posted 08-07-2002 09:50 PM            

Again, I didn't just guess on the traffic traveling over your area. I know from experience that there are alot of other aircraft out there. Flying over Indianapolis, I've seen a number of other aircraft on TCAS within 40 miles of our aircraft. And we weren't even flying on the route...we passed about 20 miles south of Indianapolis. There were literally dozens of aircraft flying around that day.

Pilots typically remember the busier airspace because the more traffic there is, the more we have to work because the controllers are issuing speed restrictions and giving us temporary headings to fly to avoid other traffic...and the little stretch between Ohio and Illinois is pretty busy.

I can't possibly imagine that with that volume of air traffic (commercial and private that is), that the ONLY flight that passes over your town is one NY to LA flight.

You have to keep in mind that airliners and corporate jets are not required to even fly published jet routes....they can fly point-to-point routes as well, which would easily put them off the routes. I'd be quite interested to see exactly what city you live in and compare that with the proximity of the published jet routes. But again, even without jet routes, there is still plenty of traffic flying off the published routes.

Here's the deal, A/T. Show me a log, using FE, of the aircraft that appear to fly directly over your town. FE is pretty accurate. The aircraft that are blocked are not necessarily KC-135 traffic. In fact, most military traffic is likely to be trainers, airlift missions, and other aircraft such as E-3 AWACS and the like. Further, other "blocked" aircraft are owners who do not wish to be shown over FE, and could very likely be commercial/private operators.

posted 08-07-2002 11:27 PM            

Right out there in the open, in front of your eyes, and mine.

I'm done answering questions to people who have nothing but more questions.

(I sense that the above sentence will be quoted)

Keep in mind that while we try to prove that chemtrails exist, you guys have yet to prove that they don't. Do you have proof that jets AREN'T making contrails in impossible conditions? Probably not.

(oh I know you are going to quote that sentence over and over and over.......)

I'm sick of explaining stuff to people who think they are always correct. (Very typical of many pilots I know and have met. Every single one of them.)

Debunkers always have a one sided, conservative view, and I don't like discussing something "radical" with them, because it always ends up in an argument over something trivial and on a tangent, instead of taking on the main subject. (that's right, you heard me, and nearly everyone on this board will agree). You find one little discrepency in our arguments and OH MY GOD! Everything we said is now wrong! It's QUOTE time!

(I sense another quote coming.....)

Open your minds, people. It's not that hard. Chemtrails are a very real possibility and they cannot be ruled out, in any fashion.

Look at the fucking patents, for christ's sake. People have INVENTIONS for creating artificial powder contrails. This isn't a fairy tale, guys. It's real. You think their inventions are going to sit in the closet while the earth continues to warm uncontrollably?

Whatever.

(quote, quote, quote, quote)

posted 08-08-2002 01:15 AM            

Besides, I know for a fact that flight explorer is not going to show 20-50 routes over my direct area between 0500-0600 every day.

well of course it won't if you don't have the tool and are not logged in at the time...lol...F/E will show all commercial planes other than military, and a few rare occasions some won't be shown...

gas mask your looking good

and to add in the above B/H asked you what altitude your flight was...lol...apparently B/H, did not have his millibar / feet conversion chart with him at the time...

250 millibars is about 34,00 feet and the average temperature for that height is around -54c....serious contrail weather....

(temperature and RH will vary see dealer for details)

lol

I would like to address this one, mask,

Debunkers always have a one sided, conservative view, and I don't like discussing something "radical" with them, because it always ends up in an argument over something trivial and on a tangent, instead of taking on the main subject

most of the debunkers of reent times, like to wave the "education" thing in front of folks faces, and that's ok...but hardly a conservative trait and I'm offended by your remark btw ! remarks as such are generally made by liberals...who actually believe that since they are educated, they are better than most...and that *people* have to be saved from themselves because we just do not know what we do...(cough)

fact is all the education in the world won't buy or give you common sense...which can debunk most anything...including chemtrails...

posted 08-08-2002 03:17 AM            

quote:

---

fact is all the education in the world won't buy or give you common sense...which can debunk most anything...including chemtrails...

---

Seeker, ROFL, you've gotten common sense mixed up with ignorance. It is safe to say that things that are considered common sense can easily be substantiated. However, Seeker, you can't prove that chemtrails don't exist, and trying to pass this off as your own 'common sense' makes you look completely ridiculous (in a really 'jackass' sort of way). Common sense is based on factual and verifiable 'information'. It is based on something that most people experience daily. It's not based on strange 'cloud' formations in the sky that you don't have sufficient information on to come to any type of reasonable conclusion. However, feel free to proclaim that your assumptions are 'common sense' all you want. As I said it just makes you look silly because what IS common sense is that assumption is a form of ignorance. Your ignoring the possibility. Your closed little mind can't see past meteorological ideaology. That's not common sense Seeker.

Let me give you a perfect example of common sense, Seeker:

I can look in the sky at virtually any hour of the day and see no more then 1-2 commercial aircraft. However, everyday between 0500-0600 I see a large number of trails, many of which are parrallel or crossing. There is no point in looking at Flight Explorer because there is no way it is going to show 20-50 routes over my area, let alone intersecting routes, within one hours time. That is common sense Seeker. Being that you're Mr. Common Sense himself I figured you would have caught that. Evidently not.

I think it's safe to say at this point your thoughts are an 'intellectual' liability, and I encourage you to shut the truck up before you really get anihilated(intellectualy, of course).

posted 08-08-2002 05:01 AM            

I don't usually let you folks rant on like that but to illustrate my point and the complete absurdity of your line of thinking, not to mention in one swift swoop debunk your long winded hyperbole A/T, let me provide the following common sense analogy...

you and I are in a crowded theater, you stand up and say to the crowd " chemtrails exist"....utterly shocked and dismayed I stand up...in a better seating location mind you, and say " chemtrails do not exist"...the crowd of people turn their heads to you and are now looking to YOU to prove your case sir...

that's commnon sense....

I think you better check your insurance policy...the liability section....you can't seem to prove your a good risk at this point...sir....

posted 08-08-2002 05:26 AM            

If you had wanted to seem like even half an intellectaul equal you would have at least addressed my statements. Instead you make up some off the wall, totally irrational analogy about me standing up and proclaiming that chemtrails exist in the middle of a movie. This isn't common and it isn't something that I would do.

Common sense tells me that this website is primarily visited by 'activist' therefore it is our 'home' and our concern. Considering this, it would be more like you coming into our meeting and saying chemtrails don't exist, and then not being able to back that up. Again I effectively display your lack of common sense here; this isn't 'debunker central' although it's apparent that somehow in your mind you think it is. Just like you think your assumptions and fantasies mean anything. They don't. You don't.

posted 08-08-2002 09:58 PM            

there's only 3 possibilities...

your fibbing...

they only let you out for an hour a day between 0500 and 0600...

or your fibbing...

how's this for common sense ?

posted 08-08-2002 10:16 PM            

I just don't like blowing margins way left...but I can see the lat. and long. just fine...you don't know you latitude and longitude A/T ?

posted 08-08-2002 10:29 PM            

tell me smart ass, any of those planes headed nw ?how about s.e ?

btw, where it says "tracks" it read 4,452 that's planes in the air at that time...

you are being evasive and delusional...but I'm pretty sure I heard you choke when you seen the pic...lol...so I might continue a bit longer

posted 08-08-2002 10:36 PM            

Admittedly I'm not great with coordinates as I don't use them often, and I never use flight explorer as I have no need to, because I have common sense. This picture clearly shows only 1 route over my direct airspace. ROFL.

posted 08-08-2002 10:58 PM            

See where it's circled?? how many routes do you count in there??

posted 08-08-2002 11:25 PM            

I think your taking one minute of the day and extrapolating it into a whole day...

clearly the circle you draw on the paper you could quadruple the size of it, and it would be your daytime feild of vision...regarding contrails...

posted 08-09-2002 02:58 AM            

And something else, Seeker, That circle represents a radius of about 30 miles, if not more, which is about the same as my visibility. Any trail over 30 miles away is not going to appear as if it's right above me so that's irrelevant anyway. The scale of this picture is much more compressed than that of my atlas. Seeker re-read the post. You CAN read can't you? What part of 'directly over my fuquing house' don't you understand? ROFL pathetic.

posted 08-09-2002 03:45 AM            

so...

It's clear by looking at this FE picture that even if the raduis was expanded, which would be beyond my visibility anyway, there still would be no logical explanation for 20 persistent trails over my area in a short period of time. I rest my case.

really...maybe we'll look at F/E for a day or two and see if your correct, please post when this happens...or tell ya what butthole why don't you take the 3 day trial it's free...and see for yourself...apparently you have photoshop type equip, post your own verified research...that is if you really want to prove your right...

your resulting to insults,(which triggered my insult reaction program) this subject has really gone as far as it can go beyond more mudsliging so some F/E grabs at 0500 to 0600 are all that's left to produce here...and a random pic has already shown plenty of aircraft in your area to explain your *sighting*...it's clear your atmospheric knowledge is sub-par and until you verse yourself on the basics and depart from inflammatory rhetoric...this subject is idle for me...

posted 08-09-2002 01:12 PM            

Seeker you can sit there and try to lie all you want. you're desperate. From this point on I won't even bother respoding to you for the simple fact that you have no credibility. You wanted to be a big and post your little pic, when ultimately all it does is obviously disprove you. I bid you farewell. Next please.

quote:

---

That circle represents a radius of about 30 miles, if not more, which is about the same as my visibility. Any trail over 30 miles away is not going to appear as if it's right above me so that's irrelevant anyway

---

Reading is 'fundamental'

quote:

---

Seeker, ROFL, you've gotten common sense mixed up with ignorance. It is safe to say that things that are considered common sense can easily be substantiated. However, Seeker, you can't prove that chemtrails don't exist, and trying to pass this off as your own 'common sense' makes you look completely ridiculous (in a really 'jackass' sort of way). Common sense is based on factual and verifiable 'information'. It is based on something that most people experience daily. It's not based on strange 'cloud' formations in the sky that you don't have sufficient information on to come to any type of reasonable conclusion. However, feel free to proclaim that your assumptions are 'common sense' all you want. As I said it just makes you look silly because what IS common sense is that assumption is a form of ignorance. Your ignoring the possibility. Your closed little mind can't see past meteorological ideaology. That's not common sense Seeker.

Let me give you a perfect example of common sense, Seeker:

I can look in the sky at virtually any hour of the day and see no more then 1-2 commercial aircraft. However, everyday between 0500-0600 I see a large number of trails, many of which are parrallel or crossing. There is no point in looking at Flight Explorer because there is no way it is going to show 20-50 routes over my area, let alone intersecting routes, within one hours time. That is common sense Seeker. Being that you're Mr. Common Sense himself I figured you would have caught that. Evidently not

---

quote:

---

What part of directly over my house don't you understand?

---

quote:

---

So anyway, like I said, there is only 1 route that commonly flies directly over my house, and I have never observed these particular planes leave any contrail, let alone a persisten one. Yet seemingly every morning, give or take a few, there are 20+ persistent trails over my house. It's clear by looking at this FE picture that even if the raduis was expanded, which would be beyond my visibility anyway, there still would be no logical explanation for 20 persistent trails over my area in a short period of time. I rest my case.

---

Trimmed to show only Indiana:

Area circled in black/red is my ENTIRE city.

posted 08-09-2002 02:44 PM            

were you just born a dufus, or educated that way ?

don't reply to this message A/T...

posted 08-09-2002 02:52 PM            

I have provided the information in this order: Callsign, Type of Aircraft, Altitude (in hundreds), Departure/Destination, and Operator (where known).

Start 1405Z

TN178CP, Learjet 35, 260, Peachtree/Dekalb, GA to Chicago/Midway, Private

OPT431, Beechjet 400, 390, Westchester Co., NY to Springfield Illinois, Flight Options, Inc.

COM791, Canadair Regional Jet, 240, Cincinnati to Des Moines IA, Comair (Delta Connection)

AWE143, Airbus A320, 350, Boston to Las Vegas, America West

ACA587, Airbus A319, 390, Toronto Canada to Dallas/Ft. Worth, Air Canada

USA557, Boeing 737-300, 280, Pittsburgh to Kansas City, US Air

N270WS, Learjet 55, 220, Indianapolis to Taylor County Airport Wisconsin, Private

SYX1160, Beechcraft 1900D, 180, Milwaulkee to Indianapolis, Skyway Airlines

AMT8071, Boeing 737-800, 350, Detroit to Las Vegas, American Trans Air

NWA1200, McDonnell-Douglas MD95, 330, St Louis to Detroit, Northwest Airlines

SWA403, Boeing 737, 390, Manchester N.H. to Kansas City, Southwest Airlines

COM517, Canadair Regional Jet, 310, Cincinnati to Cedar Rapids IA, Comair (Delta Connection)

COM571, Canadair Regional Jet, 260, Cincinnati to Green Bay Wisc., Comair (Delta Connection)

Blocked callsign, Learjet 55, 390, Palm Springs FL to Chicago/Midway, Unknown

SWA152, Boeing 737, 140, Chicago/Midway to Indianapolis, Southwest Airlines

N950SP, Learjet 35, 280, Cincinnati/Luken Field to Waukegan Wisc., Private

BTA4007, Embraer Regional Jet 145, 310, Cleveland to Kansas City, Britt Airways (Continental Express)

End 1427Z

As you can see, in a 22 minute session, there were a number of aircraft passing directly over or nearly directly over your location (provided by you as "45 miles northwest of Indianapolis"). This was done around 9:00 AM CST, which is just a bit prior to the morning push, so it wasn't as busy as it could have been.

posted 08-09-2002 03:46 PM            

You're the one that suggested FE, well here it is. Don't be trying to change your story now, bub.

All that information you posted in no way shows that these planes are flying over Anderson, IN. Again, let's see the FE picture. The area circled in the figure corresponds exactly with the coordinates of my locatin in my atlas. The area to the upper right of my area where there are numerous intersecting routes is Muncie, IN. Most of the planes do fly over Muncie, but as chance would have it, not here.

The picture above is from Flight Explorerâ„¢, which by your past comments you previously endorse and find to be accurate. Until you can post something substantial, not call signs and flight numbers, then I don't see any point in even responding.

posted 08-09-2002 07:22 PM            

I sure would love to know what elevation that pic was taken at. Surely not the same elevation that I am at in this valley that my city is in. Plus here in Indiana we have a lot of these really cool things called trees Nice try.

Using 'common sense' would you say that the contrail in this pic is 'right above you'?