posted 01-13-2003 09:32 PM               

January 9, 2003

To all:
The unscrupulous are, generally, incapable of honor in anything they do.
Reponses to PacerLJ35’s most recent retort to my original posts about assessing contrail lengths have covered a variety of subjects. There are some points about PacerLJ35’s post, and their assertions about what I posted, that deserve examination.
Among other points PacerLJ35 asserts to be wrong is my statement that their saying they flew through "persistent contrails", pulling unfiltered air into the cabin, and suffering no ill effects, could not be taken as legitimate. I stated that there had to be filters, to pull dust, chemicals and insects out of the incoming air. In their reply, PacerLJ35 says, "Again, there's a contaminant screen that keeps larger stuff out (like grass, etc.), but nothing that would filter out chemicals or germs.
"And, no, there aren't any insects at 35,000 feet."
Among other things, PacerLJ35 never mentioned the "contaminant screen" before, in the post I mentioned in referring to their supposedly breathing outside air, so they could not be referring to it "again".
Also, in fact, a “contaminant screen” is a filter!
More importantly, though, dust can rise many thousands of feet into the air, and it can have a serious effect if not handled. And insects have been, supposedly, found as high as the stratosphere, blown there, at least, by storm winds.
And, at the very least, insects, dust and toxic gases can occur at low altitudes, so a jet must have a means in place to prevent these from entering there! And it is unlikely that a jet would have a filtering system in place for low altitudes, then disable it at high altitudes!
As an aside, using flippancy typical of someone not devoted to honor and honesty, PacerLJ35 then goes on to say: "OK, maybe I'm being too hard on ya, but it's not the 'Bleed Air Modulation Valve', it's the Bleed Air Mod Valve".
As much of a stickler as PacerLJ35 purports to be, they would be the first to acknowledge that they had actually called it the "Bleed Air Modulation Valve"!
They then go on to take issue with my description of their purportedly flying through another jet's "persistent contrail" as unlikely at best - given the huge amount of sky they have to fly in - and "reckless" at worst, since it can place the jets in dangerous proximity.
"We don't 'aim' to fly through a contrail", PacerLJ35 insists, "say you're flying from A to B. You're at 33,000 feet, cruising along. About 10 miles in front of you, a Delta airliner passes from right to left, also at 33,000 feet. It leaves behind a billowy, long lasting contrail. Now here you come less than a minute later (remember, you're travelling at about 10 miles a minute), and you plow right through the Delta jet's contrail. It happens a lot up here. No biggie. And it’s not an airshow by any means."
But that would mean, among other things, that, flying 10 miles a minute, the airliners are so reckless that they routinely actually pass only about a minute's flying time away from each other! It seems unlikely that such close proximity of jets, especially when air turbulence, or a number of other factors, can actually slightly impede the movement of one jet, allowing it to end up closer to the approaching jet, can be considered wise! There seems little excuse for calling behavior like this anything less than reckless.
And the pilots not knowing about each other's jets cannot be an "excuse"! At the very least, the equivalent of "Flight Explorer" should be available to them, to know what traffic is in their vicinity! Any pilot allowing their jet to come that close to another jet, when so many alternatives are available, cannot necessarily be said to be acting sanely!
Nor does this not seem endemic in the system of airflight in the United States!
Since the genesis of the “hub” system in the country, and the enactment of the “Expanded East Coast Plan”, in 1987, jets over New Jersey, at least, have been allowed to routinely make unsafe maneuvers. Before the changes, there used to be a “ten mile rule” in place, which stipulated that jets were not allowed to get closer than ten miles to each other. That has, apparently, been superseded by a “three mile rule”!
When jets flew slower, were smaller, and had less fuel on board, they were prohibited from flying closer than ten miles to each other. Now, when they are flying faster, are bigger, and have more dangerous fuel on board, they are allowed to get only three miles from each other!
Does the flying public know about the fact that they are being placed less than a minute away from collision on a regular basis?
It may be “argued” that this was put in place by the FAA, which may make it legal, but that doesn’t make it right or wise! The FAA cannot be ruled definitively to have acted honorably with respect to any aspect of airflight in the country for at least the last couple of decades!
But corruption rarely comes from the head down. If the FAA is corrupt, as, essentially, the end result of a chain stretching from pilots on up, that only argues for corruption in the entire industry!
Admitting themselves a pilot does little, if anything, to lend a veneer of credence to what PacerLJ35 says.
My contention that just looking at a line in the sky is not sufficient to be able to tell it is, as PacerLJ35 said, "one hundred miles long”, was also attacked.
PacerLJ35 described "flying along a contrail for about 5 minutes, moving at about 10 miles a minute", then, "looking out", seeing "the airplane leaving the contrail, and you can see him on your TCAS screen. It says he's about 40 miles out. So, 50 + 40 equals 90...nearly 100 miles."
Assuming PacerLJ35 is not describing flying along the "contrail" inside it, with their vision obscured, they still describe, essentially, deliberately “closing in on” another jet until they are uncomfortably close! Certainly, if they could close the distance between themselves and the other jet, suggests that they had to have been traveling faster than it!
Since PacerLJ35 was, then, essentially in an area that would breed persistent contrails, it is questionable why they don’t refer to their own persistent contrail being formed!
One of the most telling, and disturbing, aspects of PacerLJ35’s retort to my comments on their posts deals with their “correcting” my assessment of jet speeds. I suggested a velocity of 300 to 400 mph. In a, frankly, apparently mentally disjointed response, PacerLJ35 spoke as if I referred to speeds of 300 to 400 knots. They asserted: “300-400 knots is a bit on the slow side for commercial jets.” They then segued into a discourse of speeds in Mach, then a sprinkling of references to knots and mph’s, with little reference to how they compared. I took PacerLJ35 to task for, evidently, accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, then going so far as to represent me of speaking in knots, when, in reality, I was speaking in mph. PacerLJ35’s response, among other things, tried to accuse me of thinking that knots are not units of speed! Then, PacerLJ35 finished: “Anyhoo, even if you bothered to convert your 300-400 MPH into knots, it would equal even slowed cruise speeds of 261 and 348 MPH respectively. That’s about the true airspeed of a turboprop, NOT a jet.” That was posted December 31, 2002. I pointed out the evident incoherence of the sentence, PacerLJ35, essentially, saying that converting a mph speed to knots would cause it to translate out to a slower mph speed!
In a response, On January 5, 2003, PacerLJ35 accused me of not reading his statement correctly.
“Go read my statement. I said 261 and 348 KNOTS’, PacerLJ35 asserts, “not MPH.
“Apparently YOU have misquoted me.
PacerLJ35, then, dismissively, states: “Good night.”
Surely enough, a look at the post listed as being placed on December 31 will reveal PacerLJ35 saying: “261 and 348 knots respectively”.
However, the original post, by PacerLJ35, did say 300 to 400 mph converts to 261 and 348 mph! A downloaded copy of these posts, from December 31, 2002, has PacerLJ35 saying “261 and 348 MPH”! A downloaded copy of the posts from January 9, after the post in which PacerLJ35 accuses me of misquoting them, has the previous post saying “261 and 348 knots”! The previous post by PacerLJ35 was rewritten, likely at their request, to remove the evidence of their own apparent inability to pursue legitimate discourse! Then, when the evidence of PacerLJ35’s own questionable character was erased, they returned to use the edited post to “disprove” what I said!

In no uncertain terms, it can be asserted that PacerLJ35 lied!
More, PacerLJ35 doctored evidence to support a lie covering their own faults, and trying to accuse those who spoke the truth of being untrustworthy!
PacerLJ35, evidently, is utterly without ethics, and capable of anything to support their personal agenda!
There is a tenet in the courts: “False in one, false in all”. It means that, if one evidence of deceit or fraud is found in an individual’s actions, the jury are not bound to believe them in anything they say.
PacerLJ35 has proved themselves utterly devoid of any trustworthiness! They have demonstrated that they, apparently, will engage in any deceit, fraud and even swindle to support their wants and wishes, even at the expense of others! Anyone who places any trust in what PacerLJ35, or any of PacerLJ35’s cronies among the “debunkers” will have only themselves to blame when that trust whips back and bites them!
The contention about contrails, presumably, forming a spectrum of possible lengths has long been used to suggest that chemtrails are but one phase of contrails. This must be looked into. For the most part, the contrails I have seen never extended more than about 5 º of arc in pictures. There were some occurrences of trails extending, perhaps, 20º. These were the kind whose far ends would dissolve into strings of tiny puffy clouds, which would, then, abruptly, fade away. But there are no trails longer than that in any pictures I took.
Interestingly, there are no cases of contrails between those limits, either!
Those who wish to oppose chemtrails, and want to refute the contention that chemtrails are only one stage of contrails, can take pictures of contrails they see forming almost directly overhead. This is when they will be closest to their actual arc size, with respect to the observer. The observers could also make estimates of the degree size they see. The angle from the horizon to directly overhead is 90º. That can be used to estimate the size of the contrail seen. A record can be maintained of contrail sizes, to see what ranges, if any, they really cover!

posted 01-13-2003 10:24 PM               

So what are you saying? That we just fly aimlessly through the sky getting dangerously close to other planes? The distances that you say are "reckless" are perfectly safe. Besides, the pilots arent the ones controlling the distance between their aircraft and another (assuming they are both IFR). Air traffic control has complete authority over all movement of that aircraft vertically and horizontally. If the pilot does anything without asking ATC or being told by ATC to do so will be verbally reminded by ATC to get back to their assigned heading and/or altitude. There is nothing wrong with what Pacer said. You just dont seem to understand the rules and regulations for airliners and ATC.

And the pilots not knowing about each other's jets cannot be an "excuse"! At the very least, the equivalent of "Flight Explorer" should be available to them, to know what traffic is in their vicinity! Any pilot allowing their jet to come that close to another jet, when so many alternatives are available, cannot necessarily be said to be acting sanely!

posted 01-15-2003 09:40 PM               

Sure, but not the kind of filter needed to eliminate particulate pathogens, chemicals, or other small particles. They screen out larger things like grass, etc.

"
More importantly, though, dust can rise many thousands of feet into the air, and it can have a serious effect if not handled. And insects have been, supposedly, found as high as the stratosphere, blown there, at least, by storm winds.
And, at the very least, insects, dust and toxic gases can occur at low altitudes, so a jet must have a means in place to prevent these from entering there! And it is unlikely that a jet would have a filtering system in place for low altitudes, then disable it at high altitudes!"

In essence, that quote is essentially a guess. You really have no idea what a jet aircraft actually has pertaining to filtering systems. But I'm telling you, they don't have filters like that on their bleed air systems. That is a fact. You can suggest and guess all you like, but it's *fact*.

I challenge you to go find the maintenance schematics for a TFE-731 turbofan engine, and the Learjet 510 pressurization system, and find the filters that can filter out this stuff. Then post it on this web page. You can find this stuff with just a little digging.

"As an aside, using flippancy typical of someone not devoted to honor and honesty, PacerLJ35 then goes on to say: "OK, maybe I'm being too hard on ya, but it's not the 'Bleed Air Modulation Valve', it's the Bleed Air Mod Valve".
As much of a stickler as PacerLJ35 purports to be, they would be the first to acknowledge that they had actually called it the "Bleed Air Modulation Valve"!"

Again, you misquote me. You originally called it the "Air Bleed Modulation Valve", and that is what I quoted you as saying, here:

"OK, maybe I'm being too hard on ya, but it's not the "Air Bleed Modulation Valve"....it's the Bleed Air Mod Valve"

And, just FYI, the term "mod" is short for modulation. So no, I'm not incorrect. Bleed Air Mod Valve and Bleed Air Modulation Valve are one and the same.

"But that would mean, among other things, that, flying 10 miles a minute, the airliners are so reckless that they routinely actually pass only about a minute's flying time away from each other!"

Sure, but air traffic controllers don't measure traffic seperation in minutes, they use miles. They could care less if you pass behind another jet's wake a minute later so long as you're outside the minimum seperation standards of 1,000 feet vertically and 3 miles below 29,000 feet, and 2,000 feet vertically and 5 miles above 29,000. And going 8 miles a minute, would *gasp* put you 8 miles away from another aircraft within a minute's time. Hardly "reckless".

As for the big sky theory, sure. It's big. But when you fly heavily traveled arrival and departure corridors, you are essentially flying along the same path as many other jets ahead of you. So it's not unusual at all to pass through the contrails of another aircraft.

"It seems unlikely that such close proximity of jets, especially when air turbulence, or a number of other factors, can actually slightly impede the movement of one jet, allowing it to end up closer to the approaching jet, can be considered wise! There seems little excuse for calling behavior like this anything less than reckless."

You like to use the term "it seems" alot. How's this...."it seems" that you don't know what you're talking about. And "it seems" is not a suitable replacement for "it is".

Wake turbulence isn't a factor so long as you're beyond roughly 3-5 miles another aircraft. Think I'm lying? Then go look it up in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), and read under wake turbulence. And minimum seperation standards takes care of that problem.

"
And the pilots not knowing about each other's jets cannot be an 'excuse'! At the very least, the equivalent of 'Flight Explorer' should be available to them, to know what traffic is in their vicinity! Any pilot allowing their jet to come that close to another jet, when so many alternatives are available, cannot necessarily be said to be acting sanely!"

You really amaze me, Julian. Again, I submit that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. "Flight Explorer" in the cockpit? Why? We have TCAS (pronounced tee-caas), much better than FE. And there's no way I'd be able to use a laptop computer in the Learjet...too small. So, another homework assignment...go look up TCAS.

Here's a hint...TCAS = Traffic Collision and Avoidance System. It not only displays other traffic and their altitudes relative to your own, but it deconflicts any potential conflicts.

"Does the flying public know about the fact that they are being placed less than a minute away from collision on a regular basis?"

3 miles away....only a half minute or so from a collision. However, ATC does a great job keeping us much farther apart than 3 miles (5 miles above 29,000). There is also at least a 1,000 foot vertical seperation on aircraft flying opposite direction as well. And all turbojet aircraft operated by a scheduled air carrier (part 121 of the FAR) is required to have TCAS aboard.

"Assuming PacerLJ35 is not describing flying along the "contrail" inside it, with their vision obscured, they still describe, essentially, deliberately “closing in on” another jet until they are uncomfortably close! Certainly, if they could close the distance between themselves and the other jet, suggests that they had to have been traveling faster than it!"

Most contrails are very "wispy"....they aren't very thick, and any obscuration doesn't last long, especially since we're plowing through a contrail at over 500 MPH. Second, I was paralleling the other aircraft, which certainly isn't the same as careening precariously towards another aircraft on a collision course.

"Since PacerLJ35 was, then, essentially in an area that would breed persistent contrails, it is questionable why they don’t refer to their own persistent contrail being formed!"

My aircraft may very well have been forming contrails. But since I don't have a rear window, nor a rear-view mirror to see these contrails, how am I supposed to know if I'm trailing one or not? The only time I've ever noticed is when I saw the shadow of our contrail cast upon a cloud deck below us.

"In no uncertain terms, it can be asserted that PacerLJ35 lied!"

I did not lie. I edited my post shortly after I posted it after proof reading, and I had discovered the typo. Since I originally meant knots instead of MPH, I corrected my statement. That is not a lie. If you wish to accuse me of poor typing, fine. But if you would like to do the math, 300 MPH is indeed 261 knots, and 400 MPH is indeed 348 knots. That is fact, not fiction, not Pacer's opinion or "lie". It is fact.

And if you wish to hang on to this little typo error as your smoking gun that Pacer is not honest, you're grasping at straws. So far, you've misquoted me twice. Deliberate or not, it's a far cry from a simple mis-type that I later corrected using the edit function. I do assume that's what the edit function is there for...correcting typing errors.

I generally abstain from name-calling, and I'm not going to call you an ugly name, but I would suggest that you're at best a legend in your own mind, or at worst a fraud.

Much of what you type is prefaced with the terms "It seems...". That phrase is used to highlight how you *think* something *should* be, not how it really is. Nearly everything you type is prefaced with some overt or covert indication that I'm a liar, that I'm dishonorable, that I willingly misrepresent, and that I'm generally scum. Typical tactics of someone who doesn't have anything real to say, and has to throw in the mud to hopefully paint me in a bad light and thus discredit what I say.

"PacerLJ35 has proved themselves utterly devoid of any trustworthiness!"

Proved? Proved what? Your "proof" is based in your "what if" and "it seems" statements, not tangible evidence. Proof would look like this:

"Pacer, I saw a diagram of a Learjet pressurization system and it has a Hepa filter..."

OR

"Pacer, according to the AIM and several sections of the FAR, what you're saying cannot be true..."

But instead, you have no references. You have NOTHING but your own preconceived notions of how things should be, which is no substitute for reality.

posted 01-25-2003 11:27 PM               

January 17, 2003

To all:
The underhanded know they cannot depend on their actions, motives and goals to impart a sense of decency. For that reason, they must rely on various tactics to suggest righteousness on their part.
In an evident attempt to discount my suggestion that the assertion about chemtrails merely being one phase of a wide spectrum of contrail persistences could be challenged by examining the physical lengths of observed contrails, PacerLJ35 has taken it upon themselves to engage in, literally, a personal attack on me. Demonstrative of the apparent faultlessness of the methods I suggested, however - in fact, all but admitting the validity of the recommendations, by their failure to attack them! - PacerLJ35 has concentrated on only a few, basically, unrelated points. And, where their attempted excoriation deviated from, frankly, petty nattering, it diverged into demonstrable wholesale lying!
My suggestion was that, essentially, the trailing end of a contrail can be said to dissipate in sync with the jet that trails it. A trail that is a number of seconds in duration, then, will also be that many seconds flying time in length. I suggested estimating the arc length of a trail, in seconds, and relating that to the persistence of the trail. I pointed out that no photographic records exist of a contrail corresponding in arc length to a persistence of more than 20 seconds. In discussing it, I suggested a range of speeds to apply to the jets leaving the trail.
PacerLJ35 attempted “taking me to task” for the range of jet speeds I suggested, characterizing that as “checking my math”. Invoking the names of a few airlines, PacerLJ35 posited ranges perhaps 150 to 200 mph or more faster than those I mentioned.
I pointed out that saying that I needed to “check my math” was, apparently, an attempt to give the appearance that the basic premise behind what I suggested was false. I also took issue with PacerLJ35’s use either of knots or Mach to describe speed, rather than mph, more familiar to most of those who look on the chemtrail boards, indicating that it had the appearance of, essentially, trying to “dazzle” the unwary, giving the impression that, because PacerLJ35 uses the more obscure terms, they must know more. I also pointed out that, in one spot, PacerLJ35 was actually suggesting that the speed of sound was 720 mph, at least 10% off what it is either at ground level or at 35,000 feet. Finally, referring to the same speeds that PacerLJ35 themselves ascribed to planes used by various companies, I indicated that, since they were saying jets flew faster than I suggested, the persistences of contrails must be even shorter than I was suggesting!
Which makes the idea of chemtrails being only one form of contrail even more ludicrous!
Again testifying to the patently unassailable nature of my statements, PacerLJ35 took off on a round misinterpretation, misinformation and questionable assertions.
Among other things, PacerLJ35 defended the phrase “checking the math” by asserting that, because the jet speeds I suggested would be used in calculations, that automatically makes them part of the math! “Perhaps your methodology may be sound, but your numbers are not,” they asserted, “hence incorrect math.” Why the words “methodology” and “incorrect” should be in asterisks, however, is not apparent. Math is the process, it is not the numbers put into it, and any suggestion to the otherwise is invalid!
Apparently attempting to suggest that I don’t know even the most basic of things, PacerLJ35 even went so far as to criticize my taking issue with their using knots and Mach instead of mph, to accommodate the majority of those who will, likely, be looking in. PacerLJ35 tried to paint me as saying that knots and Mach are not units of velocity! “Knots, miles per hour, feet per second, miles per minute…doesn’t matter”, they assert snidely, “it’s all speed.”
In addressing my repetition of the very information PacerLJ35 themselves provided, concerning the speeds used by jets owned by various companies, PacerLJ35 “chided” me: “Those speeds are typical speeds for different models of aircraft. They aren’t speeds that ‘companies’ use.” I never said that those speeds were proprietary! PacerLJ35’s own statement, to which I alluded, was: “Most larger airliners (Boeings and Airbus’s) fly around Mach .80-.88, while the smaller regional jets (Embraer and Canadair) fly around Mach .75-.78.” My statement was: “Boeing and Airbus, for example, cruise at ‘around Mach .80-.88’, Embraer and Canadair travel at around ‘Mach .75-.78’.” My statement was nowhere nearer asserting any kind of proprietary quality of jet speeds than was PacerLJ35’s! In fact, PacerLJ35’s own reference to “our Learjet” traveling at Mach .75, in terms of the “criticism” they leveled at me, qualifies more as an assertion of a proprietary nature to that speed!
Where I referred to PacerLJ35 asserting that the speed of sound was 720 mph, they replied: “Again, you’re wrong. I never said any aircraft cruises at an airspeed of 720 MPH.” But I never said that PacerLJ35 claimed that jets flew at 720 mph! Their claim was: “Our highspeed cruise is Mach .81, which is closer to 500 knots.” But 500 knots is 575 mph and, if Mach .81 is 575 mph, then Mach 1, the speed of sound, must be 720 mph! PacerLJ35’s own statement says, essentially, that the speed of sound is 720 mph. In fact, at certain altitudes, the speed of sound is 720 mph, but not at either sea level or 35,000 feet, the most commonly referred to altitudes, in discussing chemtrails! And, if PacerLJ35 flies at 35,000 feet, as they claim, then the speed of sound they compare their speed to cannot be 720 mph!
No matter what they say, it appears that PacerLJ35 sought to discredit me by deliberately misquoting me. About the only other likelihood is that PacerLJ35 cannot make heads or tails of what they read.
I also took to task PacerLJ35’s apparently gratuitous reference, elsewhere, to flying through a “contrail” that “looked like it could be at least one hundred miles long”. PacerLJ35 insisted that they suffered no ill effects from any chemicals presumably in the contrail. PacerLJ35 said they intake air directly from the outside, and, if there were chemicals in the “contrail”, then, supposedly, they would have fallen ill.
I pointed out that jets would have to have filters to control the intake of air, to avoid other noxious chemicals, dust or insects from entering either the cabin or the engines. Even whatever water vapor may be in clouds or normal contrails, I asserted, could not be considered automatically safe in an engine, or desirable in a cabin. I also pointed out that, even at a height, it would not be possible to tell that a trail was one hundred miles long.
PacerLJ35 tried to work their way around their “explanation” by saying that there are no filters on the “bleed air system”, only “a contaminant screen”, intended to keep “larger stuff out”, but not chemicals or germs. “And no”, PacerLJ35 continued contemptuously, “there aren’t any insects at 35,000 feet.”
To “justify” their assertion that they could tell that a “contrail” was one hundred miles long, PacerLJ35 then launches into another apparently equally gratuitous discussion of how to tell the distance you travel from your speed and the time you travel! They then describe flying alongside a “contrail” for about 5 minutes, at 10 miles a minute, then detecting the plane that left the trail 40 miles ahead, making the trail 90 miles long.
But that involves flying alongside the trail and, in the post where PacerLJ35 first mentioned the trail appearing one hundred miles long, they said they flew “through” the trial, not alongside it!
PacerLJ35, it appears, cannot keep their stories straight!
In an attempt to explain this, PacerLJ35 might try to say that the reference to tracking the length of the 90 mile trail was just offered as an example. But, in the post on the Chemtrail Central board, they described actually seeing a trail, and ascertaining it to be one hundred miles long! Too, the reference on the board was to the trail appearing to be one hundred miles long, not that it came out to be calculated to be that length after elaborate machinations!
More than that, too, there is no indication that anything like normal, safe flying would involve first flying through a contrail or chemtrail, then flying alongside it for a distance! As large as the permitted flying ranges are, it would indicate pinpoint aiming to end up passing through another plane’s trail! And, if the interest was to parallel the path, why fly through the trail first, why not take up a flight path parallel to it without entering it? Too, there is no apparent evidence in the photographic record of one jet’s trail intersecting, then paralleling another jet’s trail. The entire incident, then, seems nothing more than a fabrication!
Further evidence of this can be seen in the apparent hasty choice by site administrator Lulu, whose actions seem more those of a “debunker” shill than a friend of those who oppose chemtrails, to remove the entire sequence of posts from where it had sat for about a month, and place it elsewhere on the site!
Since the evident deceitful nature of the “debunkers” is being addressed here, it is not unlikely this thread will be treated the same way!
I pointed out, among other things, too, that a “contaminant screen” is a filter, and that, to avoid dust and insects and noxious fumes from affecting passengers and crew during takeoff, there would have to be a filter in use at least near ground level, and it is unlikely that they would de-activate a filter simply because they were at 35,000 feet.
I also asserted that PacerLJ35’s own reference to flying at about 10 miles a minute, then getting within several miles of another jet, is extremely reckless. That would allow only about a minute’s flying time to correct any problems and avoid hitting the other jet, and even less, if the other jet should hit turbulence, and decelerate suddenly. And, I stated, it couldn’t be an excuse that the pilots didn’t know that there was another jet they were getting close to, since they had to have at least the equivalent of Flight Explorer, to be aware of other jets’ presence.
And, it must be added, not only insects, but volcanic dust and even various breeds of bird have been known to be at the heights that jets normally travel. Among other things, the Straight Dope website has a page to answer the question of how high insects and birds can fly. The site asserts that insects, because of high internal temperatures, do not fly where the air is cold, but, they can be found “in the upper atmosphere, when the wind currents are right and the insects are tiny enough that they don’t need to flap to stay airborne – they’re just carried aloft by the winds.” The site also goes on to assert that the bar-headed goose can, sometimes, be seen flying well above the peak of Mt. Everest, whooping swans are often seen as high as 27,000 feet, and, in 1975, a Rüppell’s griffon was encountered at 37,900 feet above the Ivory Coast in West Africa. And volcanic ash can go very high in the atmosphere. The ash from the explosion of Krakatoa, for example, went as high as 50 miles into the atmosphere. Despite their constant insistences of expertise, PacerLJ35 doesn’t seem to have anything like a competence in conditions where they supposedly fly!
Responding, PacerLJ35 had to admit that “sure”, a “contaminant screen” is a filter, “but”, they added, “not the kind needed to eliminate particulate pathogens, chemicals, or other small particles. Which means that insects, volcanic dust, and even the blood of birds pulled into the engines, apparently, can make their way into jet breathing systems.
Trying to refute my statement that the kind of flying PacerLJ35 described was reckless, they asserted that “wake turbulence isn’t a factor so long as you’re roughly 3-5 miles [sic] another aircraft.”
As for jets being so close that they wouldn’t be able to react, gain control of the aircraft, and prevent an accident, before closing the distance with the other aircraft, PacerLJ35 says of air traffic controllers: “ They could care less if you pass behind another jet’s wake a minute later.”
But, it is possible it might be the jet up ahead, and not the one in the wake, that might experience a problem, lose speed, and end up with the second jet catching up with it! The assurances about wake turbulence don’t mean anything in that case!
And, no matter what distance the FAA may require you to keep from another jet, if it is less than a minute’s flying time, it still could keep the crew from counteracting a problem in time, if one occurs!
And, with respect to my assertion that planes had to have some way of knowing of each other’s presence, PacerLJ35 tries to “correct” me there, too!
“Again, I submit that you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about”, PacerLJ35 says, high-handedly, “’Flight Explorer’ in the cockpit? Why? We have TCAS, (pronounced tee-caas[sic]), much better than FE.”
But I didn’t say they had Flight Explorer in jet cockpits! Even PacerLJ35 referred to my saying “the equivalent of ‘Flight Explorer’”! I knew jets had to have some form of information about jets in the vicinity, and I knew that “Flight Explorer” would not be sufficient. I never said jet crews used “Flight Explorer”!
So determined is PacerLJ35 to act like they have a “reason” to criticize me that they will take exception to my supposedly saying something that they themselves admit that I didn’t say!
Among the most vile - and telling! - of PacerLJ35’s demonstrations of lack of principle on their part, though, deals with a reference they made in their second post in this thread. Trying to act like they had cause to upbraid me, PacerLJ35 said: “ Anyhoo, even if you bothered to convert your 300-400 MPH into knots, it would equal even slower cruise speeds of 261 and 348 MPH respectively.” I pointed out that 300 to 400 mph converted into knots would be 261 and 346 knots, not 261 and 348 mph! I indicated that PacerLJ35, apparently, has difficulty even writing a single sentence.
They immediately shot back that I had “misquoted” them! They asserted that they had said that 300 to 400 mph converted into 261 to 348 knots. To be sure, looking back at the post showed that the line PacerLJ35 had written did, indeed, now say “261 and 348 knots”! Evidently, the post had been changed to hide PacerLJ35’s evident lack of control over their own thoughts, and, apparently convinced that there would be no proof of their evident attempt at fraud, they proceeded, then to accuse me of “misquoting “ them!
PacerLJ35, apparently, is utterly without principle or scruples, a deceitful thug whose only code of behavior is to their own survival!
I then responded, including a picture of the two posts, side by side, with the original and amended verbiage visible.
Apparently rabidly determined to maintain the fraud of their trustworthiness, PacerLJ35 answered admitting only as much as they felt they needed to. They admitted that they had arranged to “edit” their previous post, but they also tried to paint themselves in a good light, at the same time.
“I did not lie”, PacerLJ35 asserted, referring to my statement that their accusing me of “misquoting” them was a deliberate falsehood, “I edited my post shortly after I posted it after proof reading[sic], and I had discovered the typo. Since I originally meant knots instead of MPH, I corrected my statement. That is not a lie. If you wish to accuse me of poor typing, fine. But if you would like to do the math, 300 MPH is indeed 261 knots, and 400 MPH is indeed 348 knots. That is fact, not fiction, not Pacer’s opinion or ‘lie’. It is fact.”
The question of why PacerLJ35 would post a message in such a hurry they didn’t even proofread for so basic a flaw can be left aside for the moment.
Of greater import is their attempt to misrepresent the entire matter.
I did not keep records of the posts every minute they were on the website to see exactly when the post was altered. I gave PacerLJ35 credit with the depth of character that would keep them from changing what they wrote, to make themselves look in the right, and then accusing me of “misquoting” them. Apparently, it is not wise to underestimate that lack of honor in the unscrupulous. How far is down? Evidently, you should never automatically assign a limit to the turpitude and malignance that the dishonorable and underhanded will stoop to!
Because of this, I do not have proof of exactly when PacerLJ35 altered their post. And it is not likely that Lulu will tell the truth, if PacerLJ35 altered it after I brought it to their attention! Instead, it appears that the “explanation” will be expounded that PacerLJ35 discovered their own error independently and changed it themselves!
But, then, why would PacerLJ35 accuse me of “misquoting” them? They had said “261 and 348 MPH”! They admitted it! After they were faced with photographic evidence of their attempted lie, that is! Why not admit, from the start, when I pointed out the wording, that they had made the error, then retracted it? If they had had the presence of mind to realize their error and correct it on their own, why not admit it? That is what an honest person would do! Instead, they accused me of “misquoting” them? An honorable person, who had made a mistake, then corrected it, would not use the fabric of the situation to attempt to concoct an accusation against another!
But using the situation to accuse me of “misquoting” them - to give the impression that nothing I say can be trusted - is, evidently, exactly what PacerLJ35 had in mind! If only because of their handling of the situation dishonorably, PacerLJ35 is branded as a coward and a liar!
And an individual of that low a caliber would not necessarily be beyond altering the post after they were informed of their mistake, then going back and accusing the other person of “misquoting” them!
And, then, PacerLJ35 tried to depict me as saying that editing their post is a lie!
That is not what I said. I said that altering the post then accusing me of “misquoting” them - which, in fact, I hadn’t done! - is a lie!
There is no reasonable way, after this pattern of action, that PacerLJ35 cannot be represented as a liar!
The apparent underhandedness and evident willing vileness of the “debunkers” cannot be allowed to sway the people into believing their apparent lies and fraud!

posted 01-25-2003 11:32 PM               

Right you are Julian. Please keep debunker-type threads out of the Chemtrails forum. Thank you.

Other Trails is more appropriate for these long drawn-out debunker-bashing, debunker-promoting posts.

posted 01-26-2003 02:49 PM               

Also curious as to the use of "government shill" to describe me--is this because those words are listed below my profile at Maverick's board?? Too funny if this is the case. Did you not know that these made up names are assigned to members depending on the number of posts under the belt? Of course a little research on your part would have discovered this. Do you prefer wild-ass-speculations instead?

Whoooa I broke 300 posts!!

Lulu
Illumi~Naughty
Posts: 303
(1/26/03 9:04:21 am)
Reply

I'm now an official Illumi~Naughty. Mark Sky would be so proud?