|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
A debunkers worst nightmare!!
 Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:28 am
|
 |
|
Hi Everyone,
During a morning spray over my home town in the U.K. I managed to snap the 'classic' debunkers nightmare... Two aircraft, both flying at the same altitude but... Shock, horror, one aircraft was military, the other civil. Would ALL debunkers please prepare your weak and unscientific explanations for the masses please.
Check it out at http://biochem.yoll.net/Photos26.html
|
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:13 pm
|
|
|
Nice pictures j briggs! "Two aircraft, both flying at the same altitude" It would appear the two are at the same altitude, but the debunkers would ask how do you know for certain they are at the same altitude? I would ask, what were the RH readings at higher altitudes that day? Conductive to the formation and persistence of trails?
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds/flight_path/
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Lulu on 07-25-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Fri Jul 26, 2002 1:26 am
|
|
|
I'd like to see what their TCAS display is showing. From what I've seen, altitudes not-withstanding, those aircraft are seperated by at least a mile horizontally. Most contrails I have flown through (yes, even the big puffy ones) are 2-3 times wider than even a large jumbo jet.
Take this into consideration....from the ground, assuming a cruising altitude of roughly 30,000 feet (maybe higher), the aircraft is about 5 miles away from you. Translate that horizontally, and I can bet that they have alot more separation than you think.
That, and above 29,000 feet, the TCAS system in the aircraft will begin to give the pilots Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories, so there's no way they would be flying closer than 5 miles without at least 2,000 feet of altitude seperation. And from your angle, it's hard to tell who's at 31,000 feet and who's at 33,0000 feet. |
| |
|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
|
Fri Jul 26, 2002 9:20 am
|
|
|
Well chaps,
All that aviation jargon sounds very good and proper, but you haven't explained to everyone why the Military jet is chemtrailing and the Civil jet isn't? And don't give me that "A few thousand feet makes a difference" business, it does nothing for your credibilities. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Fri Jul 26, 2002 10:34 pm
|
|
|
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military? Just curious.
And yes, a couple thousand feet DOES make that much of a difference. I see it all the time...traffic just below us not putting out any cons, and traffic just above us trailing heavy contrails. Let me ask you this question....how many days last month did you spend at 35,000 feet watching jets leave contrails and comparing them on TCAS (which displays their altitude relative to yours)?
I logged about 30 hours in the air doing just that. If you don't like my credibility, fine. But to the "unaware", which supposedly this site is supposed to "educate" on the topic, it's your credibility that looks suspect, seeing that you make your assumptions based on ground obsverations of airplanes 5-6 miles overhead, whereas I can see them so close I can make out what type and what airline/operator with my naked eye. |
| |
|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 12:30 am
|
|
|
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military?
I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!
How many days last month did you spend at 35,000 feet watching jets leave contrails and comparing them on TCAS.
Errrrr, none, I am not a pilot, I have to be content watching the chemtrails and contrails from the ground.
Seeing that you make your assumptions based on ground obsverations of airplanes 5-6 miles overhead, whereas I can see them so close I can make out what type and what airline/operator with my naked eye.
Thats a strange one, aren't you making assumptions based on my photograph?
I think I will rush out and buy a telescope in that case and then maybe I can have the joy of seeing them with my naked eye.
Well Mr Pilot,
You may feel that you are 100% correct in your arguments and that chemtrails (ALL of them) are what you say they are..Contrails. But your stubborn one sidedness on this subject, despite the mounting evidence, does bring into question your credibility. I say this because I have in the past worked in the U.K. military intelligence (Very specific to what's taking place now) and know for a fact that what's going on above our heads at the moment will definately be on a 'NEED TO KNOW' basis and you are obviously much lower down the pecking order, hence, your blissfull ignorance of the full facts of the situation. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 4:10 am
|
|
|
I'll start off with this quote, and work from there.
"But your stubborn one sidedness on this subject, despite the mounting evidence, does bring into question your credibility"
Mounting evidence, such as your latest scientific observation?
"I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!"
Wow! I wish professionals could make such bold assumptions! Then we could watch trash-science become a whole new industry! Hey, you're doing more to hurt your position than help it.
"Errrrr, none, I am not a pilot, I have to be content watching the chemtrails and contrails from the ground"
And yet, your observations from 6 miles away or more is more accurate than mine only a couple thousand feet away? Either you've got eagle vision and I'm somehow blind, or you're full of it.
"Thats a strange one, aren't you making assumptions based on my photograph?"
Actually, no I'm not making assumptions based on your photo. I never did say that those aircraft definitely were or were not what you said they were. I was questioning your reasoning....saying that in fact, you're not sure what they really are. And making any claim that you DO know 100% what they are is, dare I say it, stretching the truth just a BIT.
"You may feel that you are 100% correct in your arguments and that chemtrails (ALL of them) are what you say they are..Contrails"
Let's just say, for the record, that every trail I've ever personally witnessed up in the air was a contrail. As for the photos, my official position on yours (or any, for that matter) is that I do not see enough evidence that would support the theory that they are chemtrails. Show me proof that the jet with the longer trail is military. Show me proof that the trail itself is anything but condensation trails.
X patterns in the sky, and jets flying what appears to be "in formation" without any documentation as to their altitudes isn't going to make the case for me, nor will it make the case for most people. |
| |
|
|
Bonehead9
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 176
Location: suburb of Chicago, IL US |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 4:13 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military?
I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!
LOL that is the best example of circular logic that I have seen in a long time!
quote:
I have in the past worked in the U.K. military intelligence.
As what, the janitor? the file clerk in the motor pool? Statements like that are B.S. They cant be proven or disproven, so they serve no purpose. If you really were in high level military ineligence, then you wouldn't be telling us that, would you?
This is a good example of why many people consider "military inteligence" to be an oxymoron.
BTW, here is a good site with cloud and contrail formation info, from the U.K. no less. be sure to click on the pictures for more info:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/bookshelf/clouds/special/
more interesing cloud info can be found here:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/bookshelf/clouds/chguide/index.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Bonehead9 on 07-26-2002] |
| |
|
|
Bonehead9
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 176
Location: suburb of Chicago, IL US |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:55 am
|
|
|
An excelent example of how planes at only slightly different altitudes can have two different types of contrails:
 |
| |
|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:06 am
|
|
|
As what, the janitor? the file clerk in the motor pool? Statements like that are B.S. They cant be proven or disproven, so they serve no purpose. If you really were in high level military ineligence, then you wouldn't be telling us that, would you?
Oh, so now I have to start proving to you guys that I worked in intel do I? Well I can assure you that my statement is no B.S. as you so succinctly put it. You are also expecting the people on this forum to believe that some of you are pilots, aren't statements like that also B.S. working off your own logic? For all we know, you are model aircraft enthusiasts taking your hobbies to the extreme.
I checked out the met-office link, fine, their credibility is all but gone in the U.K. They can't even get the weather forecast right from day to day, wonder why that is? |
| |
|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:21 am
|
|
|
X patterns in the sky, and jets flying what appears to be "in formation" without any documentation as to their altitudes isn't going to make the case for me, nor will it make the case for 'most people'.
By 'most people' you mean the handful of one sided, unbending debunkers like yourselves?
I can assure you that the open minded people of the U.K. know that something is amiss in our skies and know that civilian aircraft do not spend hours on end making X patterns and various grid patterns etc. They are also aided by satellite photos that clearly show the aftermath of a days chemtrailing, as well as the seasonally abnormal weather ie. day starts off like any other normal summers day, 2 and a half hours of spraying later, hazy white chemical cloud cover. Even the C.A.A. said that civil airline traffic over my locality 'COULD NOT' have caused the mess shown in some of my photos. You keep on trying to empty the Atlantic with a sieve guys, that's the best analogy I can think of for your efforts.
|
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 10:29 am
|
|
|
j briggs wrote:
.....I can assure you that the open minded people of the U.K. know that something is amiss in our skies.....
They sure do. I've talked with a few people visiting here from the UK over the last couple of years and they don't like what's going on any more than we do in the States.
By the way, does the name Gordon Thomas mean anything to you? |
| |
|
|
j briggs
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 36
Location: United Kingdom |
|
Sat Jul 27, 2002 11:02 am
|
|
|
Hi Deborah,
Thanks for your posts Deborah, no that name doesn't ring a bell, please enlighten me. You can send me a private mail if you want to by surfing to http://biochem.yoll.net and clicking on the e-mail link. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 1:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
