posted 11-03-2000 08:15 PM            

When I say airways are not like roads, I meant that the planes can leave the airway, they do it all the time. The only way you're going to see what really goes on up there is by watching Flight Explorer for awhile. When you're on the Interstate doing 65mph and you come upon an old man in a hat doing 55mph, what do you do? He may have got on where you did, long before you did, but depending on the distance, you will eventually pass him, no? What is so hard to understand about that? Have you ever seen a map of the high and low altitude airways over the US? Not only does it easily explain the X's and grids left by contrails, you can see how planes fly one behind another, at different altitudes and speeds, and with FE showing their current latitude and longtitude, if you're quick, you can figure how far apart they really are.

As for the photo in question, for all I know it can be a military formation but who hasn't seen a military formation flying overhead? If atmospheric conditions allow, they will form contrails from their exhaust.
The only way to determine that they are NOT commercial airliners would be if the photographer was verifying them on Flight Explorer at the time of the event.

I have captured a screen from FE the other day and pasted it to a Word Doc. I just learned to cut and paste and I tried to bring it over to this site last night but can't figure out how to do it. I've also tried to paste a screen like Thermit did on the other page and failed. I would appreciate any assistance on this, thank you.

>"I would love to draw a conclusion to this discussion so we can move on to other more directly applicable chemtrail identifiers, so hopefully you and other debunkers and/or pilots and controllers will respond fairly soon....or forever hold your peace.,"<

Me too. You see, Cy, I am not a debunker, nor a pilot or a controller. In fact, I kept what I found to myself to avoid treatment just as you're dishing out. I have been heavy into this issue for a year now and came to the table the same as you, probably, that is, I saw something extraordinary in the sky. When I put the word "contrail" into my search engine, it led me directly to the issue, not NASA. And being suspicious of everything the gov does, I got hooked. But unlike so many, I took the challenge and committed some serious time and money to find out what those planes were - friend or foe. I wasted too much time arguing and accusing people like Jay Reynolds, goldrush, Seeker, et al of the same things you state here. I was determined to prove them wrong and the key word is prove, as in tangible proof. The only way you're going to prove anything to yourself is to take the challenge, spend some time and a little cash to see what is really going on in the sky above you.

posted 11-03-2000 09:03 PM            

Don't worry about Cy, he's just playing with you. There are so many exceptions and variables in the FAA and ATC regs that anything at all could be happening in the photo. There are dozens of rules in the USCFR as well. Not to mention all sorts of special airspace sectors.

posted 11-03-2000 10:08 PM            

"Ooooookaaaayy, let's look at what we have so far in the "scientific" effort to determine chemtrails.

Fact1: Chemtrails which are often seen laid down in formation and parallel lines are not made by commercial passenger aircraft.

No debunker has yet to refute this claim and therefore we can so far accept this as an indicator for possible spraying or otherwise non-commercial passenger airliner activity.

Fact 2: Chemtrails have unusual refractive properties producing a rainbow or oil slick effect not found in the opaque ice crystals of normal contrails.

No debunker has yet to refute this claim, therefore we can so far accept unusual refractive properties impossible for opaque ice crystals as an indicator for possible spraying.

Fact 3: Natural contrails only form in conditions of around -42 degrees Celsius and a relative humidity of a 5 to 7 degree Celsius temp/dewpoint spread."

No "scientific effort" has shown any of the above.

These are not questions.

They assume facts not in evidence.

To even discuss them is tacit admission that there are "chemtrails" to discuss.

posted 11-04-2000 12:51 AM            

>To even discuss them is tacit admission that there are "chemtrails" to discuss.<

Well in the strictest sense yes there are chemical trails, barium, sf6, there are many I have read about, that are released from craft for atmosphereic testing or logistics...

I would say that dropping dry ice in or around a fledgling T-boomer could qualify as such too....

Increased sulfur content in fuel can increase the probability of contrail persistence....

It is interesting what a little of this or that can do.....

meow

posted 11-04-2000 04:40 AM            

I will attempt to post one here,

posted 11-05-2000 04:16 AM            

Thanks for posting my pic. I haven't figured that out quite yet.

One thing............I am very curious as to why someone would want to spend a year and a half debunking chemtrails. If I believed a bunch of people were foolishly seeing a conspiracy, where none exists, I would possibly try a few times to convince them otherwise, and if that failed, I would move on to where my time could be of more use. It just doesn't make sense. There are so many causes that need attention, why spend a year and a half telling people they are stupid or crazy? If chemtrails are normal, then Jay Reynolds has wasted a year and a half, trying to convince people that what they are seeing is normal, thus creating no harm to anyone. Why not fight for something that has meaning? Does this make sense to anyone here?

Jay and Duncan don't count for this question, however I'm sure they will reply if you feel like it. Anyone else?

Just curious?

ALSO, If someone would please e-mail me, or post here if it is simple, and splain how to post pics in a thread, I would greatly appreciate it.

Brent

P.S. hi Duncan! How the heck are you? I have a question for you......Is this guy really a project manager at Nasa? Please answer if it is not difficult for you to check on this. thanks.

(From the link)
Crop Pictograms in the United Kingdom

By Alan Holt

M.S. Physical Science (astrophysics)

PostScript: Alan Holt is currently a project manager for NASA's International Space Station: The above does not necessarily reflect the views of NASA and are the sole views of Alan Holt
http://home.sprintmail.com/~rigoletto/reports/alanholt_uk_pictograms.htm

posted 11-05-2000 07:47 AM              

Maybe you don't care if people live in fear due to a false idea promoted by those who manipulate them, misled by some people with agendas, and whose lives are in some cases negatively affected as a result.

I do care, and eventually, you and all the people who now "believe" in chemtrails will understand. Some people do understand already.

posted 11-05-2000 11:36 AM            

If chemtrails are normal, then Jay Reynolds has wasted a year and a half, trying to convince people that what they are seeing is normal, thus creating no harm to anyone.

Jay has been here a lot longer than a year and a half. He's been here from the first on-line Chemtrail discussion...back when people didn't know what to title them. You know, I'm really surprised how Jay says he's currently employeed for Vertas publication, which is big on government wrong-doings and NWO coverage, yet I couldn't find his name anywhere connected.

Jay being that some past posts were eaten up, do you mind re-posting your contact list of scientists of enquiry?

posted 11-05-2000 01:27 PM            

What people do is there business and if they wish to "waste" their time that is their perogative...

Whether it be waste, in message board participation, or wasteing $800.00 on film .

You spent a lot of time on 'mortality rates' here awhile back Christy, does that mean your fixated on death ?

Very silly Christy.....