posted 04-10-2001 09:44 PM            

I understand that you believe that something is going wrong above your head. I'm not here to debate whether or not there has been a change in our skies recently. I also believe that there are more aircraft-induced/created weather phenomenon. I don't need to travel to California to see this (unlike in the movie Iron Eagle, I can't just "hop" in a jet and do that anyway.) Mr. Carnicom has made a career out of taking photos of the skies just up the road from me.

Personally, I believe that 1) the increase in pollutants in our atmosphere and 2) the dramatic increase in air traffic are what are causing this. Thermit has a great study (no, I'm not coddling) that could point another direction, but I am waiting for more studies to come in before I think about changing my opinion. I will need more than just photos of contrails and a lot of speculation to do that. Sorry. That's part of the reason why I am here.

Coincidentally, Carnicom has photos of the same skies that I fly in. Coincidentally, these are the same skies that I've flown over and created contrails of my own that have lasted for several hours. I've seen lingering contrails all over this country, in other countries, and over northern Iraq. With several thousand hours of flight time within this allegedly poisonous stratosphere, I am just as healthy as I was as a teenager. In addition, I've never heard any recommendations or guidance on avoiding contrails.

My jet doesn't have the sophisticated air filtration systems of your modern airliner. My cockpit is pressurized with air taken directly from the atmosphere. There's only the most rudimentary of air filters that keep dust and such out. And I've never been told to hold my breath when flying through a contrail.

So, as of right now, I don't believe in the phenomenon. That's not to say that I'm not keeping an open mind, though. I've maintained all along that I'm open to change. Thermit has pointed out that I'm not a tanker pilot and therefore may not be privy to an operation. Fair enough. If the day comes that I see something that makes me ask questions, then I will ask (and have asked) questions. Sorry. Let the flames begin.

I'm not here to debate whether or not Chemtrails are real. I have my opinion, and you have yours. I am willing to answer aviation-related questions and clear up any untrue statements about military and civilian aviation. No offense, but I have (and continue) to see a lot of very ignorant and untrue statements made about aviation-related and military-related subjects. And I'm not talking about chemtrails, either. I'm talking about basic FAA/ military flight rules, military formations/aircraft, frequencies, the air traffic control system, etc. I'm surprised how little some folks on these sites do know about aviation, considering that this is the prime method of delivery for the alleged "chemtrails." So, keep accusing me of lying. For your own credibility, though, offer up the evidence to prove me wrong when you do. Go pick up a copy of FAR/AIM and read it. You'll learn a lot, especially in the Airmen's Information Manual. All aircraft, civilian and military, have to follow the FARs as well.

Maverick

posted 04-10-2001 11:11 PM            

It's F-16, not F-14. And the flight control computer in the jet limits me to 9g's. 9g's is plenty of pain for me, anyway!

You could be right, but I need proof over speculation. I'm not going to jump up and raise the flag for the chemtrail issue because I read it online that I may have gotten a shot that makes me immune. I have also read here that we've got full-blown military bases in China, but I'm not going to believe that, either, until it's been verified with proof. Hope you understand.
http://www.contrailconnection.com/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/UltraBoard.cgi?Action=ShowPost&Board=free&Post=218&Idle=90&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=

Maverick

posted 04-10-2001 11:18 PM            

Having lived on this planet, and close to nature, for over half a century gives my posts and observations credibility. I can see changes happening to nature.

Rules and regulations are great, for the people that follow them. We are not talking about some game where there are rules of engagement.
Any government that would undertake such an obvious and outright operation, does not follow the rules.
I'm happy to hear that you are healthy. Wouldn't have anything to do with the shots would it??
Thousands and thousands of pages have been written and submitted along with photos, of this activity. But still it's not enough.
Think about it Mav. Could this many people around the world be wrong?

If you do get out this way, be sure and buzz me, it could use the thrill and I promise I won't tell. David

posted 04-10-2001 11:56 PM            

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to direct any anger at you. I had just read another group of posts by a belligerent member of this board. I apologize for not properly pointing my letter in the right direction. I cannot overemphasize that. You have not called me a liar.

I'm hoping not to get dragged too much further into the debate here. I'm not going to be "converted" overnight.

Before the speculation machine spools up, I haven't had to take any different shots than any other member of the military. Now, maybe we were ALL given something, who knows. I'm pretty close with my flight surgeon, and he says that our vaccines are the same as are given to any other hospital. As a matter of fact, the flu vaccine shortage last year sent our medical staff to a local civilian hospital to get enough vaccines for everyone. But, I'm no doctor, so who knows what's being pumped into my veins every few years.

I also understand your post about rules and regulations. I can see your point about our government not having to abide by the same rules as everybody else. I don't believe however, that flight rules falls under this category. There would be no reason to violate them. They can fly the same jet routes as commercial aircraft and at the same altitudes. They can request to hold over certain points if they want to spray a certain area. So, why involve several thousand air traffic controllers in this "conspiracy" if it can be done within the rules anyway? That would be a lot of people to keep an eye on unneccesarily. The people looking at radar screens at Albuquerque Center would have no idea whether a plane is spraying or not (the spraying being the only potential illegal activity.) So, why involve them?

Anyway, I apologize again David. Hope I didn't upset you too much.

posted 04-11-2001 12:27 AM            

True, air traffic control would not have to know anything if flight rules and regs were followed.
I did not mean the part about the shots as a wise crack. Been in the service also.
But, the military going overseas does recieve what the public normally would not.

posted 04-11-2001 01:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark sky:
From what you know about SOP, would such a spyplane be more likely to head for the phillipians, japan, or a more congenial base within a 100 mile range?
would the loss of one propeller make this craft have to land within 76 miles?
Would as several people have said this craft have had time to totally disable the secret parts of the craft before landing?
Would such a crew as signed on for spy duty have not been under oath to ditch such a plane if it breatched national secuerity?
Could this have been a "technology transfer" likened to the ones Clinton made for campain contributions? Could this have been a trojan transfer? Can the USA Government really feel as much as they claim they do for 24 personel ( some of them not military) when they felt nothing for the gulf war personel?

---

Mark-

I've spoken with several people at work about this in the past week. Most of what we can come up with is speculation. There really isn't enough information out there to reach a real conclusion. When we get our men and women back, we'll learn more of what happened over the sea south of China.

Let me caveat my statements with the fact that the EP-3 fell out of control for over 8,000 feet before the pilot was able to regain control of the aircraft. This would place a lot of mental stress on the aircrew and some physical stress on the aircraft. With no chase plane to verify damage to the outside of the plane, the pilot would have to assume the worst and put the plane down at the nearest possible opportunity. Any decisions made by the pilot were done so under considerable stress and with a limited amount of time in which to do so. Being an armchair quarterback is much different than being inside of an aircraft falling out of the sky.

Yes, I believe that the best decision for the pilot would have been to fly the plane in to Vietnam, which was about the same distance as Hainan. The Chinese and Vietnamese are not on the best of terms, and Vietnam would have been a safer (less dangerous) country in which to land an aircraft with sensitive equipment on board.

As far as ditching goes, this may have been an option. I saw a P-3 pilot on a show explaining how precise of an approach has to be flown in order to pervent a catastrophic event from happening when the aircraft comes in contact with the water. Also, the seas may have been rough that day, making a controlled ditching a suicidal maneuver. There is no procedure to ditch the F-16, so I'm not very well informed on the subject.

Destroying the classified equipment on board would be a two-fold operation. First, they would have to wipe the software clean. I'm sure they have a ZEROIZE switch that will do this automatically (the F-16 has this switch, too.) Next, they would have to work on the hardware. This would obviously be a lot more labor intensive and they may not have had the time to do this. In addition, the 8,000 foot plunge may have scared them into their seats until the plane touched down. But, I'm sure that there is some type of mandatory procedure for "declassifying" the aircraft if it were to fall into foreign hands.

I'm only going to reply to the Clinton technology transfer question by mentioning that it would be a lot easier, cheaper, and lower profile to covertly send it over on a boat instead of creating an international incident. Also, 24 U.S. lives and 1 Chinese life in danger would not have been necessary.

Most in the military, especially those privy to intelligence reports on China, believe that China is easily our number one threat. Cydonia's post on another section of this site is but the tip of the iceberg with regards to China's slow infiltration of the west. As students of Sun Tzu, they are in a perpetual state of war with us. To the Chinese, war is not just armed conflict. War is also politcal, economic, and social. Walk into Wal-Mart and you will see who is winning the economic side of the war. Once George W. apologizes, they will have won a major battle in the political war. The only thing that we're doing well at is the social war. Internet cafes, McDonalds, and rock music are all over China.

Our government, unfortunately, will probably only have "feelings" for the 24 aircrew as long as the media and the public at large keeps this on the front burner. There is a lot less accountability with our politicians than within the military.

posted 04-11-2001 01:27 AM            

Thanks

posted 04-11-2001 03:17 AM            

This is one document I have uncovered through some simple google searches on "Canadian Weather Modification". Is the column under alt., reading 18K relating to releases at 18,000ft?
I understand that this is reffering to 'weather modification' which are programs that have gone on since Nikola Tesla conceptualized the idea in the 50's. Here's just one page of weather mod. info. http://www.hpwd.com/seed_no_seed.html
Hundreds of more sites are available with some googlin'
I don't believe that what I observed, which was a couple of commercial sized aircraft circling over our City in formation, was related to weather mod. Of course I am speculating as well, but it's just so _______
unusual.
One way to help me determine what I saw, would be to find the formula to more accurately evaluate the altitude of aircraft.
Most commercial aircraft that I see leaving trails would fit within the width of a pencil when the pencil was held at arms length. The suspect aircraft I have seen have had their wings extend past the edges of a bic lighter when the lighter is held at arms length.
In my elementary mind I can only conclude that because the lighter is approx. 2 times the width of the pencil the suspect aircraft were 2 times closer to me. Before I embarass myself with pretending to understand triangulation or knowing some guy named Pathagoram, do you have a method to determine the altitude of aircraft if one has accurately identified the aircraft and has used Janes to determine the dimensions of the aircraft? Any input is greatly appreciated!

posted 04-11-2001 08:45 PM            

Nice name, by the way.

Yes, I believe that the paper is referring to 18,000 feet, since underneath the "alt" it says "Kft." I also think that the "cloud seeding" is using much smaller planes than the airline-sized aircraft that you are seeing. (I think that you realize this already.)

Unfortunately, I don't have a formula to gauge aircraft distance. Since I have a radar and other onboard sensors to help me, I don't really need it. I do have some references for calculating distance from another F-16 when formation flying, but that won't help you.

You're definitely right about being required to know the aircraft type. Also, you would require the same relative angle between you and the aircraft every time to ensure an accurate measurment. The slant range (distance directly to the aircraft) between you and the aircraft can vary greatly with the distance between you and the spot on the ground that it is flying over. And finally, the heading of the aircraft relative to you would matter a lot if it was not directly overhead in measuring the wingspan. But, if the conditions were similar, I'd say that you are right about the aircraft being at half the altitude if it's twice as big.

This may or may not help you, but I was taught a rough way to climb/descend a certain altitude in a certain number of miles. For example, if I wanted to lose 5,000 feet in 10 miles, I would put the aircraft in a five degree dive. 5,000 feet in five miles would require a ten degree dive. So, this "one-to-ten" relationship (one degree per thousand feet/ten miles) may be applicable if you know how far away the aircraft is, or conversely to find out it's distance from you while knowing it's altitude. It would go like this....

Say you know that the aircraft in your area normally fly over a navaid (VOR/DME, Tacan, or other radio beacon) as a part of their routing. If you know how far away you are from the beacon (let's say 30 miles), then you have one part of the equation. Next, figure out the angle the aircraft is above the horizon. Let's say that it is ten degrees above the horizon. Now, since ten degrees at ten miles equals ten thousand feet, the aircraft would be at 30,000 feet. Now, this is hardly an exact science. You would have to add things like your elevation above sea level and realize that longer distance measurment will not be accurate due to the curvature of the earth. But, it can come in handy if you have no other way. My only other suggestion would be some type of laser range finder, and civilian models would require ideal conditions to work at long ranges.

On your other subject, I don't fly with the Pratt & Whitney. I fly the large-inlet General Electric (which is a much better motor if you ask me, and a lot more thrust.) I flew the PW220 in F-16 school, but I don't remember too much about it. In a broad sense, I'd imagine that the "particulate matter" would have to be pre-mixed before it reaches the spray nozzles due to the many spots on the motor that fuel flows into. Also, there may be damage to the rear turbine blades over time, much like an engine is damaged from extended flight through blowing sand or volcanic ash. (by the way, your link on this subject doesn't appear to be about aircraft engines or injecting particulate matter. Is it the right one?) On the subject, I'd think that ot would be of prime importance that the combustion process not be adversely affected by the injection of something other than fuel. If they can get over these hurdles then I believe that it would be possible.

By the way, I prefer Cuban 8s and Cloverleafs over loops (an Immelman plus a split-s) And the Viper is a Lockheed-Martin product now, as the Fort Worth guys are always eager to point out to us. Thanks for the compliment!

Maverick

posted 04-13-2001 01:26 PM            

I concur with your observations about increased chemtrail activity out your way. Here's a recent post I made on Christy's board:

"I've been driving to the Bay area over the last few days, doing some contract work, helping to set up a network on a newly installed fiberoptic cable backbone of a local office complex...(trying to make a little extra cash). Well anyway, it’s a good hour drive down there, and when I wasn’t focussed on trying to keep from getting killed by the wild nuts and fruits of the California highways, (who shouldn’t be allowed to drive a shoping cart let alone a car), my eyes were really opened to how much apparent spraying there is going on in the skies towards the coast. If I call them chemtrails I'll upset Seeker, but at the same time, I don't see how these were normal contrails.
I saw many curved type chemtrails. I wonder if this isn't a new spray pattern they're using, and I just can't believe that many aircraft could be in holding patterns or changing course.
I saw one large jet that couldn't have been more than 5,000 to 10,000 feet up leave a huge billowing white trail and then watch it stop abruptly (the trail that is). I know the aircraft was low because I could clearly see it's colors: all white fuselage and red horizontal stabilizer. You just can't see that kind of detail in a moving car, if an aircraft is 20,000 to 30,000 feet up. The thing that made this particular sighting interesting was that it was flying along leaving the thickest trail you can imagine, then it flew slightly over or through a thin, low-level cloud. When it emerged from the other side, there was no trail! You could just make out the point where the trail was abruptly cut off with straight edge precision when looking up through the cloud. The area where the trail was laid left a darker track through the cloud, so you could see where it stopped. I thought it was interesting that the pilot almost seemed to do this intentionally, as if he was using the cloud to hide the fact from possible ground observers that he was shutting off his spray.
I think the people behind this program are realizing that chemtrails are becoming known to the general population, and people are becoming more sophisticated in knowing what to look for...so the pilots might be using more caution to try and not be so obvious when they spray."



[Edited 2 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 04-13-2001]

posted 04-14-2001 12:25 AM            

But the part that really has me puzzled is the smog like haze that is here when this whiteout happens.
It is really nasty looking, sometimes being blue/gray or yellow/dirtywhite. So thick that you cannot make out details of the surrounding hills.
Sometimes an odd smell is in the air at the same time.

The beginning of the spray day will begin with a few planes leaving short trails at different angles and of different lengths.
Then the white cover(not thick but thin and spread out) begins moving in from the direction of the coast.
Once the two meet(short trails and white cover)the two begin to spread and thicken, covering the whole sky in about 1 hour.
I can still hear the planes during this time but cannot see them through the "dome".
This is also when the haze begins form and fill the valley.
Once covered, it will remain until sundown when it seems to weaken and break up.

I hope you can make sense of this. Point is...we are getting blasted.
Everyone that I know is tired and lethargic.

posted 04-14-2001 03:05 AM            

Do you live near the ship yards, or the bridge in Benicia? If so, I know the area fairly well....I've stopped for a double western bacon cheeseburger (with extra sauce) there once or twice at that Carl’s Jr off the 680 on the hill.

You mention chronic fatigue, and I too have some days like that. Seems there is an epidemic of this among Americans nowadays (I'm not sure if the same phenomenon is occurring in other countries). In my case I just attributed it to drinking lots of coffee and a terrible diet, but realizing my mortality, and that I can't keep on eating that pizza and beer for breakfast anymore with those hamburger chasers like in the college years, I've lately, converted myself into a bit of a health nut. I also try to keep the coffee drinking to a minimum, if at all (I know caffeine consumption is the favorite drug of choice for most Americans...I still miss it I've tried to jog every other day and work out on the days that I don't jog, and I’ve cut the fat and carbohydrates in my diet to a minimum....yet still, I get those times in the day when it feels like someone tied 100 pound weights to my eyelids! Maybe chemtrails can be attributed to having this effect to some degree, I don’t know. I do know that coffee really is a terrible poison that has the effect of making you feel run down when the caffeine wears off, and then after awhile, you drink it just to feel normal. Even now I wonder if the thing preventing me from walking into a Starbuck’s is the will power or the 3 dollar price tag.

And Delphie, you little minx you? Thanks for making a truce. I haven't read the other board yet...because I've been working some major hours this week. But why do you think a truce is necessary? I didn't realize we wuz a fuedin.....I just thought you enjoyed making me all sad and weepy since I like Rush and GW, subscribe to Eastern mysticism and philosophy...and am prone to OBEs.

(weird combination of qualities in a person, now that I think about it myself.....heck....I wouldn’t like me either).

PS. I think I was thinking about RTW who said she lives in Benicia...


[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 04-14-2001]

posted 04-14-2001 04:46 PM            

I think the problem comes in when we try to categorize each other and label each other as a certain "type" of individual. I've been guilty of doing this at times myself. Then when we say something that doesn't quite align lock-step with the going way of thinking, the response is often anger or rejection. We are social animals......and we like the idea of belonging to a group, even on message boards. When I expressed conservative ideologies and started talking to pilots who were skeptics over at the CTTUSA board for example, the first reaction was to delete me...when all I was doing was taking a slightly different approach to the subject of chemtrails, and attempting to prove them by engaging the skeptics in polite conversation. (Polite conversation did not work with the de-bunkers who originally populated this board however). The scientific approach over-all did not fit the normal modus operandi, hence my deletion at Chemtrail Tracking USA. I think differently than most, not necessarily better, but differently....(that’s why I was voted “least likely to be brain washed” in the highschool yearbook).

Delphi for instance, believes we disagree “passionately” about chemtrails....when in fact, the only major difference I can see is that I do not believe that their primary purpose is to make people sick. I haven't seen enough convincing evidence for this possibility, and a direct cause and effect relationship. William Thomas (the man who broke the chemtrail story) agrees with me. If there is sickness associated with chemtrails, I think it is probably a secondary side effect, not the primary purpose. Yet how I could be labeled a disinformation agent, and still be agreeing with Thomas.....is beyond me.

Can you blame me for finding the whole “agent” thing kinda humorous.


[Edited 2 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 04-14-2001]

posted 04-14-2001 11:33 PM            

But then, now that I think about it, there are plenty of guys on these message boards who I haven't figured out either.

posted 04-16-2001 12:46 AM            

I never posted on any WWII page that I remember. Was it on this board? I only post on three boards...this one, Christy's and occasionally at Cliff's. It could have been someone imitating my handle or, maybe it was a misunderstanding....but I would never call you a liar for saying there were chemtrails during WWII or anything for that matter. I don't just call people liars, that's not my style. NSASucks can attest to that. Some of the stuff he comes up with is some of the most unbelievable yet, and I said he was sending up some red flags....but not once did I ever call him a liar. My method is usually to investigate something that is hard to believe first before I make an assessment as to it's validity. About the only person I have called a liar on these boards is Willy Clinton, and Albert Arnold Gore.....but that's old news.