Spotted an aircraft leaving a trail?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


You don't have to be a mind reader to take implications from posts - we all do - it is natural to do so, and there's something wrong with you if you do not!

The poster was suspicious of a contrail, this is the chemtrail forum - why is it at all strange that people think his suspicions relate to chemtails??

On another note - someone asked if there is a similar site for the USA.

Yes there is - flightaware.com... (also Canada)

this site takes both ADS-B info, and also (as I understad it) flight plan information, and puts in "presumed" positions for planes that have filed a flight plan (ie all IFR traffic) but which do not have ADS-B fitted.

I do not know how hte European site works - but many aircraft do not have the ADS-B reporting system fitted and so do not show up on flight trackers that rely upon it. All modern a/c do - say since 2005 or thereabouts (at a guess), but I have seen lists of a/c built in the 90's that weer not built with it, and many of them will not have it fitted yet until it becomes compulsory - which won't be 100% in the USA (for example) until 2020.

ADS-B wiki page - en.wikipedia.org...

Freespeaker, we must of posted at the same time so I have just noticed your post. Thank you, i was actualy doubting my own sanity for a moment.

The staggering ignorance of the concept of "implications" on this entire website is really beginning to distress me.

Solasis, where have I implied that what I viewed was a chemtrail?? You throw around words like "ignorance and implications" Yet you seem to be ignorant to the subject of this topic.

I will say this plain and simple for you. Not once did I believe I was witnessing a Chemtrail. Now is that plain enough English for you??

Aloysius the Gaul, thanks for posting the US version, but you my friend have also fallen fowel of not reading my post properly,

The poster was suspicious of a contrail, this is the chemtrail forum - why is it at all strange that people think his suspicions relate to chemtails??

can you point to the part where I said I had suspisions of the contrail???? Please show me as I'm getting a headache.

reply to post by yeebsy


sure - that would be the bit where you said:

What I'm getting at is this is a very useful tool if you do see something suspicious in the sky.

in the line below the flight data in the OP.

Personally I wonder why you're protesting so much??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I'm protesting because I don't like people twisting what I've said. You are right I wrote "What I'm getting at is this is a very useful tool if you do see something suspicious in the sky".

But if you read it very carefuly you will see the words if YOU do see, "you", since when has YOU actualy meant me?

I'm realy not trying to start anything, I just wish people would read it for what it is.

Once again thanks for the US site.

reply to post by yeebsy


OK - yes I read teh "you".....however in context it does not come across as a "all you other people who have suspicions can do this - I'm just doing it to show you how" sort of "you".

It comes across as an inclusive you - ie "I was suspicious and found this so all you others who are suspicious like I was should use it too".

the joys of the internet - one of the tricks I have found to get over/around pedantry in cases like this (I have had plenty!!) is to "own up" ASAP - say - "oops, sorry - what I really meant was....", and then forget it

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

It comes across as an inclusive you - ie "I was suspicious and found this so all you others who are suspicious like I was should use it too".

I see where you are coming from, but that is not what I meant. I promiss to brush up on my grammer in the future.

Originally posted by yeebsy
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It comes across as an inclusive you - ie "I was suspicious and found this so all you others who are suspicious like I was should use it too".

I see where you are coming from, but that is not what I meant. I promiss to brush up on my grammer in the future.

It didn't come across that way to me but, then again, I took the time to read his post.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Are you suggesting that because other people read it a different way than you therefore they didn't read it at all??

Originally posted by yeebsy
Freespeaker, we must of posted at the same time so I have just noticed your post. Thank you, i was actualy doubting my own sanity for a moment.

The staggering ignorance of the concept of "implications" on this entire website is really beginning to distress me.

Solasis, where have I implied that what I viewed was a chemtrail?? You throw around words like "ignorance and implications" Yet you seem to be ignorant to the subject of this topic.

I will say this plain and simple for you. Not once did I believe I was witnessing a Chemtrail. Now is that plain enough English for you??

I, and others, have already summed up exactly how you implied it. Now you are being willfully ignorant. Take a deep breath and consider your words and those said to you.

If you were simply saying "I didn't mean it like that -- sorry for the confusion" this would be a completely different matter. But you took an aggressively defensive stance, acting as if we were all idiots or trolls for reading the clear, if unintended, implications of what you were saying.

(The idiots or trolls thing was not particularly implied as such by what you wrote -- it's just the simplest summation I can think up of your words.)

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

The staggering ignorance of the concept of "implications" on this entire website is really beginning to distress me.

Ahhh, I see. You can read minds through the internet and determine the true implications behind a poster's words.

Am I reading that right?

Missed this earlier; sorry for the double post, but I feel this needs to be addressed.

No, you are not reading it right. In fact, you're proving my point about failure to understand "implications." You are confusing "Intentions" with "Implications". Implications are contained within the words/text as presented, "between the lines," so to speak. Intentions are what you meant for the text to say, and they can be lost completely due to unintended lapses & laxness in prose & clarity.

I never said that the OP meant to be talking about chemtrails, only that, to most observers, the OP seemed to be talking about chemtrails.

Solasis,
The first post you put in this topic is

You need to relax. What you said very clearly suggested chemtrails

Then

The staggering ignorance of the concept of "implications" on this entire website is really beginning to distress me.

You were not party to the conversation previous, you just jumped in and decided to stir things up.

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

No, you are just nit picking and trying to get a reaction out of me.

If you were simply saying "I didn't mean it like that -- sorry for the confusion" this would be a completely different matter.

I did pretty much, this was my first explination to the missunderstanding

Not once did I say anything about believing in (whisper softly looking side to side) Chemtrails. I did however think of a couple of post I recently read when I saw the contrail (see I said contrail, as I did in my OP) and thought it would be a good idea to let other members on this site know that there is a way to verify if a flight is just a civvy flight going about its normal day to day buisiness.

Now how can the paragraph above be construed as anything else?

But you took an aggressively defensive stance, acting as if we were all idiots or trolls

If the shoe fits.

reply to post by yeebsy


No, you didn't apologize for the confusion! You were utterly bewildered as to how any of us could have reached that conclusion! ---

You know, at this point, this is a lost cause.Enjoy your ignorance and justifications thereof.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Are you suggesting that because other people read it a different way than you therefore they didn't read it at all??

Break it down then and show me how and where it can be miss-read. I've read it 5 times now and get the same read from it each time.

Where's the problem?

Some failed to read it and are now trying to backpeddle.

Originally posted by Solasis
I never said that the OP meant to be talking about chemtrails, only that, to most observers, the OP seemed to be talking about chemtrails.

To most observers? What's are those? People who don't actually read posts but rather skim a thread before responding.

Its generally expected of ATS members to read posts, in they're entirety, before responding to them.

How do I know you didn't read it?

Originally posted by Solasis
You put "airplane trails" and "suspicious in the sky" in the same paragraph -- not directly linked, but very clearly associated with each other.

"Airplane trails" appears nowhere in the OP and certainly not in the same paragraph as "suspicious in the sky".

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


I'm not good at staying out, I guess. I wish I was. It would save me a lot of headaches.

By "most observers" I mean most of the first page. The evidence is right there. I know this because I actually read the thread.

Hey, if you can allege that I didn't read through your psychic, knowing how other people act through the computer powers, I can do the same to you.

And seriously, you're calling me out on "airplane trails"? He said that the airplane left a contrail in the very first sentence. So I summarized. Dear god, I thought you had read the first post!

reply to post by Solasis

No, you didn't apologize for the confusion! You were utterly bewildered as to how any of us could have reached that conclusion!

And I still am and getting very tired, i honestly feel I am being trolled now. Can you show me how in this next paragraph it can be misinterpreted if read properly?

I've just watched an aircraft fly overhead, the contrail he is leaving behind him didn't seem to be dissipating and it got me thinking of several posts on this forum. Then I remembered about this site Flight Radar so I've checked out the said aircraft, turns out it was a KLM.

You wrote

He said that the airplane left a contrail in the very first sentence. So I summarized.

And summarized wrong.

No, you didn't apologize for the confusion!

Why should I? I still clarified what I meant in my second post which was before you hopped in giving orders. You have actually added nothing to the original subject matter at all, hence why I feel like you are trolling.

reply to post by yeebsy


Last time I'm saying this. Did you miss the part where you seemed bewildered that anyone had reached the conclusion that you were talking about chemtrails? I quote from your "corrective" (read: aggressive) first reply

I love how people can be so patronising here when they don't realy read or understand the opening post, they just feel they have to shout louder and harder where it almost becomes farcical. Can you point out where I asked once on the science or your beliefs in Chemtrails?

Of course you didn't mention chemtrails, or ask about the science. You did, however, mention a contrail, and the possibility of being suspicious of it. The premises are right there in the post. the conclusion is "chemtrails".

Here's where I see all of this,

Snippy23 wrote

The theory that contrails dissipate quickly and chemtrails last, so observers can reliably tell the difference, is some of the silliest pseudo-science that appears on ATS.

Granted but why tell me, I never mentioned Chemtrails.

BoneZ Wrote

Why would a contrail be suspicious?

I never said it was, I said it got me thinking of a couple of posts I've read.

I would hope you're not going the "chemtrail" route as that's been debunked ad-nauseum with zero scientific evidence to back it up.

No I wasn't but this did sound patronising to me.

Then Snippy23 wrote

Forgive me for thinking that you believed that a contrail which, “didn't seem to be dissipating” was, “suspicious”. How could I have made that mistake?

Once again, patronising

BoneZ wrote a reply to Snippy23

Exactly. There's nothing suspicious about a contrail unless one is trying to play the "chemtrail" card. Plain and simple.

I still never said the contrail was suspicious.

Rustami wrote

yes spotted one leaving one at night the other day is that normal?

Piss taker

Then you come in with

You need to relax.

I'm sorry, who are you to jump in and tell people what to do?

Of course you didn't mention chemtrails, or ask about the science. You did, however, mention a contrail, and the possibility of being suspicious of it.

No I never

However I have said to Aloysius the Gaul

I see where you are coming from, but that is not what I meant. I promiss to brush up on my grammer in the future.

I was being serious, next time I will re-read my posts over and over till I'm sure no one can get the wrong end of the stick. That should have been it finished but then you had to troll again coming in with

I, and others, have already summed up exactly how you implied it. Now you are being willfully ignorant. Take a deep breath and consider your words and those said to you.

You are after a reaction, you are trolling this topic so I am asking politely for you to stop.

Flightradar is great in Europe, but has very patchy coverage in the US, probably less than 10% of all planes.

FlightAware is good, but does not give you the map.

One thing you can do is with flight wise.com, just open all eight major airports 3D tracking data in Google Earth at the same time - that probably gives you 50% of the US commercial air traffic.

flightwise.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a15101a9ce01.jpg[/atsimg]