|
Author
|
|
Topic: A debunkers worst nightmare!! | Topic page views:
|
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-25-2002 05:28 AM
   
Hi Everyone,
During a morning spray over my home town in the U.K. I managed to snap the 'classic' debunkers nightmare... Two aircraft, both flying at the same altitude but... Shock, horror, one aircraft was military, the other civil. Would ALL debunkers please prepare your weak and unscientific explanations for the masses please.
Check it out at http://biochem.yoll.net/Photos26.html
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-25-2002 09:13 AM
Nice pictures j briggs! "Two aircraft, both flying at the same altitude" It would appear the two are at the same altitude, but the debunkers would ask how do you know for certain they are at the same altitude? I would ask, what were the RH readings at higher altitudes that day? Conductive to the formation and persistence of trails?
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds/flight_path/
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Lulu on 07-25-2002]
|
eyesopen
This Space For Rent
Ventura CA
627 posts, Apr 2001
|
posted 07-25-2002 01:25 PM
here is a similar event:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/db-search.cgi?template=img-detail&dbname=img&key2=1603&action=searchdbdisplay
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-25-2002 07:26 PM
I'd like to see what their TCAS display is showing. From what I've seen, altitudes not-withstanding, those aircraft are seperated by at least a mile horizontally. Most contrails I have flown through (yes, even the big puffy ones) are 2-3 times wider than even a large jumbo jet.Take this into consideration....from the ground, assuming a cruising altitude of roughly 30,000 feet (maybe higher), the aircraft is about 5 miles away from you. Translate that horizontally, and I can bet that they have alot more separation than you think. That, and above 29,000 feet, the TCAS system in the aircraft will begin to give the pilots Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories, so there's no way they would be flying closer than 5 miles without at least 2,000 feet of altitude seperation. And from your angle, it's hard to tell who's at 31,000 feet and who's at 33,0000 feet.
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 03:20 AM
Well chaps,
All that aviation jargon sounds very good and proper, but you haven't explained to everyone why the Military jet is chemtrailing and the Civil jet isn't? And don't give me that "A few thousand feet makes a difference" business, it does nothing for your credibilities.
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 04:34 PM
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military? Just curious.And yes, a couple thousand feet DOES make that much of a difference. I see it all the time...traffic just below us not putting out any cons, and traffic just above us trailing heavy contrails. Let me ask you this question....how many days last month did you spend at 35,000 feet watching jets leave contrails and comparing them on TCAS (which displays their altitude relative to yours)? I logged about 30 hours in the air doing just that. If you don't like my credibility, fine. But to the "unaware", which supposedly this site is supposed to "educate" on the topic, it's your credibility that looks suspect, seeing that you make your assumptions based on ground obsverations of airplanes 5-6 miles overhead, whereas I can see them so close I can make out what type and what airline/operator with my naked eye.
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 06:30 PM
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military?
I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!How many days last month did you spend at 35,000 feet watching jets leave contrails and comparing them on TCAS.
Errrrr, none, I am not a pilot, I have to be content watching the chemtrails and contrails from the ground. Seeing that you make your assumptions based on ground obsverations of airplanes 5-6 miles overhead, whereas I can see them so close I can make out what type and what airline/operator with my naked eye.
Thats a strange one, aren't you making assumptions based on my photograph?
I think I will rush out and buy a telescope in that case and then maybe I can have the joy of seeing them with my naked eye. Well Mr Pilot,
You may feel that you are 100% correct in your arguments and that chemtrails (ALL of them) are what you say they are..Contrails. But your stubborn one sidedness on this subject, despite the mounting evidence, does bring into question your credibility. I say this because I have in the past worked in the U.K. military intelligence (Very specific to what's taking place now) and know for a fact that what's going on above our heads at the moment will definately be on a 'NEED TO KNOW' basis and you are obviously much lower down the pecking order, hence, your blissfull ignorance of the full facts of the situation.
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 10:10 PM
I'll start off with this quote, and work from there."But your stubborn one sidedness on this subject, despite the mounting evidence, does bring into question your credibility" Mounting evidence, such as your latest scientific observation? "I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!" Wow! I wish professionals could make such bold assumptions! Then we could watch trash-science become a whole new industry! Hey, you're doing more to hurt your position than help it. "Errrrr, none, I am not a pilot, I have to be content watching the chemtrails and contrails from the ground" And yet, your observations from 6 miles away or more is more accurate than mine only a couple thousand feet away? Either you've got eagle vision and I'm somehow blind, or you're full of it. "Thats a strange one, aren't you making assumptions based on my photograph?" Actually, no I'm not making assumptions based on your photo. I never did say that those aircraft definitely were or were not what you said they were. I was questioning your reasoning....saying that in fact, you're not sure what they really are. And making any claim that you DO know 100% what they are is, dare I say it, stretching the truth just a BIT. "You may feel that you are 100% correct in your arguments and that chemtrails (ALL of them) are what you say they are..Contrails" Let's just say, for the record, that every trail I've ever personally witnessed up in the air was a contrail. As for the photos, my official position on yours (or any, for that matter) is that I do not see enough evidence that would support the theory that they are chemtrails. Show me proof that the jet with the longer trail is military. Show me proof that the trail itself is anything but condensation trails. X patterns in the sky, and jets flying what appears to be "in formation" without any documentation as to their altitudes isn't going to make the case for me, nor will it make the case for most people.
|
Bonehead9
Senior Member
suburb of Chicago, IL US
176 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 10:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
Did you check some kind of Flight Explorer to verify that one was a civilian flight and the other was military?
I didn't need to, it was quite obvious that one of the aircraft was Military as it was spraying chemicals, therefore!
LOL that is the best example of circular logic that I have seen in a long time! quote:
I have in the past worked in the U.K. military intelligence.
As what, the janitor? the file clerk in the motor pool? Statements like that are B.S. They cant be proven or disproven, so they serve no purpose. If you really were in high level military ineligence, then you wouldn't be telling us that, would you? This is a good example of why many people consider "military inteligence" to be an oxymoron.
BTW, here is a good site with cloud and contrail formation info, from the U.K. no less. be sure to click on the pictures for more info:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/bookshelf/clouds/special/
more interesing cloud info can be found here:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/bookshelf/clouds/chguide/index.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Bonehead9 on 07-26-2002]
|
Bonehead9
Senior Member
suburb of Chicago, IL US
176 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-26-2002 11:55 PM
An excelent example of how planes at only slightly different altitudes can have two different types of contrails: 
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:06 AM
As what, the janitor? the file clerk in the motor pool? Statements like that are B.S. They cant be proven or disproven, so they serve no purpose. If you really were in high level military ineligence, then you wouldn't be telling us that, would you?Oh, so now I have to start proving to you guys that I worked in intel do I? Well I can assure you that my statement is no B.S. as you so succinctly put it. You are also expecting the people on this forum to believe that some of you are pilots, aren't statements like that also B.S. working off your own logic? For all we know, you are model aircraft enthusiasts taking your hobbies to the extreme.
I checked out the met-office link, fine, their credibility is all but gone in the U.K. They can't even get the weather forecast right from day to day, wonder why that is?
|
Deborah
Take It To The Limit
Flagstaff, AZ
700 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:16 AM
Taken from 24th floor window with a 50mm lens: http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/cgi-bin/db-search.cgi?template=img-detail&dbname=img&key2=453&action=searchdbdisplay
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:21 AM
X patterns in the sky, and jets flying what appears to be "in formation" without any documentation as to their altitudes isn't going to make the case for me, nor will it make the case for 'most people'.By 'most people' you mean the handful of one sided, unbending debunkers like yourselves?
I can assure you that the open minded people of the U.K. know that something is amiss in our skies and know that civilian aircraft do not spend hours on end making X patterns and various grid patterns etc. They are also aided by satellite photos that clearly show the aftermath of a days chemtrailing, as well as the seasonally abnormal weather ie. day starts off like any other normal summers day, 2 and a half hours of spraying later, hazy white chemical cloud cover. Even the C.A.A. said that civil airline traffic over my locality 'COULD NOT' have caused the mess shown in some of my photos. You keep on trying to empty the Atlantic with a sieve guys, that's the best analogy I can think of for your efforts.
|
Deborah
Take It To The Limit
Flagstaff, AZ
700 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:29 AM
j briggs wrote:.....I can assure you that the open minded people of the U.K. know that something is amiss in our skies..... They sure do. I've talked with a few people visiting here from the UK over the last couple of years and they don't like what's going on any more than we do in the States. By the way, does the name Gordon Thomas mean anything to you?
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 05:02 AM
Hi Deborah,
Thanks for your posts Deborah, no that name doesn't ring a bell, please enlighten me. You can send me a private mail if you want to by surfing to http://biochem.yoll.net and clicking on the e-mail link.
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 10:53 AM
"You are also expecting the people on this forum to believe that some of you are pilots, aren't statements like that also B.S. working off your own logic? For all we know, you are model aircraft enthusiasts taking your hobbies to the extreme."Hey, I have no problem "proving" to you what I do. If you'd like, I'll email you my work number and you can give it a call sometime...I work at the 54th Airlift Flight at Maxwell AFB, in Alabama. We operate 4 C-21 Learjets. Speaking of high-level clearances, from my experience, you certainly wouldn't be abiding by your professional bounds by blabbing to everyone that you've got access to such things. I've already told people that I'm not going to discuss my clearance based on operational security. "By 'most people' you mean the handful of one sided, unbending debunkers like yourselves?" No. By that I mean every pilot, air traffic controller and other aviation professional I've ever known personally. I've posted links to chemtrail sites on a bunch of different pilot message boards, and even a couple of general news message boards. Not a single positive bite. The only messages that were replied dismissed the chemtrail issue. They had the opportunity to go to these sites, look around and decide for themselves...and they still dissmissed the issue. Considering that I spend time posting on a number of other boards unrelated to the chemtrail issue, it seems rather than us "debunkers" being unbending, it's more like the chemtrailers are unwilling to be even slightly critical of the mounds of garbage data that appears on the message boards.
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 10:58 AM
Here's the challenge again; if you feel that I'm in the minority and there are all these people that would side with you, then go to the pilot's message boards and show them "your side". Some are military pilots, but most are not, so they aren't really biased to the military.
http://forums.flightinfo.com
http://www.propilot.com
http://www.tsalounge.com
|
Bonehead9
Senior Member
suburb of Chicago, IL US
176 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 03:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
Oh, so now I have to start proving to you guys that I worked in intel do I? Well I can assure you that my statement is no B.S. as you so succinctly put it.
You missed the point. Obviously you can not prove that you worked for military intelligence, just as I can not disprove it. For all we know you are really bonnie Prince Charles! The point was, that statements like that don’t give you credibility on the internet. Credibility is established by the strength and quality of your arguments, by how you interact with others, by how you respond to insults and by how you treat others no matter what you think of them. quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
You are also expecting the people on this forum to believe that some of you are pilots, aren't statements like that also B.S. working off your own logic? For all we know, you are model aircraft enthusiasts taking your hobbies to the extreme. ?
Pacer has posted his bio on the web with pictures, for all to see. Now I will grant you that this could have been faked, but why would anyone go through that trouble just to point out the obvious on these web sites. Based on this, and also on the quality of Pacer’s posts, I accept Pacer’s assertion that he is a pilot. I will tell you one other thing, most RC (model) airplane enthusiasts, as you put it, are also avid aviation buffs. Many are licensed pilots or ex-military, and many know more about aviation than the average pilot. (if you don’t believe me, just go on-line at any one of the dozens of RC related web sites on the net and try to pitch the chemtrail theory.) quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
I checked out the met-office link, fine, their credibility is all but gone in the U.K. They can't even get the weather forecast right from day to day, wonder why that is?
Again, you miss the point. Predicting the weather has nothing at all to do with the ability to understand the mechanics of cloud formation, or to be able to identify different types of clouds. Day today weather prediction is as much an "art" as it is a science. In fact, science has proven that it is in fact impossible to accurately predict weather (chaos theory, fractal mathematics and sensitive dependence on initial conditions are all considerations here.) BTW how do you explain the WWII picture?
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Bonehead9 on 07-27-2002]
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:05 PM
Well Mr Bonehead,
I have read all of your points and taken them on board. My mentioning of the intelligence side of things was to try and let you guys know that you are not dealing with someone who is still wet behind the ears and may be ignorant to what governments and agencies 'get up to' behind the scenes.Credibility is established by the strength and quality of your arguments, by how you interact with others, by how you respond to insults and by how you treat others no matter what you think of them.
This Tenet works both ways I presume? BTW how do you explain the WWII picture? Nice picture that one, great looking contrails as well.
|
Alpha-Theta
Superior
ª×µ»ƒ³²²
694 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:15 PM
I must admit one thing. I do agree with Boneheads assesment that 'military intelligence' is a definite oxymoron. LoL.
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-27-2002 04:38 PM
j briggs, it would be helpful for you to put quotes (") around other people's statements as to make your posts flow more in understanding who is saying what. Thanks.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Lulu on 07-27-2002]
|
j briggs
Senior Member
United Kingdom
36 posts, Jun 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 05:20 PM
"j briggs, it would be helpful for you to put quotes (") around other people's statements as to make your posts flow more in understanding who is saying what. Thanks".How's that Lulu?
|
Unhappy Trails
Senior Member
Seattle, WA
256 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 05:52 PM
O.K. since we have so many certified pilots at this board is there anyone of you that will take me and my Consultant up to take a sampling of a plume? Anyone at all? If so how much would you charge?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Unhappy Trails on 07-27-2002]
|
Bonehead9
Senior Member
suburb of Chicago, IL US
176 posts, May 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 09:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by j briggs:
Nice picture that one, great looking contrails as well.
Yes, but what is the difference between the WWII picture, and the one that you linked to to open this thread? In the WWII picture, the effect of altitude on contrail formation is pretty clear. In your picture it is impossible to tell the altitude of both of the planes, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. BTW. If persistant contrails were common and prevelant durring WWII (as numerous photographs and movies show), then why aren't the common and prevelant now? In other words, if they were just "contrails" in WWII, then why are they now "chemtrails?" Is it now impossible for any plane to leave a persistant contrail that is just that, a Contrail? (note: slight sarcasm here) Admit it, persistant contrails have been documented since the dawn of the aviation age.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Bonehead9 on 07-27-2002]
|
PacerLJ35
Senior Member
Millbrook, AL, USA
456 posts, Apr 2002
|
posted 07-27-2002 10:10 PM
Uh, Unhappy, how do you plan on getting this sample...stick your head out the window at 35,000 feet? Your best bet is get on an airliner and take a sample of the cabin air.
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 
