Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh....I see you're still stuck on that flawed "study", conducted in 2001, and focusing on an area around Houston, TX?

Ehm, I'm not stuck, people keep responding to me, about it, like you did. I just posted the conclusion of the research, wich I found interesting.

And even if not all planes are tracked, it's still funny that non-peristant contrails were made by planes that were registered, and that persistant contrails were left by planes that weren't registered.

Weird coincidence.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Like I've mentioned when that "study" was brought up before, and did just again.....

'pathological science' at work, there.

In addition...ever BEEN to Houston?? I have, many many times. You will note that many days of 'observtions' weren't possible, due to visibility issues.

In any event, the 'persistance' issue is invalid, and totally misunderstood, again because of A) Their innate biases, and B) Their use of 'FlightExplorer'.

It is not a scientific study, by any stretch of the imagination.

(REAL science involves a great deal more details, including the use of completely "double blind" techinques, etc. AND their sampling (the Houston area ONLY) is far, far too samll to be conclusive, in any event).

It is a compete joke to any serious individual, who isn't already pre-notched to already "believe' in so-called "chemtrails".

The well of rationality has been greatly poisoned, of late. This nonsense will run is course, in due time, as most other pseudo-science garbage does....


IF you wish some other viewpoints on this baloney you might want to go hang out in some pilot's forums on the Interwebs. Could prove to be educational.....

[edit on 31 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

In addition...ever BEEN to Houston?? I have, many many times. You will note that many days of 'observtions' weren't possible, due to visibility issues.

BS, if no observations can be made, there are no observations. What does you going to Houston have to do with it?

In any event, the 'persistance' issue is invalid, and totally misunderstood, again because of A) Their innate biases, and B) Their use of 'FlightExplorer'.

BS, what does bias have to with seeing wich contrails are more persitent? Nothing, the same goes for the use FE.

(REAL science involves a great deal more details, including the use of completely "double blind" techinques, etc. AND their sampling (the Houston area ONLY) is far, far too samll to be conclusive, in any event).

It's a research in the Houston area, it is what it is. I never made it out to be more.

Again I find it interesting still, that that non-peristant contrails were made by planes that were registered, and that persistant contrails were left by planes that weren't registered.

Are you saying this is not at least a weird coincidence?

reply to post by Point of No Return


Let me try again, since you dissected my post, and it lost its significance.

"Flight Explorer" did NOT track ALL flights. It was selective.

Now....this term you used, again...."not registered"? Completely non-sequitor.

Has no basis in aviaiton speak..."not filed" (as in, not on a filed flight plan) would be a technically correct statement.

However....in US airspace ALL flights above FL 180 (18,000 feet) MUST be on an IFR flight plan, and therefore they are in (their flight plans are in) the FAA computers.

AND, of course, contrails don't form BELOW 18,000 feet.

'Flight Explore' just ignored (selected them out) a lot of those flights.

Really....here I am, a pilot with decades of experience, we also have meteorologists, we have others who are schooled in the sciences....you can jump into other forums with similar expersts, with experience in the pertinent fields, and they will laugh at "chemtrail" claims, too.

BUT, the lure of the "Urban Legend" is strong, sometimes. Mix in a bit of ego, and the difficulty people can have to admit that they are wrong, and well....this is the result.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Or you can say that unidentified planes not leaving persistent contrails were excluded, and unidentified planes leaving persistent contrails were included.

How much more of a biased viewpoint do you need?

reply to post by stars15k

Or you can say that unidentified planes not leaving persistent contrails were excluded, and unidentified planes leaving persistent contrails were included.

You can say anything that works for you.

I see no indication in the research that they did, why would they?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
Edit: What I mean to say is: If someone believes lines behind a plane are chemtrails, and you believe they are contrails, then what's it matter? And why should they feel the need to prove it to you?

Because it is unhealthy for people to believe in unproven things, especially those things that are fear driven, such as the suggestion that "they" are "spraying" us. Paranoia breeds more paranoia.

And I thought Agent Orange was more then a band...who knew?

Peace

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

Let me try again, since you dissected my post, and it lost its significance.

"Flight Explorer" did NOT track ALL flights. It was selective.

Now....this term you used, again...."not registered"? Completely non-sequitor.

Has no basis in aviaiton speak..."not filed" (as in, not on a filed flight plan) would be a technically correct statement.

However....in US airspace ALL flights above FL 180 (18,000 feet) MUST be on an IFR flight plan, and therefore they are in (their flight plans are in) the FAA computers.

AND, of course, contrails don't form BELOW 18,000 feet.

'Flight Explore' just ignored (selected them out) a lot of those flights.

Really....here I am, a pilot with decades of experience, we also have meteorologists, we have others who are schooled in the sciences....you can jump into other forums with similar expersts, with experience in the pertinent fields, and they will laugh at "chemtrail" claims, too.

BUT, the lure of the "Urban Legend" is strong, sometimes. Mix in a bit of ego, and the difficulty people can have to admit that they are wrong, and well....this is the result.

Class E: Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are subject to ATC clearance. Flights under VFR are not subject to ATC clearance. As far as is practical, traffic information is given to all flights in respect of VFR flights.

Wiki

Peace

i live in the usa and all of this is very interesting indeed. I don't know exactly what is going on in our skies and am sure people that have proof of some sort from web sites or literature they read dont know either. I knowI am just tired of walking outside on whats supposed to be a clear sunny day and some sort of trails are lining the skies from sun up to sun down. Where did the blue sky go? Last two years, I have not seen a clear blue sky all day long. I used to all of the time and is was beautiful. What I am saying is no one knows what is going on except for the people that truely know. And its not anyone on this site!!

sincerely,
we dont know

So, a synopsis of this thread reads like this.

If you bring science and/or observations that back up your belief that some kind of spraying or damaging pollutants are being sprayed or otherwise being released by certain aircraft,
it will be deemed NOT CREDIBLE by the "usual" suspects.

You are simply NOT allowed to have that opinion go without ridicule, and you will be either directly called a dreamer, uneducated, gullible fool, or worse,

or it will be implied with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

Not much different than the other threads, except the "chemtrail" crowd is getting the upper hand.

Of course, I AM a disinterested party....

I do understand backing ones beliefs with scientific facts or observations is a good idea when trying to state that your belief is in fact one hundread percent true. You can't believe in something that is not scientifically proven or observed first hand? As far as this thread goes, I think and believe something else is going on in our skies besides your accual daily commercial air traffic. I am not even saying the trailing going on is even hazerdous. I know from my EXPERIENCES and being an avid sky watcher, something is different as far as clear blue skies. Could have something to do with protecting the human race from frying...I dont know, just saying I have not seen a clear blue sky when forcasters say it is going to be a clear sky......just trails starting in the east and ending in the west as the day ends. Weird!!

Sincerely,
we dont know

reply to post by weedwhacker

Let me try again, since you dissected my post, and it lost its significance.

I don't think my reply was the cause for that.

Has no basis in aviaiton speak..."not filed" (as in, not on a filed flight plan) would be a technically correct statement.

Aw, nitpicking are we. Apperently, it was completely clear what I was talking about, stop whining.

However....in US airspace ALL flights above FL 180 (18,000 feet) MUST be on an IFR flight plan, and therefore they are in (their flight plans are in) the FAA computers.

Completely incorrect, as another poster pointed out.

and there are no VFR flights allowed in a Class A airspace, above 18,000 ft., although there is one very rare exception to this rule. Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons.

Really....here I am, a pilot with decades of experience,

And you didn't know that? Oops!

Very credible. Lol.

What a joke. I think I even repeated that part about the VFR flights above 18,000 ft. 3 times in this thread.

Are you saying this is not at least a weird coincidence?

You seem to avoid answering my question.






:

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Stewie


Sorry... I must have missed the scientific analysis's that prove chemtrails exist.

You know, air samples showing chemicals or elements that isn't in normal contrails...

wouldn't he know this if he was a pilot? LOL

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


To 'letthereader' (and @ 'Dragnet')

Orignially posted by Dragnet53
wouldn't he know this if he was a pilot? LOL

....not sure WHY you linked this bit:

Class E: Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are subject to ATC clearance. Flights under VFR are not subject to ATC clearance. As far as is practical, traffic information is given to all flights in respect of VFR flights.

Wiki

Guess you didn't look very hard at your own Wiki link???

"Class E" airspace. Read the description again, because you FAILED to make any point, there.

The airspace ABOVE FL 180 is designated as 'Class A'.

Read it again....




[edit on 1 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Point of No Return


This is why trying tot explain technical details to laypeople is so difficult....

Originally posted by Point Of No Return

and there are no VFR flights allowed in a Class A airspace, above 18,000 ft., although there is one very rare exception to this rule. Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons.

Firstly...you didn't cite that snippet from outside source...but, no matter.

Not ALL military flights are 'filtered' out. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have the radar tracking information from the flights on 9/11.

Sure, there will be 'sensitive' operations that are excluded.

I can't tell you how many times I've been issued traffic advisoris, by ATC, on a completely open frequency, to watch for miliatry trafffic nearby. It is one of the required functions of ATC to issue such advisories, when time permits. Someitmes it's interesting, because we see them in-flight refueing, and so forth...but, usualy, they are well off in an MOA somewhere. OR, well below us, or they just don't practice it as much...

Point is....there is simply not enough heavy metal, even in the military, to be doing anything even CLOSE to what "chemtrailers" believe....because all that "chemtrailers" ever see is normal contrails.

PONR, you're a seemingly smart person. Why not do some math?

Calculate the amount of earth's surface area, in square miles of kilometers, THEN determine just HOW MUCH material would be needed to cover even a significant portion.

ALSO, research into recent volcanic activity, and its effect on climate, and so forth...pay attention to how MUCH material can be spewed by just one volcano, all courtesy of Mother Nature....then try to figure out how many airplanes, and how many man-hours would be needed for humans to duplicate that same amount...all to have little to no effect, anyways...

Look it up.



[edit on 1 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

This is why trying tot explain technical details to laypeople is so difficult....

Well, you're the one that got corrected.

Sure, there will be 'sensitive' operations that are excluded.

Yes, and the potential secret spraying doesn't fit in that category?

Point is....there is simply not enough heavy metal, even in the military, to be doing anything even CLOSE to what "chemtrailers" believe....because all that "chemtrailers" ever see is normal contrails.

All I know is that I'm seeing with my own eyes that we have more and more cloud cover on normally clear day, clouds that form out of contrails.

I don't know if it's chemtrails, but it is surely affecting our skies and the amount of sun that gets through.







[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Well Chad, how about you show us a SPECIFIC air sample of contrails post 1996, that gives us it's chemical breakdown. Why don't you go to some giant website that could fund this project, I'm sure that would be so easy to do, and prove that contrails are just what they are and nothing more.
Please check back here as soon as you find your funding. I would love to know the method of capture of the contrails, also.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Once you see 'em, you'll KNOW that they're not regular trails left by planes. I have seen the phenomenon only once, and it looked like the whole sky was checkered.

I don't know what the composition of the trails are, but all I know it's not normal air traffic. As hard it is to believe.

reply to post by Point of No Return


Nope.

Well, you're the one that got corrected.

Nope. Apparently reading comprehension is lacking, at this time. Try again later.

AS TO:

Yes, and the potential secret spraying doesn't fit in that category?

Again....what is so "SECRET" when it is so obvious?? Doesn't that seem the least bit illogical to anyone?

All I know is that I'm seeing with my own eyes that we have more and more cloud cover on normally clear day, clouds that form out of contrails.

Merely 'looking' at cloud cover, and then jumping to the conclusion of "chemtrails" isn't rational.

Besides....what you've just described, up above, is how normal weather behaves! A 'clear' day (or two, or more) will inevitably, at sometime, be followed by increasing cloud cover.

Don't they teach meteorology anymore? Check out the available lessons on it...see what weather 'fronts' are, and what happens as they are approaching your area....that's an oversimplification, for the weather patterns can be very complex --- hence people devote their careers to studying them.

I don't know if it's chemtrails, but it is surely our affecting skies and the amount of sun that gets through.

AH! A possible crack in the door (or the clouds)...

Contrails DO contribute to an increase in overall cloud cover, at times (but not always, again it depends on upper level air mass conditions).

But as to "the amount of sun that gets through"?

I made a challenge, before, to calculate the ENTIRE area of the earth's surface. What people who get all het up over (the so-called "chemtrails") don't realize is they are seeing just a SMALL area affected....but, to them, when looking up, it seems like it's the whole world, I guess.

Perspective, people!