My take on Chemtrails, not everything is what it seems...

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Chemtrail pilots are bored flying strait lines all day.......why would they not try flying circles?

Thanks for using your picture.....








posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Thats actually an "X" formation with 3 horizontal lines through the "X" (top horizontal not pictured)

I have heard this has to do with organized flight intersections, can anyone confirm this? If it is not proper practice, all my observations prove is that there is uniform formations of flight and "dispersal" (assuming "chemtrails" exist and they disperse anything)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 



I have heard this has to do with organized flight intersections, can anyone confirm this?


Yes.

I show people, all the time. Many times, here on many threads. Airplane routes cross one another SO do roadways, on the ground. Is that clear?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm talking more like a source of well known patterns that correlate with the ones I (and others) have observed. Please do not be offended if I dont just take your word for it.

I have flown many times and have never seen any other planes in the air during my flight (And have observed many "chemtrail planes" fly almost directly aside or towards one another.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by zatara
 


Thats actually an "X" formation with 3 horizontal lines through the "X" (top horizontal not pictured)

I have heard this has to do with organized flight intersections, can anyone confirm this?


When aircraft fly in perpendicular directions ()say north-south and east-west) then they cross - and if conditions at their heights are conducive to contrails you obviously will get crossing contrails.

I'm sure you can think of may such crossing paths in hte USA - east-west os pretty obvious - there's a heap of traffice between the coasts, and getween hte coasts and inland cities along an east-west axis.

North - south? Salt Lake to Seattle & Vancouver? N. Orleans to Detroit? Pick some city=pairs....

It is "organised" in the sense that ATC keeps a vertical seperation between conflicting routes - usually 1000 feet (WW & FP will know the details) up to 35,000 feet, and (here at least) 2000 ft above that (new technology is allowing reduced vertical seperation (RVSM) in somce circumstances - here it allows 1000 ft above 35,000 ft).

IIRC (not being a pilot but working around a lot of them) most contries have simple rules such as flights in 1 direction will always be at some given altitude, and flights in other directions are always at other altitudes - so even if pilots lose ATC contact they know what altitude they should default to - in these parts flights are almsot all north-south - north flights use odd numbered 100 ft increments (31,000, 33,000, etc), south use the even ones (30,000, 28,000 etc)

Also aircraft have to keep seperation horizontally - I think this is normally about 10 miles in cruise - this might sound a lot but at 550-600 mph 10 miles is only 1 minute - so multiple a/c flying along the same path can be as little as 1 minute apart.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


This is a (lousy picture) of the High Altitude area near Detroit. Black lines are Jet Airways. Flights can navigate along them, or fly in just about any direction, any heading, as needed, and depending on their original route.



I've tried to get better images, but screenshots become PDF files, and won't upload to ATS.


See much, mush more at:

skyvector.com...

The Globe icon, opens a drop-down menu.

Look to highlight the "Enroute High" chart tab. It will display the USA, and the outlines of the various charts. Pick the one you want.

You can look at the other Charts, they are either "Low" (also, like the High, they are used for IFR) or, the Sectional, WAC (World), TAC (Terminal) and Helicopter....all of those are VFR charts, and have landmarks printed on them, to help you orient, to where YOU are....the IFR charts reduce all that clutter.

Each Chart has a legend on one of the end panels. Viewing them online is tedious...so, you also might check at airports, see if anyone has any old ones. They are revised regularly, and old ones expire, and are just thrown away....free for the taking.

You can also buy them online....if need be....



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 

I've tried to get better images, but screenshots become PDF files, and won't upload to ATS.


I just use MS paint - paste them into it, then save as jpegs.....



See much, mush more at:

skyvector.com...


the original poster mentions NJ - so here's the area from NY to Boston from chart H12



I can't seem to get rid of the green station markers & they do't actually scale when I zoom....so I chose this level of zoom so they at least correspond with their actual locations - otherwise it looks even worse!


edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


None of these patterns seem to correlate with the formation in my picture, which is irrelevant because all NY-Boston traffic would not travel over NJ...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


Who said anything about NY-Boston traffic?? I posted the picture to show how complicated the airways over NJ are - regardless of where the a/c are goingto or coming from.

There are several places on that map that have multiple airways converging at a point and that would be visible from anywhere in NJ.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



.... can't seem to get rid of the green station markers....


SkyVector has a box to un-check...."Show Weather" It is small, hard to see. Near top, right.

The stations display in green, blue and red, do denote VFR, MVFR or IFR conditions. Mouse over them (live online) for the METARs and TAFs.

(MVFR ceiling below 3,000 and/or vis below 3 miles. IFR - ceiling below 1,000 or vis below 3 miles).


Edit- Just watched their 5-minute "video tour",has hints and tips for navigating their site.......

(I'll try that MS Paint method...again. It wouldn't open last time.....)



edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks - yes I did notice the mouse-over functions



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

the original poster mentions NJ - so here's the area from NY to Boston from chart H12


From this post I assume the chart you posted is in correlation to "the area from NY to Boston"

And I point out again, the paths of the trails in the picture do not appear on the diagram. Please use your qualifications and credentials to explain this flight path and provide sources. My goal is to establish a fact that dismisses this non-sense so I can finally stop staring at planes in the sky.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmVeeFF

the original poster mentions NJ - so here's the area from NY to Boston from chart H12


From this post I assume the chart you posted is in correlation to "the area from NY to Boston"


Indeed - but it is not specifically about flights BETWEN NY & Boston.


And I point out again, the paths of the trails in the picture do not appear on the diagram.


Looks like they do to me - there's straight lines on the map that are straight like teh lines in your photos. There's a couple of intersections in yuor photos that seem close enough tointersections on the map.....


Please use your qualifications and credentials to explain this flight path and provide sources.


You are looking at the flight paths, and you don't recognise it as a source??
??


My goal is to establish a fact that dismisses this non-sense so I can finally stop staring at planes in the sky.


I'm beginning to doubt that



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The intersection are far too spread out and infrequent for it to be possible that my picture correlates to the source you provided, and in the extreme uniformity of the flight paters seen in my picture and my previous observation, I don't believe close enough will cut it. I'm talking fact here, not horse shoes and hand grenades.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


Try to understand this....if I can explain in writing, would be so much easier to show you, by drawing on paper....or, if had a video (good idea, that one...)

Jet A flies on a course of 090°. Following a defined ground track....there is a cross-wind, so to follow that ground track, it must maintain a heading that is different...into the direction of the wind, on the side it's coming from.

The goal, for the jet, is the path over the ground. IT can steer, to do this.

Jet A leaves a contrail behind it. That contrail, once formed, is now at the mercy of the atmosphere. Remember, there is a cross-wind....this means the contrail will now be carried along, with the wind (really, the airmass is moving, sometimes as a whole, sometimes in varying flows).

Three minutes later, Jet B flies on the SAME ground track as Jet A.....same route. IT, now, leaves another contrail.

This second contrail is parallel to the first, but off-set alongside. IT TOO begins to drift along, as well. And, so on.

Mean time, at a few thousand feet higher, Jet C has intersected that 090° course, on another course....also, being affected by the cross-wind. Wherever that contrail forms, it now becomes part of the whole group of previous contrails, drifting with the air flow...etc.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
this pagereply to post by EmVeeFF
 


I believe WW has provided an adequate explaination in words - for visuals on how winds can move contrails you might like to visit here

And for some quite spectacular images of contrails moving in the wind check the comments on this page, and the picture and some of the comments here
edit on 31-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am an intelligent person. These facts you present me go beyond redundancy. In further redundancy I will repeat; All I want is documentation of a flight plan that correlates with my observation. I dont need theory or basics, i need proof that passenger planes paths are documented with the same formation of the contrails. this will arm you with legitimate proof. Realize where you are, a conspiracy forum, not an aviation forum.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


God is not provable, but this does not mean he does not exist.

The point of this thread is that we have more important things to talk about.

edit on 31-5-2011 by alien because: ...off topic removed...


Yet again, another analogy of chemtrails and religion. And to think some of you chemmies get mad when we bring up the chemtrail conspiracy as a religious belief.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am an intelligent person. These facts you present me go beyond redundancy. In further redundancy I will repeat; All I want is documentation of a flight plan that correlates with my observation. I dont need theory or basics, i need proof that passenger planes paths are documented with the same formation of the contrails. this will arm you with legitimate proof. Realize where you are, a conspiracy forum, not an aviation forum.


So have you considered doing your own research, and finding out what you want on your own, rather than demanding that others spoon feed it all to you?

Its all out there, I have long suggested tools for chemtrail proponents to find out all of this. However, it never matters, they all made up their minds, without evidence in the first place. Evidence to the contrary, and especially anything scientific, gets discarded anyways. i would have no idea how many postings that include actual science, data and information, get totally ignored by chemmies because it does not fit their conspiracy



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EmVeeFF
 


LOL!

Firstly, I have only a "vague-iest" idea of where you are. New Jersey, is about as close as I can pinpoint it.

Furthermore, you are *demanding* something, after-the-fact, and *requiring* "exactness".....and "proof":


i need proof that passenger planes paths are documented with the same formation of the contrails.



A One-Off example, of contrail at one time and date.....well, it CAN be done, but.....without me being right there, at your side to SHOW you.....then, it will be up to you to use the fact that, as you say, you are intelligent.



Realize where you are, a conspiracy forum, not an aviation forum.



Well, duh.....of course, the hypocrisy is lost on you? You *demand proof*, about something having to do with aviation, then say the above??



Deal with the reality, first...of the contrails.


Now.....actual paths, of any given flight, on any given day....day-to-day....may NOT always be identical, for many reasons. Even the same flight number, scheduled at the same time of day, daily. It can be delayed...re-routed....there can be weather avoidance issues, traffic conflicts, and off-course radar vectors, even flight plans vary by routing, because of changing prevailing winds aloft.....

With that said --- next, have to identify the location of our contrails, and date and time. Exact, latitude and longitude....which you either know, or you don't. Then, can find a location on an Aeronautical Chart.....then, can access FlightAware, for their records of flights....and, we can hunt through every possible candidate flight, just using educated guesses (this is where I would come in handy) to try and find matches....it would be a type of detective work.

And, tedious as hell. Could be done, with effort and patience...as long as your contrails weren't more than about four months old (or, however far back FlightAware keep their data accessible online).


Know what would be a hell-a-lot simpler? Watching for future contrail events, while simultaneously monitoring FlightAware....much easier to identify the flights in real time, than after the fact.


But, you seemed to think that knowing about aviation was somehow....what? Irrelevant??





new topics




 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join