Some basic problems I have with believing chemtrail exist

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


I think network dude has pretty much covered it but something you could try is looking to see roughly where planes landing or taking off from Melbourne airport reach around 2-3 thousand feet and seeing how big they are compared with the plane you can barely make out in your video. Also you have to bear in mind that aircraft at 6 or 7 miles up can be a lot further away than you think. Try some trigonometry on that one.
As for where the plane was coming from, ask yourself what a flight from Perth to Aukland would look like from Melbourne. Just because something is low to the horizon doesn't mean it's at low altitude. Remember the sun comes up over the horizon every morning.

I can't really comment on the flight tracker but if you're serious about investigating this you can invest a couple of dollars in the Flightradar app for your phone

Edit: forgot to mention that the temperature over Melbourne around that time was closer to -50

weather.uwyo.edu...
edit on 15-1-2014 by mrthumpy because: add sounding data




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


What is not normal is the fact that it came from ground height, as you look across the river yo can clearly see it intersecting with the ground. Now I know that some are going to say that it isn't and all I have to say is that I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Why isn't it registering on the flight tracker? Does anyone care to explain that?



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

taketheredpill
reply to post by network dude
 


What is not normal is the fact that it came from ground height, as you look across the river yo can clearly see it intersecting with the ground. Now I know that some are going to say that it isn't and all I have to say is that I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Why isn't it registering on the flight tracker? Does anyone care to explain that?


Yeah - it is called the world being something called "round", and having a "horizon", and aircraft at height flying to and from "beyond the horizon".

do you realize how really, REALY stupid your post makes you look??



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by taketheredpill
 


The plane looked like it was low, but that is just perspective. Have you ever seen the moon at the horizon? We all know the moon is way up in the sky, but at times it looks like it's coming out of the ground.

You can verify this by looking at a cruise ship coming into port. When it first becomes visible, it looks like its only a few inches tall, once it gets close, it's obviously a bit bigger than a few inches.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

taketheredpill


That would be different winds (potentially speed and direction) at different altitudes.

Did you not see that the clouds were both above and below the trail and that the clouds blew through the trail ?



No, I did not.


So are you telling me that for that tiny strip of sky, the wind was completely absent. Do you actually expect me to buy that? Come on, you seem like an intelligent person - that sounds utterley ridiculous.


as far as I could see you had fluffy clouds passing in front of a contrail. the contrail was probably at 30,000 feet or thereabouts.

The fluffy clouds were probably at 3-5000 feet because that is where such fluffy clouds usually form - you could probably find a weather forecast for Melbourne that will tell you the cloud altitude.

With all the clouds and contrails being white it is not actually possible to say which passes in front of the other just by looking at the "white on white" - it looks the same whichever way they pass unless one leaves a shadow on the other, which is not happening in your video.

Hence the diagram you have already been shown the indicates the sort of levels that clouds form.

Also you can spend some time looking up aviation weather reports and how to decipher them - eg the current METAR (METeorological Aviation Report) for Melbourne is available here and reads:


TAF YMML 151700Z NIL=
TAF AMD YPPH 151601Z 1516/1618
22010KT 9999 FEW015 SCT035
FM160500 22016KT CAVOK
FM161400 16010KT CAVOK
RMK=


Now this is obviously gobbledygook unless you know how to read it, however the clouds are mentioned by these characters: FEW015 SCT035

which means "a few clouds at 1500 feet and scattered clouds at 3500 feet" - which is fairly typical of low clouds and entirely consistent with what is in your video even though it is a different day.

you seem to have a problem with understanding perspective - here are a couple of pages that might help you with that:

Contrails are usually horizontal
A problem of perspective



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

taketheredpill

Here are the flights above melbourne at that time. I was standing where I move the cursor to , facing the left side of the map.

Why does the flight not show up on the flight tracker?


Because that Flight Tracker (WebTrak) only shows aircraft up to 30,000 feet. Why didn't you check Flight Radar 24? Unfortunately the playback for the 16th December 2013 for Flight Radar 24 has now expired. I bet that overflight was clearly visible on Flight Radar 24 and registering over 30,000 feet!

I checked this limitation with a Melbourne overflight QFA64 on the 15th January against the Flight Tracker (WebTrak) that you are using. The flight appears on Flight Radar 24 passing over Melbourne at 37,000 feet, but fails to register on WebTrak due to the height setting at 30,000 feet and below.


How does it work?

WebTrak uses information from air traffic control secondary surveillance radars to monitor aircraft:

within 55 km of the airport
Up to a height of 30,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL).


www.airservicesaustralia.com...

Check it out for yourself with the flight on the 15th January against WebTrak.

QFA64 over Melbourne on 15th Jan 2014 Flight Radar 24


edit on 15/1/2014 by tommyjo because: Link added



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

taketheredpill

What is not normal is the fact that it came from ground height, as you look across the river yo can clearly see it intersecting with the ground. Now I know that some are going to say that it isn't and all I have to say is that I was there and saw it with my own eyes.


Purely perspective as has been pointed out by other posters. Have a word with fellow Melbourne citizen, Peter Kusznir. He regularly uses Flight Radar 24 in conjunction with his videos.

I also suggest that you get the Flight Radar 24 app for your phone. It will really help you with your perspective problem. I fully understand why you think the trails are coming from the ground, but it is purely perspective. YT is full of videos where people think that they are missile trails or aircraft shooting up into the sky.

Flight Radar app link at following.

www.flightradar24.com...

www.flightradar24.com...

The following video is one from Peter Kusznir (Peekay22) in Melbourne. Note the angles of the trails? It is purely perspective that make the trails appear to be coming out of the ground/horizon. Sadly he is deluding himself with his theories, but it is a good example of the trail angles and the height of the aircraft.




posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

taketheredpill
reply to post by network dude
 


What is not normal is the fact that it came from ground height, as you look across the river yo can clearly see it intersecting with the ground. Now I know that some are going to say that it isn't and all I have to say is that I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Why isn't it registering on the flight tracker? Does anyone care to explain that?


I was going through some old photos taken when I still used a crappy camera today and I remembered this post as soon as I saw the sequence of shots the following two are from;

Question, Is this a missile launch, or a military jet climbing from the ground in Rotherham?




Well, no. This one shows it clearly isnt;



It is quite obviously a civil airliner cruising along and it would be quite impossible for it to 'climb' in the way the first photo suggests.

Closer inspection of a zoom crop from that image reveals to be an Etihad Airways Airbus A330-200, like the one below (and possibly the very same), taken much more recently with a proper camera;





This shows the point people are making about perspective giving the illusion of the line of travel being vertical when it is not, and, for an A330, could not possibly be.



edit on 16-1-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join