posted 11-01-2000 07:40 AM            

What is the minimum horizontal separation at the altitude you believe these planes to be flying?
Hint: It's much less than 4NM.

How near an airport are these aircraft? They may have recently taken off. They would remain closer together for a short time.

posted 11-01-2000 07:59 AM            

How would flight explorer help? There isn't enough info provided to even use flight explorer. Do we even know where the photos were taken? I think Cy is trying to bully me into accepting that the planes aren't commercial. But I don't agree with his methods of cherry picking and repeating FAA rules which he thinks apply to the situation, when they probably don't.

In any event, I do agree with you. Anyone who was serious, would use flight explorer to gain information. I do not take the subject seriously, so why should I bother?

posted 11-01-2000 08:47 AM              

Let it be known that cydoniaquest refuses to
attempt finding answers from credible, knowledgeable, and authoritative persons to his question regarding his original contention that:

"Chemtrails have unusual refractive properties producing a rainbow or oil slick effect not found in the opaque ice crystals of normal contrails."

Cydoniaquest is not interested in developing knowledge, or helping others to understand what they see. This pattern has been repeated
by many chemtrail promoters such as:

1. "sore throat" who refuses to contact relevant doctors and NRVESS lab personnel while simultaneously contending that these persons, in concert with the CDC, are "doctoring" data regarding deaths from pneumonia and influenza.

2. Clifford Carnicom, who refuses to have samples of "fibrous material" he claims to be abnormal tested by HPLC amino acid analysis to determine if in fact such material is normal spiderweb or not.

3.Dentist Leonard Horowitz, who contends that a fungus is being sprayed from airplanes, but will not publish any laboratory evidence to prove his contention.

4. Charles Warren, who contends that photos of an incident in Magalia, CA, represents areal spraying, but for well over one year, has refused to release any investigative evidence beyond a few out of "six pounds" of photographs claimed.

5. William Thomas, who over the past 1-1/2 years claims to have "hundreds" of photos of US air force tankers "spraying" through tailbooms at 9,000 feet, laboratory analysis showing "biohazard material" that came from aircraft, and water samples showing high aluminum levels due to material dropped from aircraft. Though Thomas has stated that he will release his evidence if paid well enough, my correspondence to him regarding his asking price has gone unanswered for 1-1/2 years.

6.Ken Welch, who claims over the past 1-1/2
years to have been continually exposed to Ethylene dibromide in and around Harris County, TX, but has failed to provide any laboratory analysis supporting his claim.

7. Erminia Cassani, who claims to have laboratory analysis of material dropped at low altitude in 1998,1999, and 2000, but refuses to display such analysis, or even specify where such samples were taken.

8.Larry Wayne Harris and Richard Finke, who, in 1997, claimed to have a laboratory analysis showing that ethylene dibromide was a "component" of JP-8 jet fuel, but in the ensuing three years have not displayed such evidence.

Cydoniaquest now joins these other chemtrail promoters who make claims but refuse to conduct open research in a public forum which could risk their claims being found false.

Cydoniaquest now joins all the preceding members and is now listed in the
CHEMTRAIL PROMOTER HALL OF SHAME, where their names will be forever enshrined and whom are responsible for misleading others towards the false conclusion that chemtrails exist.

If in fact chemtrails DO exist, as these persons claim, and these persons possess evidence or knowledge of same, such refusal demonstrates those person's amoral attitude towards their fellow human beings, their disloyalty to their fellow citizens and country, and they could be considered accessories after the fact by withholding such knowledge, evidence, or proof.

posted 11-01-2000 10:13 AM            

I'm sorry you didn't read my earlier reply to your posts on this thread, but the Great Gobbling Post Glitch several days ago ate my previous response. I wanted to reply to all of your comments posted 10-30-2000 12:58 PM, but I got caught up in the math, and will limit my response to your concern about parallel contrails.

You're correct when you quote Federal Aircraft Regulation (FAR) Chapter 1 Subchapter F part 91-111, "Operating Near Other Aircraft" as stating that aircraft carrying passengers for hire cannot fly in formation. However, two aircraft flying in parallel separated by the FAA-mandated minimum 2000 feet distance is not "formation flying".

This means that if parallel contrails are at least 2000 feet apart, commercial aircraft COULD have created them. Now we have the problem in determining just how far apart aircraft which leave parallel contrails really are; if they're less than 2000 feet, they are not commercial aircraft (or even military aircraft under normal flight conditions).

The best way to determine distance between two aircraft is to determine the angle subtended between two aircraft, assume an altitude, and use the tangent of the subtended angle to make the estimate. But an even easier way to do this is to use a ratio. If an angle subtends a measurable lateral at a measurable distance, then that same angle will measure a longer (unknown) lateral at a longer (known) distance.

In plain English, this means that a one-inch distance a yard away from you looks the same as a

· two-inch distance two yards away;

· 760-inch distance 760 yards away (which is a 63-foot distance a mile away); or

· 904-foot distance at 32500 feet (which I have arbitrarily picked as the average altitude of a contrail-making commercial aircraft).

You can make a 'theodolite' yourself out of two yardsticks. Fasten one to another in a T shape, and pound some small nails into the top of the T an inch apart. Then hold the base of the T up to your nose, sight along it, and count the nails on the other yardstick as you line up the two contrails or aircraft or whatever.

So if you see two parallel aircraft contrails that look two inches apart, you might think that they're within a 2000-foot distance of each other, and thus could possibly be flying too close to be normal commercial flights, right?

Unfortunately, no.

That's because the aircraft could be separated by 2000 feet altitude as well, and the subtended-angle trick (which is what we use to estimate distances, even if we're not aware of it) only works when the two objects are the same distance away from us. As a matter of fact, if you had one aircraft 2000 feet directly above the other, you'd see only one contrail (at least until one of them blows laterally away from the other).

But can't we tell if one aircraft is higher than another one? Usually not. Our innate depth perception works only out to about 700 feet, because depth perception works based on binocular vision, which is a function of how far apart our eyes are. Usually, we can estimate which object is farther away up to several miles' distance, because we have a frame of reference (the bush a half-mile away looks closer than the tree a mile away because we can see the pickup truck in between them).

But there is no frame of reference in the sky, unless we can see one plane fly into a cloud and disappear, while the other plane passes below it. And the relative size of the aircraft doesn't usually help, either; a 777 is bigger than a 757, and we simply can't differentiate between those two twin-engine aircraft at thirty-plus thousand feet.

So the bottom line of this reasoning is that we can't say that two contrails are 'too close together' to be commercial aircraft, because we can't tell how apart those contrails actually are.

Regards,

Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net

posted 11-01-2000 03:38 PM            

I can't believe that is what was bothering you.

posted 11-01-2000 04:24 PM            

It's true that I don't know for sure what the minimum horizontally separation for aircraft flying in parallel is. I'd asked several friends who gave me the 2000-foot answwer, but they are ex-Army aviators and general aviation pilots. If there is a minimum horizontal separation between commercial flights -- and whether that distance is different between commercial passenger and commercial cargo aircraft -- I simply haven't been able to figure out yet. I'd appreciate any further information on the subject.

However, inasmuch as the homemade 'theodolite' post was concerned, I still say it is difficult to estimate horizontal distance between two aircraft from the ground, since we really have no way of telling whether those aircraft are separated vertically as well.

Regards,

Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net

posted 11-01-2000 08:59 PM            

On the question of parallel contrails I would suggest that most are created by commercial aviation traffic. By the chemtrail communities own statements, "trails" often linger for several hours in some cases. In these cases air traffic down a used corridor will produce multiple lines of contrails even though the aircraft may be twenty minutes to an hour apart.

In regards to the photo you've posted in this thread of parallel contrails, at least two of the aircraft are in a similar formation that I have seen single engine fighter aircraft use frequently. The third may be in the process of joining up with the formation. The contrails they are creating seem to be perfectly normal.

You also asked what the effects of jet fuel being released in front a light source would be. My father flew Kc-135 tanker aircraft for many years in the US air force. As the refueling boom is released from the tanking aircraft there is almost always a burst of fuel that is sprayed into the air out of the boom. The effect is that the fuel evaporates almost instantly. There is no lingering visual effect. Of course, this applies only to jet fuel.

posted 11-02-2000 02:47 AM            

Yep.....

If whoever took that photo, had Flight Explorer they would know whether it was military or commercial...and there would be no arguement....

Debunk that....

And now for something completely different...

The all seeing eye....

posted 11-02-2000 03:08 AM            

I see no score here as of yet and the points you won cy please document,if the photographer had F/E they would have know if it was commercial....

Nuff said....

If discussion is to be limited I see no reason in posting here for anybody...

I turned the other cheek relating to elvis but I see now where that is to lead....

Domo maruie gotto

out

posted 11-02-2000 06:49 AM            

I doubt if you can tell the difference between contrail widths with 1,000 feet of seperation, a dubious method at best for an altitude calculation anyway.

How you can claim all 3 are on the same heading is beyond me.

The FARs may not specify horizontal separation, but the ATC regs sure do!

Even I can tell that FDX400 is a FEDEX cargo plane, and not a UAL400, United Airlines Pax job.

I still can't see where you have "ruled out" pax carrying planes. Unless you know more about the photo than you have posted so far.

I can see you aren't going to say how you know the altitude and lateral separation of these aircraft, other than a vague reference to contrail widths and federal airway widths (which end below 18K feet anyway, except for Hawaii).

Let's just agree that we disagree.

You lost me on the third line of your opening post, when you assumed chemtrails exist. My policy, borrowed from Cliff, is not to take anyone seriously unless they first accept the idea that chemtrails do not exist. My assumption is that they don't, and I won't go to much effort for, or have much of a discussion with, anyone who doesn't agree with my assumption.

posted 11-02-2000 08:06 AM              

What supports your comment above, cy?

Have you used this software?
If so, what were your findings, if not, why not?

posted 11-02-2000 09:13 AM            

quote:

---

Aparently, I can only post a limit of 0.000888333333 posts in some time limit ?

If discussion is to be limited I see no reason in posting here for anybody...

---

posted 11-02-2000 11:25 AM            

I imagine cy, if either one of you had flight explorer, you would KNOW ....<<
http://www.avweb.com/sponsors/fe/review.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ditto, Seekerman. Cy sounds like me many moons ago, especially in the exchanges with Jay and Canex. The only way to verify the contril scenes we are capturing as in the photos above is to verify them at the time they are flying over with Flight Explorer.

Personal note to Cy: If you are willing to subscribe to Flight Explorer, I am willing to get you set-up and started by phone so you don't have to waste time like I did trying to learn the software, that is unless you have aviation experience. If you are willing, please e-mail me at cdebgo@zipmax.com

LTC said "I think that perspective compression is causing the planes to look closer than they actually are. "

posted 11-02-2000 12:47 PM              

Now hold on there a minute, cy, let's take a look at your pening statement:
"Fact1: Chemtrails which are often seen laid down in formation and parallel lines are not made by commercial passenger aircraft."

In this case, the photograph you cite as showing a "formation" is your premise, and you claim that it is "not made by commercial passenger aircraft", and you state that your conclusion is "these are most likely military aircraft, is exactly my point."

But, cy, how can you declare a point scored when you have not even proven your premise?

As I stated before, you have no altitude, you have not identified the aircraft, you have no headings, you have no rate of climb, you have nothing, cy.

Duncan probably most soundly refuted even how a visual analysis of the photo cannot determine what needs to be known to establish your premise as proven.

All the rest of what you've done is interesting, but irrelevant. Don't try such sophistry on rational people who can think for themselves, man. You haven't reached first base yet, much less made it home.

Now, that clears up one, how in the world can you claim two, much less three?

Jay Reynolds