Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Jay Reynolds, Jun 1, 2011.
Below is a continuation of the message from Griffin in the above quote
This subject dates back to my own use of flight tracking software 11 years ago, as described in another thread here:
After contacting G. Edward Griffin on 5/25/11, the next day he put out the following call for the folks to use a flight tracking software called Planefinder:
I checked out that particular website and found it had major shortcomings, and contacted him again on 5/28/11 :
By 6/1/11, Griffin had removed his first call to use planefinder from his website, and issued the following by email to his folks:
NOTE: Quote by GEG continues in next posting
GEG seems quite sensible here. Does not bode well for Murphy.
I just found a few days ago you can use Wolfram Alpha to show what flights are visible from your area. Like:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes visible from los angeles
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes visible from los angeles at 12:45pm yesterday
As a matter of interest, here in New Zealand I think all aircraft larger than microlights have to carry transponders - including gliders IIRC - not just large a/c as GEG thinks above. I'll check with my colleagues tomorrow.
Hot Air Balloons have to in most flying areas. In mode "C" which is just a squawk, no data.
This sooooo cool. Especially when you click the individual flights, you get a log of the plane's movements, altiude, etc since takeoff, and a satellite still of the plane's location over the area, even atmospheric data for the location.
I tried this for my location, and it is current up to 5 minutes ago. I also set the parameters to check the same time one month ago, and the same flight was headed over!
This is simply amazing, I cannot fathom how it is all done, a triumph of technology.
I emailed Mick yesterday asking about how flight tracking could be archived, and he came up with this!
Had a word with a colleague - all controlled airspace in NZ is transponder mandatory airspace - there are a handful of non-microlight aircraft that are not fitted with them - noteably a few agricultural sprayers that never enter controlled airspace - but even many micrlights have them now as they are often based near the airports of population centres and fly in the associated control zones.
Actually, not Mode C (which has altitude data), but Mode A which does not.
I was agreeing with Mike C (which he has now confirmed) that all a/c in NZ must operate with a transponder in controlled airspace which is just about everywhere.
Wikipedia has good information about this:
I think Wolfram might be extrapolating the planes position five minutes forward from the older data to attempt to get you the actual current position (generally accurate, as planes mostly fly in straight lines at constant speed). It says: "(locations based on projections of delayed data)"
The info ultimately comes from here:
Oh, and if you use the Wolfram alpha iOS app, you can just type in "planes visible from here", and it will use your precise GPS info.
Jay, did you get my reply about Expedia, etc.
Yes, thank you very much.
MikeC, I have a question. What resources are available to a commercial jet pilot who wants to know the identity of a military plane flying within his view? I am asking because over the years I have found chemtrail believers who either claim to be commercial jet pilots. If a commercial jet pilot saw something out of the ordinary, what could he do to prove his case?
BTW, none have ever actually come up with anything, or any proof that they were real pilots. I just want to know what would be a reasonable demand to make if such a person emerged.
I'm not entirely sure - but my first port of call would be ATC - ask them what the a/c is at whatever clock reference & high or low - Mick would probably have a better idea.
There's an old story about some pilots making light banter with ATC about speed & altitude I recall from 25 years ago or more - a couple of light a/c pilots call up ATC to see who's going faster. Then an airline pilots calls up to put them in their place - 550 knots instead of 150, and 30,00 feet instead of 5000. Then an F-4 pilot calls up & gets 1200 knots at 45,000 feet, then an SR71 pilot asks & get 2500 knots at 60,000 feet....
I'm not a commercial pilot, I just took private pilot training. But if something is flying within my field of view, ATC would always identify it by type, like "[my call sign] Traffic, 2 O'clock, 6000 feet, Lear Jet". They do this so you can confirm back to them that you see that same aircraft, and they don't have to worry so much about you colliding.
Commercial pilots could certainly ask ATC what type of traffic it is. Although ATC might just reply with "no factor" (meaning they are tracking it, and it's not a problem). ATC will likely have already have told them though.
This in via Flight Safety over the weekend - http://www.flightglobal.com/article...ts-block-aircraft-registration-programme.html
I don't know what effect that had on commercial tracking systems.....but it'll be gone soon assuming they do carry through on this.
Chemtrail update #3
Ooooh! It's getting interesting now. Here is Update #3
So he concedes that some persistent trails are genuine old-fashioned contrails. I don't think he has done this before.
In personal communication Ed states that the objective of this project "is to show that at least 85% of the aircraft seen with persistent trails are flying through air that is not even close to being able to support persistent ice formation."
So, as with What in the World Are They Spraying, he already knows the conclusion and is designing the experiment (or collecting data) to reach it.
This is very good, he's getting into some pretty solid science. The more he looks at the actual science (and hopefully an objective look at the facts that are gathered), the more he'll see there's nothing odd going on.)
This fellow is starting to track planes using flightradar, and while he comes to a conclusion regarding flight direction, at least he sees correlation with existing cirrus and persistence. Good effort.
Day 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjnhRhcU8k
Day 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwBbQn4zrs
Day 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H5socmVN4I
Very good work.
I wonder if it has occurred to these "researchers" and "activists" that, having identified the flight number and destination, so-researchers at the destination can photograph activity surrounding the place when it lands. The could note the volume of cargo/passengers off-loaded, and what preparations are made for the next flight which will be about an hour or so later, and even what its new destination is.
This is the obvious (to me anyway) extension of any en-route identification of planes that are making trails.
It sounds like Australians are way ahead of the US and are preparing a large effort to collect flight tracking data and plan to release it publicly this year. See this video at about 17 minutes in:
Congratulations on the Aussies for applying this method.
At around 17:30 the guy says the Guinness Book of World Records has the longest duration contrail at 45 minutes. That's a new one.
I get no results for contrail, vapor trail, or vapour trail at GBOWR.
I was going to add that over the last ten years as a pilot flying in the flight levels I can think maybe twenty times total I've seen military aircraft. Of those only two of them have been in a position to affect me. Generally speaking if there's some military traffic in the area EVERYONE looks out trying to see it because it's fairly rare and neat to see. EVERY time I've queried ATC about a military aircraft they have been more than forthcoming with the info. I would say that ATC sometimes goes out of thier way to point out military ops because they know we like to see it. Like a flight of F-16s is cool to see or tanker ops is neat too.
Additionally I would say that on a daily basis I can hear military traffic on the frequency but it's only the ATC transmissions because the military almost always talk on UHF and we talk on VHF. The ATC guys simply keys his mike and we can hear everything he says but only hear half the conversation. It's kind of strange.
I don't know about the Transponder, ADS stuff with them because I've never really tried to match a military target with what I see on my TCAS display.
I have challenged both the people in that video, Alan Ostrowsky and Paul Bennet ( who goes under the nom de plume of Paul Mac ( Melbourne against Chemtrails))to a debate on their claims. So far I get only deleted and blocked, but I have not given up.
As far as I know, I may have one of the first in the world to use flight tracking software to see a contrail in the sky and identify the flight. This was sometime in 1999 or 2000 when the ATC feed had just begun to be commercially available. There was no personal use being sold at the time, only aviation related companies were offered the service, and it was expensive. They offered a trial at Flight Explorer and I was able to get on with it, and offered the idea to chemtrail believers.
I had no thought that any chemtrail believers would ever consider making threats or even think that a commercial passenger airplane would be spraying something.
It was too ridiculous for me or anyone else at the time to even think about.
Times have changed and the propaganda has changed so that the unthinkable has become very real, the Australians have done very well at identifying planes, all commercial, but they have taken it a step further than I had imagined and now are claiming that jets carrying hundreds of passengers are spraying poison.
There is a risk in this, but if widespread use of flight tracking were to become the norm among chemtrail believers, and they were willing to share and publicize that what they are seeing are ordinary passenger jets, I still think that it will do a great deal to de-mystify the unknown, and lead the rational ones towards a recognition that what they see are not mysterious unidentifiable planes, but rather a plane on which you can buy a ticket, look at at the airport, track the movements of, and understand is incapable of releasing anything but water vapor contrails.
If is a big word. The relative ease with which flight tracking has taken hold in Australia is commendable, hopefully it does not turn out negatively and will be publicized wide enough so that clear heads will prevail.
Flight tracking hasn't done this fellow any good. It has just made him believe that the conspiracy is that much deeper and more expansive.
Max is a piece of work. To his credit he doesn't ban people who comment on his volumininous amount of youtube videos but the endless parade of drivel is disheartening. He told me once that as an airline pilot I consume Borax to ward off the effects of chemtrails.
He appeared at the London chemtrail conference where, not unexpectedly I suppose, he revealed that he is a bricklayer who looked up at the sky and began to wonder. Such is the expertise of the chemtrail leadership.
I believe Peter Kusznir, that pontificator on all things chemtrail and Sandy Hook, is a storeman and packer.
Both those occupations are good honorable work, and when I want detailed advice on bricklaying and storing and packing they will be on my shortlist, but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone listens to a word they say on subjects as complex as meteorology and aviation.
So what do you think of Pilots for 9/11 Truth then?
I have flown with enough fellow pilots to know that no profession is immune from paranoia and distrust.
I have looked very extensively into the 9/11 attacks from a pilots point of view and find the Official Story to be the most plausible. Many forget little details such as the aim of the hijackers to cause as many deaths as possible... their lack of competence in the finer details of piloting saved many, many lives that day.
Their level of skill meant that they were content to simply hit the buildings. That is not very difficult to do but even then, the second aircraft almost missed. Pilots with any sort of skill, seeking to cause maximum casualties would have flown the aircraft into the buildings as low and as fast as possible, and as close together as possible. They didn't.
A near simultaneous attack, low down and fast on both buildings would have had the death toll at many multiples of the actual. But that requires skills they simply did not have, and hence many people survived.
I haven't seen anything that leads me to question those conclusions.
I also couldn't understand why they didn't try to do that. The casualty numbers could have easily been ten times higher. I've also thought up a few other things they could have done but I won't be posting them in public in case anyone gets any ideas from them.
I never heard that one.
I remember hearing one hypothesis that proposed they hit the upper floors of the towers because they knew the structural strength of the buildings got relatively weaker the higher you go. The lower floors having thicker beams to support the full weight of all the upper floors. The argument was supported by the fact that the planners of 9/11 would have remembered the truck bombing of the WTC in the early 90's. That explosion in the parking garage was meant to topple the building, but I don't think it did any significant structural damage at all (that would jeopardize the building). So for the next attack they decided to go high. Just food for thought...
He blocked both of my accounts over a year ago simply for asking questions of him. I had forgotten about him until recently. Now I see that even comments that directly attack him and call him names remain below his videos.
That may be so, I am not a structural engineer however the speed at which the second tower to be struck collapsed, compared to the first tends to validate my hypothesis.
Separate names with a comma.