You can call them chemtrails or contrails but what is that thing flying between them?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Actually, I got a better idea. Since you are "exactly sure" the burden of proof is upon you.

Nope. The claimant of "these are not normal contrails that have been around since the beginning of aviation" has the burden of proof. You are claiming something out of the ordinary, I'm going with the evidence (and lack of "chemtrail" evidence).

It's like if you started to claim that the sun was another planet. Burden of proof is on you to support your claim, could you support your "chemstuff" claim?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
First of all no one denied that the chemtrails came from an airplane. The confusion is about whether or not the object seen at the 10 second mark is what caused one of the chemtrails for the first few seconds of the video.

So your argument is pointless really. But I would still love it if you could prove what everyone else already agreed upon

No "chemtrail" has ever been shown, supported, or proven to have come out of an airplane. It's hilarious that you have lapped up what the charlatans are selling you, though.

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Actually, I got a better idea. Since you are "exactly sure" the burden of proof is upon you.

Nope. The claimant of "these are not normal contrails that have been around since the beginning of aviation" has the burden of proof. You are claiming something out of the ordinary, I'm going with the evidence (and lack of "chemtrail" evidence).

It's like if you started to claim that the sun was another planet. Burden of proof is on you to support your claim, could you support your "chemstuff" claim?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
First of all no one denied that the chemtrails came from an airplane. The confusion is about whether or not the object seen at the 10 second mark is what caused one of the chemtrails for the first few seconds of the video.

So your argument is pointless really. But I would still love it if you could prove what everyone else already agreed upon

No "chemtrail" has ever been shown, supported, or proven to have come out of an airplane. It's hilarious that you have lapped up what the charlatans are selling you, though.

Actually, your reading skills must not be up to par. You obviously neglected to read the thread, please let me refresh your memory.

I said:

Either way I can't be exactly sure. None of us can.

I said none of us including myself can be exactly sure. Then you popped in to prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU as I previously said. If you read the thread you will see where I said this. It's not even two pages long, no need to be so lazy.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


If you look at the video from the start, there appears to have been a third plane.
On the left, there are two con/chemtrails visible for a while, one trail veers slightly right then stops abruptly and a while later we see the third plane ahead of the two others. All three fly at the same speed.
Seems simple enough to me.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I also had trouble believing it could be another plane at higher altitude because of how it was in synch with the other two planes that appeared to be lower.

Why? Do you understand flying, and speeds? IN that short video, less than a minute's worth are the three airplanes approximately "in synch". The difference in their relative speeds may be 10 knots....may be 20. Might have all had the same groundspeed......At that distance, a difference of only 20 knots relative velocity, along the same course and heading, is very slight, and hard to see in a short video clip.

Here, a pilot filmed another airplane, this time the contrails forming from the airplane above:




Watch this, to see realty from the cockpit's point of view:

reply to post by ProudBird


Thank you. Your first video helps prove my point

That plane is a perfect example of a plane that can put out multiple trails. The "two" trails on the left at the beginning of the video are actually from one airplane, it sprayed the two trails temporarily. The plane to our right is only spraying one. So when the plane on the left stopped spraying the second trail, it appeared that there were 2 trails instead of 3. It's simple subtraction. Do you understand math?

Thanks again for helping

reply to post by Corruption Exposed



Snarky, much?

Do you understand math?

Now, this is odd, since everyone should already realize this:

That plane is a perfect example of a plane that can put out multiple trails.

Yes, one per engine. Thought that was obvious (??)

Still talking about the A-340 video?:

The "two" trails on the left at the beginning of the video are actually from one airplane....

Again, note the A-340 has FOUR engines, two each wing.

Still talking about the A-340 video?:

The plane to our right is only spraying one.

Huh? The video shows two A-340s, each form different airlines. You did notice the cut in the footage, when the camera was turned off, then turned on later for the second airplane?

Please clarify....because you are not making any sense.

Point to a time reference, it's only polite, rather than making blanket claims and expecting people to just guess (though, I see there is always a reflexive star-giver....:shk: )

Yes, OP, what IS that flying in between them? Please find here a link to pictures of circles in the sky I found interesting.

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

I found this link while looking for who started the term 'persistant contrails' and why. No luck on that yet but I'm on the hunt.

Just found this gotta see: en.wikipedia.org...
with this term for the clouds we see:

Cirrus aviaticus

Cirrus aviaticus???!!! This is a new cloud type created by 'persistant contrails.' I'm going to take a moment now to stop lol.

reply to post by ProudBird


Clarify what? Be specific. You're the second guy having difficulty following along. You must have skipped the first page too.

Reflex star giver?

Maybe whoever gave me the star is capable of following along

I have no problem clarifying something for you if you request. But be specific. All my posts were in reference or pertaining to previous posts from other members on the thread. I do see that you replied to me when I was addressing someone else. So perhaps you are confused somehow or we are not on the same page about something.

Please elaborate.

ETA: Gave you a star

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Edited, to explain where YOU need to clarify:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by luxordelphi


What a silly website:

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

It is chock full of facts (PDF links at bottom), but is completely misinterpreting what they mean.

And, as usual.....same old idiocy, seeing normal contrails, and not understanding what they are. The 25-minute "documentary" by Tony Cox was hilarious, though...opening with that stupid poem!

Pure comedy gold

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Snarky, much?

Do you understand math?

Now, this is odd, since everyone should already realize this:

That plane is a perfect example of a plane that can put out multiple trails.

Yes, one per engine. Thought that was obvious (??)

Still talking about the A-340 video?:

The "two" trails on the left at the beginning of the video are actually from one airplane....

Again, note the A-340 has FOUR engines, two each wing.

Still talking about the A-340 video?:

The plane to our right is only spraying one.

Huh? The video shows two A-340s, each form different airlines. You did notice the cut in the footage, when the camera was turned off, then turned on later for the second airplane?

Please clarify....because you are not making any sense.

Point to a time reference, it's only polite, rather than making blanket claims and expecting people to just guess (though, I see there is always a reflexive star-giver....:shk: )

edit on Sat 15 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

No, it was not meant to be snarky. It was a likewise response to your "Do you understand flying, and speeds?". In essence it was a mirror response.

That plane is a perfect example of a plane that can put out multiple trails.

You posted that video when I was discussing that there were possibly two planes not three. My theory is that although it seemed there were 3 planes producing 3 trails, there were actually 2 planes, one of the planes was spraying two trails, while the other plane was spraying 1 trail, for a total of three. When the other plane stopped spraying the second trail, there were two visible in total. The main object that was above the two planes, could not have been part of the 3 trails people were discussing. I must admit this has gotten rather confusing. I have a feeling if you reread the thread from the beginning and focus on when we were discussing different possibilities near the middle of page one.

The video I thanked you for sharing was the first video in this post.

I didn't feel a reference was necessary since I was responding to your previous post that was directed towards me. It would safe to assume since you were participating that you were caught up on the thread. No big deal though. Some threads can be hard to follow sometimes. We all make this mistake and not read the whole thread before posting.

reply to post by ProudBird


Sorry, pal, didn't read the poem; skipped to the circles in the sky or should I say cirrus aviaticus? If I were a poet it would be on with that term. I'm going to have to move on now because I can't stop laughing.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I think you made him mad

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

I think you made him mad

Hope not; just a bit of fun. Here's something about why, when and what for the term 'persistant contrails' was coined:

www.chicoskywatch.org...

with the specific relevant statement:

(or so-called "persistent

contrails" — a term that was coined in the 1990's to describe the "new phenomenon" that was being seen in our skies)

This has to be a johnny-come-lately term if, as noted in previous threads, people were concerned during WWII, in Britain, about these then. BTB (by the by) still looking forward to an explanation of the 'thing in the middle' from your original OP video.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Here's a research tip, Google Books, and use "custom range", and then put the search in quotes, like "persistent contrails".

Like here'spersitent contrails from 1940 to 1960

Which shows it's not a new term at all.

reply to post by Uncinus


Gave you a star - I don't use google because of their flagrant disregard for privacy. Let me, however, rephrase: when did the term enter the common mans' usage? Clarifying: when did it leave aviation jargon and jet-talk and become a recognizeable term eclipsing vapor trails, condensation trails etc. etc.? and with that question I'm going to stick with my link and the 1990's. Also, since you've joined the fray, how about that 'thing in the middle?'

reply to post by luxordelphi


Your source appears to be flawed, care to find another?

While it says

(or so-called "persistent

contrails" — a term that was coined in the 1990's to describe the "new phenomenon" that was being seen in our skies)

a 30 second search of the Flight archive brought up this result from 1956 where the term appears in the third paragraph of the second column, so no, the term was not as described.

See how easy exposing these sham sites is?

www.flightglobal.com...

And it never has 'left aviation jargon' as you put it. I would say its not in common use, except where people are trying specifically to deny it or prove it, like here.

Incidentally, there should be no qualms about using the Flight archive.

my humble S&F

all i got to say...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Well your link just says it was coined in the 1990s, it says nothing about common usage, and offers no evidence. I don't think it's ever been in "common usage" for regular folk. Most people don't even know what the word "contrail" means, let alone "persistent contrail". But it's been in common usage to meteorologists and pilots since the 1940s

That thing in the middle is a plane, probably 1000 feet or so below the other two. It's hard to tell exactly

reply to post by luxordelphi

didn't read the poem;

It wasn't visual, it was on the soundtrack, of the "documentary" by Tony Cox....as he showed videos of normal contrails that he said were something *else*.

skipped to the circles in the sky or should I say cirrus aviaticus?

One of the photos was from a test airplane, that was "circling" (actually, it was a racetrack pattern, like an oval) over Houston, TX.

Any other examples of such contrails are just what will show up when a jet is in a Holding Pattern at altitudes and conditions when contrails will form, thus revealing that the airplane is there. Holding at contrail altitudes isn't very common usually...but does happen for various reasons.

When you go out and earn your pilot's license, and gain some experience, then one day you may decide to further your knowledge and earn your Instrument Rating. Then, you learn all about holding, and you practice them to become proficient and understand.


This is the problem with the myth and hoax, the ignorance of believing in "chemtrails" --- it is born out of a simple lack of knowledge about certain sciences, as well aviation basics. Not everyone in the world can know everything, but simply putting one's and over one's ears, saying "La La La" when those who actually DO know a bit about a particular topic, well.....

....imagine you are a teacher, and you have a room full of students who argue that what you are telling them, the facts and science, is "wrong", because they read it somewhere on the Internet, or it is counter-intuitive to what they *think* should be the way it is.

YOU are the one with the knowledge, and you see that your students have been fed a load of misinformation, or have drawn incorrect conclusions based on their ignorance of the facts, and details and science.

Yet, they resist learning. Frustrating, isn't it?


A bit like convincing a person that the world is not flat, and resting on the back of a turtle.... even though it sure looks like it, from your viewpoint standing on the ground, watching the Sun move across the sky, being pulled by a chariot.....