Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
"The kind of incidents those who want to make a case against him use are incidents where the plane was falling at the rate of 1,000 ft. per minute, for example, which took place for a few seconds, rather like when you drift to the left and your wife reminds you to keep looking ahead. This is insignificant, but those who want to blame the pilots exaggerate to create misleading impressions."
Yes, but those moments of distraction can kill you. It does NOT mean that is what killed him, but you must understand that aviation is a very unforgiving business. A moments inattention can cost you your life.
-
"...the NTSB's simulations, using a simulator with a weaker enginer thant the King
Air A-100 and flying at abnormally slow speeds, were unable to bring it down,..."
In that case, the simulator was wrong - plain and simple.
Low speed aerodynamics is very well understood. If an aircraft reaches stall speed - it will stall.
"...Then the bluish-white smoke instead of coarse black smoke,..."
Indicative of an oil fire, but not conclusive in any way.
"Most Americans, by the way, do not even know that the NTSB cannot investigation a crash scene as the scene of a crime unless the Attorney General so declares it,..."
Yes, but the NTSB is still there to investigate what CAUSED the crash.
I quote:
"In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support. "
"Once a major report is adopted at a Board Meeting, an abstract of that report - containing the Board's conclusions, probable cause and safety recommendations - is placed on the Board's web site..."
-
BTW, sorry for the late start.
I'm just reading through the threads and asking questions as I read through it.
If this hasn't already been asked:
Was the aircraft conducting a GPS approach, a VOR / DME approach, an ILS approach, an ILS / DME approach, a VOR approach, an NDB approach, a DME letdown or what?
-
"...the latest being evidence that GPS data may have been
manipulated to bring the plane into the "kill zone"..."
Can you explain, exactly, how the GPS stream was 'manipulated'?
Did the Senator's aircraft have Selective Availability?
-
These questions are related to CT research but I can not disclose why I am asking them. The results should be interesting. I will let the survey run a week or so and reveal why I am asking these questions.
1] Which best describes you? Explain
a] professional photographer
b] scientist/researcher etc, who uses photography for their work
c]advanced amateur
d] beginner
2] How long have you been a photographer?
3] Do you use digital or film cameras? If you use both explain when you use which format.
4] When you fly do you put your cameras / film / memory card in your suitcase or do take them as carry on?
5] Briefly describe the equipment you have.
1. Advanced amateur. I got interested in school and took courses there, mainly using B+W 35mm film, as well as learning how to develop the film. Being an aircraft nut, photography seemed a logical extension for me - so much so I even gave serious consideration to joining the Air Force as a photographer. I got further training in photography and analysis techniques with the military, and was the ship's photographer on the ships I served on. I've continued on this 'advanced amateur' stage for some time now, having a small number of my images published in Defence publications or aviation books / magazines.
2. Started at school about 1976. Been snapping away ever since. See above.
3. Previously used 35mm but now have moved to digital for convenience.
4. Always carry-on.
5. Nikon D-1X, Fuji Finepix S5000, Fuji Finepix F601.
(Edited to expand on Q1)
-
Evan, Jack This is all new to me, what do the originators of the reports claim that the chemtrails are for? social control? civic murder of large ammounts of the population? Trialing of new chemical compounds? sounds a bit james bond to me, but I am aware that Governments have run trials on unsuspecting civilian pops before, A bomb effects on servicemen, flouridation of water supplies, venerial disease given to the black occupants of a US town, Even so I will need a lot of convinsing on this one... Steve.
The claims seem to vary; some say it is some type of biological weapon; some say it is a weather control device which is having adverse effects on the population. I don't know.
Do a google search for "chemtrails" and have a read of the claims for yourself.
-
I've started this thread so we don't hijack the original levee thread.
In that thread, Jack raised the issue of 'chemtrails'.
Now, as I said in the other thread, I want to make something clear: it's basically impossible to prove that 'chemtrails' do not exist. That is because:
1. There are aircraft capable of making them;
2. There have been instances of their use; and
3. Each sighting has to be individually checked in order for it to be dismissed as a 'chemtrail'.
This inability is probably why it is a favourite of conspiracy theorists.
That being said, IMO most - if not all - reports of 'chemtrails' are in actual fact contrails, the visible condensation left behind aircraft. Some are produced by standard propellor-driven aircraft (reciprocating and turbo-prop) and some are produced by the exhaust of jet turbine aircraft.
Under very common atmospheric conditions, contrails are seen around the world every day. That's no surprise because most of us are ignorant of the huge network of airways that exist above our heads.
Jack raised the issue of an article claiming that "Air Traffic Controllers concerned over chemtrails".
That article cannot be used as any serious basis for the existance of 'chemtrails' for several reasons:
- It was pointed out (in a link I provided in the previous thread) that the article contained many flaws / misquotes about the formation and persistance of contrails;
- It said that " First confirmed by Airport Authority Terry Stewart at the Victoria International Airport on Dec. 8, 2000 as a 'joint Canada-U.S. military operation' and stridently denied by senior officers at Canadian Forces Base (where Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier he had received his information) - these multi-plane missions were verified in March, 2001 by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) manager for the northeastern seaboard of the United States." What it did NOT mention was that Terry Stewart was the Environmental Manager of the airport, not an ATCO. It did NOT mention that Mr Stewart was responding to a call about the increase of air traffic in the area. What it did NOT mention was that Mr Steward rang the Tower Controller for his information, not the military authorities. It did say that he was told the increased air activity was due to a military exercise. It inaccurately reported that the authorities denied any exercise; the exercise was published and NOTAMs warned of it. The military authorities freely admitted the exercise (please note also: exercise, not operation. There is a distinct difference in military terms).
- It referred to: " ... three taped interviews with this reporter and veteran radio journalist S.T. Brendt, our 'Deep Sky' source said that he had been ordered to divert incoming commercial flights away from USAF tankers spraying s substance that showed up on ATC radars as a 'haze'." yet later the same source said "...were being ordered to route airliners beneath formations of Air Force tanker planes spraying something that regularly clouds their screens." Which was it? Under or away?
- A 'source' who claims to be an ATCO seems to be the only one talking about this strange deviation of procedure; no other ATCO has come forward to verify the claim.
- If aircraft are being deviated from a standard air route, they'd ask why. It might be for traffic avoidance, weather avoidance (which would normally be taken by the aircraft's initiation, not ATC, as the aircraft radar is designed to see weather whereas the ATC is designed to see through it), or it might be for sequencing (the 'flow' of traffic). If such a large number of deviations were occuring, it would be questioned. If it happened, there would be evidence: radar tapes and ATCO voice tapes. These are kept and accessible in case of accidents, incidents, or claims of ATCO / aircrew dispute.
The article is nothing more than ill-informed and inaccurate speculation, written by an author who had (surprise!) written a book about 'chemtrails'.
If you want to see what a pilot thinks about 'chemtrails', read this:
-
And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!.
Come on people, we're capable of better.
Pat, I understand your feeling but what am I supposed to do?
I've asked questions which receive no reply.
A poster asked for my work and I have (albeit with some snideness) pointed to it.
I'm happy for people to point out where I may have made mistakes, and discuss them.
Is it so unreasonable for Jack to do the same?
-
Post your original research/studies to a website (please provide the url) Evan. I'm sure the hubcap collector will participate. Official statements might go a long way, too -- then we'll discuss the merits of you and your teams efforts, PRO and CON -- till then, noise, nothing but noise..
I do find it so funny how those who feel threatened react so predictibly: if you are not with me, you are against me. The friend of my enemy is MY enemy.
It'd be so sad if it weren't so pathetically repetative.
In regards to my own work, once again if you had BOTHERED TO LOOK you'd find an entire thread of thirteen pages on this very forum, under this very topic heading, devoted to showing where Jack has gone wrong.
I understand you are a little slow so, as you requested, here is the URL:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589
I'd welcome discussion about any errors you (or anyone else) believe I have made.
-
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!
Yeah, there was a time when us double agents had it cushie, Brown envelopes stuffed with the green, left at drop points, Affairs with busty female Russian agents, called Tania (there was one called Boris who I was very suspicious of) Fast Cars with ejector seats, very handy for boring hitch-hikers or the Mother in Law. Long lunches with "Q" in his London club, with the obligatory high class call girl for afters. now what do I get? a clapped out Ford Fiesta with starship mileage, £5-50 a day in expenses, and a court child support order from one of the Tania's. boy has this espionague business gone down the crapper....Turner, Steve Turner..
LOL!
But OH&S has made things better, surely?
-
I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!
-
Yep that sounds about right, see Evan, us JFK types dont think everythings a conspiracy.
Hmmm. Why did you say that? Did someone tell you to say that? Who told you to say that - the Government?
-
Wild surf claimed the life of Harold Holt and equally wild rumours about the former prime minister's disappearance may have been avoided if a public inquiry had been held at the time, the Victorian coroner found today.
State Coroner Graeme Johnstone found that the then prime minister drowned while swimming in the surf off Cheviot Beach on Victoria's Mornington Peninsula on December 17, 1967.
Coroners were previously unable to investigate deaths where a body was never found but the Coroner's Act of 1985 changed the law, enabling findings to be made.
Handing down his finding today, Mr Johnstone said fanciful theories surrounding Mr Holt's disappearance ranged from him being taken by a Chinese submarine to committing suicide.
"Unfortunately, there was no open inquiry at the time so this detailed material did not become general public knowledge," he said.
"Perhaps, in hindsight, there should have been an inquiry as it may have avoided the development of some of the unsubstantiated rumours and unusual theories."
Mr Johnstone said his investigation had analysed all of the available investigative and historical material and found the theories were fanciful.
"It is sad that, over the years, all of these fanciful or unusual theories about Mr Holt's disappearance should receive public ventilation, overshadow his life and require an explanation," the coroner said.
"A simple reading of the original investigative material provides the real and credible explanation."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/holt-i...5302722026.html
-
It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not
dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The
anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some
otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have
personal real conversations with assholes...so why should
I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I
respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.
Jack
Jack,
Question, are either of these two guys 'offical NASA spokespersons', capable of speaking to and of NASA photo library? I'm not sure about Evan, hell he may be a pilot or a baggage handler, who knows -- this Heagney from San Mateo (a nice place, I lived there for 10 years, grew up 10 miles north of there) he collects and sells hubcaps, I expect he's a amateur photg at best - I'd questioning anyone sanity that cruises Hwy 101 looking for hubcaps -- so my question is: why bother with them?
They certainly don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and a STUDY...
For what its worth I wouldn't bother answering ANYTHING from those camps...In other words, you can't answer the questions either.
If there were problems with my refuting of Jack's work, it would be an easy matter to highlight them and show where I am wrong.
If the problem lay in my "analysis" of an image, then it would be an easy matter for Jack or yourself to show the errors I might have made. But Jack doesn't. He can't because he knows that opening discussion on his work means that he risks being proven wrong - and he cannot accept that. He has already stated in this forum, quite clearly, that he will not accept ANY evidence that contradicts his work.
And you David - you just like posting in the forum. You don't seem to add anything to the topic being discussed, and you never take a position on any of the points questioned.
-
It is astonishing how many inhabit this forum who write
vile personal attacks...saying things that they would not
dare to say in a personal face-to-face setting. The
anonymity of identity on the internet transforms some
otherwise nice people into assholes. I do not have
personal real conversations with assholes...so why should
I endure them here? Please cease demanding that I
respond to ill-informed and abusive questions and comments.
Jack
Like David, I'm simply try to get a straight answer to a straight question:
Now, to diverge for a moment. The "wrecker". I say it's misuse of Photoshop. You say it's evidence of a wrecker. Leaving all other arguements aside for the moment, if the makers of Photoshop examined the same image you worked with and determined you had not used it correctly and that the "object" you say is in the image was a direct result of that misuse, would you then agree that a claim of that particular image being faked (because of the presence of a "wrecker") was incorrect?That is not an "ill-informed and abusive" question. It's a very relevent question, actually.
You use Photoshop in a lot of your analysis. I'm asking: if the makers of Photoshop, who are third-party, have no axe to grind, and are the subject matter experts (Photoshop) say they believe that some of your analysis is incorrect because of misuse of Photoshop, would you then agree that your claims - based on the use of Photoshop - were incorrect?
To say 'yes' means that the makers of Photoshop would then have to offer an opinion before more could be said about your use of Photoshop.
To say 'no' would indicate that you believe you know more about Photoshop than the creators of it, or have some other yet unstated reason for disagreeing with the statement.
There is nothing abusive or ill-informed about that. It is NOT a personal attack. It is something I would ask you face-to-face if I had the opportunity to meet you. It is a fair question, directly related to an issue which you raised (the wrecker).
-
I think it's highly unlikely.
The inquest has been re-opened because of a change in the laws here in Australia. Holt was declared dead to allow processing of probate, but a change to the legislation has meant that the case MUST be reviewed.
Holt was pretty happy with his decision to support the US in Vietnam. Although under some pressure, he did declare 'all the way with LBJ'.
The suggestion that he was a Chinese spy borders on the ludicious.
He was getting on in years, and took a swim at a beach without a security detail (which he often did). Any Australian is aware of the rips that can occur at beaches, so it is quite reasonable to believe that he could have got into trouble. The beach was unpatrolled.
It's a good event to place a mystery on, but I am sure there was nothing sinister about it.
If nothing else, it was a tragic loss.
-
I know that this isnt the place but, Does anyone know what future plans for space exploration are, Except the space shuttle programme. any future Moon landings, perhaps a permanent base? Thanks in advance. Steve...
From:
http://www1.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_...xploration2.pdf
The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:
• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be responsible for the plans, programs, and activities required to implement this vision, in coordination with other agencies, as deemed appropriate. The Administrator will plan and implement an integrated, long-term robotic and human exploration program structured with measurable milestones and executed on the basis of available resources, accumulated experience, and technology readiness.
To implement this vision, the Administrator will conduct the following activities and take other actions as required:
A. Exploration Activities in Low Earth Orbit
Space Shuttle
• Return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as practical, based on the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board;
• Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station; and
• Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade;
International Space Station
• Complete assembly of the International Space Station, including the U.S. components that support U.S. space exploration goals and those provided by foreign partners, planned for the end of this decade;
• Focus U.S. research and use of the International Space Station on supporting space exploration goals, with emphasis on understanding how the space environment affects astronaut health and capabilities and developing countermeasures; and
• Conduct International Space Station activities in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations contained in the agreements between the United States and other partners in the International Space Station.
B. Space Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit
The Moon
• Undertake lunar exploration activities to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and more distant destinations in the solar system;
• Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities;
• Conduct the first extended human expedition to the lunar surface as early as 2015, but no later than the year 2020; and
• Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space resources, to support sustained human space exploration to Mars and other destinations.
Mars and Other Destinations
• Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration;
• Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration. In particular, explore Jupiter’s moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;
• Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars;
• Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations; and
• Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the Moon.
C. Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration
• Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Conduct the initial test flight before the end of this decade in order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014;
• Separate to the maximum practical extent crew from cargo transportation to the International Space Station and for launching exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and
« Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.
D. International and Commercial Participation
• Pursue opportunities for international participation to support U.S. space exploration goals; and
• Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.
-
You know, I won't bother to belabor the point. A new space program would've once been the shot in the arm our technical-industrial manufacturing base could've used, but that was before the days of out-sourcing. Now, it's cheaper to have third world countries doing the jobs and making the parts that were once the backbone of the American economy, for next to nothing wages. Case in point: I used to be able to call a company like G.E., for example, and get their home office in the midwest, and be able to speak to their applications and technical support system in one phone call connection. In the past three years, that has all changed to my call being picked up by an operator in India, who then pages my engineer in San Diego, to tell him to call me in Culver City. In a way, that's the kind of progress that might be attributed to how the space program helped change our lives by the convenience of satellite signal transfer. All well and good, except for the loss of a few hundred American jobs in the midwest.
My point now is, even if I were to write my congressman to suggest to him that we need to jumpstart a new space program, who is going to benefit from it? In our quest for progress, it looks as if we're losing, even if we seem to be ahead. Were all those Apollo missions for the benefit of future cellphone customers, of which I am not. Or, were they simply for future gps systems and global linkage through the miracle of fiber optics. Would our children, or our grandchildren be guaranteed employment from which they'd be able to support a family, or buy a home? Before I make that call or e-mail my representative with a suggestion, I would hope that there might be more opportunities for my country's future generations than that of a job in WalMart or Burger King.
It would be interesting to see how they'd manage a new space program in this era of globalism, though. Thanks refreshing my memory with the timeline on the space missions.
Terry,
No problems. You might not necessarily accept it, but you listen with good graces.
I'd love to be able to refute what you said about job creation, but there are two problems for me:
1. I'm Australian, and don't know about the situation in the US.
2. We have the Indian call-centres as well.
Perhaps a more global-centric approach is needed. I am a strong supporter of of manned space programmes and to be frank, don't really mind who does it - as long as we advance. I believe the abandoment of the US manned lunar landing programme was a terrible mistake. I would have thought that we could, by this time, have had a viable lunar settlement in operation. I believe the science and technology is there, but the political will is not. We are just too concerned with engaging in local concerns rather than taking the longer view.
That being said, there were indeed many benefits from the space programme. Apart from those directly employed in NASA and associated aerospace industry, the "space race" gave us much.
The launch of satellites gave us global communications, weather forecasting, geophysical assessment, etc.
The implementation of GPS / GLONASS means improved safety in navigation.
The exploration of the moon has given us greater understanding of how we came to be here.
A lot of the NASA-initiated research was subsequently used in aviation 9both civil and military.
There have been a lot of benefits. Were they worth the cost? I don't know - what price is knowledge?
-
That's not my line of reasoning, at all. Reproducibility is how I would measure the amount of faith I'd be willing to place in a Moon project.
But there is just that.
APOLLO 7 - Earth orbit test of CSM
APOLLO 8 - Circumlunar test of CSM & Earth-Moon trajectory
APOLLO 9 - Earth orbit test of LM
APOLLO 10 - Full-up 'dress rehersal' for lunar landing
APOLLO 11 - Lunar landing
APOLLO 12 - Extended stay, refinement of landing trajectory
APOLLO 13 - Inflight failure but validated contingency plans for a 'LM lifeboat'
APOLLO 14 - Extended stay, greater geological survey, improved LM
APOLLO 15 - Extended stay, use of LRV, CSM carried orbital science package, improved EVA suits, first dedicated science mission
APOLLO 16 - Extended stay, exploration of lunar highlands, launching of lunar science satellite
APOLLO 17 - Longest stay, scientist-astronaut, largest collection of lunar samples
APOLLO 18 - Cancelled due budget cutback
APOLLO 19 - Cancelled due budget cutback
APOLLO 20 - Cancelled due budget cutback
Then there were the SKYLAB series, and the APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROGRAMME.
All flights had faults of one kind or another; most were able to be overcome to ensure mission success.
All flights were documented to a greater degree than any other project (that I am aware of) in human history.
The Shuttle was based on the knowledge gained through those and other flights.
That's reproducability.
If you say you are not convinced, then that is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to hold that view.
If you say you are not convinced because there is no reproducability, then I would say you are wrong. If you genuinely feel that way, then write to your Congressman or Senator, and say you want to see a return to the Moon in order to prove or repudiate the APOLLO landing claims.
-
I don't know anything about Gibson, but I have difficulty believing that he is only 15.
Just my opinion, and I can easily be wrong.
-
There were successful launches prior to the CHALLANGER disaster.
There were successful launches after the CHALLANGER and prior to COLUMBIA.
It was a design flaw, an engineering error. These occur everyday. They occur in cars; they occur in aircraft, they occur in lots of things.
It has absoluting no bearing on the Apollo claims. If you accept that it does, then a another claim - based on a similar line of reasoning - might be made that because of the design flaw in the DC-10, all DC-10 flights were faked and it is impossible for any aircraft to carry more than four passengers or exceed the speed of sound.
-
Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly.
Are you saying that they are lying, and Deep Throat was not Mark Felt?
-
(groan!)
I suppose that it had to come up!
-
I read that it had been confirmed by the Washington Post.
So how many of the pundits got it right, and how many got it wrong?
Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone
in History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
Posted
"Ask yourself why three Ph.D.s--one also an Ed.D.--are committing themselves to the thesis that Paul Wellstone was taken out for political reasons."
No offense to those people, but they (apparently) have no expertise in aviation and are not aware of the pitfalls. They do not necessarily have the expertise to determine the conditions of flight and how events may have affected a pilot. They are not aware of the skills required for IFR, UA, or other flight regimes.