ChemTrails for defense against space based Scalar Weapons

How can you determine the relative distance of two objects at that distance if the two objects are different sizes?

I beg your pardon? Where do you get that from?

Here are the basics of the range finding scale and its use.

d=a/b*1000

objective height ÷ scale reading X 1000m = distance

distance (m) X scale reading ÷ 1000 = object height

Digital campers pixels serve as the scale since the are of fixed size. In optical cameras, the focal length of the lens is the determining factor.

It all goes back to ancient Greeks by the way, and their land surveying techniques for road building and construction development.

Enjoy.

Couple that with the fact that for the past ten years or so most planes are flying with newer, high bypass engines which are much more likely to produce contrails.

So your position is that persistent contrails are formed by high bypass engines?

Again, please try to find a SINGLE instance of persistent contrail existence prior to 1995. I don't care from where, be it movies, television, print, what ever.

Should be pretty simple if it's a natural occurrence which happens all the time, right?

edit:spl

[edit on 20-10-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by iskander


Again, please try to find a SINGLE instance of persistent contrail existence prior to 1995. I don't care from where, be it movies, television, print, what ever.

Should be pretty simple if it's a natural occurrence which happens all the time, right?

How about this painting from 1990? It depicts the Battle of Britain. Note the persitent contrails in the background ..... Not also how the aircraft in the foreground are not producing any contrails, whilst those in the background are.



Also, if such phenomena only started appearing in the 1990s, don't you think some of the meteorlogical observers who've been keeping records for decades might just have noticed?

hey ESSAN mate -- i can beat an art print



let the " chemmies " explain that

VX777 is one of the vulcan prototypes -- first flown in 1953 , as this is a prototype they cannot claim that its a later shot .

also this :



has 3 rare jets in formation -- again easy to autheticate and date .

chemmies really need to get out more

PS - if you want WWII era photos -- i have hundreds , and i do mean hundreds .

here are 2 to whet your apetites :



why would US bombers be spraying " chemtrails " over the english coast

AND



wouldnt bombs be better over gemany ?

Originally posted by iskander
Here are the basics of the range finding scale and its use.

d=a/b*1000

objective height ÷ scale reading X 1000m = distance

distance (m) X scale reading ÷ 1000 = object height

Digital campers pixels serve as the scale since the are of fixed size. In optical cameras, the focal length of the lens is the determining factor.

This assumes that you can tell the exact type of aircraft you are looking at to tell its size to begin with. Now I hate to tell you this, but a 777, 767, 757, 737, A300, A310, A320, and A330 would all be almost impossible to tell apart while flying at altitude, and their sizes are drastically different. Now yes, some are easier to tell apart from others, such as a 737-1/200, but some are so close in appearance that they are difficult for someone like me that even used to work on them to differentiate, even while on the ground.


Man that was a lot of links....

[edit on 10/21/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
hey ESSAN mate -- i can beat an art print

LOL! Thanks Ape

I remember a year or two back they discovered some long lost colour film footage taking during the Battle of Britain. It was shown on the BBC news. That had some persistent contrails in it too

How dare you use logic and tell them airplanes are different sizes? Next you you will tell them not all aircraft fly at the same altitudes either, or that they can fly along the same airways...



Link

Edit to fix long link.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by mrwupy]

This assumes that you can tell the exact type of aircraft you are looking at to tell its size to begin with. Now I hate to tell you this, but a 777, 767, 757, 737, A300, A310, A320, and A330 would all be almost impossible to tell apart while flying at altitude, and their sizes are drastically different. Now yes, some are easier to tell apart from others, such as a 737-1/200, but some are so close in appearance that they are difficult for someone like me that even used to work on them to differentiate, even while on the ground.

Gentleman, what's going on? Seriously, are you putting up a show for simpletons or something?

defcon5, what is the most common air frame for domestic passenger and air freight use?

You know, airlines, post services, etc?

When there, please do some math and calculate ranging margin of error based on wingspan variations.

What is the margin of error? In feet please.

Then factor in the percentage of large body flights.

Personally I witnesses about 6 jets flying patterns, they were well outside of PDX airspace, and not anywhere close to being on a heading to or from it. And I sure as hell can tell a 747 from a 707.

Now to the pictures.

Great shots guys!

Personally I like the last one, a very artistic shot of B-17.

Unfortunately those shots are not anywhere close to what we are discussing here.

It didn't take me long to find exactly what I saw. 2 minutes on Google and here we go.

This is EXACTLY what I, my wife and thousands of other people in Portland saw for three days straight;

www.chemtrails-info.de...

This is EXACTLY what caught my attention at first,

www.umedia.com...

Clear sky, one jet leaving a fast dissipating contrail, the other dumps out a massive trail which hangs in the air for hours.

More of crisscross, square and parallel type patterns here;

www.bfed.info...

tinypic.com...

www.renardimages.com...

www.lochmann-verlag.com...

educate-yourself.org...

Now please, before you start cooking up ridiculous rebuttals like "those are standard air traffic patterns", "those pictures came from conspiracy theorist sites", etc, take a moment, think for a minute, and take a look at these satellite shots of what it all actually looks like from space;

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

conspiration.ca...

There is ABSOLUTELY now that it's just air traffic, because it would be an IMPOSSIBLE waste of fuel for ANY company to run its flights in such a fashion.

Here's an interesting discussion I stumbled upon;

www.worldnewsstand.net...

Enjoy.

Oh, p.s.;

How dare you use logic and tell them airplanes are different sizes?

Assumption is the enemy of logic, so stop doing both until you can tell them apart.

edit:typos

[edit on 21-10-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by iskander
defcon5, what is the most common air frame for domestic passenger and air freight use?

You know, airlines, post services, etc?

For a long time the workhorse of all aviation was the Boeing 727. The 727 however was a gas hog, and airlines started phasing them out in the mid to late 90’s.

Now the most common passenger aircraft would be the various versions of the 737, to my knowledge. Freight and mail still very greatly. Some freight companies still fly older aircraft such as the 727 and the 707. Companies such as UPS have gone to mainly 757’s and 767’s. Fed-Ex and the post office fly a lot of MD-80's & DC-9's still. Top and bottom loadable widebody aircraft are always the preferred method for freight companies. It is also dependant on the station, an area where there is less mail and freight is going to use smaller aircraft. Freight and mail can also be sent to a local hub via ground transport and put on a larger aircraft from there.

So there is more variance in aircraft size now then there has ever been in the past.

Originally posted by iskander
When there, please do some math and calculate ranging margin of error based on wingspan variations.

What is the margin of error? In feet please.

I know the truth, so you do the math. I gave links that show the sizes of some of these aircraft, look them up yourself. I will tell you that the difference in the size of a 777 and a 737-300 is vast, yet from the ground most people would not be able to tell one from the other (in this example the most obvious way to identify one from the other is that a 737’s main gear wheels are exposed and appear as two black circles on the bottom of the plane). If you think that you can see those circles while the plane is at 10K feet though you’re sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by iskander
And I sure as hell can tell a 747 from a 707.

At high altitude, with both having 4 engines, I find this very difficult to believe.

Originally posted by iskander
www.chemtrails-info.de...

This is EXACTLY what caught my attention at first,

I have seen patterns exactly like this in the air over my old house which was north of the traffic pattern for TIA/TPA, and yeah they stay in the air and become clouds. I also know from having worked for years at that airport, that there is nothing being sprayed form those aircraft. So how do you explain that?

Originally posted by iskander
www.umedia.com...

Clear sky, one jet leaving a fast dissipating contrail, the other dumps out a massive trail which hangs in the air for hours.

The top aircraft in this picture looks to me like it has a possible third trail, so I am going to guess that it is a L1011, possibly a DC-10. The bottom aircraft looks more like an MD-80 to me. The reason I am pretty sure that the second plane is an MD-80/DC-9 is that there is no gap in the contrail as the engines are so close together on the tail. However, again its almost impossible to tell when they are at that altitude, unless you can see their light patterns and even then a lot of the new aircraft have the exact same pattern.


So are you claiming that these aircraft are at similar altitude?

Originally posted by iskander
Now please, before you start cooking up ridiculous rebuttals like "those are standard air traffic patterns", "those pictures came from conspiracy theorist sites", etc, take a moment, think for a minute, and take a look at these satellite shots of what it all actually looks like from space;

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

This first two pictures show the traffic coming into Atlanta Airport, the 9th busiest hub in the US when I last looked. Delta as well as several other airlines hub out of that airport.


Here is a listing/map of the airports in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia for comparison.

Originally posted by iskander
rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Wow, look at that, you can tell from the contrails where Madrid airport is located.

Originally posted by iskander
conspiration.ca...

I am really not in the mood to sit and try and look up the major airports in the Rhone/Geneva area, but I bet there are some.

The point is, that what you are seeing are called flight banks. This means that the sky is clear and that airports are mostly empty, then within an hour every gate in the airport fills up, dozens of flights all arrive and leave at the same time. The reason for this is that flights need to make connections and in order for stuff to go from one plane to the next they all have to be on the ground at roughly the same time.


Let me show you something:

If you think that your seeing a lot of trails in those photos, then take a look at how much traffic even two mid sized airports can generate in a day:

Tampa, Clearwater Flight Tracks

That should make you never come out of your house again…


[edit on 10/22/2006 by defcon5]

Something else I just thought of that is relevant to this subject.

As I said above until the late 90’s most of the aircraft that people saw on a daily basis were 727’s and DC-9’s/MD-80’s, as these were the workhorses for most airlines. Both of these aircraft had closely mounted tail engines that the contrail would merge into a single line from. Perhaps more importantly is that both of these aircraft had engine diameters that were around 3 to 4 feet. The first 737 1 and 200’s had a similar engine size as a 727, the only difference was they were wing mounted.

Now today, the airlines are going with more fuel efficient aircraft with wing mounted engines, these not only cause the contrail to appear broken or as two contrails, but also the engine diameter has gone up to anywhere from 4 foot to over 10 foot on a 777.

How many guesses do you want on which engine is going to produce a bigger, more voluminous contrail?
An engine with a 3 or 4 foot diameter or an engine with a 7 to 10 foot diameter?

Originally posted by iskander
www.umedia.com...

Clear sky, one jet leaving a fast dissipating contrail, the other dumps out a massive trail which hangs in the air for hours.

Besides the obvious difference in altitude in this picture, that is the second relevant factor in the difference in these two contrails.


[edit on 10/22/2006 by defcon5]

These images are very strange indeed, i'm sure someone will argue that wind drift distributed these err trails in a way that made them appear as a grid, but why don't they extend above oceans??

very strange, indeed, the immediately visible contrail is pretty much clear, though, although i wonder why *they* don't spray from wingtips or just blow it through the engines to avoid such a telltale sign.

Originally posted by Long Lance
These images are very strange indeed, i'm sure someone will argue that wind drift distributed these err trails in a way that made them appear as a grid, but why don't they extend above oceans??

No they appear as grids because aircraft fly on Victor airways and jetways, heading at different directions at different altitudes. Where VOR lines cross you often get a grid pattern.

Victor Airways

In aviation, an airway is a designated route in the air. Airways are laid-out between navigation aids such as VORs and NDB's (NDB-based airways are rare in the United States, but are more common in much of the rest of the world).

"Personally I witnesses about 6 jets flying patterns, they were well outside of PDX airspace, and not anywhere close to being on a heading to or from it. And I sure as hell can tell a 747 from a 707."

Do you think that any contrails you see around PDX should only be aircraft going to/from PDX?

Actually any contrails you see are probably planes not going into and out of there, or else they would be most likely descending to land or climbing after takeoff. Planes overflying PDX as part of their route, and are at cruise altitudes, are the ones most likely leaving contrails.

You do know you can look at flightaware.com and see aircraft overhead, since it uses an ATC feed?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

let the " chemmies " explain that

Huh? chemmies?.....

Should we call you guys governmennies?


No we won't call you guys governmennies because we are in this for the sake of the health of our race not to debunk and win a debate...

This is really sad i must say.

Originally posted by iskander

Now to the pictures.

Great shots guys!

Personally I like the last one, a very artistic shot of B-17.

Unfortunately those shots are not anywhere close to what we are discussing here.

priceless - you specifically asked fro " persistant contrail images " and that is exactly what you got

look carefully at them again -- particularly the shot of the VX777 prototupe -- that cloud above its fin is idential to what chemtrail proponents identify as a " spreading persistant chemtrail residude "

yes - the b-17 image is artfull - because of the 100s of thousands availiable -- the illustration editor of the book chose it as a 1/2 page image

your casual dismisal of images that were exactly what you requested is dishonest handwaving

you are simply moving the goal posts to allow yourself to pretend that valid evidence is inadmissible .

shame on you .

Also ignorant ape,


To call us chemmies is like saying we are fans of chemtrails and i assure you that none of us on here are fans of chemtrails, if anything we don't want them to be true for the simple reason that it does not look healthy...

We want them to stop we are no fans of them.......

The best way to put an end to chemtrails is to learn more about aviation, meteorology and how aircraft navigate.

You will notice that people who believe in chemtrails are not knowledgable regarding any of those, and those who are knowledable about those, do not believe in chemtrails.

Chemtrails believers get scared if aircraft fly down similar airways, they get scared if planes fly intersecting airways, they get scared if the exhaust causes ice crystals in rarified air at -50, they get scared if said ice crystals cause refraction.

Originally posted by firepilot
The best way to put an end to chemtrails is to learn more about aviation, meteorology and how aircraft navigate.

You will notice that people who believe in chemtrails are not knowledgable regarding any of those, and those who are knowledable about those, do not believe in chemtrails.

Chemtrails believers get scared if aircraft fly down similar airways, they get scared if planes fly intersecting airways, they get scared if the exhaust causes ice crystals in rarified air at -50, they get scared if said ice crystals cause refraction.

Im sorry but that is just a rediculous and naive statement.

Now i suspect you are Iblis even more.

The discussion is:

"ChemTrails for defense against space based Scalar Weapons"

Please remain on topic and stop the personal accusations. For those who do not understand this:

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Thanks guys,

wupy

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by firepilot
The best way to put an end to chemtrails is to learn more about aviation, meteorology and how aircraft navigate.

You will notice that people who believe in chemtrails are not knowledgable regarding any of those, and those who are knowledable about those, do not believe in chemtrails.

Chemtrails believers get scared if aircraft fly down similar airways, they get scared if planes fly intersecting airways, they get scared if the exhaust causes ice crystals in rarified air at -50, they get scared if said ice crystals cause refraction.

Im sorry but that is just a rediculous and naive statement.

Nope, because I have personally seen chemtrail believers make issue of all of those claims. Chemtrails, and "scalar" are just both nonsense.

I have seen people make chemtrail claims because of planes flying down the same path, or in aviation speak, an "airway".

Claims have been made because intersecting contrails were suspicious.

Why does people who believe in chemtrails, have problems with ice formation at high altitudes, or think that if ice crystals cause refraction, that it is somekind of "oily sheen"?

I work in a field of aviation that involves both piloting, and meteorological knowledge, very much involving the icing process of water at freezing temps. I have never seen anything a chemtrail believer saw that was suspicious to me.