue with my points.
Aware of the patent legitimacy of my argument, PacerLJ35 could not deny the points I made. They chose, instead to attack specifics of my references. Specifically, PacerLJ35 contends that the speeds I ascribe to jets are incorrect.
PacerLJ35’s presentation, however, is, at best a pathetic and inept demonstration and, in some cases, even strengthens the argument I made!
PacerLJ35 begins by saying: “You might want to rework your math, because 300-400 knots is a bit on the slow side for most commercial jets.”
Any errors that arise from using incorrect figures are problems with the starting information, not with the math! Someone who purports to be a pilot, as PacerLJ35 seems to, should be aware of the eminently basic fine point!
They then go on to take issue with the figure of “300-400 knots” ascribed to commercial jets.
In my post, I referred to 300 to 400 mph! I did not refer to knots. I used feet per second or mph as the units of speed throughout the post! PacerLJ35 admits to knowing that knots are about 1.15 mph, so they know that what they are referring to is something far different from what I was speaking about. That they should make so fundamental a mistake is also eminently disquieting, if they are, indeed, a pilot! The “debunkers” try to represent chemtrail opponents as not knowing what they are looking at. PacerLJ35 can look right at something and, apparently, not even be able to make it out!
In an apparent attempt to try to dazzle the unwitting with a depth of information - often used to try to gull the unwary into accepting the truthfulness of everything the unscrupulous has to say! - PacerLJ35 then launches into a litany of airspeeds for various companies. Boeing and Airbus, for example, cruise at “around Mach .80-.88”, Embraer and Canadair travel at “around Mach .75-.78”. Mach .75, the speed PacerLJ35 applies to “our Learjet”, he translates out to “about 430 knots”, which would be about 500 mph. “Our high speed cruise”, he refers to as traveling at Mach .81, or about 575 mph.
It is questionable, however, just what PacerLJ35 is referring to when they say “Mach”. Mach 1 represents the speed of sound, but the speed of sound differs at different altitudes! At ground level, Mach 1 is about 760 mph. PacerLJ35 seems to be using a value of about 720mph! At the altitude that is ascribed to most chemtrails, about 35,000 feet, Mach 1 is about 650 mph! PacerLJ35 seems unaware of these crucial fine points, also!
If a jet is traveling at, say, an average, then, of Mach .8 at 35,000 feet, they would be moving at 520 mph. Since I suggested a speed of 300 to 400 mph, that is not so far from what I suggested. Certainly not as distant as PacerLJ35 tried to make out!
Assume, though, that a jet is traveling at about 520 mph at 35,000 feet. Then, in one second, they would travel about 750 feet. Viewed from about 35,000 feet away, then, this would subtend an angle of about .0215 radians, which works out to about 1.3º of arc!
Larger than I had suggested!
A trail that persists one second, then, would cover about 1.3º of sky, a 5 second trail, about º, and a 20 second trail, about 26º, or about one-sixth of the sky!
PacerLJ35’s “corrections” actually made the argument against long-lived dissipating contrails even stronger!
But, it is a common thing for the protestations of the unprincipled, based as they are in the unethical, to cause their statements to lag ever farther behind the obvious!
PacerLJ35 finishes the post with an observation of his flying “from San Antonio (to Montgomery AL)” at a speed of 694 mph. Dismissively, apparently content that he had “countered” all my statements, and, therefore, “disproved” the existence of chemtrails, PacerLJ35 cracks: “Kinda skews your estimate of 300-400 MPH?” It is the patent contempt in the machinations of the “debunkers” that those seeking to oppose chemtrails should see for what it is, and not allow themselves to be dissuaded by!
Julian Penrod
|
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:05 am
|
|
|
"Aware of the patent legitimacy of my argument, PacerLJ35 could not deny the points I made."
No, no, that's NOT why I didn't respond to the OTHER information in your post. I didn't really have the time to sit there and play with math numbers, and instead I focused on the fact that you used airspeeds well below those of normal cruise speeds for any jet aircraft as the basis of your hypothesis, thus, no matter how you slice it, your end result will be wrong.
"Any errors that arise from using incorrect figures are problems with the starting information, not with the math!"
Well, perhaps your *methodology* may be sound, but your numbers are not, hence *incorrect* math.
"In my post, I referred to 300 to 400 mph! I did not refer to knots. I used feet per second or mph as the units of speed throughout the post! PacerLJ35 admits to knowing that knots are about 1.15 mph, so they know that what they are referring to is something far different from what I was speaking about"
Knots, miles per hour, feet per second, miles per minute....doesn't matter, it's all speed. Every one of those units equates to some kind of distance over a given space of time. You can translate either way, back or forth. So knots *do* matter. I provided the 1.15 conversion factor for your benefit, since pilots use knots and not miles per hour.
Knots equate to nautical miles per hour, whereas miles per hour (standard) equates to *statute* miles per hour. A nautical mile (used by ships and airplanes) is 6076 feet. A statute mile is the familiar 5280 feet.
Anyhoo, even if you bothered to convert your 300-400 MPH into knots, it would equal even slower cruise speeds of 261 and 348 knots respectively. That's about the true airspeed of a turboprop, NOT a jet.
"The 'debunkers' try to represent chemtrail opponents as not knowing what they are looking at."
Well, you obviously have NO idea how fast jets actually cruise.
"In an apparent attempt to try to dazzle the unwitting with a depth of information - often used to try to gull the unwary into accepting the truthfulness of everything the unscrupulous has to say! - PacerLJ35 then launches into a litany of airspeeds for various companies"
Again, another brillant display of not understanding what I'm saying...those speeds are *typical* speeds for different models of aircraft. They aren't speeds that "companies" use. Boeing doesn't design it's airplanes to fly "Boeing speeds". Those speed ranges are essentially typical speeds of Boeing and Airbus commercial jetliners, hence the speed range. They vary from model to model.
And it's not an attempt to "dazzle" you. While cruising, jet aircraft use indicated Mach (denoted as Mi or Mmo for indicated Mach and maximum operating Mach respectively). Only small prop airplanes use knots or MPH exlusively. Jets use knots at lower altitudes, and once passing into the higher altitudes, they use Mach.
You fail to grasp the notion that the term "Mach" is a function of describing how fast you're going is standard terminology for a jet pilot. It has nothing to do with me trying to impress you at all. It's simply how pilots of jet aircraft cruise.
We DO have the means to figure out how fast we're going in other measurements, but our airspeed indicators at 35,000 feet are reading Mach.
"PacerLJ35 seems to be using a value of about 720mph! At the altitude that is ascribed to most chemtrails, about 35,000 feet, Mach 1 is about 650 mph! PacerLJ35 seems unaware of these crucial fine points, also!"
Again, you're wrong. I never said any aircraft cruises at an airspeed of 720 MPH. The speed I related to of 603 knots (about 690 MPH) was a *ground speed*. Our airspeed was much less (about 450 knots), but a 150 knot tailwind was pushing us over the ground. So we weren't actually pushing 690 MPH through the air.
The atmosphere is alot like a large river...going up stream, your boat may be moving at 30 MPH, but with the river flowing 10 MPH towards you, you're only travelling 20 MPH relative to the bank. Likewise, going downstream with the same speeds, you'll be going 40 MPH relative to the bank.
A fine point, but a signficant one, your stats on the speed of sound at various altitudes is based on standard conditions. The speed of sound is also dependent on temperature too. Often, the atmosphere is not at ISA (standard temps). I've seen them as high as ISA+20, and low as ISA-15. So that does affect the speed of sound as well.
Our airspeed indicator is connected to an Air Data Computer (ADC). The ADC takes atmospheric conditions from the static line (an air line with a direct link to the outside air) and it computes our Mach automatically and displays it on the airspeed indicator. It is very accurate. The ADC is also connected to our Flight Management System, which has an imbedded dual GPS system, which matches our tracked GPS ground speed, compares it with the ADC output, and it can calculate our winds aloft and our true airspeed (a function of air density).
Our *airspeed* (different from ground speed) NEVER exceeds Mach 1. The Learjet 35 has a maximum Mach operating speed (Mmo) of 0.81 Mach. So we never fly *airspeeds* in excess of this, however, depending on the winds, our ground speed may be significantly higher or lower than our airspeed.
"PacerLJ35’s “corrections” actually made the argument against long-lived dissipating contrails even stronger!"
Not really. Looking at your hypothesis, it's also anchored in the assumption that contrails will dissapate at a rate equal to it's formation. In reality, contrails have highly varying rates of dissapation. Some dissapate before they even form contrails...nearly instantaneous. Others linger for many minutes, and thus leave long lines across the sky.
Sorry, Julian. You can't apply a cookie-cutter approach to contrail formation/dissapation, because nature is highly variable. Just the other day, over Tulsa I flew through a very thick puffy contrail that extended for probably over a hundred miles. I didn't get sick, nor did I see anything unusual about it. Nothing "falling" from it. Looked just like a long, thin cirrus cloud.
Julian, if anyone is unethical, you must look in the mirror. Notice one thing...I never slander you. I might poke fun of your wild-eyed ideas. But I certainly don't attack your character, except perhaps slightly in this instance. I'm not a liar, and I'm not out to misinform people.
If I'm wrong about chemtrails, so be it. But my *convictions* are based in experience operating amongst our nations airways, as a military pilot, and my own scientific background. It doesn't make sense to me, and I see way to many pictures of alleged "abnormal" things that I see every day, and aren't abnormal to anyone working in the airline/aviation industry.
So if you find fault in me for having a professional opinion, and wishing to voice my concerns about what I view as faulty and often incorrect or partially correct data, that's fine with me. God knows who's honest in the end. Those who invoke His name right and left just to say "I'm better than you are" as if we're grade school kids arguing in a school yard need to learn humility, and realize that no matter how right they think they are, they can always be wrong.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PacerLJ35 on 01-01-2003] |
| |
|
|
julianpenrod
Joined: 07 Mar 2002
Posts: 303
Location: west caldwell, new jersey, united states |
|
Sun Jan 05, 2003 5:26 pm
|
|
|
Julian Penrod
4 Fairfield Avenue
West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006
(973) 220-1601
julianpenrod@comcast.net
January 1, 2003
To all:
The unethical know they cannot depend on their actions to appear decent. For this reason, they must resort to an alternative to lend the air of credence to their actions. One such is the relentless misrepresentation of their actions as justified, and others' as not.
In their first response to my post concerning relating the size of contrails to their duration, PacerLJ35 targeted the amounts I offered for jet speeds. It was framed, however, in the form of a critique of the method, evidently to suggest that the entire concept was flawed.
You might want to rework your math, PacerLJ35 stated, then launched into a list of jet speeds, all, supposedly, far larger than what I suggested.
In response, I took issue with several glaringly inappropriate statements PacerLJ35 made. Among others, the suggestion that it was "the math" and not the numbers started with that needed alteration. To alter "the math" is to discredit the idea behind assigning contrail duration to contrail length!
I also referred to the fact that I listed jet speeds as 300 to 400 mph, while PacerLJ35 "quoted" me as ascribing the speeds 300 to 400 knots to jets. PacerLJ35 acknowledges that knots are different from mph, and I said it was eminently suspicious that, even though representing themselves as qualified to comment on chemtrails, PacerLJ35 apparently couldn't even read the post I sent in and see that I was referring to 300 to 400 mph and not 300 to 400 knots!
Aware of the evident critical need to appear well-versed enough to be trusted, PacerLJ35, then, posted another response, "addressing" the criticisms of his provable errors in his first response. Because there is no fault to the points I made in critiquing LacerLJ35's first response, any "rebuttals" have to be grounded in deliberate misrepresentation both of what I said and what they said.
PacerLJ35's second post, for example, dealing with the reference to "math" problems, says: "Well, perhaps your *methodology* may be sound, but your numbers are not, hence *incorrect* math."
But the math used is the method! To find fault with the math is to say that the determination of radian measure, the conversion to degree measure and the relating of size to speed are all wrong! And that is where the math comes in! To use the term "math" to refer to the values put into the math methods does definitively demonstrate a lack of understanding completely incompatible with the role of pilot PacerLJ35 claims to fill!
"Responding" to my point about PacerLJ35's failure to realize that I was speaking about mph, not knots, they try to give the impression that I was speaking about something else completely! I asserted that knots, what PacerLJ35 said I gave jet speeds in, was far different from mph, which were the units I actually used! There is no legitimate reason for someone to look directly at the post I sent in and perceive that I was talking about a speed of 300 to 400 knots when I specifically referred to 300 to 400 mph! PacerLJ35, however, posts the "rejoinder": "Knots, miles per hour, feet per second, miles per minute...doesn't matter, it's all speed."
I pointed out the real situation that PacerLJ35 saw a reference to 300 to 400 mph and, apparently, mentally perceived 300 to 400 knots! And 300 to 400 knots is a significantly different thing than 300 to 400 mph! And this is a definite indication of the provable lack of touch with reality that "debunkers" do display.
PacerLJ35, however, tried to say that I was saying that I was characterizing knots, as a unit of speed, was different from mph, which is also a unit of speed!
With no valid points to make, PacerLJ35, as with all the "debunkers" has to misrepresent the real and truthful! I did not say that units of speed were different from units of speed. I said that 300 to 400 mph is not the same as 300 to 400 knots, and they are different!
In a characteristically disdainfully worded statement, PacerLJ35 again demonstrates their failure of even basic understanding when they observe: "Anyhoo, even if you bothered to convert your 300-400 MPH into knots, it would equal even slower cruise speeds of 261 and 348 MPH respectively. That's about the true airspeed of a turboprop, NOT a jet."
"300-400 MPH" converts to 300 to 400 mph, not "261 and 348 MPH respectively"! 300 mph is not 261 mph, 400 mph is not 348 mph. PacerLJ35 does have a provable inability to think in the correct units, and that is not reconcilable with being a pilot, either! At least, not a responsible pilot, whose statements of the "safety" of chemtrails can be taken for granted as true! A pilot with many errors of judgment and incompetence in their background, however, cannot be assumed not to have the depth of guile it would take to say anything!
I pointed out that "debunkers" try to claim that chemtrail opponents don't know what they are looking at, when one of their own can't seem to be able to separate mph and knots in their mind. PacerLJ35 retorts: "Well, you obviously have NO idea how fast jets actually cruise." Before taking others to task, PacerLJ35 should see to it that they can talk intelligibly about mph and knots without interchanging them irresponsibly.
I referred to PacerLJ35, as with so many "debunkers", trying to, effectively, bury an issue beneath a self-serving mountain of ancillary information, to give the unwary the notion that the "debunkers" are more knowledgeable than the opponents, simply because they ruthlessly pile on numbers and terms. PacerLJ35's first response, "counselling" me about the speed jets use, took off into an apparently gratuitous list of speeds for various planes. "Most larger airliners (Boeings[sic] and Airbus's[sic]) fly around Mach .80-.88", PacerLJ35 asserts, "while the smaller regional jets (Embraer and Canadair) fly around Mach .75-.78."
My response referred to PacerLJ35's listing various airspeeds for various companies.
With no fault to find here, either, PacerLJ35 jumps on my reference to various jet speeds for various companies.
"Those speeds are *typical* speeds for different models of aircraft. They aren't speeds that "'companies' use.
"Boeing doesn't design it's[sic] airplanes", they continue, "to fly 'Boeing speeds'."
I never said that different companies have particular ranges they fly, or are allowed to fly. I only referred to PacerLJ35's own reference to different companies! One way to "win an argument" is to accuse the other side of saying something they didn't say! That would certainly be a tactic the unscrupulous would use to "defend" an assertion grounded in lies!
Also trying to put words into my mouth, PacerLJ35 insists, ungrammatically: "You fail to grasp the motion that the term 'Mach' is a function of describing how fast your going is standard terminology for a jet pilot."
There is no point in either the first post on contrail sizes, or in the response to PacerLJ35, that I indicated any failure to understand that jet pilots use Mach speed as a guide, as a reference and in describing their speed. I referred to mph because, since contrail sizes are going to be measured against the mile heights or feet heights at which they are laid, it is more conducive to the calculations! PacerLJ35 cannot seem to see that using direct length related measurements to make direct length measurements is easier than resorting to a different system of terms altogether! Relating mph to miles to feet is more direct than converting Mach to feet.
"We DO have the means to figure out how fast we're going in other measurements, but our airspeed indicators at 35,000 feet are reading Mach."
Leaving aside such obvious points as that figuring out speed "in other measurements" generally requires simply multiplying by an appropriate amount, they should find a way to make themselves aware that, while pilots may be flying at 35,000 feet, where they use Mach, chemtrail observers are on the ground, where they, generally, use feet to measure altitude to chemtrails!
That was why I didn't use Mach!
In questioning PacerLJ35's own reference to how fast they flew, I referred to his own statement that: "Our highspeed cruise is Mach .81, which is closer to 500 knots." That was given, by PacerLJ35, as 575 mph. But that translates out to a speed of sound of about 720 mph. I pointed out that, at the surface of the earth, the speed of sound is far higher than that, and, at 35,000 feet, where PacerLJ35 themselves say speeds close to Mach1 are used, the speed of sound is much less!
Reduced, again, to trying to win an argument by crediting the other side with things they never said, PacerLJ35 replies: "Again, you're wrong. I never said any aircraft cruises at an airspeed of 720 MPH. The speed I related to of 603 knots (about 690 MPH) was a *ground speed*. Our airspeed was much less (about 450 knots), but a 150 knot tailwind was pushing us over the ground. So we weren't actually pushing 690 MPH through the air."
Because PacerLJ35 themselves seem to demonstrate the need to have the obvious repeated to them several times, I will say, again, that I was referring to their own statement that .81 Mach was 575 mph! That translates out to a speed of sound of 720 mph! I never said that PacerLJ35 said they were flying at 720 mph. I referred to PacerLJ35's own statement that they were flying at .81 Mach, not 1.0 Mach!
The only other alternative to PacerLJ35's needing the obvious repeated to them numerous times, to avoid their misstating it later, is that they routinely misstate facts, and there is no other obvious reason for misstating facts than to swindle the unwitting!
Finding the need to attack my concept, as well, PacerLJ35 referred to my observation that their own alteration of jet speeds, making them higher, actually strengthened the argument against long-lived contrails.
“Not really”, PacerLJ35 says, continuing ungrammatically, it’s also anchored in the assumption that contrails will dissapate[sic] at a rate equal to it’s[sic] formation. In reality, contrails have highly varying rates of dissapation[sic]. Some (contrails) dissapate[sic] before they even form contrails…nearly instantaneous. Others linger for many minutes, and thus leave long lines across the sky.”
Among other things, then, PacerLJ35 is telescoping the “debunker” argument that there are many different conditions that can occur, and they produce different types of contrails, to assert that that multiplicity of conditions can occur within a few hundred feet’s flight path across the sky!
But, even if many different dissipation times could be expected, it doesn’t change the fact that, after the few seconds the contrail will persist in the sky, by the time it does dissipate, the jet will be that many seconds’ worth of flight time away from it! Even if different sections dissipate at different rates, the distance of the jet away from the dissipating end - the length of the contrail - will definitely be directly related to the period of dissipation of the trail! There is nothing in PacerLJ35’s “argument” that discredits it! He can say the concept is wrong, but that doesn’t make it so.
Trying to assume a mantel of “legitimacy” and wounded innocence, PacerLJ35 then says: “Julian, if anyone is unethical, you must look in the mirror. Notice one thing…I never slander you. I might poke fun of[sic] your wild--eyed ideas. But I certainly don’t attack your character, except perhaps slightly in this instance. I’m not a liar, and I’m not out to misinform people.”
If someone is honorable, another person’s not condemning their character is not a sign of principle in them; it is merely an indication that there is nothing they can hang the hat of condemnation on! On the other hand, if someone admits the ugly truth of corruption in a genuinely corrupt individual, it is acting honorably in acknowledging the truth! It is a fiction concocted by the criminal that saying something bad, but true, about another is wrong! Those who adopt the principle that it is not right to admit the unpleasant truths about another, in general, are not acting out of anything other than self-serving malignance!
Calling a liar a liar is not slander.
PacerLJ35 says they are not trying to “misinform people”.
They will, then, have to answer why they doctored my statements and my references to their own statements, to “make their point”!
“God knows who’s honest in the end”, PacerLJ35 continues, “Those who invoke His name right and left just to say ‘I’m better than you are’ as if we’re grade school kids arguing in a school yard need to learn humility, and realize that no matter how right they think they are, they can always be wrong.”
In fact, though, it was PacerLJ35 who, in the original post and the responses, invoked God. They do seem, in fact, as incapable of avoiding hypocrisy as they are unable to see mph and not interpret it as knots!
And, to whatever extent PacerLJ35 may want to accuse me of bringing God’s name into the matter, they will also have to prove that I am, as they seem to want to suggest, trying to play “I’m better than you are”! Demonstrating the legitimacy of what I was saying is not trying to act better then someone else! It is merely demonstrating legitimacy where legitimacy exists!
It is curious, in fact, that PacerLJ35 should even bring this up!
I am describing the concept I was referring to and showing how it is free from the errors PacerLJ35 declared were there! To prove that a condemnation is untrue is to show that it is untrue! Acting better than someone else is not a direct part of the matter! It may, in the end, prove the exonerated party more worthy of respect than the one who falsely tried to condemn them, but that would not immediately enter into the issue at hand!
In fact, it appears that PacerLJ35 is obsessed with the idea of someone not being “better” than them! And someone as obsessed with the idea as PacerLJ35 seems to be would not be above staging purely gratuitous “arguments” merely to try to convince others of their nonexistent “superiority”!
And an important point is raised here.
That this is not just about those who wish to perpetuate the assault on the public by chemtrails.
Everyone, in their life, comes upon the mealy-mouthed, the insincere, the lying.
Because they base their constructs in patent denial of reality, they must spend at least as much time convincing others of their worthiness to be believed as they do in developing their ideas, if not more. And, because they abjure the valid and legitimate, their presentation must include enormous amounts of effort in literally concocting a pseudo-reality, utterly composed of imagery and suggestion, in which they are “the winner”.
They are expertly schooled in ersatz, because they must be.
In examining methods of their deception, it can be seen how to avoid their swindling others.
More than that, because indecent and underhanded efforts have always been attended by deceit and fraud, it can lay the guidelines for denouncing the vile and unscrupulous for what they are, from the beginning.
To be legitimate involves, among other things, having expertise to comment reliably on matters, as well as having others be wrong.
For many among the unwary, and especially those who have not sampled the deceivers’ ways, a simple command of fact - any fact - can often be seen as sufficient enough credential for trust. For this reason, liars do, routinely, engage in a razzle-dazzle of facts, flooding the unwitting with terminology, statistics and information, much of which may have absolutely nothing to do with the subject! It is the hope of the unscrupulous that their targets will not recognize the fact that the torrent of fact has nothing to do with the subject at hand!
It’s also their faith that the decent will be too busy fighting the good fight to cast aspersions.
It is amazing how much the unethical depend on the good will of the decent to ply their trade! They would willingly knife another just as a joke; they know, however, the righteous will treat them honorably.
Where a flood of persiflage does not convince their targets, the unethical, generally, resort to direct attack.
Their attack, however, will be as illegitimate as their goal.
The tack, though, is finding fault with the faultless.
And that, as with all the other machinations of the insincere, depends heavily on parading the illusion of legitimacy in their actions.
They may, for example, focus on a single point to suggest the failure of the entire presentation, based on a single aspect of it. Initially, for example, PacerLJ35, apparently, sought to call into question the entire idea of using lengths, rather than noted durations, of contrails to show that they do not comprise the kind of spectrum of dissipation that is suggested, based only on the speed I ascribed to jets. I suggested an average of about 350 mph. PacerLJ35 launched into an elaborate listing of speeds - given in Mach values, rather than mph, likely to complicate discussion further - for various jet types. They could have settled on an average, or a range, and presented degree sizes for various durations of contrails, based on these speeds. That would have represented an honest, honorable approach to the matter, but that, PacerLJ35 did not do. Instead, the entire post was fashioned to make it look like the idea of contrail lengths was fatally flawed.
When I pointed out that, among other things, PacerLJ35 applied an inappropriate value to the speed of sound, at sea level and the generally quoted 35,000 feet, and they even failed to recognize that I was using mph and quoted me in knots, instead, PacerLJ35 tried to say that I was asserting that knots was not a measure of speed, and that I tried to say that PacerLJ35 claimed to have traveled at the speed of sound! I said that mph is not knots, and PacerLJ35, fixating on that, claimed that what I was saying was that they are not both measures of speed! I said that PacerLJ35 was using a value of 720 mph for Mach 1, which is untrue either at sea level or 35,000 feet. “I never said any aircraft cruises at an airspeed of 720 mph”, he fired back. But I never said they said that! I only said that PacerLJ35’s references to speeds corresponding to various subsonic Mach values suggested a speed of sound of 720 mph!
I also referred, casually, to the companies PacerLJ35 themselves associated with various Mach speeds. PacerLJ35 then tried to “correct” my “assertion” that those speeds were, somehow, proprietary! I didn’t say that either. I only related the very companies PacerLJ35 referred to and the Mach speeds PacerLJ35 themselves credited to those companies using! PacerLJ35 either is deliberately trying to obfuscate comment, or they genuinely are incapable of reading what they see and making sense of it. They certainly couldn’t see that I was speaking about mph measures, and not knots; they certainly couldn’t tell that I was repeating PacerLJ35’s own references, not saying that they were speeds only those companies could use!
But admitting to the truth would endanger PacerLJ35’s nonexistent “arguments”!
And, where misrepresenting an argument might not work, they often resort to out-and-out lies or character assassination. Terming me “unethical” and suggesting that I “slandered” them was a lie. Calling a liar a liar is neither unethical, nor slander. PacerLJ35 trying to say that I don’t know that mph and knots are both units of speed is a lie. Saying that I quoted them as saying they flew at the speed of sound is also a lie. And, if PacerLJ35 honestly read what I wrote and, through some mental affectation, interpreted it so drastically, then their asserting that they can be trusted with the controls of a plane is also dishonest! Indeed, lies are not unknown amongst the “debunkers”. Anyone looking, for example, at the site pub31.ezboard.com/bcontrailsandchemtrails.22884, will see posts by LTC8K6. They regularly end their posts with a reference to my assertion that, as unethical as it can be to engage in the underhanded, it can be just as bad to see the unscrupulous and not mention it. They then accredit it to me, but add: “on how chemmies act”. In other words, they are saying that that quote was my saying that chemtrail opponents act unethically! LTC8K6, in their evidently arrested development fashion, seemed to think that that was some kind of a jab at me, but it only displays the depth of depravity among the “debunkers”. The phrase was not said with reference to chemtrail opponents! There is no way anyone honest reading the post could conclude that I was referring to chemtrail opponents! But chemtrail “debunkers” can’t seem to respond honestly and honorably about anything!
The only other explanation, as with PacerLJ35, is that LTC8K6 cannot understand what they read!
It should be mentioned that PacerLJ35’s assertions about flying through a “contrail” that “looked like it could be at least one hundred miles long” cannot be taken at face value, either. PacerLJ35 claims not to have suffered any ill effects from that. Among other things, even at jet cruising height, it is not likely that a length of one hundred miles could be ascertained! In addition, even if a trail is completely innocent, it is utterly unlikely that a jet’s path would exactly intersect it, in the broad expanse of sky! And it is eminently unlikely that anything like actually aiming to fly through a contrail or chemtrail could be interpreted as anything other than reckless! PacerLJ35 indicates that they breathe what they term “ambient air” so that, if they flew through a chemtrail, they’d be breathing that material, also. The fact that, supposedly, no pilots suffer any ill effects, PacerLJ35 offers as “proof” that chemtrails are harmless and normal.
But, PacerLJ35 also goes through an elaborate explanation of what provides the air for the cabin of a jet. Air brought into the engines from outside is compressed by a compressor. A valve coming off the compressor, called the Air Bleed Modulation Valve, provides “low pressure (30-40 psi), high volume air, and high pressure, low volume air to operate the aircraft pneumatic systems”. Some of this is vented to provide warm air for de-icing, while “the rest of it is sent through the emergency pressurization valves (normally closed), then through the conditioning system where the air is cooled (or else we’d have 300 degree air coming into the cabin), then pumped into the cabin to provide us pressurized air.” This explanation is provided in a response post to the initial post “A massive, national state of denial”, also on Chemtrail Central.
But, any air admitted into the cabin, or even taken into the compressors, would have to be highly filtered first. Even at 35,000 feet, there can be dust, insects, even other chemicals, and even water vapor cannot be considered automatically safe to have in a compressed air system. The filters that, likely, clean the air for use in the aircraft’s systems cannot be assumed not to remove contaminants from chemtrails!
In the end, the assembled duplicity evident in the “debunkers” must be remembered, and acknowledged for the resemblance it bears to the behavior of the duplicitous and untrustworthy. The dishonorable and dishonest actions of the chemtrail “debunkers” cannot be allowed to prevent the decent and righteous!
Julian Penrod
|
| |
|
|
canex
Joined: 26 Oct 2000
Posts: 164
Location: USA |
|
Mon Jan 06, 2003 3:47 am
|
|
|
JP,
How about summarizing your harangue in a few sentences? That's just too many letters for us peabrains to read, much less understand. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Mon Jan 06, 2003 6:52 am
|
|
|
OK, I can't stay on too long, I gotta get to bed so I can get up early. But I'll work my way backwards, just for you JP (since no one else really bothers to read your difficult-to-follow diatribes anyways).
"But, any air admitted into the cabin, or even taken into the compressors, would have to be highly filtered first. Even at 35,000 feet, there can be dust, insects, even other chemicals, and even water vapor cannot be considered automatically safe to have in a compressed air system. The filters that, likely, clean the air for use in the aircraft’s systems cannot be assumed not to remove contaminants from chemtrails!"
No, there aren't any filters on the bleed air system. Again, there's a contaminant screen that keeps larger stuff out (like grass, etc), but nothing that would filter out chemicals or germs.
Some airliners have HEPA filters on board, but they only filter out the recycled air, not the incoming air from the engines. That's to keep the sick people on the plane from getting everyone else sick.
And no, there aren't any insects at 35,000 feet.
"But, PacerLJ35 also goes through an elaborate explanation of what provides the air for the cabin of a jet. Air brought into the engines from outside is compressed by a compressor. A valve coming off the compressor, called the Air Bleed Modulation Valve"
OK, maybe I'm being too hard on ya, but it's not the "Air Bleed Modulation Valve"....it's the Bleed Air Mod Valve. And the compressor isn't *just* a compressor...it's an integral part of the engine. The air enters the air inlet, and goes through the fan. 30% of the fan thrust enters the axial compressor, which compresses the air and sends it aft to the centrifugal compressor, which further compresses the air. It is then routed through a combustion chamber, where the compressed air is mixed with atomized fuel, and ignited by either the electric igniters, or the heat of the combustion chamber. This explosion of hot gasses exits out the rear, passing through the turbine section which turns both the fan and the compressor section. OK, enough jet engine school for one day.
"And it is eminently unlikely that anything like actually aiming to fly through a contrail or chemtrail could be interpreted as anything other than reckless!"
We don't "aim" to fly through a contrail. Say you're flying from A to B. You're at 33,000 feet, cruising along. About 10 miles in front of you, a Delta airliner passes from right to left, also at 33,000 feet. It leaves behind a billowy, long lasting contrail. Now here you come less than a minute later (remember, you're travelling at about 10 miles a minute), and you plow right through the Delta jet's contrail. It happens alot up there. No biggie. And it's not an airshow by any means.
Scenario 2....say you're flying a busy route...like the arrival into the Washington DC area (Irons 4 arrival). There are numerous other airplanes flying the same route ahead of you, all leaving persistant contrails. Since they are at the same altitude, flying the same route, you'll likely fly through some of their contrails.
"Among other things, even at jet cruising height, it is not likely that a length of one hundred miles could be ascertained!"
Sure it can. It's called TCAS. If you have been flying along a contrail for about 5 minutes, moving at about 10 miles a minute, you've just flown along 50 miles of contrail. Then, looking out you can see the airplane leaving the contrail, and you can see him on your TCAS screen. It says he's about 40 miles out. So, 50 + 40 equals 90...nearly 100 miles. That's just one method to estimate a contrail length.
Well, this next one will be my last comment, as I've got to get some sleep. But, I just had to comment.
"In a characteristically disdainfully worded statement, PacerLJ35 again demonstrates their failure of even basic understanding when they observe: 'Anyhoo, even if you bothered to convert your 300-400 MPH into knots, it would equal even slower cruise speeds of 261 and 348 MPH respectively. That's about the true airspeed of a turboprop, NOT a jet.'"
Go read my statement. I said 261 and 348 KNOTS, not MPH. Apparently, YOU have misquoted me. Good night.
|
| |
|
|
Sloan
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 1
Location: Bloomington, IL |
|
Mon Jan 06, 2003 6:04 pm
|
|
|
Pardon me for I am new to this forum. I have just a few things to say. I believe these planes to fly higher than 35,000 ft as I have witnessed them, atleast what seems to be 50,000 ft or so when travelling in a commercial airliner watching the chemtrails form high above head.
Also, has anyone spoken to airtraffic controllers in your areas. I have heard them to be quoted saying they recieved calls telling them to delay flight until further notice due to government planes trafficing. I have a friend that works for Laquardia and has entered the tower many times. Even thought these controllers are hush-hush she has an uncanny way about her that makes people tell things. An she has noticed the change in chemtrail patterns over L.I.
Peace |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Mon Jan 06, 2003 10:07 pm
|
|
|
What's the purpose of having specialised knowledge? To explain why something is happening, or to explain why something that is happening isn't happening?
Pacer's cheerfulness is childlike. He is so pleased that he has got julianpenrod to spend so much time and energy dealing with problems he, Pacer, posed. This is all a game, like chess. We don't live on the same planet. Pacer's life is apparently not in any danger of being affected by this phenomenon we are trying to understand.
If julianpenrod hadn't expended so much time and energy Pacer would see him as inferior because ostensibly less of an expert. Now that he expends the time and energy he is laughable, or quaint.
Your psychology gives you away, Pacer. |
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Mon Jan 06, 2003 11:53 pm
|
|
|
Sloan, your estimation of aircraft cruising at 50,000+ ft is highly unlikely.
Heres some max cruising altitudes for you.
Lear 35: 51,000 ft (These and other business jets are more or less the highest flying civil aircraft in existance.)
Boeing 737: 36,000
Boeing 747: 45,000
DC-10 (In the military the KC-10): 35,000
Boeing 707 (military: KC-135): 38,500
C-5 (The largest aircraft in the US inventory): Max operating: 43,000, Max Service: 34,000 |
| |
|
|
halva
Joined: 04 Apr 2003
Posts: 511
Location: Greece |
|
Tue Jan 07, 2003 4:31 am
|
|
|
How about the relevant aircraft (as we are told), KC10s and KC 135s? |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
