You didn't answer the question, Elmer...And it dosn't take an ex-spurt analyst to read a current winds aloft chart.
...please provide us all with an expert opinion explaining specifically how the above readings taken by a weather balloon at an unspecifified time (sic)
From Ferat...(Your posting)
Situation:
Pilot: Sven Faret
Passenger : Ken Wendell
8500 feet over Riverhead LI, NY.
Apx 20:40 hrs, July 17, 1996...
The surface weather observation taken about 1951 at JFK on July 17, 1996,
The surface weather observation taken about 2051
The surface weather observation taken about 1945 at Francis S. Gabreski Airport (FOK) Westhampton Beach, New York The surface weather observation taken about 2045 at FOK stated the following: Winds calm; visibility 6 miles; haze; clouds at 6,000 feet scattered; temperature 72° F; dew point 66° F; altimeter setting 30.09 inches of Hg; total sky cover 3/8.
The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3. (Upton is located about 15 nm from the accident site.)
SEE THAT, ELMER??? 2000 ... Not unspecifified at all, but 2000...Eight O'clock, Elmer
These numbers were used during the Safety Board™s trajectory study.
If they were good enough, specific enough, accurate enough to be used in the trajectory study and published in the NTSB's Final Report...
If they were good enough, specific enough, accurate enough to be used by pilots in flight planning in which accurate times enroute, fuel burn, fuel remaining and fuel reserves are critical to safety of flight, then they are specific enough to determine what direction the winds were blowing from that night to put to rest the fallacy that Ferat and Wendell saw a cloud of smoke being blown in the opposite direction of the prevailing winds. The winds aloft were from:
Altitude ... Wind Direction ... Wind Speed
(Feet) .... (in degrees From) ..... (Knots) 1000 ................. 270 ...................... 12 Due West, blowing Due East
2000 ................. 280 ...................... 14 Slightly North of West, blowing slightly South of East.
3000 ................. 285 ...................... 17 Trend continuing around, blowing more to the Southeast
4000 ................. 290 ...................... 17 Blowing even closer to the Southeast.
5000 ................. 303 ...................... 19 Ditto...Only stronger.
6000 ................. 310 ...................... 19 5 degree change to the Southeast
7000 ................. 315 ...................... 17 Dead out of the Northwest, blowing Due Southeast.
8000 ................. 320 ...................... 16 Continuing the Northerly trend, blowing Southerly
9000 ................. 330 ...................... 12 Same as above.
10000 ................ 335 ..................... 12 ...and so on
11000 ................ 320 ..................... 12
12000 ................ 295...................... 16
13000 ................ 290 ..................... 16
14000 ................ 300 ..................... 17
Review of the meteorological data revealed no record of significant meteorological conditions in the area or at the time of the accident.
Significant meteorological conditions are conditions that could affect the winds aloft, such as frontal passage, or convective activity. There was no front to pass, and no convective activity (thunderstorms) forecast, or reported.
D'ye see the error you made, Elmer?
From Ferat...A: I suggest that the winds below the haze were moving the plume in a SE direction. What were the winds reported at 6,9,12000' Feet? Nothing is straight forward or simple...
Sounds pretty straight forward and simple to me, Elmer...
From Ferat...... as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW
Thats NORTH-NORTHWEST, Elmer...The exact opposite direction the measured at 2000 prevailing winds aloft were blowing. A physical impossibility, Elmer...Ferat was IN ERROR.
You are in error when you say the winds aloft are unspecifified (in more ways than one, apparently...;^) as an excuse to avoid having to admit that Ferat was in error.
And if you made this simple error, as Ferat did, then intellectually honest Freepers must begin to wonder how many more errors you both have, and continue to make, and the agenda involved in defending these errors so vociforously.
You state:
"The winds aloft measured by a weather balloon launched from Upton, New York, on July 17, 1996, about 2000, are shown in table 3."
Two more questions:
1. What is your explanation for the different wording?
2. Who is "Ferat"?
The other two questions you have been repeatedly asked, assured the readers you would promptly answer but never have are as follows:
Can you explain how witness Fred Meyer could have seen a "shootdown" of Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before he saw the Massive Fireball explode at 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 which he says he and his crewmates agreed at the time took approximately 10 seconds to fall to the surface?
If he's so unflappable and knows what he saw, how do you explain his following statement while being interviewed by an NTSB Witness Group?
"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"