The chemtrails ruined my blue sky! Here's why...

a reply to: Kester

Who was your grandad, Thor?

Throwing rocks at aircraft indeed. Lol pilots of aircraft like the Etrich Taube or BE.2b tried dropping bricks on other aircraft before guns were carried, but no rock thrown up from the ground ever brought a plane down. They were fragile and slow, but they were still too high for that.

a reply to: Kester

When my grandfather was in the trenches they used to throw stones at the enemy aircraft that buzzed them. Stones would tear big holes in the fabric and they brought one down that way. Bullets just made a neat little puncture. (Looks up at passing jet.) Hmmmm. This isn't going to work.

My grandfather brought down Icarus with a flaming arrow. The Greeks didn't want to give credit to the enemy so they blamed it on the sun.

What does this have to do with why contrails form, aka the topic?

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
It is interesting that in age of AG climate change mania the influence of contrails on climate is not discussed.
I have three issues with contrails or jet travel in general:
1. contrails are ugly

Fair enough, although it is a matter of taste - some people like them.

2. contrails deprive me and my crops of sunlight

A completely cloudy day can reduce photosynthesis by up to 75%. Cirrus isn't going to have anything like that effect, and won't get in eth way of your plants growing at all.

3. from economic and ecologic point of view jet travel is often crime:
3a. jet fuel is exempt from consumption taxes hence screwing market (that is argument for market worshipers - I'm not one of them)

not a crime.

3b. because of 3a. more people choose to travel by aircraft on ways, where train or bus should be preferable from energy/ecology point of view

Also not a crime.

You got 1 out of 3 - but that one is just a matter of taste - so despite being more correct than the average chemmie you still fail.

a reply to: waynos

The reconnaissance aircraft flew low down the length of the trenches. You're in Rotherham? You must know people who can recount the stories told by those who were there. Check it out. Deny ignorance.

a reply to: Kester

I've studied the development of aircraft and the aerial operations of the world wars, both of them, for over forty years. But thanks for telling me to do some research

If, by some freak chance, they had brought down a spotter plane flying low enough over the trenches for them to reach it would have been their own side dropping a message.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: waynos

The reconnaissance aircraft flew low down the length of the trenches. You're in Rotherham? You must know people who can recount the stories told by those who were there. Check it out. Deny ignorance.

You will of course have proof of that rocks were used to down a plane that would have been fed back to hq and then they would have sent the FOLLOWING

a reply to: Kester

Stones would tear big holes in the fabric and they brought one down that way.

How big were these stones, and didn't they have guns in that war?

I am not saying it couldn't actually happen...but it didn't happen.

a reply to: waynos

We seem to be getting a little off topic here. Chem/contrails weren't an issue then. That's why accurate artists portrayals show a pleasanter scene than that we see today. That's all I can think of to say that's almost on topic.

What cameras were available then? How did reconnaissance aircraft bring back accurate information about what was going on in the trenches? They flew low enough to look down into the trenches.

Thirty years ago RAF pilots would navigate from airfields here to, for example, a particular valley in Germany where they would fly past, for example, a stationary train. The pilot would count the number of wagons and identify what type of wagons they were. Typically there would be several types. Simultaneously they would take a photograph. Then the pilot would fly back to base. The camera was taken straight in and the pilot followed. Still in their flight suit the pilot would report what they'd seen. When they had finished their report the photograph they'd taken would be put in front of them and the accuracy of their description would be discussed. It's a version of Kim's game.

I don't know if pilots are still trained to make visual assessments. Do you know?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The men of that era weren't softened by the luxuries of modern living. Don't judge them by your own capabilities. The reason for using stones rather than bullets has been stated. Stones ripped a big hole in the fabric, bullets made a neat puncture.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The men of that era weren't softened by the luxuries of modern living. Don't judge them by your own capabilities. The reason for using stones rather than bullets has been stated. Stones ripped a big hole in the fabric, bullets made a neat puncture.

After a search there is NO reference to that every happening, pilots sometimes dropped or threw rocks/bricks at each others planes but not from the ground to an aircraft, remember you don't have to shoot the plane to bring it down you can shoot the pilot

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The men of that era weren't softened by the luxuries of modern living. Don't judge them by your own capabilities. The reason for using stones rather than bullets has been stated. Stones ripped a big hole in the fabric, bullets made a neat puncture.

The were certainly softened by the luxuries of modern living of the day - electricity, 40 hour week, unions (sometimes), holidays, sea side resorts, steamships - why in my day they'd all have been flogged at the galley oar!!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Which is why I suggested asking those who listened to the men who were there.

Pilot. Small target moving fast. Long gun. Swinging gun in amongst colleagues as opposed to all aiming across to the other trenches. Firm discipline by officers keen to avoid troops accidentally shooting each other. It isn't hard to understand.

a reply to: Kester
Rationalization is all well and good, but it does not replace evidence.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All this done in a 40 hour week? (Under a contrail free sky.)

Ahaa, I see what you did there very cleaver lol snf.

a reply to: Kester
Horses......luxury!!

I'm not quite sure how this thread managed to get derailed quite so spectacularly!

My point is a very simple one.

If you suddenly see contrails appearing in a previously clear sky, it doesn't mean "They" have suddenly started spraying something.

It means that the weather conditions are changing at high altitude. Most likely it means there is a weather front approaching carrying moist air, which means it was probably going to cloud over anyway.

Another example this morning: one of the "busiest" skies I've seen for a long time:



Sure enough, a look at the weather charts shows an area of very moist air moving in. X marks my approximate location:



Once again, the contrails are a symptom, not a cause.

a reply to: Rob48

Actually it means a bunch of suckers have been sold the idea that flying in jet aircraft is 'clever'. It ain't clever. It's massively destructive.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: Rob48

Actually it means a bunch of suckers have been sold the idea that flying in jet aircraft is 'clever'. It ain't clever. It's massively destructive.

Off topic much?

There is no more pollution being emitted in that photo above than there is when the skies are crystal clear and blue.

Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about air travel? Why not cars, why not crappy outdated power stations?

Aircraft are responsible for less than 2% of global carbon emissions.

Once again, this thread is not about pollution. It is about contrails. Take your agenda elsewhere.

a reply to: Kester

Your point has been made. None of us can do anything to ground all the planes in the world.
Please make a sign and go outside. Thanks.