Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[husaberg]

Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".

How do you know its the same aircraft or that it is coming back around? I am also puzzled how can you identify aircraft from 40000ft.

[Katman]

I am also puzzled how can you identify aircraft from 400000ft.

I doubt anyone could identify an aircraft from 120 kms away.

[carbonhed]

The contrails increase in size when the atmospheric conditions at the altitude the plane is flying are suitable for cloud formation. The aircraft just kicks it off.

I think there are websites where you can see all the flights going on around you. If they were up to nefarious activities why would they do handbrake turns where goobers could see it happening? Maybe just to fuck with them?

[husaberg]

I doubt anyone could identify an aircraft from 120 kms away.

or 40000 ft either.

[Katman]

or 40000 ft either.

Well to be fair, he didn't 'identify' it - other than to call it an aircraft.

So unless you're trying to suggest it's a UFO, your post is rather pointless.

[TheDemonLord]

Cos they are less concerned with control and work/reward balance and more concerned with outcomes; and an outcome is more easily sold.

Okay, now I'm really interested.

Because on the basis of that statement, you could infer that it would be fair to call the Left: Naive.

But I don't think that's the case overall.

However, since that's your opinion - do you consider that to be a problem for the left? do you consider the flip-side to be a virtue of the right? I've not seen someone espouse that particular train of thought, and it's got a lot of very interesting implications.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh Dear. Contrails from an Aircraft, predating any theories about geo-engineering and from aircraft using standard Piston engines (so not Turboprops or turbine engines).

Well, that should be the nail in that particular coffin*


























*to anyone with half a brain - which rules out the Kiwibiker Konspiracy Krew.

[Graystone]

Okay, now I'm really interested.

Because on the basis of that statement, you could infer that it would be fair to call the Left: Naive.

But I don't think that's the case overall.

However, since that's your opinion - do you consider that to be a problem for the left? do you consider the flip-side to be a virtue of the right? I've not seen someone espouse that particular train of thought, and it's got a lot of very interesting implications.

Oh fuck off with your inferencing and other bullshittery.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh fuck off with your inferencing and other bullshittery.

Come now - you said it, I'm interested in it. Do you wish to retract? That comment raises some interesting questions, if you're unhappy with those questions - why is that? If you are happy with those questions - why the hostility?

[husaberg]

Well to be fair, he didn't 'identify' it - other than to call it an aircraft.

So unless you're trying to suggest it's a UFO, your post is rather pointless.

And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

If you say he didn't identify it as the same single individual plane, how did he know the same single individual plane turned arround and flew back then (without landing)

[Graystone]

Come now - you said it, I'm interested in it. Do you wish to retract? That comment raises some interesting questions, if you're unhappy with those questions - why is that? If you are happy with those questions - why the hostility?

I said nothing about their naivety, the hostility is because I have poor tolerance for idiots who find rational discussion far too 'taxing' to take any lessons from.

[TheDemonLord]

I said nothing about their naivety,

Given the subject matter, you kinda did. You said their focus on Outcomes means they are more likely to fall victim to a Dictator.

I should make clear - I don't think that's it, but I do think that's an interesting view. I've not heard that sentiment before and I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on that matter.

the hostility is because I have poor tolerance for idiots who find rational discussion far too 'taxing' to take any lessons from.

That sounds like a touch of projection, possibly with a side of Raw Nerve.

[Graystone]

Given the subject matter, you kinda did. You said their focus on Outcomes means they are more likely to fall victim to a Dictator.

I should make clear - I don't think that's it, but I do think that's an interesting view. I've not heard that sentiment before and I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on that matter.



That sounds like a touch of projection, possibly with a side of Raw Nerve.

It was in reference to your inability to take on board the basics of asset tax and depreciation despite it being clearly and indisputably explained.

[sugilite:Me]

Could be a flat earth research flight?

Hilarious - do you have a theory?

[sugilite:Me]

If you say he didn't identify it as the same single individual plane, how did he know the same single individual plane turned arround and flew back then (without landing)

I watched the plane go by turn around and come back - it was easy to see it doing that with the trail it was leaving behind. I saw it do that the 5 mornings out of the 7 that I watched it all going on for.