posted 11-02-2000 03:27 PM            

Also for the record, I have looked at all of the FARS you posted and studied all of the ATC procedures related to your posts. They are readily available with a mouse click.

If I am a debunker than the topic has to be bunk.

posted 11-02-2000 04:17 PM            

Would they be considered in formation?

quote:

---

Redmond, WA - 10/17/1999

At 11 am pacific time on Sunday, I took these series of photos from a Casio QV11 digital camera which doesn't have good resolution. These were air force jets traveling in a NNE loose formation over Redmond, Washington just east of Seattle. The 2 jets in the rear were weaving in and out of the lead's contrail.

Patrick Timblin

---

posted 11-02-2000 04:53 PM            

And what type of confusion might that be?

posted 11-02-2000 05:09 PM            

What does that tell ya' cy ?

If they were serious and REALLY believed there was a conspiracy....they would flood this board morning, noon and night....

When people say they won't try software that would conclusively prove what kind of flight and who ,the altitude...come on'....

Denial ain't just a river in egypt....

BTW cy, what happened to that "honest discussion without bickering and cut downs" ?

What do ya' say let's talk about UFO's ceratinly more topic there....

Chemtrails are dead....

posted 11-02-2000 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

what happened to that "honest discussion without bickering and cut downs"

---

Does that mean you promise not to call anybody "moron" and the like anymore...?

quote:

---

When people say they won't try software that would conclusively prove what kind of flight and who, the altitude...come on'....

---

I'm taking the challenge, so you can stop harping on that now...

quote:

---

Chemtrails are dead....

---

posted 11-02-2000 05:46 PM            

You sound like a broken record with the flight explorer thing...It doesn't show military flight paths. I already had it. Sure, it's a neat toy, but Mark is not going to be satisfied when he sees a bunch of X's and Cross-hatching Chemtrails over his house and see that those flights don't exist on his monitor. If one wants to spend 10 bucks to watch their Aunt Lulu's flight from Houston to Boston, then it's 10 bucks well spent.

I also can't believe you would knock other Chemtrail posters for not wanting to reply to the skeptics here, Gregg. That was rough. Take a look at Cy, you and I know how he can surely hold his own and has no problem handling his own arguments and discussions...but to say other's won't help defend, is ridiculous. Many people will not tolerate personal attacks, thus will not participate...even if they have something important to say. Even skeptics Canex & Duncan don't seem very willing to jump in as often as they may like to.

posted 11-02-2000 05:58 PM            

I have conviction...

If you guys can't get together (other than cy) and present a arguement for what you believe that is truley an internal problem....

Don't put your problems on me Christy....

BTW, your post said "it does not show military only commercial" now think about that for a second Christy....if mark sees trails and they don't show up on F/E , does that not tell you something ?

Ack !

posted 11-02-2000 06:11 PM            

I do think your first photo is possibly a photograph of single engine military jets. But I'm not infallible and I can't actually see the aircraft in question. They could be a civilian acrobatic team on the way to an air show.

How is the identification of these aircraft central to the arguement that you are trying to make?

posted 11-02-2000 06:20 PM            

I think that once again they are US fighter aircraft. Four are in the classic, "Finger Four" or wedge formation, the other two seem to be a detached pair.

Cy, you are correct in your decription of the formation allowances for heavy aircraft such as the KC-135, but I don't believe that Thermit's pictures show heavy aircraft because a wedge formation for them is too much of a pain to try and hold for long distances so they don't do it very often. Most often, and on the KC-135 flight that I was privledged to be on, they fly trail formation, with one aircraft following another at about one to two miles seperation.

I additionally doubt that these are heavy aircraft because they are producing single contrails, not the multiple contrails that larger planes typically produce. Although the low resolution of the camera or weather conditions could affect the actual appearence we are seeing.

posted 11-02-2000 06:43 PM            

when cy called a truce, I stuck to it, not a knob, hump, or anything

I've noticed that. Thank You. Although hump is kinda funny. Not sure what it is, but still makes me laugh.

If you guys can't get together (other than cy) and present a arguement for what you believe

Gregg, who do you think these message boards are for? I think the key word here is argument...why does there have to be an argument? Facts are facts. If those who are skeptic think otherwise, then Thermit has allowed them to speak their views and what holds true, will, and what is crap will be crap. But I will point out, that when I used to visit the TrailsCon board, any time I had something that couldn't be opposed, I was told to either 1. Contact a meteorologist 2. Do I have a photo of this (and if yes, then would say photos are not proof) or 3. Dropped like a hot potato. Cy, in another thread, brought this up once before...how anything that the Chemtrail activist says, it's either mocked or ignored. So to be blunt..this is how I handle things...If Jay (for example) is spewing out a bunch of crap, I usually ignore it. If he has something sincere to say, I check it out and reply. There have been many things I agree with him with. As there are many things I disagree with, but does not mean I feel I need to argue, for the sake of arguing. I think many can understand what I say.

Don't put your problems on me Christy...

??
I don't get it. Doesn't make sense.

if mark sees trails and they don't show up on F/E , does that not tell you something?

Yeah, it tells me that commercial passenger jets are not involved...which I already know. I think you meant to say, is, what if Mark sees non-dissipating trails that are also on the FE. Well, if they are below 28k, I doubt it...We'll just have to let him tell us what he reports.

Cy,

I would hope however that those who want to express themselves regarding the chemtrail issue won't be off-put by the tactics of the de-bunkers

I'd rather title them Bunkums (not the same as being skeptical)...but you know me, skeptics don't bother me...I actually like them...they keep ya on your toes...but many message board posters do not see it the way we do, Cy.

Christy

posted 11-02-2000 08:20 PM            

Christy, the difference between FE and FT is the software. I have applied for a trial subscription to FT, for comparison to FE which I have subscribed for awhile and use daily, against satellites, Web cams and the ADDS weather page (rh at high altitudes). Have lots of pictures too. Still waiting after 10 months to see anything other than airliners. But I did capture something unusual on 3/22 by chance, but no one could corroborate any unusual sightings even though it encompassed several eastern states.
If you want to e-mail me with a Fax numbr, I'll be happy to send you a print-out and summary of what was happening. cdebgo@zipmax.com

>BTW, your post said "it does not show military only commercial" now think about that for a second Christy....if mark sees trails and they don't show up on F/E , does that not tell you something ?<

Thank you, G. This is the point I have been trying to get acrossed to people. Afterall, that's why I subscribed to FE, to prove that I was seeing something other than contrails from airliners. Hasn't happened yet after 10 months of daily, diligent flight watching. Heavy sigh; maybe some day.

posted 11-02-2000 11:11 PM            

sorry about the tone of my earlier post...I was in a hurry...

>who do you think these message boards are for? <

I thought for everybody ????

>Don't put your problems on me Christy...<

What I meant was people don't post for various reasons, not me I could not sway that much influence...most don't post out of preconcieved propaganda put out by carnicom, and your buddies at cttUSA are reason's people get scared off....they should join in !

>You sound like a broken record<

Now you called me a broken record, guess that's better than what you called duncan

Thermit,

>Does that mean you promise not to call anybody "moron" and the like anymore...?<

Yep, and it really stinks....

a promise made is a promise kept.

posted 11-03-2000 04:42 PM            

Please understand that I am not visitng here to debunk anything. I have seen enough evidence that weather modification or military experiments may be taking place some where. But I have come to the realization that what most people are reporting as "spray" are nothing more than jet contrails. And they are strange looking indeed. I have photos of some pretty weird ones that turned out to be nothing more than passing flights to St. Louis from the east. But rather than bicker on message boards, since discovering the truth about high altitude airline flights leaving said stange looking contrails, I have focused on researching 'why?'

I just don't believe that the average person is seeing weather modification or whatever. I base this on the fact that my photos of contrails look about the same as everybody else's. Only one way to find out; watch Flight Explorer, document what you see and research. This will give you tangible proof whether you are witnessing contrails or some covert spray program.

posted 11-03-2000 06:45 PM              

Besides, I'd say that well over 75% of the "chemtrail" pictures displayed at these websites are not flying in any formation whatsoever.

Be careful, Cy, when you tell these people that their pictures don't fit your "identifier" as "chemtrails",

guess what they will start calling YOU.