posted 07-26-2001 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

These are the ways I can think of, at this moment, that one could measure the distance to an overhead plane.

Perhaps airport and/or weather radar can detect it. If so, I imagine that this equipment is too expensive to be afforded by the individual researcher. Could we, then, befriend any air traffic controllers or meteorologists in order to get access to their data?

Police radar scanners (echo location?). These must be able to measure distance to be able to measure speed. Are these available to the public? Could one be devised? Could we befriend any traffic officers to help look into this? Fuzz busters are able to detect the ultrasonic frequencies that scanners emit. Could these be used in some kind of gerryrig in an attempt to bounce a signal off the plane for detection by the fuzz buster?

Survey equipment of the type used to lay out roads and to locate property lines. These may now be able to measure distance. If they cannot do it automatically, couldn't they be used to locate a plane at a three-dimensional point in space via the triangulation method that many of us learned in secondary school? The tricky part is that we're aiming at a small moving object.

We do have cell phones for the coordination of teams, lazer leveling equipment (at least some ag equipment has this), tripods (if only from the camera store), and protractors, or supposedly, we could get them or make them. Lazer flashlights could figure in to the invention. They need not direct a beam all the way to the plane, but only to a known point on earth, for leveling benchmark. A $200 starlight nightscope could be used as a vague tracking tool to get the angle from horizontal. It wouldn't be a terribly accurate measurement, but would only provide a range of values from which to calculate the altitude.

It does help a great deal to know the dimensions of the aircraft. This, together with night vision photography would allow us to calculate the distance. Even without having the angle from horizontal, knowing the distance would put an upper bound on the altitude.

---

posted 07-26-2001 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Night Pix

• Hire a professional cameraperson. Make sure they have either surveillance or night photography experience, preferably both (usually gained in the military, some OTJ) and can properly work with IR and night vision equipment. One evening's work should do (especially the way these jets are showing up -- that is, everywhere but on FE or in the minds of the FAA). Likely cost, depending on your location and market, $200 - $600 for the evening (that's labor only, w/o equipment).

• Rent a professional camera -- Beta SP or high-end MiniDV formats are common, though the mini-DV cameras will rent for a good bit less. Cost, anywhere from $200 - $750 per day (depending on the equipment, etc.)

• Rent a compatible, professional night vision lens (such as the Astroscope). This particular model is a converter for the image, so you will still need a zoom-telephoto in order to focus -- what it does is amplify the available image. It can also be purchased / rented with an IR option (consult manufacturer on use). This unit, whichever is rented, must be compatible with the camera package you're renting. Cost: Anywhere from $150 - $500 per evening.

Take the cameraperson, the camera and night/low-light lens out with you and just observe. The camera operator will want to begin scanning the sky in a "wide-angle" mode, zooming in on a jet only after it has been spotted and focused upon properly within their viewfinder.

You should be able to get a decent picture of these planes in such manner....

If you can't afford the above personnel or equipment, get a tele-photo adaptor for your own video camera -- assuming it has a low-light mode, as many do. In fact, Sony used to make a little handheld camera (off the market now) which had an IR sensor built in; it was discontinued because the IR mode was clearly able to "see through" certain types of fabric -- directly to the body of the person wearing said fabric, all the while recording a faithful image of what was underneath -- and so proved to be a PR embarrasment to Sony, though I'm told these cameras a now highly coveted by certain video "buffs" (if you will).

As a last thought, I know that there is a decent night vision lens rig being manufactured for the Cannon L1 digital camera series. These are extremely fine, relatively low-cost professional DV cameras which have the added feature of being able to use the entire range of Cannon's excellent 35mm still camera lenses (as well as their video lenses) -- so the L1, "tricked out" for high-range telephoto night photography might be your first choice as a rental.

Where to find these people / this stuff? Start by perusing your Yellow Pages, under "Security", "Private Detectives", etc. If they don't have it themselves (some do), they'll likely know where you can find it or rent it.

---

posted 07-27-2001 05:28 PM            

In a similar manner, you could (if you knew the length or wingspan of the aircraft) determine its distance from you by building a tube about 4 inches in diameter with a reticle calibrated in inches or millimeters at one end. Look through the other end when you see an aircraft and determine how many mm of reticle the aircraft "covers".

Simple trig will enable you to determine distance of the aircraft by ratio of:

a:b = c:d, where

(a) is the distance from your eye to the reticle (known),

(b) is the distance of the reticle lines covered in mm (known),

(c) is the length of the aircraft (estimated), and

(d) is the distance between you and the aircraft (calculated).

posted 07-29-2001 09:15 AM               

Militarty Surplus Optical Rangefinder with swiss optics $495

Source http://www.samcoglobal.com/access.html

posted 07-30-2001 10:16 AM            

"http://home.europa.com/~telscope/rangfndr.txt ... This is a great paper on optical range finder technology."

I agree; it is an excellent article. Of particular interest to the "financially challenged" among us is a article, written by Lindner in that same post. The article shows how to build a co-incident rangefinder assembly for about $10 in parts which would provide +14.2 / -11.2 percent accuracy and would not require that you know the size of the object being viewed.

Although the accuracy does not seem great compared to the more expensive laser rangefinders or doppler radar devices, the author states that increasing the length of the legs or using a more precise scale could increase the accuracy.

However, for determining altitude of an aircraft, the accuracy should be good enough to determine whether the plane in question is at a altitude consistent with "normal" contrail or not. For example, if your reading is 5,000 feet, the aircraft is probably within a range of 4,400 to 5,710 feet altitude; if your reading is 30,000 feet, the aircraft is probably within a range of 26,640 to 34,260 feet altitude.

This is certainly enough to determine whether the altitude of an aircraft producing contrails is within an range considered "anomalous".

However, it must be understood that:

(1) Given certain atmospheric conditions, an aircraft can produce normal contrails at a very wide range of altitudes; and

(2) Rangefinder determines distance between you and the object, not altitude per se. The only ways you could get an accurate altitude reading is if the object were directly overhead; failing that, you would have to determine the object's distance and azimuth (not that difficult, of course); and then to use simple trig to determine that altitude component.

Regards,

posted 07-30-2001 11:35 PM               

Also better evidence gathering is important to solving this issue and this is an important step to doing that.

The evidence from gathering rainwater on Carnicom for instance. He needs to show the whole video or make it available so that everyone can verify his evidence gathering methods as being sound.

But the metal particulate looks to be very high in the water in his video. If that represents actual rain particulate and not just area dust getting knocked down by the rain.

It is a good attempt to gathering stronger evidence but lacks taking in all possible sources for the particulate. For instance does he live down wind from construction or a cement factory that might kick up some dust that falls locally in rain water.

This is just a speculation of possible sources, a site survey is required to set the parameters for normal or abnormal.

This idea of good altitude records of suspect chemtrails is certainly a solid step toward better evidence collection.

posted 10-02-2001 01:17 PM            

Somebody thoughtfully provided a nice X just south of Lubbock. In my driveway, the center of the X was at 23.8° elevation. I drove 2.55 miles due south, and the center of the X was at 33.8° elevation. If my calculations are correct, that would mean that the center of the X was at about 17,400 feet.

Checking the ADDS flight path tool http://adds.awc-kc.noaa.gov/projects/adds/flight_path/ at 1800 GMT, I find that the temperature at that altitude is -15°C and the relative humidity is 0.4. Hmmm. Hard to make contrails under those conditions.

Here is my formula:
a=vertical altitude of the object being viewed
d=distance between first elevation reading and second elevation reading
vtan=tangent of the smaller (more distant) angle of elevation reading
^tan=tangent of the larger (closer) angle of elevation reading

a=[(d)(vtan)] divided by [1- (vtan)/(^tan)]

Correction: If you are not at sea level when you make these measurements, be sure to add your area's altitude/elevation to the calculated altitude. In Lubbock that number is about 3282 feet.

posted 10-02-2001 03:05 PM               

A question:

posted 10-02-2001 03:52 PM            

A = [(2.55) (0.44105)] / [1 - (0.44105/0.66944)
= [1.1246775] / [.341165]
= 3.29658 mi = 17405 ft. 11-1/4 in

Bear in mind that the bottom leg of the triangle (the 2.55 mi along the ground) must be in the exact plane of the two other measurements. In other words, if you took your first measurement angle, and determined the azimuth of the object to be at exactly 180 deg true, then you must drive at exactly that bearing prior to taking your second measurement angle. If you didn't, then you'd have to take the SIN(variance) * measured distance which could change your "measured" altitude from 17,400 feet to something like 27,400 feet - or 7,400 feet, for that matter!

Thermit, my guess is that, since the lateral movement of the contrail is more likely to be a consideration rather than the vertical movement, the worst-case scenario, assuming 3T3L1's measurements are correct, are pretty much the same as the measured amounts.

In other words, if she moved in the same azimuth as the "X" between measurements and ocmes up with 17,400 ft, my guess is that the actual hieght of the contrails when laid down were not much more (or less) than 17,400 ft.

Regards,

posted 10-02-2001 04:11 PM            

Thermit, if anything, the center of the X moved upward relative to the other trails I could see. I'm close to the edge of town, so driving the 2.55 miles only took about 5 minutes.

Duncan, you're right about the exact altitude. You're also right about having to drive along the same bearing. I did that.

Here's my secret weapon:

To make an inexpensive clinometer, take two clear plastic protractors and align them back-to-back. Attach them at both ends of the straightedge using doublesided sticky tape. Attach a weight to the hole in the center of the straightedge using thread or fishing line. Be sure the weight will swing freely when you insert a fingernail between the protractors. Re-number the protractor such that 90° is now 0°, 80° is now 10°, etc. You want the horizon to read as 0° and straight overhead to read as 90°.

To use the clinometer, insert your fingernail between the protractors, so that the weight swings freely. Sight along the straightedge, so that it points directly from your eye to a distinctive portion of the c-trail in question. Without changing the alignment, slide your fingernail out from between the protractors, and pinch them together on the fishing line. You can now read the elevation of that portion of the c-trail by looking at the position of the line on the degree scale of the protractors.

If you'd prefer to spend about $300.00, you can buy a professional instrument to measure these angles. A good choice would be the SILVA SurveyMaster, which is described at this URL: http://www.silva.se/outdoor/products/prof_surv.htm

posted 10-02-2001 05:19 PM            

If you want increased accuracies at higher altitudes/longer ranges, you must immediately replace the .380 cartridge weight with at least a 9x19 mm (9 mm para) cartridge, or, better yet, a SPGFLD .30-'06 cartridge with a 180-grain partitioned-boattail bullet.

Sheesh.

posted 10-03-2001 09:20 AM            

Use your clinometer as a protractor. Holding the clinometer in a plane parallel to the plane of the ground, point the 0° mark along the bearing on which you will be driving. Sight along the protractor to determine the relative position of the c-trail to the bearing on which you will be driving. Call that angle the "variance". Call the variance at the site farther from the c-trail f, and the variance at the site nearer to the c-trail n.

Call the distance you will be driving d'. When it comes time to figure the altitude of the c-trail, you can use this formula to convert d' to d: d=(d')(cos[f]) Please note, this formula just gives a ballpark estimate of what d should be.

If you want to be precise, d equals:

posted 10-11-2001 07:56 AM            

1. Because each arm of the X was probably at a different altitude, siting on the place where the X crossed was a not a good idea in this instance. As I drove toward the X, the place where the trails appeared to cross would have been different at the place I took the far angle of elevation and the place I took the near angle of elevation.

posted 10-18-2001 11:45 AM            

I noticed that somone suggested using the ADDS service to determine temperature and humidity at certain places and altitudes. I wanted to point out that this is not necessarily going to give you an accurate reading!

ADDS is a service offered by the FAA for pilots to use in flight planning, and only gives very general, aproximate conditions over very wide areas. It is an experimental system, based on a mixture of computer predictions and computer interpolations of real data. The disclaimers on the web site include statements such as: "The Federal Aviation Administration funds and directs the Aviation Digital Data Service and the experimental products that it displays." And "These products have not been develope by and are not endorsed by the National Weather Service". And also: "Caution: This site contains experimental products and services."

posted 11-18-2001 04:19 PM            

Here's another example of a chemtrail at low humidity. This one was observed at 15:25 CST on 11/18/01 east of Lubbock. I sighted on the top of the segment in the center of the picture. Near elevation was 24.8° and near variance from due east was 6°. I drove 2.78 miles due east. At that point, far elevation was 37° and far variance from due east was 10°.

Using my Excel formulas, the calculated height of the trail above sea level was 20,628 feet. ADDS said that the relative humidity at this altitude and at this time was between 0.2 and 0.3. The temperature at that altitude was between -15 and -25 degrees centigrade.

posted 01-16-2002 10:44 PM            

To make an inexpensive clinometer, take two clear plastic protractors and align them back-to-back. Attach them at both ends of the straightedge using doublesided sticky tape. Attach a weight to the hole in the center of the straightedge using thread or fishing line. Be sure the weight will swing freely when you insert a fingernail between the protractors. Re-number the protractor such that 90° is now 0°, 80° is now 10°, etc. You want the horizon to read as 0° and straight overhead to read as 90°.

To use the clinometer, insert your fingernail between the protractors, so that the weight swings freely. Sight along the straightedge, so that it points directly from your eye to a distinctive portion of the c-trail in question. Without changing the alignment, slide your fingernail out from between the protractors, and pinch them together on the fishing line. You can now read the elevation of that portion of the c-trail by looking at the position of the line on the degree scale of the protractors.

To measure the altitude of a trail, you will need the clinometer and a motor vehicle.
1. Pick out a distinctive feature of the trail and site in on it with the clinometer. Call this angle #1.
2. Record the exact mileage on your vehicle's odometer. Drive about 2-5 miles (in a straight line--no curves or turns) in the direction of the distinctive feature. When you reach a place where it's safe to take the second clinometer reading, record the exact mileage on your vehicle's odometer.
3. Measure the elevation of the distinctive feature at the second location and call it angle #2.
4. Put in a call to me and I will calculate the elevation of the trail for you. (Lots of math involved, but I have an Excel program, so I can just plug in the numbers.)

Further instructions: I am assuming you are driving directly toward the trail. If the distinctive feature of the trail is off at a slight angle from your direction of travel, use the clinometer as a protractor to measure that angle (call it angle #3) at your first location and measure it again (call it angle #4) at your second location. My Excel program can handle it.

posted 01-23-2002 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

...I have engaged in e-mail exchanges with Dr. Patrick Minnis of NASA/ASD. Dr. Minnis is involved in the study of remote sensing of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. His research focuses on the characterization and measurement of clouds, aerosols, and radiation for the study of climate.

I asked him WHY the ADDS pages will show relative humidity at values of 50%+ that correlate with reports of "chemtrails,"...[comment here was deleted by 3T3L1]... Not being scientifically or meteorologically inclined, I assumed that the information from the ADDS pages was close to exact. It turns out I was wrong and technology hasn't advanced yet to the point I assumed it had. This is what Dr. Minnis clarified:

"Your notice about the 50% RH is typical. If you read the discussion on the web site, it talks about the humidity problems. There is a well-known bias in the relative humidities measured at high altitudes. The measurements are generally drier than the true value (based on research quality instruments vs operational ones). High altitude humidity was never a big factor in weather forecasts until recently. SO, people are trying come up with better operational measurement systems. When those measurements are put into a computer model to give values all over the country , it tends to reinforce the dry bias. That is why you get RH = 50% and contrails. The true value has to be greater than 100% for the contrails to persist for very long (more than a few minutes). At those cold temperatures, a small error in moisture measurement leads to a large error in RH.

---