posted 08-09-2002 09:10 PM            

To be honest, I didn't post the pictures of FE because I guess I'm not that "message board saavy"...I really haven't spent the time to try and figure out how to do that. If you'd enlighten me, I'll provide some FE shots for you.

You know, I honestly had higher expectations for you. I figured that you'd probably be a bit skeptical, since after all I'm a "debunker" and "one of them". But I really didn't expect you to respond by saying that I made up the data. That tells me that either you feel I have no conscience at all and would go to great lengths to make up data and lie (oh by the way check the airline websites and crosscheck the flight numbers to the destinations and times...you'll find that they'll line up fine). Or you are so stubborn that you'll continue to give me cop-out answers and hide behind some excuse.

A/T, I'm not particularly debating here whether or not there are chemtrails...this is more basic. I'm challenging your assertation that ALL DAY LONG, there is only ONE flight that passes in close proximity or directly over your town. Just a casual look at FE would dispell all but the most hard-headed...just look at the darn picture! There are aircraft all over, some on and some off the jet routes, and that frame you provided is just ONE moment in time in the course of a day.

posted 08-09-2002 09:20 PM            

Using simple trigonometry, and ignoring the curvature of the Earth (which would alter the numbers a bit), an aircraft flying at about 80 degrees inclination from the horizon (and appearing nearly directly overhead) would still be displaced about 6-8 miles laterally from your position, depending on the aircraft's altitude.

If it's roughly 45 degrees up from the horizon (to measure this accurate, use an inclinometer, such as that found on a level, not your eyeball since it will not be accurate), the aircraft is about 10-14 miles away from you.

posted 08-09-2002 09:35 PM            

I never said there was only one flight ALL DAY LONG. If I said that feel free to quote me, but I didn't, so don't.

The fact is only one route commonly flies directly over my area. As I previously mentioned, there seems to be a plane flying this route in intervals of 30-45 minutes, which would account for two commonly passing aircfaft overhead in the period of an hour. Both flying the same route may I add. I never said ALL DAY and that is an obvious attempt at twisting my words. I don't resort to misquoting you and I would appreciate it if you could show the same respect to me.

quote:

---

Using simple trigonometry, and ignoring the curvature of the Earth (which would alter the numbers a bit), an aircraft flying at about 80 degrees inclination from the horizon (and appearing nearly directly overhead) would still be displaced about 6-8 miles laterally from your position, depending on the aircraft's altitude

---

Thanks for sharing that. So the radius I'm looking at should only be 6-8 miles. Wow. Now I know there is definitely no way that 20+ planes should be laying trails in the 6-8 mile area that is perceived as directly overhead. Thaks for clearing that up.

You have to upload the images somewhere first. If you have an ftp account or your ISP account or whatever. Then you just hyperlink the picture using html or UBB code within' your post.

Oh yeah and Pacer, as far as putting your money where your mouth is....

How many routes do you count in the area that is circled just northeast of INDY in this pic? It doesn't take trigonometry.

posted 08-09-2002 09:52 PM            

In about 10 minutes or so you should have a National Airlines 757 pass just to the south of your town (about 5 miles south) heading from Newark to Las Vegas at 37,000. Then a Frontier Airlines Boeing 737 should pass about 10 miles north of your town heading to Baltimore at 33,000. Both flights will probably appear about 50 degrees in the sky from the horizon. Actually, the National 757 is almost on top of Anderson according to FE.

I'll get around to pasting the FE frames later....I've got to go get ready for a flight this weekend...I'll be up in your neck of the woods over in Dayton tomorrow, but I doubt I'll fly over Indiana.

posted 08-10-2002 12:05 AM            

One important note is that I am terrible with 'directions', or direction dyslexic as I call it. I have been saying I live northwest of INDY all this time... I mean NorthEast. ROFL. That's my bad

Just a quick summary and notes on this thread:

This Topic of this somewhat 'fevered' debate started about X U and Parallel patterns that I have observed over my house. Since then the emphasis has been drug to questioning my judgement.

To this point no one has offered a reasonable explanation for the numerous patterned trails I see over short periods of times. I allowed myself to play 'their' political game long enough. Re-reading this post in it's entirety is a good example of how debunkers like to sidetrack or make 5 issues out of 1. The issue remains:

Why are these planes coming back around and flying through their own trails and making patterns in the sky? Tic Tac Toe of the cosmic fingers?

Why do I see these trails in numbers right above my area when flight explorer only shows one common route through my airspace?

........

posted 08-10-2002 12:05 AM            

Based on theseeker's photo, just a rough guestimate would say that contrail was about 10-20 degrees from the horizon. That would put the aircraft about 20-40 miles away from the viewer

first of all, at the time that pic was shot I had been using F/E for over a year...the hill in the background might be giving you the trouble...in judging the distance correctly...my memorandom of the pic says approx. 70 miles...from where that pic was taken, to our family cemetary is 27 miles...from the cemetary to kansas is 26 miles (53m so far)...both the craft were clearly over the border between Oklahoma and kansas, after viewing F/E as long as I have made the judgement of approx. 70 miles...point a to b....and I'll stick tuit....

again, maybe the 50 foot hill threw you off...

to add I think A/T is fibbing,and doing the backstroke as good as I've seen it in a while...the only problem is that A/T edits his / her posts so many times you can't tell unless you were there at the time if it is original text...

a slippery one...

posted 08-10-2002 12:10 AM            

Just a quick summary and notes on this thread:

This Topic of this somewhat 'fevered' debate started about X U and Parallel patterns that I have observed over my house. Since then the emphasis has been drug to questioning my judgement.

One important note is that I am terrible with 'directions', or direction dyslexic as I call it. I have been saying I live northwest of INDY all this time... I mean NorthEast. ROFL. That's my bad.

To this point no one has offered a reasonable explanation for the numerous patterned trails I see over short periods of times. I allowed myself to play 'their' political game long enough. Re-reading this post in it's entirety is a good example of how debunkers like to sidetrack or make 5 issues out of 1. The issue remains:

Why are these planes coming back around and flying through their own trails and making patterns in the sky? Tic Tac Toe of the cosmic fingers?

Why do I see these trails in numbers right above my area when flight explorer only shows one common route through my airspace?

........

posted 08-10-2002 01:46 AM            

how you can look at that screen grab and say (in a dolt's voice) "where do all these grids and tic tac toe patterns come from" is as ignorant as it gets...

also by continually calling my integrity into question eventually your going to make me angry...

you would not like me when I'm angry...

I have spared no expense to find out whether chemtrails are real or not...and I guarantee you I've spent more than you to find out the truth...see...I put my money where my mouth is...

you just put your foot there....

posted 08-10-2002 07:53 AM            

My estimation was only an exercise in reviewing the SinA=b/a equation. In reality you'd need an inclinometer to measure the angle from the horizon, and the lower you get to the horizon, the airplane gets exponentially further away. So a change of 5 degrees further down would have resulted in a much larger distance laterally.

posted 08-15-2002 09:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GAS_MASK:
Bonehead, all the information you asked for is available from NOAA and Flight Explorer.

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.

---

BTW, when I bring up data from NOAA It is usually dismissed as being "from the government and not trustworthy."

quote:

---

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.......)

---

quote:

---

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.)

---

Well I don’t know. Maybe because they have the training, experience, and common sense to know what they are talking about. I would bet that you would argue with a cardiologist on how to perform a bypass operation.

quote:

---

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.....)

---

What you fail to grasp is that these so called trivial details are often crucial to your case.

quote:

---

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)

"The biggest conspiracy theory of them all, is the claim there are no conspiracies."

---

posted 08-21-2002 05:49 PM            

Anyway, BH, you completely missed my sarcasm about the 'quote' thing. Oh well, your response was rather amusing in that way .

quote:

---

Well, if you actually tried to answer the question your comment would be relevant, but you simply sidestep the issue. Didn’t you understand the question? Was the RH relative to water or relative to ice? Do you understand that there is a significant difference between the two? If your data takes this into account, then maybe I will not ask any more questions about this particular issue.
BTW, when I bring up data from NOAA It is usually dismissed as being "from the government and not trustworthy."

---

Instead of thinking I was side-stepping your question, start thinking that perhaps my reply wasn't directed towards answering you? Answering your question was not my motive for posting that reply, only because my so called 'data' to be presented was bound to be deemed unofficial and unreliable anyway. I'm not even going to bother anymore. I'll let someone else have pointless arguments with you guys from now on.

However, I can see your position on NOAA. I still believe that they are one of the few government organizations out there that are still legit.

quote:

---

Nah, just once will do. Are you asking me to prove a negative?

---

Well, of course I am! People are asked to prove negatives all the time. Here's how you can do it: Show me the guts of every single military aircraft flying the skies today (sounds difficult, doesn't it?). If they all turn out to be legit, then you have proved a negative by showing me that chemtrails could not possibly be caused by military aircraft. However, until then, that controversy remains unproven on both sides of the issue.

quote:

---

Well I don’t know. Maybe because they have the training, experience, and common sense to know what they are talking about. I would bet that you would argue with a cardiologist on how to perform a bypass operation.

---

I'd have to agree with you there, BH. However, I have a problem with military pilots arguing with about something that they know they are completely incorrect about. I'm not saying it's happening now, I'm just saying that it does.

BTW, I wouldn't agrue with a MD about anything, except for the astronomical bill.

quote:

---

What you fail to grasp is that these so called trivial details are often crucial to your case.

---

I'd agree. Trivial details are definitely crucial to our case.......if the trivial details actually pertain to the subject being discussed. Go review some threads, and look where a debunker has posted. The conversation goes off on a tangent until it transforms into something that's not even related to the posted subject, thus, ensuring your victory in the argument. Sure, it happens with us sometimes, but with debunkers- 100% of the time. Don't believe me? Have a look for yourself.

quote:

---

OK, they are a possibility. I just do not believe that they are a very real possibility.
I have yet to see anything that amounts to real evidence from anyone here.

---

You probably meant to say that chemtrails are an 'unlikely' possibility. Ok, fair enough. But that still doesn't change the fact that the potential is there and waiting to be used (if not already).

What you fail to grasp is that websites like this one allow people to express their opinion and speculate about what's causing the chemtrail phenomenoa, not to provide scientific evidence.

"Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise - what it is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"