posted 03-27-2001 09:46 AM            

I simply stated exactly what was on my mind.....no emotion involved, I absolutely meant what I said.

posted 03-27-2001 09:52 AM            

you say that most of the chemtrail planes fly at lower altitudes? why do all photos on these sites show high level trails? are you saying that we can eliminate all these photos? the only photo that i have seen that even claims to be a "low-level" trail is the one from mark sky. i think from the many posts on this picture the last few days it is clear that it is not low-level trails.

by the way, commercial aircraft fly at lower altitudes also. they have to land and take-off so they would still be flying through the chemtrails.

also, i wouldnt base too much on what you saw in a hollywood movie. they have been none to deal in fantasy at times :~)

sorry about having a discussion on the obviously not important technical viability of this whole subject. trying to figure out these questions is evidently not as important to you as the "frequency of diseases" and such.

posted 03-27-2001 10:17 AM            

how much sense does that make?

we are not trying to "dismiss" it, we are trying to explain it.

here is a recap of the best that anyone could do to support it being a low-level trail:

it has to be low-level because if it was at 35,000 ft then it would have to be 38 miles from the camera.

well, although some here dont want to believe that it is possible to see objects 38 miles away with clarity, all i can say is that it is very possible. i see these distances and more on a day to day basis.

posted 03-27-2001 10:25 AM            

From research with Flight Explorer and attempting to learn more about these highly persistent trails that are being created by jets that don't show up on the tool, I've found that these trails are in the general range of common flight altitudes. There may be low-level trails somewhere else, but here in Houston, the trails that become cirrus aviaticus are not.

More specifically I believe they are created at between 30,000 ft. and 35,000 ft. This is my rough guess based at what I've seen and interpolated via intersection of normal contrails that I could identify with the highly persistent trails, known as Chemtrails.

Also based on my research, I've found that without training in altitude estimate, based on known aircraft and altitudes via Flight Explorer, it is very easy to underestimate altitude. I'm definately not going to say there there haven't been low-level trails, but that is not my experience.

posted 03-27-2001 10:28 AM            

However, Dirk-TG-Cy: Looks like your "big guns" couldn't come up with a very plausible response to my QUALITY of seeing argument regarding Mark's picture. They do have a few more hours, though.

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney

posted 03-27-2001 10:48 AM            

it is almost impossible to judge altitudes with any accuracy with the naked eye. as i have stated i cant tell the difference between an aircraft at 25,000 or one at 35,000. i guess in the old days weathermen used to make visual observations of the clouds (i was actually trained for this in one of met classes in college) but this is only valid for the lower level clouds.

as far as the altitudes that you are observing in FE, the only thing that i would add is that 30,000 to 35,000 are the preferred cruise altitudes for most of the airliners today.

i am not saying that there isnt any low-level spraying going either, but while i have seen tons of photographic evidence (valid or not) of high stuff, there is very little of the low stuff even though everyone seems to have a story to tell about them.

i would like to see some photos as these are the ones that would really interest me. the high stuff can be generally explained by normal means, but any low level trails would be much harder to explain.

i hope that if someone posts a photo, and then i recognize it as something benign and explain it as so i dont get attacked.

posted 03-27-2001 11:26 AM            

"we have something called TCAS which shows us the position of other aircraft. we can sometimes see aircraft 40 miles away on the screen and their contrails are easily seen."

posted 03-27-2001 12:49 PM            

do you know that you can see the international space station with the naked eye. i am not sure of the exact altitude but it is somewhere between 150 and 200 miles above the earth. trust me, you can see contrails from 40 miles and a lot further away.

i dont think you understand what TCAS does. i got in trouble by delphi and windy when i discussed "airlplane stuff" so i will not explain it to you unless you want me to.

one last point regarding mark sky's picture. mark sky said that if the trails were at 35,000 ft then they would have to be 40 miles or so away. contrails can also form in the low 20,000 ft level also.

posted 03-27-2001 01:53 PM            

TQM is the management of human thought and identity. It considers human variability a "crisis" to be "eliminated."

Dirk, you seem to be getting rattled here. You say, "i know no one here believes that the human eye can see 40 miles." Hours ago I told you, "I'm not disputing that you (and Top Gun) can see things at 40, 110 or even 150 miles. It's the QUALITY of the seeing which I'm talking about."

posted 03-27-2001 02:29 PM            

i am not getting rattled big guy, its just seems that we cant even agree on some basic physics.

not sure where else to go with this thread, you either believe that you can see a contrail from 40 miles away or you dont. believe what you want to. but if you dont think its possible then you would be in the vast minority of people out side of this forum.

i've already explained it to you. if you dont believe me then ask other pilots and see what they tell you. but who knows, maybe they'll just lie to you also. we're all government scum anyway.

can you see clouds from 40 miles away? if the answer is yes then why cant you see contrails from 40 miles away?

by the way, are you sure you know what TCAS does?

this is getting tedious. talk at ya later

posted 03-27-2001 02:47 PM            

http://members.nbci.com/FieryCelt/trailer/ct04b.html

quote:

---

By ChickieDeb...

Well, ahem, I just read that thread so far and Dirk Digler wants some photos of lower altitude contrails. Photos I took back in October of '99 when I first became vocal on the issue are displayed here (and stop laughing at me.) Scroll down to Photos of October 24, 1999,(A Sunday and a low traffic time) #'s 8, 9 and 10. These were high altitude trails being laid in the Northwest(unlingering) and Eastern (lingering) skies around my property around 3PM EST.

Now click on More of Deb's Pics. These were taken on December 9, 1999 a Thursday, a heavy traffic time, in the western and southwestern skies respectfully. You can see what was going on from a high altitude jet by the thin contrail being laid in photo 4 & 5, running northeast-southwest, along my high altitude flight path. Trails in the 1st & 2nd photo, running southeast-northwest look entirely different and disipating much differntly. But look at the two bottom photos. You can see a high altitude trail being laid way above a fish-bone, low altitude trail, that spread like that quite FAST. (When I sent this photo to Thermit way back when, he showed great interest in it because it resembled what he was witnessing, I assume.)

Now back then, pre-Flight Explorer and any understanding of winds, Mr. Fishbones there scared the bejesus out of me and I was so paranoid, that I thought it was laid over my house "just for me." (Quit laughing!) But upon zoom examination on FE of my area, not only do I have the high altitude path that turns at Indianapolis and runs southwest-northeast (as demonstrated in Photo 1 on the previous page taken on 10/2/99 at dawn (on a Saturday morning), but I also have lower altitude flight paths south of that, which run from southeast to northwest, and southwest-northeast which would account for these lower-seeming trails. Conditions must have been just right that afternoon for lower altitude trails to form and spread as they did. And I can't recall another day since these 12/9/99 trails appearred from low altitude flights like that - Murphy's Law because I since have FE and know what to look for. Maybe it's the difference between conditions in Houston and Indianapolis that Thermit sees them more often. It only makes sense that flights would have to use those lower altitude paths on a heavy traffic day to avoid the flights using the high altitude path, because you can see from the 2 bottom photos where they cross (Mr. Fishbones and the thin line.)

I think it's pretty obvious from the photos on the second page how different lower altitude trails dissipate than higher ones at the same time and place. As I've stated previously, I don't just photo the sky; I try to include landmarks so I can later identify the direction of the trails and this is demonstrated in these, my very first.

Wouldn't it be fun to include this info into the above thread at Thermit's, but heck, I GOT BANNED!
So I will send this to Thermit in e-mail and hope he has the courage to include it in the thread.

BTW, strolling down memory lane, that very first photo of 10/2/99 has a sister taken 3/4/00, also a Saturday morning at dawn and you would swear they are the same event. But on 3/4/00 I had FE and they are nothing more than flights on their way from the east to St. Louis. Rude awakening.

---

posted 03-27-2001 05:09 PM            

You can check the radial button above the reply box next to the face you want to put in, or you can enter them in the body of the message with HTML code like any other graphic. Now if 3T31L gets his Traffic Collision and Avoidance System up and operating, he may be able to navigate through all these:



[Edited 2 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 03-27-2001]

posted 03-27-2001 06:08 PM            

sorry i dont carry a digital camera with me when i fly.

posted 03-27-2001 06:22 PM            

i dont want to argue with you about this. but honestly, it is amazing just how hard it is to judge distances.

sometimes we'll see a thunderstorm cell in front of the aircraft that looks like it's just ahead of us. then you look down at the weather radar and it's 70, 80 mile away.