Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- I have seen aerosol spraying from an aircraft and I know the altitude of my aircraft.
I hope that winky smiley is an indicator of sarcasm, cuz that's a really funny claim to be making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9
- I can see commercial aircraft from the ground and approximate the altitude.
No, you can't. Well, you can try, but there's no way to know whether you're off by hundreds of feet, thousands of feet or even tens of thousands of feet. You have no point of reference in the sky with which to gauge depth - it may as well be a two dimensional space, for the purposes of trying to visually estimate distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9
- I use flightwise in Google Earth
So? Aren't the "chemtrail" planes completely different than regular commercial traffic? Don't they take off from secret bases, land at secret bases and not follow commercial flight paths? Isn't that what you said? How can that tool help you, then? And how do you know that Google isn't in on the conspiracy, too? I'm sure that you know just as well as anyone how far into bed they are with the government...
So? Aren't the "chemtrail" planes completely different than regular commercial traffic? Don't they take off from secret bases, land at secret bases and not follow commercial flight paths? Isn't that what you said? How can that tool help you, then? And how do you know that Google isn't in on the conspiracy, too? I'm sure that you know just as well as anyone how far into bed they are with the government...
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist now
Recently, a pilot sent www.data4science.net several images of a plane which is clearly rigged for aerial chemtrail or biological spraying
That's not clear at all. Your not knowing what an aviation accessory is used for does not immediately prove or even suggest that it's a "chemtrail or biological spraying" device.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people discount your position out of hand. You run across an article that has a few photos and a purely speculative explanation for them, and you take it as gospel, simply because you like what the author has to say. This is a pristine example of confirmation bias, Don.
You exhibit absolutely no objectivity whatsoever when evaluating an article such as this. You read it, you like what you see, so you accept it as fact. Can you point out a single actual fact in that article that confirms what the article claims?
OBTW, the insignia on the tail isn't a flag, nor does it look anything like the flag in the article. It looks much more like a family crest. It's probably a privately owned aircraft. And the author questioning what a French plane would be doing in Quebec? Seriously??!! That just shows you how completely stupid the author is... That - all by itself - is enough to relegate that author to the annals of dismissible idiots.
That's not clear at all. Your not knowing what an aviation accessory is used for does not immediately prove or even suggest that it's a "chemtrail or biological spraying" device.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people discount your position out of hand. You run across an article that has a few photos and a purely speculative explanation for them, and you take it as gospel, simply because you like what the author has to say. This is a pristine example of confirmation bias, Don.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think you are a troll. I posted the article but clearly stated that I stumbled across this article and thought it was "kinda interesting". I did not say this is the gospel truth or the smoking gun. This is an example where you take sound bites and twist the words around, leave out the context words, and then try and use it to discredit everything. This is why I put people on my ignore list. They don't objectively consider information posted by another they just look for ways to discredit it using dirty tactics. I'm tired of dealing with disingenuous people like you. You just won a ticket to my ignore list.
Here is another propaganda video justifying aerosol spraying with high flying aircraft. It also talks about the potential benefits and negitive impacts as a result of aerosol spraying which is interesting.
That's not clear at all. Your not knowing what an aviation accessory is used for does not immediately prove or even suggest that it's a "chemtrail or biological spraying" device.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people discount your position out of hand. You run across an article that has a few photos and a purely speculative explanation for them, and you take it as gospel, simply because you like what the author has to say. This is a pristine example of confirmation bias, Don.
You exhibit absolutely no objectivity whatsoever when evaluating an article such as this. You read it, you like what you see, so you accept it as fact. Can you point out a single actual fact in that article that confirms what the article claims?
OBTW, the insignia on the tail isn't a flag, nor does it look anything like the flag in the article. It looks much more like a family crest.It's probably a privately owned aircraft. And the author questioning what a French plane would be doing in Quebec? Seriously??!! That just shows you how completely stupid the author is... That - all by itself - is enough to relegate that author to the annals of dismissible idiots.
Not quite. It's the squadron insignia for the Armée de l'Air's Groupe de Ravitaillemement en Vol 00.093 (the French Air Force's 93rd Aerial Refueling Squadron in USAF parlance). Bretagne happens to be the name of the squadron (named for the administrative region of Brittany in the northwest of France). The circular insignia on the fuselage is the Armée de l'Air's roundel (a country-specific marking to denote which air force a particular aircraft belongs to). It's one of their C-135FR (the French variant of the KC-135). The underwing pods are, as plwhit pointed out, refueling equipment, housing two additional hose-drogue units so that the aircraft can refuel three aircraft simultaneously (one under each wing and one from the modified flying boom at the stern of the aircraft)
Not quite. It's the squadron insignia for the Armée de l'Air's Groupe de Ravitaillemement en Vol 00.093 (the French Air Force's 93rd Aerial Refueling Squadron in USAF parlance). Bretagne happens to be the name of the squadron (named for the administrative region of Brittany in the northwest of France). The circular insignia on the fuselage is the Armée de l'Air's roundel (a country-specific marking to denote which air force a particular aircraft belongs to). It's one of their C-135FR (the French variant of the KC-135). The underwing pods are, as plwhit pointed out, refueling equipment, housing two additional hose-drogue units so that the aircraft can refuel three aircraft simultaneously (one under each wing and one from the modified flying boom at the stern of the aircraft)
This is good information and thanks for posting it. This is the kind of feedback, information and conversation I welcome.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
