Nothing in chemtrails... yeahhh riiiiight...Photos

page: 34
38
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
I know I am right and that he is wrong


And thus....your dogmatic fervor collapses your own argument. The above statement is simply not a "real world" viewpoint.


The definition of rationality is standing up for truth,


You mean like the Heaven's Gate cult? Or David Koresh? Jim Jones? I could go on and on.

You may want to consider the irrationality of refusing to ponder the legitimacy of your own "truth." Philosophers have been trying to get humans to do that for centuries......without much affect it seems.




posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


The diference is I am bringing just a warning, an alert, not a belief system people are to be servile to. I'm sure you can see that. There is no memetic control system in what I am saying, which is basically that some very foolish people are doing some very foolish things, to the detriment of us all.

You are the ones with the heads stuck in the theoretical sand. Just go out and look up for a few weeks, sooner or later you will see the same things I do. Don't take my word for it. However, don't attempt to make me change my word either. I know what is going on. But it's not dogma, it's just fact. What you do with this information is up to you.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


I'm not saying you're not intellectually-equipped, but that it is flat-out impossible for a human being to perform a chemical analysis of the contents of airborne trails from the ground. You are acting as if you can. You've looked at the sky all your life, and somehow that's magically imparted the gift of spectroscopic eyes? You've followed aviation? Well guess what! So have I. And I've looked at the sky all my life (as many, if not most, human beings have), and I don't see anything strange - just contrails. I also haven't seen any evidence of anything strange going on, so I guess we're at a stalemate of opinions only evidence can break, and you don't have any evidence. Only foot-stamping arrogance that you are infallible and that everyone asking for evidence (before they run to the hills or write angry letters to representatives) is out of their tiny minds.

reply to post by Zepherian
 


A warning of what, though? You've not demonstrated anything. It's like if I came in here and started warning people of a massive invisible sea beast that's currently in the mid-Atlantic that'll start to eat people's faces when it gets ashore, then getting all uppity if people ask me how I know. I could turn around and say that I saw something on the horizon over the sea, and that I know for a fact it's said sea-beast, but would you believe me? Of course not - no-one in their right minds would. My claims would not constitute evidence, but opinion. You are claiming something of the exact-same magnitude, and acting all indignant when people call you out on your complete, total, 100% lack of evidence.

Heads stuck in the sand? Sure - if the sand is called "rational thought", then damn straight! You should try it in here sometime. It's not as colourful, and you can't just make stuff up when you feel like it, but you get a chance to actually learn something!

You don't know what's going on. You think you do, but you don't. It's not fact - please stop lying to us. You've elevated your opinion to the status of "fact" without any rational reason to do so. You are delusional, and straight-up lying to us (which is against the Ts & Cs, by the way).

Oh, and calling someone's nonsensical approach to learning exactly, and subsequent argument, what it is isn't an ad hominem attack, it's called "the truth". Something you clearly don't understand.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


This is obviously 'photoshopped'

There was a response by someone else, forget the screenname....but it was 'spot-on'!!!

By the way, either THIS Poster, or someone else, referred to the FAA....even though this alleged 'near-miss' is said to have occured in England. The FAA has NO jurisidiction involving non-US airliners outside of US Airspace.

It is a piece of terribly 'photoshopped' crap, pure and simple. ANYONE who wishes to argue is certainly welcome.....



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


My other post may have not made it, but I THINK I can comment....

This is a photoshopped composite.

The lower airplane appears to have no vertical fin!!! IF they were actually that close they WOULD have collided, and it would have been all over the news.....



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I had to scroll back, once more, to look at the picture....

Couldn't identify the airlines, but since it was so obviously altered, doesn't matter, does it???

The Airlplane on the right side of the picture appears to be a B-767, based my observing the flap-fairing 'canoes'....and judging by the size of the engine nacelles.

Of course, the reason I know it was 'photo-shopped' is because not ONLY the vertical fin of the 'lower' airplane is missing, so is the left horizontal stabilizer!!!

As to the other airplane, I'm not as familiar with Airbus....but it looks like an A-320 variant.

(darn it!!! The Internet isn't supposed to foster baloney such as this!!!!!)



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I must, now, offer my expertise into the subject of 'chemtrails', since that is the title of this 'thread'.

What I believe I have pointed out was a very sad attempt....really, a poorly executed 'photoshop' of two airplanes....two PASSENGER airplanes, nearing a collision. OBVIOUSLY FAKED, and faked for a reason.

There is a feeling, by SOME, that ANY nonsense seeded into the Internet will become regarded as 'truth'...Well, ain't so!

There are too many intelligent people out here. We can slay these ignorant attempts, as long as we stand together, and realize that truth shall overcome.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
That is NOT a photoshopped picture. It is a real picture from England. They were outside min separation by a good bit. People that saw it THOUGHT they were much closer than they really were. They were never closer than 1000 feet vertically. It's a JAL 777-300ER and a DHL A300B4.

This event made the papers in England after the photographer sold the picture to a paper that blew it all out of proportion.





[edit on 12/16/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks, Zaphod....

except, really? I mean, you always show the reality, but as i look at that particular photo, elements are missing.

As I've pointed out....the vertical fin and the left-hand horizontal stabilizer of the B-767.

Unless I've missed something.....please tell me!!!!!

EDIT in.....UNLESS someone managed to use an extremely long lens at JUST the right moment!!!

30 years of observing airplanes, in flight.....THAT picture looks wrong to me, sorry.

[edit on 12/16/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It's not a 767, it's a 777-300ER. JAL doesn't operate the 767 to London. You very rarely see a JAL 767 outside of Asia, and they only operate the 763 which has straight wingtips. The 777-300ER has raked wingtips, as well as the 764. The fuselage is way too long to be any of the 76 family.

Nothing is missing. It's part of the illusion, it's just blocked by the A300. If you look at the nose of the DHL, you can see the edge of the left horizontal stabilizer poking out past it.



If you go straight left from between the "H" and "L" you'll see the edge of the JAL stabilizer poking out.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph, I admire your opinion....and I will AGREE that if that photo is accurate, they were WELL within 1000 feet of each other...in fact, as another pilot (and i KNOW you are) I would think you'd see the problem in that picture.....the Vertical fin and the left horizonal stabilizer are missing from the 'airplane' below.....

((AND, I will have to go look at it AGAIN before I agree with you that it is a B-777))



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Let me save you the trouble. Here is the actual article from the paper in England after the picture showed up and the media went nuts with it.


Officials have denied any breach of safety after two planes were pictured apparently flying perilously close together over east London.
The aircraft - a DHL plane and a Japan Airlines jet - were reportedly seen flying over West Ham FC's Upton Park ground just after 1500 GMT on Saturday.

The Civil Aviation Authority said no near miss had been reported and it was impossible to tell how close they were.

DHL said the picture was deceptive and the planes were not close together.

It said both planes had landed at Heathrow with no safety lapses.



He explained how visual factors conspire to make the planes could look closer together, but safety measures meant they could not be in such proximity.

While the lower plane was a A300, a smaller freight plane, the one behind was a Boeing 777 - a larger, passenger plane.

The difference in size, angle of the photograph and the distance it was taken from - the ground to two planes at high altitude - would exaggerate the effect, he said.

Radar and modern electric or pressure altimeters to measure planes' position; warning systems for pilots and air traffic controllers; and other modern safety measures, meant planes were kept at a separation of 1,000ft, he said.

If they come closer, warning systems alert pilot and controllers, and reports are filled out.

news.bbc.co.uk...

And no matter how I look at it, I see two vertical fins, and four horizontal stabilizers.

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're right, Zaph.....I had to look at the original pic more closely, and I recognized the tailcone as that of a B-777....so my initial identification of it as a B-767 was incorrect.

But, as this is about 'chemtrails'....and I admit, I got suckered in....where are we now?

I mean, it appears to be a near-miss, not heavily reported in the media....looks like the TCAS on both airplanes may have malfunctioned -- or else one of the crews ignored it (if installed)....regardless, has NOTHING to do with so-called 'chemtrails'.....



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Actually it does relate to them. How many times has someone said that they could tell that one plane flying along near another was at a lower altitude, or at the same altitude. This picture goes to show you that you CAN'T tell visually. If you had that much trouble with this picture, imagine how much trouble someone that doesn't know aviation would have telling what two planes are doing.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaph.....I actually have a few thousand hours on the A-300....(*have only ridden in the back of the B-777*)....but, the A-300 is NOT greatly smaller than the B-777.

Just as the DC-10 is NOT greatly smaller than the B-777.

Zaph, Jane's is a good source for airplane dimensions. You know that as well as I do.

AND, that picture is missing the vertical stab, as well as one half of the horizontal stab....I've looked at it a few times!!! (OF the B-777, JAL...)

So, photoshopped, I will contend, until proven otherwise!!!



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My other half, who knows that planes fly, and sometimes crash, and that's about it, can see all four horizontal stabilizers, and both vertical stabilizers. How can you NOT see them??

Boeing 777-300ER:
Wing Span: 212ft 7in (64.8m)
Length: 242ft 4in (73.9m)
Tail Height: 61ft 5in (18.7m)


A300-600:
Wing Span: 147ft 1in (44.84m)
Length: 177ft 5in (54.10m)
Height: 54ft 3in (16.54m)

That's using the 600 series of A300. That comes out to the Airbus having a wingspan that's roughly 65 1/2 feet shorter, a fuselage that's roughly 64 feet 9 inches shorter, and an overall height that's roughly 7 feet shorter. That's pretty significant.

My other half will put the image into Paint tomorrow and highlight the "missing" stabilizers.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
This is as good a place as any.

Here is the "edited" version of the picture that my other half just did. Sorry, it's not the most beautiful thing, but I think she did pretty good with it.




There is no "missing half" of a horizontal stabilizer. The Airbus is BELOW the Boeing, so it's blocking it off from the camera.

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Lot of off topic posts here.

Perhaps the optical illusion crew could bugger off and start their own thread on that.



wZn



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Really? Maybe you should just put us all on ignore since we disagree with you. Oh wait, you're already out of room on your ignore list since you only want people that think the same way you do.


This is hardly off topic. If someone that has the aviation experience that weedwhacker does can't see the difference in spacing, how is someone that can't even tell a 737 from a 747 going to tell that two planes are flying 5000 feet apart, which would let one leave a contrail and the other not.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're neglecting to mention I gave you an accurate estimate of the spacing, and even identified the event and airframe types you linked.

You're also, with the help of your colleague weedwhacker (suggestive nickname here by the way) attempting to derail this thread. The last few posts from you two should, if there is any real moderation here, be deleted, so we can get back on the subject of chemtrails.





top topics
 
38
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join