posted 01-22-2001 10:52 AM            

Its more of the usual stuff.

Loooookinup is dubious about Dubya, and cites that renowned authority David Icke in support of his view. To go into David Icke's claims, even in list form, would take some time. I don't propose to do this, but suffice it to say that he is quite obviously a delusional self-publicist with an eye for exploiting those of a similar mindset. One claim might suffice to demonstrate his inverted (and perverted) thinking: this is the claim that he makes on his website to the effect that AIDS/HIV is *caused* by AZT treatment rather than eased by it.He was a celebrity on this side of the pond before he went deolali, and now he is merely a figure of derision, pity, contempt and ridicule.

One correspondent is troubled by a red sunset (hasn't she ever heard the rhyme 'Red Sky at Night'? - it predates 'planes. For her further education, I will provide the full text:

Red sky at night,
Shepherd's delight.
Red sky at morning,
Shepherd's warning.

Woah! What's that? There were red skies about before the spraying started? Well, slap my thigh. There goes one of the oft-cited arguments of the chemmies.

All this and another correpondent bleating about harrassment by the agencies. The problem with his story is that he claims that its been happening for months. What's the deal? If he's being followed, as he claims, and if he is being sprayed (from car exhausts in a targetted manner), as he claims, then how is he still alive? Are the chemicals in the sprays so weak as to require continued exposure for months before taking effect? He even throws in an ad for the disgraced ex-doctor Hulda Clarke, a woman who is as adverse to proving her claims as are most chemmies.

And while the malcontents rattle off their mantra about the powers-that-be (what a nonsensical phrase - what's wrong with "The Powers That Are", "The Powers That Prevail", or "Those in Power"? The "be" in this case is a very redundant subjunctive), the roving troubadour of the Chemtrail Business - Mark Sky - continues his therapy by composing (should that be "decomposing"?) his trite angst-ridden semi-literate effusions. Like a weeping wound, there is annoyance in his presence, but a macabre fascination in examining his eristic eructations.

Sedona, meanwhile, has dusted down her best copybook, and has written an f-grade analysis of the current situation. Her audience; His Royal Highness Cliff E. Her reward, as she performs tricks as his feet: a pat on the head, and a round of applause from the other inmates.

Now, I know that some people are very concerned at what they think is happening. I know that some of these people are also very sincere in their beliefs. However, there is also a side to this debate which attracts the complete wackos. Think about it logically:

If I discover that there is a worldwide conspiracy, and I create a website to publicise it, I may get support. I will also get - and this is an absolutely inevitable result of starting the website - the attention of every deranged conspiracy freak who has access to a keyboard. These people are also inclined to be the most vocal, as they are invariably attention seekers. Accordingly, they end up taking a leading role in the debate. The Carnicom site is the clearest example of this at work.

Now, I know that all of this must come across as being a major rant, but there was one sentence in Sedona's homework which galled me to a great extent; this was her contention that:
"In this respect alone we are, I believe, looking at the largest criminal act in the history of the human race." I am being charitable when I suggest that she may have been missing on the days in school when the following were covered: The Holocaust; The Inquisition, Stalin's purges. I presume that she was ill on those days when the rampant and bloody colonisation of the New World was being taught. I imagine that she was too tired to take in the economic famines which have been a feature of history since time immemorial. I can also accept that she was otherwise occupied when massacres such as Amritsar, Tiananmen Square or St Bartholomew were mentioned. And as for the apartheid and the institutionalised slavery that was endemic in Africa - well, maybe she couldn't hear the teacher.

The facts are:

No single fatality as a result of 'chemtrails' has been presented.
Not a single causal link between trails and sickness has been established.

posted 01-23-2001 10:02 PM            

Bee speaks of this phenomenon as normal contrails being composed of nothing but water vapor casting pretty rainbows.

posted 01-24-2001 12:36 AM            

"..ONLY for the last two years, but NOT before."

you may want to get your facts straight. i have been flying for many years. i havent seen anything, either in pictures or from my own observations, in the last 2 years that i didnt see 20 years ago. thats the point. and if i hear one more person say "its obvious to anyone who opens his eyes" ...
my eyes are open everyday. its kind of hard to be involved in aviation and not have your eyes open.

you can believe me or not. your choice.

dont you think it is kind of funny that of all the commercial pilots in this country, who like it or not are probably better trained observers than you, none have come to this board to support chemtrails. none? (at least none that i know of. thermit correct me if i am wrong) if you want to believe that pilots and military folks are evil as a whole, thats fine, but not even one of the many thousands?

posted 01-24-2001 01:16 AM            

There's a lot of potenial and existing ones pictured :

posted 01-24-2001 01:41 AM            

what you see as a "x", i see as two aircraft whose paths have crossed. what you see as an "o" i see as either a holding pattern or military training maneuvers. you see a "tic-tac-toe" is see multiple aircraft in a high density traffic area on multiple crossing airways. all my explanations are facts. for the "x"'s, "o"'s and tic-tac-toes to be anything else, then you have to first eliminate the known.

i would be interested to see any photos taken by a pilot from the flight deck that show chemtrails.

posted 01-24-2001 01:48 AM            

Ok, then maybe you can answer my questions since I'm just a lazy chemmie:

What do the numbers represent? Are the first three or four digits the last digits in the aircraft call sign? Does the arrows direction mean climbing or descending? Are the last digits altitude or heading? I'm assuming altitude since aircraft heading in different directions have the same numbers. So would 170 mean 17,000 ft for example?

Ok once you answer these simple questions, can you tell me if this is just one of several Flight Explorer modes?

Next answer me how often FE updates and if you can tell that the aircraft you are seeing are leaving contrails or not. Does it show you transponder codes. Can you tell if they are IFR or VFR? Would a military spray plane show up? Would a Piper Cub show up? WHere are the airways? Do you know if the aircraft depicted below certain altitudes are flying on airways? Do you know their destination or if they plan to change course?

posted 01-24-2001 01:57 AM            

i think the point is this. obviously, no covert, black project aircraft on some secret mission is going to show up on flight explorer or any other flight tracking software. the point is that if you see a strange contrail or contrail pattern above you and then you look on flight explorer and see United 762 and American 1256 in the same spot on the tracking map, then you can safely say that it is not a chemtrail (i hope) this is the value of F.E.

however, its not the end all to everything. if you see 10 trails above you and nothing on flight tracker, then you still have to eliminate military traffic and computer error. a lot of work and effort i know, but its required to prove anything.

posted 01-24-2001 02:10 AM            

So let's say we see what we consider a chemjet flying over head, and we go look on the computer to see what it is, and there is no information to ID if the aircraft is an airliner or not. I'm still not sure I see the value in Flight Explorer,in that situation especially since the type of aircraft we would expect to see would be military anyway, given that most tankers are military, and would show up overhead but not on the FE software.

posted 01-24-2001 02:13 AM            

Chemmies 1st step to a rational arguement

Basically I'm trying to ask what information you think this Flight Explorer would give you that distinguishes normal airtraffic from sprayplanes. I never got that one. Maybe I'm just a dumb chemmie from down under. What info are you seeking from Flight Explorer, Seeker? Help me out.

FE puts more than a face on these planes and trails...it removes suspicion....if you see a trail that is what you call a chemtrail and it turns out to be a commercial craft, then the military is not spraying you....if you see a trail that is what you would call a chemtrail and it does not show up on fe then the military craft are producing different looking trails, if you use the software and see both occurances then you must assume that chemtrails as portrayed are a lie....

I am interested in one type of trail and have not pinned it down yet....

clear ?

posted 01-24-2001 02:27 AM            

just curious ?

posted 01-24-2001 03:31 AM            

But I disagree with your bit of logic. Although I can see the value of Flight Explorer at determining commercial aircraft, I don't believe that we can just assume a military aircraft leaving what appears to be a chemtrail is actually a normal contrail, just because the a/c in question is military. In fact military a/c are just what we would expect to see doing the spraying, so an unusually thick "contrail" coming from a KC135 would probably be a good indication it was spraying something, not that there was something unusual about the engines just because it was military. McDonnel Douglas and Boeing make civilian and military aircraft. No reason to believe that the engines are going to leave different trails on one as opposed to the other, although aging aircraft like the B-52 can leave black smoke.

In this case, it seems to me that FE would be quite useful in implicating a military aircraft in possible chemical spraying, just the opposite of what you suggest. No offense, but I find some gaping holes in your logic.

posted 01-24-2001 08:40 AM            

Key to FE screen shown above:

• The first three digits shown next to each plane represent the altitude. Values are shown in 100's of feet, so just add 2 zeros to the number to read height.
  
• An arrow following this number will represent acending or descending altitude depending on the direction of the symbol.
  
• The second number shown is the ground speed in knots.
  
• The red lines are history lines that will show up to the four last positions of the flight.
  
• The color of the plane indicates Active for orange and Arrived for blue.
  

Flight Explorer is quite configurable in the information it displays on the active screen. Each craft can be examined for altitude, heading, origin, destination, aircraft type, company and a few other things.

posted 01-24-2001 12:05 PM            

"so an unusually thick "contrail" coming from a KC135 would probably be a good indication it was spraying something,..."

what would you consider to be unusually thick? the reason i ask is that some chemtrail activists believe that contrails only come in one shape and size. this couldnt be further from the truth. contrails, just like naturally forming clouds, can come in an almost infinate variety of shapes and sizes depending on the prevailing conditions. they can be just a few feet across or spread out several hundreds of feet. because of this fact i dont think that you can label a trail "chem" just because of how thick it is.

also, it is not uncommon to see 2 very different contrails sharing the same sky. you may observe one very thick trail and then a very thin trail crossing it. you have to remember that these trails can be separated by many thousands of feet vertically and thus are subjected to wildly different conditions.

posted 01-25-2001 03:41 AM            

Plenty of responses, yet none of them directly answered the points I was making.

Military, you say that the atrocities that I cite merely prove that some governments in the past have committed evil. This proves absolutely nothing about the behaviours of current governments. If you were a juror, how would you react to a prosecution claim that there have been murders in the past and that therefore the defendant is guilty? Whatever. You left alone the argument I was making, which was that Sedona was wrong to equate this alleged conspiracy with past atrocities.

Lulu, no, I haven't heard that piece of doggerel, and I won't bother committing it to memory. Again, you seem to have completely ignored the point I was making which was that a piece of schoolchild verse which goes back many years (and, yes, I know that its not much better than yours in a literary sense) is proof positive that there have been red sunsets and sunrises for many years. I have stiven to use the archives to show that a lot of what we see is perfectly natural and has been observed for many years. This was just one of those cultural references which back me up in that contention. For another, I would cite p 364 of the original print edition of Charles Lindbergh's 'Spirit of St Louis'. In it he muses on the blue, green, grey, pink, red and gold skies that he has seen since he started flying. Another observation predating chemtrails. In this context, I would urge as many of you as possible to visit a museum or gallery where you can view some old masters or water colours. The skyscapes, besides being beautiful, are further proof that the skies have always displayed a huge spectrum of colours.

The FE stuff is amazing! I knew that there were lots of 'planes up there, but its really fantastic to see just how many. I would remind you all that this is only a two-dimensional view of the flight paths; there is also vertical separation. Remember that if two 'planes on the same flight path but at different elevations leave contrails, to anyone who is not directly underneath them, the contrails will appear as two parallel lines. Now add two planes who are flying paths perpendicular to the first two, again with different altitudes. Voila! A grid. Now consider that their ability to produce a contrail depends on the moisture content of the air. As our two 'planes encounter the same weather front, their contrail stops. That's way the two trails appear to stop at the same time on the grids. As for the 'who are we?' stuff, There's a variety of solutions:

A prank by young fliers.
A stunt for a video or ad.
The start of a 'teaser' ad campaign.
Local USAF personnel deciding to give you boys something to sweat about.

There's also the fact that the whole thing could be a lie. I've become accustomed to that sort of thing on the other boards.