It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this normal? (chemtrails)

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Umm, you are aware that the holding pattern information of "Standard Rate" turns is for smaller, slower airplanes (or, larger jets when configured so as to fly at those slower speeds). Typically, because of control issues, 30° to about 35° of bank is considered the "standard" for smaller, slower airplanes.... (on commercial jets, it is normally 25° in the turns. This is also for safe handling, and passenger comfort). The rate of turn, and thus the radius, will vary according to speed in the turn.



Did I get something wrong in the simulation? The leg length is determined by the points P1 and P2, which I know is not realistic as only the start point of one leg is specified, with a heading. What would you suggest as the "input" parameters?

You can change the plane speed and turn rate, as well as move the points around, so you can get any size/shape of racetrack with some fiddling.

I was originally intended to generate a contrail that would match the one in the starting image. I think it was determined to most likely be an AWACS type plane.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 



Did I get something wrong in the simulation?


NO, you included the "turn rate"....my long-winded (because there are many variables) explanation was so others can use your program, and more accurately depict what they might see, for comparison.

The fixed leg lengths in your program are a necessary evil, for ease of use. People just need to be aware that those lengths can vary, as explained. Your program would be just that much more complicated, if you tried to include that option, and you don't need to. Edit....you can even alter the leg length? I didn't see that at first. Well, you out-did yourself, then!

(Of course, someone watching from the ground will have no way to know what the pilots requested, nor their actual speed, etc. Still....the way you can vary the factors proves the point....).

edit on 12 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Wow you are really into this Chemtrail thing... Or should I say contrails... Dude, all I can say is clouds are clouds and planes leave exhaust that sometimes make things that look like clouds. It has been happening since the invention of the jet engine. There is nothing more to contrails than that.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Cool program...

Umm, you are aware that the holding pattern information of "Standard Rate" turns is for smaller, slower airplanes (or, larger jets when configured so as to fly at those slower speeds). Typically, because of control issues, 30° to about 35° of bank is considered the "standard" for smaller, slower airplanes.... (on commercial jets, it is normally 25° in the turns. This is also for safe handling, and passenger comfort). The rate of turn, and thus the radius, will vary according to speed in the turn.



Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with that. Standard rate turns in small aircraft, are not 30-35 degrees, they are usually under 20.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Does it matter what degree the planes turned? They are still just contrails cause by airplanes. I am sure if the planes turned too much air traffic control would complain and they would get a violation or something.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Uh....yeah. It's been a looooooong time since I've been in, or flown IFR in a little airplane!!!

Even better, really....the angle of bank being more shallow, for the relatively low experience types...man, funny how you forget stuff like that.


For non-pilots....on small airplanes (at least I remember this) there is an instrument to refer to, that shows the "standard rate" turn...you include it in your instrument scan, and adjust your bank angle accordingly. No need to "guess" the angle of bank needed, based on current speed.

Airliners, other large airplanes and jets don't have such "Turn Rate Indicators" (aka the "Needle and Ball", or Turn/Slip Indicator or "Turn Coordinator"). Although, you may see some much older airplanes with the "4-Minute Turn" style...We have other indications of a "slip", but that's more complicated..has to do with Flight Path Monitoring, and stuff.....rate gyros, same principle that make the display on a Turn Coordinator, are input into the airplane's flight management computers.....and, just not really part of an airline pilot's scan, nor concern. (You can feel it, anyway...in any airplane. A "slip" or "skid", as they're called. Uncoordinated turn entries, and exits).

Large jets have full-time yaw-dampers, they do the job for the pilot, to keep aileron deflection forces coordinated. You learn how to use the rudder in small airplanes, since it's YOU that is responsible, then....







edit on 12 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by afw2121
reply to post by firepilot
 


Does it matter what degree the planes turned? They are still just contrails cause by airplanes. I am sure if the planes turned too much air traffic control would complain and they would get a violation or something.


You need to understand, that pilots will argue with each other over minutia that non-pilots will never grasp at all



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I understand. I am not a pilot but just deliver mail. I would assume that you would not want to turn too much. However, how it relates to chemtrails, or what I call them contrails, just boggles my mind.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by afw2121
reply to post by firepilot
 


I understand. I am not a pilot but just deliver mail. I would assume that you would not want to turn too much. However, how it relates to chemtrails, or what I call them contrails, just boggles my mind.



Well chemtrails do not exist, so we do not have to worry about that.

But holding patterns, are something that every pilot has to learn as part of their instrument flight training. But chemtrailers see those ovals, as evidence of spraying, along with "x"'s where contrails cross. However the major problem with that it, that no actual spraying ever does an X, or an Oval.

Chemtrailers were led to believe that by chemtrail websites, however this idea that you just do an X over something is how you spray, is totally erroneous. Cropdusters certainly do not do an X over a field, nor do insect control aircraft just spray an X either. Nor do they do ovals for that matter.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus
But what people point to as "chemtrails" are almost NEVER u-turns. You just get that one photo, and it's quite obvious what it is - a racetrack contrail.

One photo? How about hundreds?


Really. I think I've seen maybe three unexplained U-turns contrails. If there were really that many, someone should start a collection to demonstrate what's going on. How do I get to see these "hundreds".



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Chemtrailers were led to believe that by chemtrail websites, however this idea that you just do an X over something is how you spray, is totally erroneous. Cropdusters certainly do not do an X over a field, nor do insect control aircraft just spray an X either. Nor do they do ovals for that matter.


And even if you did, something you NEVER see in the "chemtrail" photos is a regular grid. It's just a bunch of random lines that happen to overlap, like flight paths.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I have watched thousands of airplanes and I have never seen one do a U-turn. What did they forget some luggage or something. No.... they fly to their destination and have the luggage shipped. This is not an air show. If so, I would understand the U-turn. But if you did see a U-turn please post the pictures....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by afw2121
 


They do "u-turns" as part of holding patterns because there is insufficient room for them in the airspace ahead - perhaps they have had a tail wind and are early, or perhaps there is an emergency and everyone is clearing airspace for an aircraft on a mayday, or perhaps the airport is having trouble coping with incoming flights due to weather or a baggage handler's strike or a fuel shortage or an aTC radar breakdown any one of a hundred otehr reasons....

And even in normal situations aircraft will hold in a "stack" above a busy airport - sometimes coming into the "stack" from holding points further away.

Whatever the reason, aircraft spending time in hold is as sommon as muck.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I was just saying when I am flying I never had a U-turn done. I have had a holding pattern done waiting to land but not a 30/40% U-turn for the no purpose. Somehow an airplane turning is related to a chemtrail or a contrail.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by afw2121
 



I have never seen one do a U-turn.


The discussion here is full holding patterns...a racetrack oval shape. Not ALL flights are required by ATC to hold at high altitudes, where contrails can form. But, occasionally they do happen. Also, due to the size of area, the entire oval may NOT show up, in contrails....just parts of it. Depends.

Here...learn just like a low experience pilot would, just being introduced to this as part of obtaining an Instrument Rating (you get this one for free....most pay a lot of $$ to buy these courses):



If you have flown frequently enough, as a passenger on commercial airlines, you would have eventually experienced instances of holding, generally when arriving at destination.

This video perfectly illustrates for those who can't comprehend how flights cross over each other, forming the different angles of contrails. But, at the end, it shows the New York City area during a day of severe weather, and many thunderstorms that caused many delays. Typical, especially in that busy and complex, crowded region.

Starts @ 1:45 ---




Personally have many times been in situations where I was told to hold, even up at cruise altitudes, and during step-down descents, when arriving into the NYC area. ATC issues what's called a "clearance limit" that is a holding fix...a location. With the instructions (most holding patterns are published, and depicted on various charts for reference). Then, gradually in these very extreme cases, ATC lets you continue in...descending you as you get closer, but sometimes often issuing NEW hold instructions. Multiple times and locations. Each time they must give you an "EFC" (Expect Further Clearance) time estimate. This is partly in case of total radio failure, because then you will proceed as originally flight planned, based on that EFC, and they must clear the way for you (when the weather is not VFR).

Also, the EFC helps us to gauge our fuel endurance, to the destination, with minimum required safety reserves margins. Many time, there is not enough fuel, for the delay that is imposed...and the decision is then made to divert to an alternate airport. Very inconvenient.....



edit on 13 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for posting the videos that expalians the U-turns and contrials. It makes sense now why people would see a U-turn with a contrial. It is so hard to see while in the airplane while it is trying to land while I am in it.
edit on 13-5-2011 by afw2121 because: na



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by PinealGland
Deal with the raw data I presented, where I mentioned a scientist in that what in the world are they spraying film, where he admits it will harm their grandkids and doesn't care.


The thing is though, whenever someone DOES focus on what you ask, they give a very reasonable explanation, and then you ignore it and change the subject. How about you address the issue of all the inaccuracies in "What in the World are they Spraying"? Does not the vast amount of errors in that film give you ANY concern as to its overall conclusions?

And regarding the scientist you mention, he said "it's not really a moral hazard. It's more like free-riding on our grandchildren." He does not say he does not care.

By "it" here's he's referring to the problem of global warming. "Moral hazard" has a specific meaning in economics, and it's similar to "free riding", which is also an economic term. He was clarifying that the moral hazard OF DOING NOTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING will primarily impact our grandchildren.

And I know you don't like wikipedia, but the definitions are real, and will help explain what he means.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Do really see what his opinions are, watch his TED talk:
www.ted.com...

He's actually very thoughtful about the problem, and how to do the right thing. It would see he cares quite a bit.



Alright look, I still go to Wikipedia from time to time if I want information on a discography or some crap like that. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe in these "wave clouds" or whatever people are calling them. YES, at the risk of sounding crazy, I'm coming out and saying that. YES. So go ahead and call me crazy all you want, but these wave clouds are ridiculous. Now, if I do something you don't like, please tell me specifically what I did. Don't just make blanket statements like "people tell you stuff and you just ignore it". What exactly did I ignore? And what exactly is wrong or inaccurate about the film? As for me saying the 'moral hazard' thing... well I don't know what to say. I guess I was oblivious of that economic term, the moral hazard one. I read it now and I can't make sense of it. Maybe I'm just tired. I'll try another time.

As for ignoring people's arguments. I apologize if I did that. I didn't mean any harm. That said, I don't really know what you're talking about. I don't remember ignoring anything, and if I did... well it's kind of strange to be accused of that when this is the first day I really posted anything here. What, am I supposed to just live online 500% of my time? (I'm going to double check my source on the barium comment, btw, probably the other thread there...). One of my first posts was "I don't have time to read all the skeptics' views". I don't. Especially when they attack a film and don't even say what was wrong about it. So I mis-heard the scientist IN the film. Big deal. There is other RAW DATA in the content of my posts that nobody's commented on so far. You people seem to love to nitpick, and repeat the same things over and over. "SEE? SEE ? THE KEG THING WAS A HOAX. SEE?" Yeah I get it, it was a hoax, or at least you think so. Can we get past that? Didn't I say other things? Fire tornado? What about the persian gulf "tornado" video I posted that resulted in mass fish, whale, and dolphin deaths in 2008? The dolphins were burnt to a crisp. But let's ignore that.....

The way I see it, weather modification is wrong, is based on fabricated evidence, and in the end is just playing God. I'm not going to source everything I say to live up to this endless scrutiny. I haven't posted on a message board in years for this very reason. People love to focus on a few minor things and ignore all the other legitimate stuff I said. People have all the confidence in the world to talk # to you when they're behind text and a screen. Half the things most people say on message boards, they would NEVER say in person. It's sad.

As for the person who said that corbettreport.com is unscientific.... all I have to say to that is these videos...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

...which deal with the global warming HOAX, and make a LOT of sense to me. Scientific or not. They make SENSE to me. If they don't make sense to you, please resist the urge to make broad sweeping statements like "those videos are unscientific". I would love if you gave me specifics and tell me what about them is unscientific. But like I said, I try to have a life, too, and I am an extremely busy person. So don't accuse me of ignoring stuff you're saying if I don't respond within 5 minutes. I'm not getting PAID to go on here, you know.


"Does not the vast amount of errors in the film..." what errors? How can you expect anyone to answer a question framed in this way? You imply that there are errors in the film already, like I should know that, because it's somehow common knowledge in your scheme of things, and then I'm supposed to defend the film like I made it or something. It's hard enough defending the film I MADE that I posted to a guy who barely watched the video, read the blurb of the video bellow the video and called me crazy. Basically insulted me and just said all my experiences were "fantasy". Blanket statement. Why? He's trying to cause a fight or something. It's obvious. I just don't know how to respond to so much bull#. That's fine, though. You think this is the first time I've faced ridicule for spreading the truth? I'm not going to pretend I need to source every 2nd thing I say. If you don't believe it, nobody's putting a gun to your head, forcing you to believe it. I already said I didn't have any interest in talking to the naysayers about this... but here I am. tsk tsk... I gotta say, I'm disappointed I even spent this much time on this so far. I have better things to do with my time than to make sure you completely grasp everything I have to say. By all means give me constructive criticism, but I'm not stupid - I know when I'm being attacked.
And you know what? I remember actually getting a lot more information about weather modification from this interview with the film-makers themselves, than I did from the actual film. I probably should have posted that too. Here it is: www.youtube.com...

Here's another one about weather modification with Dr. Nich Begich: www.youtube.com...

I remember someone bickering about finding things on the net that don't say "chemtrail" and instead say "contrail"... well you're in luck! BOOM: I think someone already posted this, but it is worth repeating if so - This awesome woman, Rosalind Peterson seems to HATE using the term "chemtrails" and she loves saying "persistent contrails". And I agree with almost everything she says... so... you're welcome, bro. Have at it.
www.infowars.com...

That other dude wanted to talk "fantasy"... Let me tell you, being sick is not just a PART of life. Maybe it's a part of death, but it's not normal for this many people to be this sick with this many different things. We're not supposed to be sick all the time. People who believe that make a lot of money for the pharmaceutical industry. That's a fact. When I walk down the street, quite often, I see trees with HUGE tumors on them... not just one... like sometimes 20 tumors on almost every 2nd tree trunk I see downtown. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Sounds like a lot? Okay maybe I'm exaggerating. Maybe it's only 7-15 tumors sometimes. Forgive me. Well what's crazier is that people don't notice or care. The trees didn't used to be like this. There ARE huge spikes in heavy metals, all around the same time, all starting around 1990, found from ground and air samples. I'm not going to source that for you... I have no time to source everything to oblivion, even though I deeply and truly care about the message. I'm a musician. That takes up a lot of my time.

I don't have time to watch the TED talk. Why? Because, quite frankly, I was using him as an example. Maybe his intentions are good, maybe not. But he's not the first one to ever talk about playing god like this. Is nobody noticing the floods that are happening? The gigantic tornadoes that have little tornadoes coming off the side of them? Hundreds of tornadoes in the span of 3 days? Strange sinkholes all over the place? Weather modification technology was built out of Nikola Tesla's ideas. That guy said that if you beam energy at the right spot, you could split the earth in two. INDEED. (all is one)... And that is why martial artists know how to hit a human being in a certain spot and kill him with that pressure point. This is the holographic nature of the universe. The earth is our mother. It's a living being. You can't expect to control the weather anymore than you can expect to boss your mother around. The fact that you think you SHOULD is testament to the fact that we have become control freaks.

Does anyone remember that episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns made a gigantic umbrella that blocked the sun from hitting the town? Well when we all saw that we all agreed that was crazy, right? But somehow, throwing microscopic bits of aluminum in the sky is great? Why don't you just go and chew on some aluminum, then? Which leads me to my other point: the other reason I won't watch the TED talk is because the central premise of the whole operation is flawed - "global warming" / "climate change" is refuted by many scientists who make a lot of sense to me when I listen to what they're saying instead of when I pretend that the universe revolves around me and that I automatically must know everything (obviously kidding). Global warming is not an issue. I really don't want to get into nitty gritty of why that is the case. The whole topic is tarnished with politics and misinformation. This guy, Randall Carlson breaks it down pretty well and takes a long time doing it: vimeo.com...
Note: he doesn't talk EXTREMELY FAST. He WANTS you to hear what he's saying. He WANTS people to understand.

Yes, this is a long post. To some, that might mean I'm getting off topic. I disagree. All is one. We are all connected. Your story is our story. And there is NO WAY of getting off topic. No matter what you're looking at, if you look at it the right way, you'll come to the same conclusions, because everything is connected. Just as there are individual mountains, they have a common foundation. So go ahead. Call me crazy again. You shoot yourself in the foot every single time because it makes you lose credibility. Fact is, I've been accused of getting off topic .... pretty much all the time from most people everywhere. A rant is apparently anything longer than a paragraph. I'm used to it by now and I notice that people accuse me of it when they don't grasp what I'm actually saying or haven't been patient enough to let me finish (or when they have nothing better to do). Like I said - transparent. Are any of you aware there's a commercial in the UK that basically threatens the life of anyone who disagrees with the idea that man has caused global warming? I'm not going to root around for that one for you. It shouldn't be too hard to find for yourself. It got a lot of coverage in the media last year. The actress from the X-Files did the voice-over for the commercial and Radiohead donated the music. If the proponents of anthropogenic global warming had any sophistication whatsoever, they would argue the science behind it. They can't do that, though, so they resort to threatening your life, they resort to ridicule, etc, etc, etc.

Final note: It also seems that some of you don't understand the concept of "implication". Here's a fun fact: Sometimes, people can imply things without outright saying them. I can't remember what or who this is in response to, but you know who you are. At least I hope so...
edit on 5/13/2011 by PinealGland because: forgot to include the Rosalind Peterson video link



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Really. I think I've seen maybe three unexplained U-turns contrails. If there were really that many, someone should start a collection to demonstrate what's going on. How do I get to see these "hundreds".

Google it, and there are some links in this thread that showed large numbers of photos of all sorts of anomalies. You might possibly have had a case if such things were as rare as they should be, but when people all over the world are reporting them often, that's not normal. And no, it can't be brushed off with "there are more people with cameras now".

Anyway, it's clear that a whole library full of evidence wouldn't be enough; there's always an excuse of what "might possibly be"... coulda, woulda, shoulda... that we are suppose to swallow because the Lab Coats have spoken and we are not to believe our lyin' eyes.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus
Really. I think I've seen maybe three unexplained U-turns contrails. If there were really that many, someone should start a collection to demonstrate what's going on. How do I get to see these "hundreds".

Google it, and there are some links in this thread that showed large numbers of photos of all sorts of anomalies. You might possibly have had a case if such things were as rare as they should be, but when people all over the world are reporting them often, that's not normal. And no, it can't be brushed off with "there are more people with cameras now".


Okay, I googled for u-turn chemtrail, and I saw six distinct photos of what might be u-turns in the first 20 pages (they actually all show up in the first page, which pretty much indicates that's all there is).

But if you google for images of "chemtrails" you see literally thousands of photos of what look like regular contrails (ofter persisting, or forming rough grids).

So based on that, it would generously seem that only one in a thousand chemtrails has a u-turn, or about 0.1% of them? You've also got to keep in mind that people are vastly more likely to take a photo of an interesting u-shaped trail than a regular straight trail, so it's probably more like 0.001%

Your own language "all sorts of anomalies" belies the commonness of u-turns. They are anomalies because they are rare. I've seen ONE u-turn in my many years of contrail watching, and I identified the plane:

contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


wow. finally!
i don't come down on one side or the other of the "chemtrail" debate, i think it's ugly and i'm sure there are things we could do to eliminate the visual pollution of the persistent contrails. it also is the same to me as smog from your car; its pollution. i just HATE when some debunker comes in and talks s * i t to all the chetrailers without that simple, clear explanation. so thanks for being smart AND civil. a rare combo on these forums.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join