Plane with Yellow Tail over Redding, CA [Polar Air Cargo Flight]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think we know for sure exactly what it was carrying, unless someone contacts the company to ask, and why it was diverted.
Trailblazer said:
Well you're right. It was a standard perfectly normal flight carrying cargo (and a few crew). (PAC is 49% owned by DHL - that yellow tail you saw is the DHL colours.)
Click to expand...
 
Igrokush1 said:
I don't think we know for sure exactly what it was carrying, unless someone contacts the company to ask, and why it was diverted.
Click to expand...

Cargo planes carry all sorts of things. Why on earth is it relevant what was inside the cargo hold? If you look at the links I gave you, that flight goes from Tokyo to Cincinnati almost every day.

Anyway, hopefully this has illustrated that the apparent downward motion was just an illusion due to the curvature of the Earth, and that the plane wasn't coming down anywhere near Redding. It was at 35,000ft and over 20 miles away by the time you took that photo.
 
I think it's relevant to the topic of sulfate aerosol dispersal, it may appear to be carrying 'cargo' when the big controversy is of course chemtrails. We will never know the truth either way. Further, it sure as HECK doesn't fly over redding in that direction EVERYDAY
Trailblazer said:
Cargo planes carry all sorts of things. Why on earth is it relevant what was inside the cargo hold? If you look at the links I gave you, that flight goes from Tokyo to Cincinnati almost every day.

Anyway, hopefully this has illustrated that the apparent downward motion was just an illusion due to the curvature of the Earth, and that the plane wasn't coming down anywhere near Redding. It was at 35,000ft and over 20 miles away by the time you took that photo.
Click to expand...
 
It's going east for sure, I still disagree on positioning. It very well could have taken a downward dive due to turbulence.
Trailblazer said:
Daylight Saving Time. It's equivalent to 2:11:57am UK time, but we are also still on BST (UTC+1).

6pm Pacific Daylight Time is 5pm Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8), so 1am the following day UTC.

See above. I think it is a Polar Air Cargo flight, but it's the one from Tokyo, which was off its booked course and flew directly west to east over Redding. The Anchorage flight was well off to the west and heading south.

@Igrokush1 can remember where he took the photo from, we could match it up with Google Earth to check. I'm guessing it was from the I-5. I think I may have found the location, but I want to hear it from him.


As for the claim that Redding doesn't see any flights going east-west, that's clearly not true. Heck, even the Google Street View car captured contrails crossing at 90 degrees!

upload_2014-10-23_12-30-47.png



Well, based on that FR24 screenshot, at 6:11pm the plane was about 22 miles from the centre of Redding, which fits in well with my eyeball estimate earlier of "at least 20 miles".
Click to expand...
 
Igrokush1 said:
It's going east for sure, I still disagree on positioning. It very well could have taken a downward dive due to turbulence.
Click to expand...

Yes it could have - but that isn't what the contrail is showing.

You'll find it a lot simpler if you stop trying to make everything fit what you want it to show - start with what it DOES show.....and formulate conclusions from the evidence that does exist.
 
Igrokush1 said:
It's going east for sure, I still disagree on positioning. It very well could have taken a downward dive due to turbulence.
Click to expand...

It didn't. You can check the track logs at FlightAware: http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAC214/history/20141021/1704Z/RJGG/KCVG (click "track log & graph" next to "Status" for detailed log)

(Incidentally, the destination is shown correctly as Cincinnati/North Kentucky on FlightAware.)

upload_2014-10-23_22-43-3.png

There, minute by minute positions, and the altitude was a steady 35,000ft. (Your photo was at 2:11:57 BST, so you can ignore the earlier 100ft dip - not that an altitude change of 100ft out of 35,000ft would be perceptible from the ground anyway.)

The only reason the trail might look like it's going "down" is the same reason this one (at left) does: because it's going away from you and getting closer to the horizon.




You are correct that this flight doesn't normally pass over Redding. Most days it passes well to the north, over Washington state or BC.

And I fail to see why what's INSIDE the hold has to do with what is coming out of the engines!
 
Last edited:
Trailblazer said:
Perhaps @Mick West could plot the flight path into Google Earth and see how it matches? That trickery is beyond me...
Click to expand...

Here is a quick fit with KMZ file attached:
Redding Contrail.jpg

The magenta line represents the flight route at 35 000 ft. As Exif of the photo is lacking, the default value of FOV (horizontal 50°) has been used.
 

Attachments

  • Redding contrail.kmz
    487.1 KB · Views: 506
I still want to add, for other MB members, that sometimes (perhaps) when we are reviewing photos, and also outside links provided and suggested, that it is really, really useful to use a large screen, when viewing. As opposed to a "smartphone", for example.

In fact, this might be an aspect of a "communication failure" that has not yet been explored, in this inter-connected Internet society.
(But, that may need another thread of its own.....). ;)
 
I also think that someone who (using binoculars?) managed to see a yellow tail, means that the airplane observed was NOT directly overhead.
So then, we must continue to evaluate the observer's position (known) and then equate that with the presumed airplane (identified, up-thread) and realize the angle of view, using simple trigonometry.
 
Trailspotter said:
Also, an iPhone would have a different aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

WHICH is a salient point, often over-looked. In today's modern world, with hundreds (or are there thousands?) of variables in camera lens lengths, and aspect ratios (ETC)...can lead to much mis-interpretation. Which can THEN be "used" by others (not here of course, but elsewhere) to deceive.

Sometimes, a short course about basic photography would allay many misconceptions that prevail the Internet....
 
With an iPhone, there's a few apps that you can use to point the phone at a plane, and see what it is, and how high it is. I just used this one:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/plane-finder-ar/id390039844?mt=8


So that's what a 737-900 looks like on a regular un-zoomed iPhone photograph at 8,500 feet, 1 mile away. A 747 would look twice as big. Compare to your photo of the 747:



And it does not matter what angle a contrail looks like it's at. The vast majority (like this one) are in level flight, or at the most in a shallow 5% slope.
 
Mick West said:
or at the most in a shallow 5% slope.
Click to expand...

Even that is a bit excessive. Of course an airplane that IS descending, at high altitude is usually doing so at less than a 5% angle of descent...and naturally contrail formation may suddenly "stop" or "start" as any particular airplane descends, depending on atmospheric conditions WHERE the airplane happens to be.

As to the "5%" slope? I am trying to equate that with a typical (no contrails being formed) 3° glideslope angle. This is the "standard" for all final approaches to landing. Near the ground, and at low speeds, of course.

Again, in high speed flight, when changing altitudes? There is no "defined" angle....(unless requested and required by ATC, for traffic coordination, or for other defined altitude restrictions). But, again there is no 'angle' calculation....just a point over the ground, and altitude to coincide.
 
WeedWhacker said:
As to the "5%" slope? I am trying to equate that with a typical (no contrails being formed) 3° glideslope angle. This is the "standard" for all final approaches to landing. Near the ground, and at low speeds, of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just doing an encompassing ballpark.
 
I am trying to think about speed, and descent rates. As they equate to actual angles (IF viewed from the side).

Close to the ground, this is critical, and well regulated. However, in-flight, in the cruise mode....ascent and descent rates vary wildly. This can contribute to the "meme" of the "on/off" contrail problem (the ones wrongly called "chem"trails).
 
Trailblazer said:
Anything with an ADS-B transponder should be there. Military aircraft would be unlikely to show up.

Common aircraft models that usually do not have an ADS-B transponder and are not visible on Flightradar24 (within ADS-B coverage):
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that about flightradar24... http://planefinder.net/ has a key in the lower right corner which indicates that red aircraft icons are "Real Time ADS-B" while amber icons are " 5 minute delay- FAA data".

So http://planefinder.net/ apparently has everything while flightradar24 has only ADS-B?
 
Igrokush1 said:
The time was approximately 6pm, 10/22/14 in redding ca. I understand illusion and all but where I live, imagine being in a football stadium at kickoff. You see the ball go up into the air,mikec, then go down. There is no real illusion, in fact it appears to go up then down from all angles in the stadium, not straight, not curved, nor away. Well redding is like a huge stadium, and I had many friends call me in retrospect from ALL parts of redding observing the same thing, like in a stadium. Kinda like a falling star, we all know it's falling, not going.
Click to expand...

Just quoting this post to show how easily people who aren't in the habit of watching the sky can misinterpret everyday events. Assuming this is not an exaggeration then several people mistook a horizontal sunlit trail, 35,000ft up and many miles away just around sunset, as something descending over the town.
 
Apart from the interpretation errors in perspective, that's pretty a good plane-spotting photo @Igrokush1. Now just combine that with some of the methods demonstrated here to help you identify them.
 
Igrokush1 said:
I think it's relevant to the topic of sulfate aerosol dispersal, it may appear to be carrying 'cargo' when the big controversy is of course chemtrails.
We will never know the truth either way.
Further, it sure as HECK doesn't fly over redding in that direction EVERYDAY
Click to expand...

Actually we do know the truth.
Jet engine exhaust moisture leaves contrails.

You are basing your suspicions on a theory. A theory is just that, a theory, until there is evidence to support the theory.
Usually theories are thought up when people observe something that there is no explanation for.

What makes the "chemtrail" theory impossible to prove is that you first have to explain why the contrails (which are known by science/meteorology to be caused by exhaust moisture sublimating in highly saturated super-cold air) are not the contrails that science knows they are, but INSTEAD something different- something which there is no evidence for.

There is no mystery about contrails: how and why they form, why they can persist, etc...

Your evidence- the photo- showed a 747-8 freighter, DHL N853GT: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polar-Air-Cargo/Boeing-747-87UF-SCD/2412970/L/&sid=43ac457ba0232500018484acdee98800 , a four-engine aircraft, leaving four contrails. This matches up with the known, scientifically verified theory of engine exhaust coming from each of the four engines.
Your photo evidence actually serves to confirm what science and pilots already know.
Each engine makes a contrail.

If you deny that the exhaust moisture contrails in your photo came from the engines, what evidence do you have that demonstrates that the contrails are not contrails?

In the photo above of the exact aircraft you witnessed, where are the "spray nozzles"?
http://img.planespotters.net/photo/...argo-Boeing-747-8_PlanespottersNet_383798.jpg
Are they mounted above the engines to trick people into thinking they are contrails?
What happens when the engines are making contrails and the "spray nozzles" are on?
Are there eight contrails? Is there a photo of this?
Why do "chemtrail" trails look identical to exhaust moisture contrails?
Shouldn't they look different if one is made of exhaust moisture and the other is made of aluminum/strontium etc. ?

Please understand that the only reason we post here is because we have compassion for people who are living in fear of the "chemtrail" hoax that has been foisted upon them. I am not criticizing you in any way. But, as the person with the theory, the burden of proof is on you.

This forum is full of aviation experts who can help you to answer any questions you have about anything related to airliners and aviation and meteorology.
Where would you like to start?

I would start with the following:
"How do the materials carried in the cargo compartment get sprayed out?
Where are the tubing and pumps mounted in the aircraft?
There is no room on the back of the rear wing spar to route additional tubing- there are hydraulic lines and actuators in the way (I can provide pictures).
So where is this tubing located? Where are the “spray nozzles”? (They aren’t in any of the pictures of this exact same aircraft):http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%22boeing+747-8%22&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=n853gt&range=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=120&thumbnails=

https://www.google.com/search?q=n853gt&safe=off&biw=1243&bih=574&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yblJVJnsD-a68QH2-IDYAw&ved=0CCoQsAQ
Why would DHL pay money to have illegal equipment added to their aircraft, increasing maintenance complexity, weight (and therefore fuel costs).
Why would DHL, a corporation that exists to make maximum profit, spend one additional cent for something they do not need to make maximum profits?
What would their shareholders think?
What is DHL’s motivation for spending money and for risking their entire operation’s FAA certificate to “spray chemicals”?

A Boeing 747-8 is a BRAND NEW aircraft!
That means that Boeing would have had to install the “spray system” in violation of FAA regulations and the FAA type certification of the 747-8.
Would Boeing risk their aircraft manufacturing certification for this?

I worked in the Boeing widebody factory in Everett, WA assembling 747-400 and 777-200 wing sections. One time I helped another mechanic install spoiler actuators to the rear spar of QANTAS 767-300 line number 310. There was no spray equipment- just hydraulic lines. (The "chemtrail" movement in Australia actually blames QANTAS for being complicit in "spraying")!
Everything we do is checked by QA and the FAA. Every job, every component, has a work order and is installed for a reason under close supervision.

All 747-8 passenger models are basically identical, structurally and in systems.
From my first-hand experience I can tell you that the freighter models have more strengthening in the seat tracks that are mounted to the top of the center wing section.”
If we can answer all these questions and also explain why the contrails are not contrails, then we can move forward with proving “chemtrails”. But there has to be EVIDENCE.
If there is no evidence, then this theory will forever remain a theory- a completely implausible theory which violates science and observable evidence.

If you'd like to attempt to provide the very first piece of "chemtrail" evidence EVER to exist: Take a glass jar and lid and go skydiving.
They’ll dump you out at 14,000’. After you are WELL clear of the exhaust of the aircraft that dropped you, let your jar fill with air and then seal it. Don’t drop it!
Have it tested in a lab.
What’s in it?
 
Last edited:
StratMatt777 said:
Why would DHL pay money to have illegal equipment added to their aircraft, increasing maintenance complexity, weight (and therefore fuel costs).
Why would DHL, a corporation that exists to make maximum profit, spend one additional cent for something they do not need to make maximum profits?
What would their shareholders think?
What is DHL’s motivation for spending money and for risking their entire operation’s FAA certificate to “spray chemicals”?
Click to expand...
i think the real question would be: why (well, HOW really) would they lug all that tonnage of chemical across the ocean from Japan? Even if it were possible for a plane to carry the amount of [alleged] chemicals in Igro's pic, (which it isn't), it makes no sense to burn that much MORE fuel to fly from Japan.
 
this is irrelevant but found out why it's going to Cincinnati.
June 13, 2013 in Erlanger, Kentucky, USA – Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear joined DHL and local officials to unveil the company’s newly expanded and upgraded global hub at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG). DHL Express, a division of leading global logistics company DHL, has invested $105 million over the past four years to enhance infrastructure and add state-of-the-art sorting capabilities to meet increasing demand. The expansion includes a new 180,000-square-foot sorting facility specifically designed to accommodate larger express shipments, an expanded south ramp for additional wide-body aircraft, an employee and pilot building, and a facility-wide information technology upgrade. The expanded global hub sits at the heart of the DHL U.S. network, with flights connecting customers from more than 220 countries and territories worldwide to every corner of the United States. In addition to global hubs in Hong Kong and Germany, the CVG hub completes the backbone of the DHL intercontinental network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Express
Content from External Source
 
Trailblazer said:
It didn't. You can check the track logs at FlightAware: http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/PAC214/history/20141021/1704Z/RJGG/KCVG (click "track log & graph" next to "Status" for detailed log)

(Incidentally, the destination is shown correctly as Cincinnati/North Kentucky on FlightAware.)

upload_2014-10-23_22-43-3.png

There, minute by minute positions, and the altitude was a steady 35,000ft. (Your photo was at 2:11:57 BST, so you can ignore the earlier 100ft dip - not that an altitude change of 100ft out of 35,000ft would be perceptible from the ground anyway.)

The only reason the trail might look like it's going "down" is the same reason this one (at left) does: because it's going away from you and getting closer to the horizon.




You are correct that this flight doesn't normally pass over Redding. Most days it passes well to the north, over Washington state or BC.

And I fail to see why what's INSIDE the hold has to do with what is coming out of the engines![/QUOTE
WeedWhacker said:
This might stray into 'off-topic' territory, but I'd suggest that a better way to interpret this website is with a PC or laptop. AND a large monitor screen.
Click to expand...
Yes, I need a full debunking station to man here in the woods of nor cal, thanks
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 371
StratMatt777 said:
Actually we do know the truth.
Jet engine exhaust moisture leaves contrails.

You are basing your suspicions on a theory. A theory is just that, a theory, until there is evidence to support the theory.
Usually theories are thought up when people observe something that there is no explanation for.

What makes the "chemtrail" theory impossible to prove is that you first have to explain why the contrails (which are known by science/meteorology to be caused by exhaust moisture sublimating in highly saturated super-cold air) are not the contrails that science knows they are, but INSTEAD something different- something which there is no evidence for.

There is no mystery about contrails: how and why they form, why they can persist, etc...

Your evidence- the photo- showed a 747-8 freighter, DHL N853GT: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Polar-Air-Cargo/Boeing-747-87UF-SCD/2412970/L/&sid=43ac457ba0232500018484acdee98800 , a four-engine aircraft, leaving four contrails. This matches up with the known, scientifically verified theory of engine exhaust coming from each of the four engines.
Your photo evidence actually serves to confirm what science and pilots already know.
Each engine makes a contrail.

If you deny that the exhaust moisture contrails in your photo came from the engines, what evidence do you have that demonstrates that the contrails are not contrails?

In the photo above of the exact aircraft you witnessed, where are the "spray nozzles"?
http://img.planespotters.net/photo/...argo-Boeing-747-8_PlanespottersNet_383798.jpg
Are they mounted above the engines to trick people into thinking they are contrails?
What happens when the engines are making contrails and the "spray nozzles" are on?
Are there eight contrails? Is there a photo of this?
Why do "chemtrail" trails look identical to exhaust moisture contrails?
Shouldn't they look different if one is made of exhaust moisture and the other is made of aluminum/strontium etc. ?

Please understand that the only reason we post here is because we have compassion for people who are living in fear of the "chemtrail" hoax that has been foisted upon them. I am not criticizing you in any way. But, as the person with the theory, the burden of proof is on you.

This forum is full of aviation experts who can help you to answer any questions you have about anything related to airliners and aviation and meteorology.
Where would you like to start?

I would start with the following:
"How do the materials carried in the cargo compartment get sprayed out?
Where are the tubing and pumps mounted in the aircraft?
There is no room on the back of the rear wing spar to route additional tubing- there are hydraulic lines and actuators in the way (I can provide pictures).
So where is this tubing located? Where are the “spray nozzles”? (They aren’t in any of the pictures of this exact same aircraft):http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%22boeing+747-8%22&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=n853gt&range=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=120&thumbnails=

https://www.google.com/search?q=n853gt&safe=off&biw=1243&bih=574&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yblJVJnsD-a68QH2-IDYAw&ved=0CCoQsAQ
Why would DHL pay money to have illegal equipment added to their aircraft, increasing maintenance complexity, weight (and therefore fuel costs).
Why would DHL, a corporation that exists to make maximum profit, spend one additional cent for something they do not need to make maximum profits?
What would their shareholders think?
What is DHL’s motivation for spending money and for risking their entire operation’s FAA certificate to “spray chemicals”?

A Boeing 747-8 is a BRAND NEW aircraft!
That means that Boeing would have had to install the “spray system” in violation of FAA regulations and the FAA type certification of the 747-8.
Would Boeing risk their aircraft manufacturing certification for this?

I worked in the Boeing widebody factory in Everett, WA assembling 747-400 and 777-200 wing sections. One time I helped another mechanic install spoiler actuators to the rear spar of QANTAS 767-300 line number 310. There was no spray equipment- just hydraulic lines. (The "chemtrail" movement in Australia actually blames QANTAS for being complicit in "spraying")!
Everything we do is checked by QA and the FAA. Every job, every component, has a work order and is installed for a reason under close supervision.

All 747-8 passenger models are basically identical, structurally and in systems.
From my first-hand experience I can tell you that the freighter models have more strengthening in the seat tracks that are mounted to the top of the center wing section.”
If we can answer all these questions and also explain why the contrails are not contrails, then we can move forward with proving “chemtrails”. But there has to be EVIDENCE.
If there is no evidence, then this theory will forever remain a theory- a completely implausible theory which violates science and observable evidence.

If you'd like to attempt to provide the very first piece of "chemtrail" evidence EVER to exist: Take a glass jar and lid and go skydiving.
They’ll dump you out at 14,000’. After you are WELL clear of the exhaust of the aircraft that dropped you, let your jar fill with air and then seal it. Don’t drop it!
Have it tested in a lab.
What’s in it?
Click to expand...
stratospheric sulfur aerosols, en.m.wikipedia.org.
Creating stratospheric sulfur aerosols deliberately is a proposed geoengineering technique which offers a possible solution to some of the problems caused by global warming. However, this will not be without side effects and it has been suggested that the cure is worse than the disease
Content from External Source
All I'm indicating sir, is that there are things out there that you with all your accolades, nor the general public such as myself are aware of and how they are actually implemented. And that may apply to that yellow tail diversion flight, or another. Argue with Wikipedia not I sir. I'm merely exploring ALL angles before I make my final decision, like a true scientist should!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
1K
Leekster
Leekster
D
Speculation: Did the US shoot down its own weather balloons over Alaska/Canada?
2 3
Replies
117
Views
17K
Charon
C
NorCal Dave
Claim: CIA Spy Planes Account for Over 1/2 of all UFO Reports in the '50s and '60s in the US
Replies
12
Views
3K
AF_Brat72
AF_Brat72
B
Odd, shiny rectangular object over Montréal's suburbs (Drone?/Balloon?)
Replies
11
Views
5K
BenLooksUp
B
H
Lights in the Sky Over I-80, Near Sacramento
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Back
Top