posted 08-05-2002 09:20 AM            

Typical.

posted 08-05-2002 09:46 AM            

These contrails can last for quite a while, I've seen them last about half-an-hour, and I'm aware that they can last for hours given the right conditions. Not everybody is aware of this, but it is a fact.

Military planes appear to be responsible for the longest lasting trails, according to my research. Trails that are orders of magnitude more persistent that those from regular traffic. It isn't suprising that most in the military would be not be briefed on the Chemtrail operation, thus the indignant posts from the military-types attempting to defend their organization. It just confirms their viewpoint, in their minds, when they see invalid claims. So, for those interested in exposing the conspiracy, it will be of benefit to educate yourselves. And education on contrails would be highly appropriate. Do your own research if that is what it takes for you to trust the results. Flight Explorer is available and waiting. There is no excuse for ignorance, it is treasonous to the result you desire: exposing Chemtrails.

posted 08-05-2002 12:04 PM            

The innocent in regards to the chemtrail issue are not the pilots who fly these planes but the world's people who are being sprayed upon daily. Those who have died from being sprayed, those who are sick, and the multitudes with the persistent asthmatic cough.

The chemtrail induced drought which has destroyed crops, created severe food shortages, threatens to turn the family run farm into a nostalgic memory, and has burned off thousands upon thousands of forested acres creating thousands of refugees who have had to flee their homes.

People's lives and livelihoods are being destroyed here, my friend, by these chemtrail operations.

This isn't a technical issue to wrangle over.

It''s a moral issue that demands a moral response.

If you have no capacity for a moral response, then get from where you are to where people are suiffering the effects of this chemical spray operation.

Are you a chemtrail plane pilot? That would be truly ironic, spraying folks and then writing to the chemtrail forums demanding proof, claiming innocence.

Some former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers still claim innocence over the holocaust, demanding proof.

That millions died isn't proof enough for them.

That camps were built and that remains of the camps and the crematoria still exist isn't proof enough.

That portions of the gas chambers still exist isn't proof enough.

They use psuedo-scientific methods of analysis combined with technical jargon and a good dose of indignation, anger and impatience (the methods used are always the same) to argue for innocence in the face of overwhelming guilt.

If you and the other so-called debunkers here are willing and active parcicipants in this chemtrail operation, then I hope you search for an answer from God about how to rediscover your connection to the rest of the human race.

If you are not willing and active participants in chemtrail operations, then I hope you find a way toward opening your heart in order that your eyes may open too.

The issue isn't whether or not chemtrail operations exist. The issues are what are the ill effects on the environment, the people, wildlife, and what will our future resemble if this chemical spray operation continues for much longer.

There are days in which the chemical induced haze is so thick in this sparsely populated agricultural area I live in that the haze takes on steel grey tones. It looks like a great and ominous grey fog. Yet the drying agents in the chemical mixture have dried us out like toast.

No moisture. An overwhelming grey fog-like haze enveloping an area with no industry and few people.

The persisent asthmatic cough that spreads the way the wildfires spread in this parched environment.

The evidence remains: the persistent spray planes flying dozens upon dozens of missions across the entire area, the billowing thick chemical mixture being dispersed behind them.

The evidence is all around. None of it is being hidden.

Peace folks. We are all unique, yet we are all one under God.

That God allows chemtrails is a sure sign of God's love for all.

It will be through God's love that the chemical spray operations cease, the chemical haze lifts, moisture returns, ample crops return, health and vitality returns to the people, the wildlife, the atmosphere, and the planet becomes the heaven on earth is was meant to be.

Amen.

posted 08-05-2002 08:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by klondike:
Dear Tracer, et al:

The innocent in regards to the chemtrail issue are not the pilots who fly these planes but the world's people who are being sprayed upon daily. Those who have died from being sprayed, those who are sick, and the multitudes with the persistent asthmatic cough.

---

Can you produce any evidence regarding those people who have died as a result of "chemtrail" spraying?

quote:

---

The chemtrail induced drought which has destroyed crops, created severe food shortages, threatens to turn the family run farm into a nostalgic memory, and has burned off thousands upon thousands of forested acres creating thousands of refugees who have had to flee their homes.

People's lives and livelihoods are being destroyed here, my friend, by these chemtrail operations.

---

Droughts happen, my friend. They even happen in cycles. Using geological evidence, tree rings, etc, scientists have been able to trace drought cycles back thousands of years. What makes this year so different that it doesn't follow historic patterns?

quote:

---

This isn't a technical issue to wrangle over.

---

But you have to prove that what you contend to be happening, is in fact, technically feasible. In addition, you have to be able to conclusively prove that there are no other possible explanations for the contrails that you claim to be "chemtrails."

So far I have not seen any proof that can withstand these tests. That is why the technical details are critical. You are asking me to believe in chemtrails on faith alone, because you (or someone else) claim that they exist. I can not do that.

quote:

---

It''s a moral issue that demands a moral response.

If you have no capacity for a moral response, then get from where you are to where people are suiffering the effects of this chemical spray operation.

Are you a chemtrail plane pilot? That would be truly ironic, spraying folks and then writing to the chemtrail forums demanding proof, claiming innocence.

Some former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers still claim innocence over the holocaust, demanding proof.

That millions died isn't proof enough for them.

That camps were built and that remains of the camps and the crematoria still exist isn't proof enough.

That portions of the gas chambers still exist isn't proof enough.

---

Are you saying that I am the moral equivalent of a Nazi war criminal just because I question your claims? That's kind of harsh my friend. Especially from someone who seems to be a religious person.

quote:

---

They use psuedo-scientific methods of analysis combined with technical jargon and a good dose of indignation, anger and impatience (the methods used are always the same) to argue for innocence in the face of overwhelming guilt.

---

Who are you talking about here, the "debunkers" or the "Chemies."

quote:

---

If you and the other so-called debunkers here are willing and active parcicipants in this chemtrail operation, then I hope you search for an answer from God about how to rediscover your connection to the rest of the human race.

If you are not willing and active participants in chemtrail operations, then I hope you find a way toward opening your heart in order that your eyes may open too.

The issue isn't whether or not chemtrail operations exist. The issues are what are the ill effects on the environment, the people, wildlife, and what will our future resemble if this chemical spray operation continues for much longer.

There are days in which the chemical induced haze is so thick in this sparsely populated agricultural area I live in that the haze takes on steel grey tones. It looks like a great and ominous grey fog. Yet the drying agents in the chemical mixture have dried us out like toast.

No moisture. An overwhelming grey fog-like haze enveloping an area with no industry and few people.

The persisent asthmatic cough that spreads the way the wildfires spread in this parched environment.

The evidence remains: the persistent spray planes flying dozens upon dozens of missions across the entire area, the billowing thick chemical mixture being dispersed behind them.

The evidence is all around. None of it is being hidden.

Peace folks. We are all unique, yet we are all one under God.

That God allows chemtrails is a sure sign of God's love for all.

It will be through God's love that the chemical spray operations cease, the chemical haze lifts, moisture returns, ample crops return, health and vitality returns to the people, the wildlife, the atmosphere, and the planet becomes the heaven on earth is was meant to be.

Amen.

And thanks for listening.

---

Ok to begin with, I air pollution is a legitimate problem in the world. To an extent, contrails are also a problem. They are a visual blight. Global warming, resource depletion etc are also issues that we as a species will have to face.

Agricultural areas are just as responsible for some of the airborne haze that affects all of us. The blue mountains of Oregon are called that because of the constant haze and fires cloaking them during dry seasons that was observed by the early settlers.

posted 08-05-2002 09:04 PM            

Klondike...

OK, now that we're past the issue on jet engines and contrails...

No, I don't pilot a "chemplane". It's a 1984 model Learjet 35A slightly modified for military use. And no, I don't go around trying to speak well of chemtrails. My position is that chemtrails are either non-existant, or limited to research flights only, similar to NOAA's experiments with cloud-seeding. If I saw any evidence of large-scale chemtrail operations, as proposed on the chemtrail websites, I'd speak up, as would many other military pilots.

To say that we'd stay quiet just to keep our jobs or whatever other reason you want to use, holds no water. Look at the recent controversy over the anthrax vaccine. Several pilots refused and resigned their commissions. A handful of others were actually disciplined. Many others did what they could to avoid taking the vaccine. And THAT issue was alot less clear-cut right-versus-wrong than spraying the nation (and thus our families) with harmful chemicals or other materials.

posted 08-05-2002 09:17 PM            

quote:

---

To an extent, contrails are also a problem

---

quote:

---

Contrails behave like clouds, because that is what they are

---

What is the problem with 'contrails'?

Is there a problem with clouds too since contrails are 'clouds'?

I still have yet to hear one debunker consider the whole chemtrail issue in light of the various other possible technologies that could be applied, while all in the same they relentlessly ignore the existance of other sciences or their ability to be combined.

quote:

---

Droughts happen, my friend. They even happen in cycles

---

This is science? Bah.

quote:

---

But you have to prove that what you contend to be happening, is in fact, technically feasible

---

Oh it's undoubtedly feasible, regardless of how oblivious you may be to current technology. You're claiming that you don't believe that it's feasible to control the weather and atmosphere.... Check your calender Bonehead. It's not the 70s anymore. Quantum computing, Nanotechnologies, Microbiology, Enviromental engineering... but applying waves and powders to the atmosphere is 'not feasible'. wow.

quote:

---

In addition, you have to be able to conclusively prove that there are no other possible explanations for the contrails that you claim to be "chemtrails."

---

This statement works both ways bonehead. I could say that you are not able to conclusively prove that there are no other possible explanations for the chemtrails that you claim to be contrails. Besides, meteorology isn't the prevailant factor here, enviromental engineering IS.

quote:

---

So far I have not seen any proof that can withstand these tests

---

That's because you continue to mistakenly look exclusively towards the field of meteorology for answers. Meteorology is but a small piece of the pie, Bonehead.

quote:

---

That is why the technical details are critical

---

Ya contrails just 'happen' too, right... and they too come in cycles eh? (not to mention all kinds of geometrical patterns, which no debunker has ever offered a logical explanation for)

quote:

---

Are you saying that I am the moral equivalent of a Nazi war criminal just because I question your claims?

---

I don't think that is what klondike was saying. There was a condition for implying such a bold claim. It was apparent to me by reading Klondikes remarks that he/she was only insinuating that your 'nazi-like' if you in fact 'know' of chemtrails, but yet still bother to trivialize the issue. Your defensive response is not reassuring.

posted 08-05-2002 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

What is the problem with 'contrails'?

Is there a problem with clouds too since contrails are 'clouds'?

---

The problem is that they are anthropomorphic in nature. In addition, there is evidence that contrails do affect the climate by creating clouds where no clouds would normally exist. I do not dispute that. But, they are just that clouds of water (or ice to be correct).

quote:

---

I still have yet to hear one debunker consider the whole chemtrail issue in light of the various other possible technologies that could be applied, while all in the same they relentlessly ignore the existance of other sciences or their ability to be combined.

. . .

Oh it's undoubtedly feasible, regardless of how oblivious you may be to current technology. You're claiming that you don't believe that it's feasible to control the weather and atmosphere.... Check your calender Bonehead. It's not the 70s anymore. Quantum computing, Nanotechnologies, Microbiology, Enviromental engineering... but applying waves and powders to the atmosphere is 'not feasible'. wow.

---

You have a valid point regarding modern technology. Like Pacer said, it is certainly possible that some experiments are being conducted. I am even willing to accept that small scale experiments are conducted. However, I contend that the cost, the operational logistics and the need for absolute secrecy on the part of all concerned, make the so-called Chemtrail conspiracy prohibitive, and infeasible, especially on the scale that is commonly proposed on this board.

quote:

---

I could say that you are not able to conclusively prove that there are no other possible explanations for the chemtrails that you claim to be contrails. Besides, meteorology isn't the prevailant factor here, enviromental engineering IS.

---

Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation that fits all of the data is the best. (Can I assume that we disagree on what fits and what doesn’t?)

posted 08-05-2002 10:19 PM            

I think it's always safe to assume that we disagree on what fits. lol.

posted 08-05-2002 11:24 PM            

For example scalar weapons are real. They don't even try to hide it anymore. How do you think the EM bombs used on afghanistan came about?

Crop Circles: it's an intellectual test. Much like the Russians did when they replicated a nuclear explosion near the coast of Japan with Scalar waves. It wasn't really a nuclear detonation, but created a mushroom cloud and explosion all in the same, but without fallout. It was later concluded that they did this to test the Japanese and US, to see if we 'knew' what happened, for if we didn't they had an abundant advantage on us. Luckily, we figured it out. The crops circles are relative here because they are the same type of test. They want to see how aware people actually are of their technological and space deliverable applications. Personally I tend to believe that the crop circles are created by satellites such as the KH-12 class with optoelectronic technologies upgrades.... A schematic is relayed to the sattelite and accordingly the satellite proceeds to make a piece of art out of crop with finely tuned, extremely high frequency optical bands. Only a computer could define crop circles so perfectly bonehead. No human on the ground could do that.

Very little has been released about these technologies, Bonehead, and it's not hard to figure out why. As far as orgone, I believe that Wilhelm Reich did discover something and he called it 'orgone'. Now there is no doubt that this was highly rejected, perhaps for the same reason crop circles and Scalar potentials are. However it would seem to me that all they have really done is stolen Reich's find and re-classified it in less simplistic terms. Personally I find the concepts of orgone and scalar weapons to be equally as interesting as say 'nanotech' or 'quantum physics'. I guess this is just based on my empirical views and my belief that there is something to the forementioned.

Bonehead allow me to be blunt. I don't watch t.v. and I don't 'read' for entertainment. Accordingly I don't buy into our current belief system that good is good and bad is bad. Much of what is commonly perceived is not real. If hubris is going to get you, this is where it's going to sting. Failure is usually a prerequisite to success.

personally I don't buy the 'principle of Sensitive Dependance on Initial Conditions' bit. I believe that statement is intended to create a false perception. We currently have the spectroscopic technology that could give us advance warning of a violent storm on Jupiter. Considering this I believe the whole 'unpredictable' conclusion to simply be a mock up. Again just my opinion, not saying it's fact, although I think it is(hehe).

Off topic but just a note on something else... Have you ever considered the possibility of generating consumable electricity and power from solar particles crashing into the ionisphere, as opposed to fossil fuels and methods of combustion? Not exactly 'solar' power as it is commonly known, but in a more literal sense. Just something I find fascinating and also something I believe we eventually be possible, if not already.

Also Bonehead you discount what our Government will spend if they set their mind to it. I used to be employed by a Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance firm that handle contracts with the Federal Judicial System and FBI. You wouldn't believe how much they would pay us for basic technologies such as GPS tracking or Voice verification technology. There is no budget when it comes to defense and recon. Whatever it takes. I know how they operate.

posted 08-06-2002 08:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha-Theta:
Ya contrails just 'happen' too, right... and they too come in cycles eh? (not to mention all kinds of geometrical patterns, which no debunker has ever offered a logical explanation for)

---

Geometric patterns, Huh?

What part of it don’t you understand? I don’t know how to do this with out sounding condescending, so I apologize in advance.

Your basic X is simple enough. But lets look at it this way. Lets say you have two intersecting air traffic corridors. One goes east-west, the other north-south. Both are major air corridors with extensive commercial air traffic, and the atmospheric conditions are ripe for persistent contrails. Now lets also assume that the traffic along these corridors is spaced out along regular intervals. The first airliner of the day, a Delta 727, lets say, traverses the east-west corridor and leaves a nice fluffy white contrail behind. 15 minutes later, an Alaskan air flight draws a nice line along the north-south corridor. There we have it a nice simple X. Now lets say 15 minutes after that, a United 757 full of suits on their way to sales meetings comes barreling along down the east west route. Lets also say that it follows the exact same flight path as the Delta. However, it has been a half hour since the Delta plane passed. Our first contrail is still there, but it is not in the same location as the United plane. Why, because in the intervening 30 minutes, the air mass itself has moved. Lets say that the air mass is part of a cold front moving due southeast at a speed of 20 miles per hour. The first contrail has moved eastward 8 miles since the Delta plane passed by. 15 minutes later, an ATA flight passes by on the north south run. It too is separated from the Alaskan air contrail by 8 miles. After a couple of hours, the sky is filled with a nice grid pattern. In reality, flights are not usually that precisely spaced in time, and located along the exact same flight path, but you get the idea.

posted 08-07-2002 08:25 AM            

There are more than just flights leaving New York for "far west" locales. I've personally flown over central Indiana on several occasions. First time I was going from Bangor Maine to St Louis, MO. The second time we departed Scott AFB IL for Alpena Michigan. Another time we flew from Westchester Co. NY to St Louis. All those times we flew over Indy.

Think about the amount of air traffic going over your head. You have commercial airline traffic traveling from points like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Dayton, Cincinnati, St Louis, Chicago, and everything else out there. Just a preliminary to where the routes over Brickyard go to:

J80 comes from Kansas City and points west, and goes east to Philadelphia.

J89, which does not use Brickyard, but flies very close to it, comes from Chicago and flies to Louisville (a major UPS hub) then on to Atlanta (a major Delta hub). J89 continues into south Florida.

J89 also breaks up into two other routes, J39 going to Nashville and Birmingham, and J99 which bypasses Atlanta and continues to the eastern part of Florida.

J24 starts at the DC area, crosses Brickyard and continues to St Louis, then to Kansas City and out towards the Denver area. J110 starts in the Philadelphia area, goes to St Louis, and flies past Wichita on to points west.

J29 passes close to Brickyard, but still over "central Indiana". It provides a routing from the NE US to points south such as Memphis and Little Rock, Memphis serving as the hub for Northwest Airlines (along with Detroit, which is just north of you).

Now, these are the actual air routes. Often, perhaps as much as 50% of the time, commercial and military traffic does not travel on a route, but instead travels direct to various points. There are several times you'd do this. First and most obvious is if there isn't a route going to your destination. Then you have to pick navigational waypoints and "connect the dots". Second, if you are flying on a route, and the controller clears you "direct" to some other point further down the route, you bypass all the interim points along the route.

Here's an example of that. Let's say you filed J24 from the Charleston, WV navigational beacon to the destination of Kansas City. The route goes due west from Charleston to the Falmouth beacon, the turns northwest to Brickyard (over Indiana), then turns southwest to St Louis, then due west to Kansas City. Along the way, to Falmouth, the controller may clear you "direct to St Louis" which means you don't have to fly over Falmouth or Brickyard. You just go present-position direct to the St Louis navigational beacon.

posted 08-07-2002 09:15 AM            

Contrails are formed at high altitudes by gas turbine aircraft at low temps and high relative humidity. They can last for hours under ideal conditions and can gradually billow out and form artificial cirrus clouds. Contrails have been around ever since high alitude flight.

Chemtrails are formed at high altitudes when conditions are physically impossible for contrail formation. Chemtrails can also last for hours and have similiar characteristics of normal contrails.

My conclusion? That somebody, most likely a major petroleum company, is adding something to military aircraft fuel in order to create more exhaust aerosols for contrail formation in conditions that would normally prohibit formation of one, due to the physical properties of nature.

posted 08-07-2002 12:52 PM            

I know what is 'common' in the air over my house, and there's not a whole lot of common traffic. I appreciate your debunkst theorem that there are more planes flying directly over my city than I realize, however this is simply and completely not true. The only flights that commonly fly over my area are commercial flights out of New York heading far west, as I previously stated. Most other flights usually go south or north of my actual location, not within 'visibility' of my region.

posted 08-07-2002 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GAS_MASK:
You want my definition of a contrails and chemtrails? Here you go:

Contrails are formed at high altitudes by gas turbine aircraft at low temps and high relative humidity. They can last for hours under ideal conditions and can gradually billow out and form artificial cirrus clouds. Contrails have been around ever since high altitude flight.

Chemtrails are formed at high altitudes when conditions are physically impossible for contrail formation. Chemtrails can also last for hours and have similar characteristics of normal contrails.

---

OK, that's fair enough. Not only can I accept that, I think that that is a fairly good working definition.

But, since, at this point, it is pretty much impossible to determine with absolute certainty if the conditions for contrail formation are physically impossible, when a particular trail is made, it doesn't do much toward proving if chemtrails exist or not.

Keep in mind that conditions in the upper atmosphere are highly variable from location to location. A good example of this is cloud formations. The next time you look up and see fluffy white cumuli nimbus or cirrus clouds, realise that the right atmospheric conditions for those clouds is limited to the physical extent of the clouds. I have seen many contrails start to form as a plane enters a cloudbank, then the contrail tapers off and ends after the plane leaves the cloudbank.

Now if someone wants to point out that they have seen contrails that cut right through a cloud formation without starting or stopping, I would like to ask how they know thath the plane is at the same altitude as the cloud? It is virtually impossible to tell from the ground. In addition, the jet exhaust is putting a lot of additional moisture into the air, which changes the conditions at that point.

Which brings up another point. Not only are the atmospheric conditions highly variable, but so are the operating parameters of the individual jet engine producing the exhaust.

posted 08-07-2002 01:20 PM            

However, I'd say that 32% RH and -41F at 250mb is a pretty damn unlikely (but not impossible) scenario for any contrail formation, much less persistant ones.

I've seen planes produce massive contrails under those conditions.

posted 08-07-2002 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GAS_MASK:
Fair enough, Bonehead.

However, I'd say that 32% RH and -41F at 250mb is a pretty damn unlikely (but not impossible) scenario for any contrail formation, much less persistant ones.

I've seen planes produce massive contrails under those conditions.

---

OK, Where did that RH value come from? What was the altitude of the contrailing aircraft? How do you know? Is the RH value with respect to water or with respect to ice? What is the experimental error in the RH measurement at the temperature that it was measured at? Where was the RH measurement taken in respect to the observed contrail?

These two links deal with the difference in RH with respect to water and RH with respect to ice.
http://www.rhsystems.net/papers/RH&WMO.pdf
http://www.rotronic-usa.com/datasheets/Ref/Def/humidity.htm

BTW here is an interesting link dealing with the effects of aircraft wake turbulence on contrail formation: http://eiger.mae.wvu.edu/AEAP99.html

posted 08-07-2002 07:05 PM            

Whoa, cool off! I'm not saying you're a liar. Most Americans are unaware of the amount of air traffic flying overhead. And I'm not TELLING you what exactly is flying overhead, but I'm suggesting that there is far more than just the occassional NY-LA trip going overhead.

Think of it this way: The times I've flown over Indiana, it was pretty busy with alot of aircraft, flying both on the routes and off them. That, plus the number of airline hubs relatively close to Indiana would only reinforce the notion that you're right smack in the middle of some busy airspace.

Consider also that you've got a number of fairly large cities with airline service nearby...Chicago, Indianapolis, St Louis, Dayton, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, etc. You're literally surrounded by cities that have some fairly major airline traffic, so unless they are flying around central Indy, they are flying over you.

And no, I don't know exactly where you live, but at a typical cruising altitude of 31-37,000 feet, you can observe an airliner a pretty good distance away from you.

An example...flying over Birmingham, which is a good 70-80 miles from Montgomery Alabama (where I live), I can see Montgomery pretty easily. Flying along the jet route from Dallas to Meridian Mississippi, I can see New Orleans and Gulfport MS. It's well known that a ground observer can spot a contrailing aircraft that's many miles from that observer on the ground.

And I'm sure your eyes work fine. But consider this....if the jet isn't contrailing, you probably won't notice it. Eyes pick up motion, and since a jet at cruise is 6 miles from you even at the closest point, it's hard to pick out the "speck" without that nice contrail pointing to it.

"Planes flying from the East coast normally do not fly over my house with the exception of one pattern which are flights originating in New York which are heading to Los Angeles."

I don't mean to be too picky, but let's get something straight...a route of flight is not referred to as a "pattern". It's called a flight route. Also consider this....if you say you've only got aircraft going from NY to LA, then what about an aircraft going from NY to Las Vegas? Do they somehow take a completely different route, even though Las Vegas is only a few hundred miles due east of LA? What about jet traffic going from NY to San Francisco? Do they somehow go over Michigan, or south over Kentucky, to avoid flying over central Indiana? What about a jet that's flying from Pittsburgh to St Louis....do they make a huge detour around central Indiana too...even though flying directly over central Indiana is nearly a straight shot? And all those times I flew over central Indiana...I guess the dozens of other aircraft flying over the region as well must have either been this sole NY to LA flight or chemplanes I guess.

"I know what is 'common' in the air over my house, and there's not a whole lot of common traffic. I appreciate your debunkst theorem that there are more planes flying directly over my city than I realize, however this is simply and completely not true"

Hey, I want you to take a bet with me. Get Flight Explorer. Annotate a log of all the aircraft, airline or non-airline, that fly within 100 miles of your house. I bet you'll see a large number of them. Unless you've got the FE data to support you, you're grasping at straws, and I know a BS claim when I see one.

"The only flights that commonly fly over my area are commercial flights out of New York heading far west, as I previously stated. Most other flights usually go south or north of my actual location, not within 'visibility' of my region."

Again, read the above comments....would a flight originating from Kansas City fly hundreds of miles out of the way to avoid flying over central Indiana on its way to, say, Pittsburgh? NO. And the visibility of your area is alot greater than you think. A plane roughly halfway down to the horizon, depending on altitude, can be over 100 miles away. Even an airplane that LOOKS like its only a few miles from your town is actually probably 40-50 miles away. Looks can be deceiving. Do the math.

"However as I mentioned I have, on more than one occasion, witnessed non-commercial aircraft blatantly crossing their own trails"

How do you know that either trail was made by "non-commercial" traffic? Just because you picked up a set of binocs, and it "looked" white with no markings, isn't proof. There are alot of aircraft that even through binocs will look like it doesn't have markings. I've seen dozens of photos where the photographer wrote that it was an "unmarked" airplane, when upon closer look, you could see a blurry Continental or Delta logo on the tail. And what do you do about aircraft owned by small cargo operators, where they may not even paint a logo on the airplane? Or business jets, where the only markings might be a very thin cheater line down the fuselage? The saying "it looks like the same one" is nonsense...so you pick up your binocs, and see a white twin-engined airliner. Then you see another jet later, and it looks like a "white twin-engined airliner". Well, now you've described the underside of every Delta, Continental, Air Canada, air cargo and corporate Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777 Airbus A300, A310, A319, and A320 in the sky. From the bottom, they are all painted white, and they all have a very similar twin-engine planform.

"Perhaps it may be a logical deduction in your mind that I am simply delusional, of course I wouldn't be suprised if you resorted to such absurd claims, considering you've taken this particular subject and trivialized it with your omnipotent awareness of 'what flies over my house and when' regardless of what I may see or hear'"

I have never said you are delusional. Heck, my own mother isn't crazy, and if I were to ask she'd probably have no idea what exactly was flying over her house, even if she popped her head out the window and looked.

And my "awareness" of what's over your skies isn't the product of some omnipotent pie-in-the-sky guessing. I've "seen and heard" just like you have, except I've got the benefit of actually listening to airline callsigns, TCAS (which shows the other traffic within 40 miles of our aircraft), and having a more aware knowledge of how the nation's air route structure is used. That, combined with logical figuring based on the fact that no less than 5 different major airline hubs essentially surround your little piece-o-heaven, I KNOW (not guess or imagine) that your claim that the only traffic going overhead is an occassional lone NY-LA jet is preposterous. Maybe I'd temper that with the word "naive", but you've heard a professional pilot's take on your assertations and dumped it into the trash entirely. So now it's preposterous.

"Perhaps on a rare occasion there may be more than two commercial planes in my skies over short periods of time, however I know for a fact that there commonly is NOT"

Again, during the surge times of the day (late morning and early evening), I'd bet that you're wrong. Depending upon what you and I consider "the skies" over your town, there are probably no less than 1, probably up to 5-6 aircraft within 100 miles of your city at any given time. And don't give me that "100 miles...I can hardly see that" crap. You can. If I can easily make out the details of Montgomery 80 miles away, a person in Montgomery can see me just as easily, provided I help them with a little contrail action.

By the way, all you mention is the East-West traffic...no one flies from northern Indiana south? I know they do. Reminds me of that little blurb I saw on a chemtrail site that commercial aircraft only fly east-west...they never fly north-south. I'll have to find that webpage again...it's so blatantly ignorant of what actually goes on in the air traffic system.

posted 08-07-2002 09:17 PM            

There are undoubtedly many flights flying within a hundred mile radius. The Indianapolis airport is within' a hundred miles of my house (about 60), but I can never see the craft from there nor their contrails. Again, I am referring to the airspace directly over my neighborhood, and the ONLY commercial flights that COMMONLY fly over my PARTICULAR area are NY to LA. The other planes must either take a southern or northern 'route' because they do not visibly fly through the skies ABOVE me. I used to work on the 8th floor in a building and my office had a huge window from which I could see northeast skies. I used to sit there and count the flights I saw. Plus some of the planes that leave trails are high alttitude craft, which obviously aren't commercial.

The bottom line is, Pacer, that I am speaking of what I have seen directly above me. You are speaking generally of your empirical opinion. I realize there are a lot of flights that go through central indiana but only 1 'route' commonly flies visibly over my area. For some reason unbeknownst to me the other W-E or N-S,S-N routes do not visibly fly over my area.

I am talking about planes playing tic tac toe directly over my house, and the relative trails I observe commonly, especially around 0500-0600am every single day. I am not talking about a 100 mile radius because obviously I don't have that kind of visibility with my naked eye and accordingly flights at such distances will not leave trails 'directly' over my house.