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

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
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.

One side has evidence, the other side has youtube and Clifford Carnicorn. One side is right, and we can be sure of that. It's simple, every "chemtrail" has behaved exactly within known parameters of contrails.

Why do you keep mentioning "spraying" in videos posted here, if we don't know for sure? Sounds like you're using leading words to provoke people to form a conclusion based on what you think is true.

reply to post by waynos


That link you provided reinforces one of my arguments. Earlier in the thread I was discussing that 2 of the visible 3 trails were actually from one plane, until the 3rd trail disappeared. In the link posted, it shows two separate pictures. The picture on the left shows a plane spraying 2 trails, then eventually only one trail is visible.

My theory is that this is the same thing that happens in the vid in my OP. The 3 trails at the beginning are from two planes. The orb like object that appears at the ten second mark is not a third plane. If it is a plane, then there would have to be 4 in total, but only 2 are visible.

Like I said, this theory of mine is only a possibility. I am willing to admit that perhaps I am incorrect. I'm still waiting for Adeclerk's exact proof he claimed to possess earlier

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I will try to explain my take, provided I have understood you correctly. First, the lower left hand photo in my link is the trails from two different aircraft, one a little way behind the other, from the caption it describes a Hawker Hunter following behind an English Electric Canberra (though we cannot see them of course) so I don't think its the same thing. The point made in the caption is that the Canberra (a twin jet) also looks as if it is leaving a single trail like the single engine Hunter it is flying with and that this is due to perspective.

In the video, I do think the centre object is another jet and if one backtracks from its direction of flight it takes you back to where the other trail ended, from the apparent difference in size between it and the other two aircraft I would guess it is lower, but by how much is anyones guess. As with the Flight photo of the Canberra, whos engines are widely spaced, perspective seems to have merged the trails together.

Incidentally, and by way of comparison on a slightly different subject. Proponents of the Aurora super secret spy plane have used photos of strange, round, doughnuts on a rope type contrails to justify its existance whereas this other page from the same article linked below shows this to be an atmospheric effect on normal contrails more than 40 years before Aurora was supposed to exist. Same effect, different subject.

www.flightglobal.com...

reply to post by waynos


I take offense to your calling an individual observation a 'sham website.' I am not as enamored of 'official' sounding websites as you are. Agriculture and soil content is a global concern - nothing can grow in aluminum saturated soil. It doesn't matter how many people or websites use the term 'normal.' Fact is nothing will grow in aluminum saturated soil.

A 'flight archive' may be heaven for some, for me it explains nothing except that in aviation dialogues and jet-talk this term was used ...intermittantly and not at all exclusively along with more favored vapor trails and condensation trails which then, sometime in the 90's, fell out of use in favor of 'persistant contrails.' Fell out of use, btb, without ever having been substantiated in today's not only global climate change but solar system climate change creating what should be FEWER 'persistant contrails' and not MORE as is the case (oh except for WWII!!)

Major digression though from the 'thing in the middle' which is what riveted my attention. And I'm going to disagree with you - 'persistant contrails' is the cornerstone and 'new science' to explain the blasphemous global skies of our time and, therefore, is pivotal in its' pseudo sound-bite jargon and accompanying trivialization of the man-made heavenly panorama called phenomena today. If you don't believe me - see cirrus aviaticus.

reply to post by waynos


It seems you have correctly understood what I was trying to explain. If the picture on the left in the link you provided is actually two planes, then I must retract my statement that your link helped support my argument. My interpretation of the caption was that the left hand picture was of one plane. I will go back in a moment and try to get a better understanding of it.

I also understand the point you are trying to make about the middle object in the video. From my perspective, when I view the video and backtrack to the left hand side where 2 of the 3 trails are temporarily visible, I don't exactly see the connection. I admit it is possible and not completely closed minded to the idea. I am trying to find a way to better explain my point of view. I will see if I can reword it for everyone.

Sorry, but you lost me at the Aurora super secret spy plane. I am not sure at which point of the discussion this came into the equation. I must have missed that post.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Sham doesn't mean unofficial, it means false, ie lying. You posted a quote, I posted something that proved that quote to be a lie. If that offends you then it shows you aren't interested in truth.

So thats that then.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Yeah, you will see the caption says Hunter and Canberra in the left picture, Valiant (an old RAF bomber type) in the right picture. The Valiant had four engines, closely mounted in pairs, and so left two distinct trails as the exhausts on each side merged. (see pic)




Regarding Aurora, maybe I should have saved that for an Aurora thread. My point was only to show another example of where contrails have been misrepresented on ATS, but if you're not familiar with that then it was not helpful, sorry.

Originally posted by Uncinus
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

You make a good point. Although I haven't done a 'man on the street' to verify this, I'm going to agree that most people don't know the term contrail or chemtrail. An ATS'er did a survey in NYC on this very thing. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that I bet if you pointed to the trails in the sky and asked almost anybody, "Have you seen that?" they would say yes and have various explanations and interpretations. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who hadn't seen 'that.' The only point I was trying to make is that 'persistant contrails' are not supportable in many ways and coining a term explains nothing.

I appreciate your candor about the 'thing in the middle' which is the age old dilemma of 'how high is it?' and it is hard to tell and one has to conclude - inconclusive.

reply to post by ProudBird


I just love it...being on an anonymous, avatar-driven, internet social networking forum where everyone but me is a pilot, a jet aircraft mechanic, an astrophysicist etc. etc. blah blah blah. And everyone is telling me to get a degree in whatever so that I can communicate with them. This has to be the ultimate virtual reality joke. Or maybe the extrapolated result of advertising gimmicks like 'be all you can be.' You don't know who I am and I don't know who you are. That said, your 'teacher' points and assorted other personally disparaging points are null.

And...btb...'very clever, young man, but it's turtles all the way down.'

And, seriously, how many holding patterns are there going to be day after day after day? And lastly, what about 'the thing in the middle?'

Originally posted by luxordelphi
You make a good point. Although I haven't done a 'man on the street' to verify this, I'm going to agree that most people don't know the term contrail or chemtrail. An ATS'er did a survey in NYC on this very thing. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that I bet if you pointed to the trails in the sky and asked almost anybody, "Have you seen that?" they would say yes and have various explanations and interpretations. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who hadn't seen 'that.'

The man-in-the-street interviews I've seen all seem like people are pretty unconcerned, and have not really thought about it. They've all seen them, of course, but they just know them as the trails that form behind planes.

The only point I was trying to make is that 'persistant contrails' are not supportable in many ways and coining a term explains nothing.

In what way is it not supportable? It's a contrail that persists. It's a persistent contrail. It describes exactly what it is. Like if you have some swans, and some were black, you'd call those black swans. There's nothing complicated about the term - and as you saw, it's been in use for meteorology and aviation for over 50 years.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Sham doesn't mean unofficial, it means false, ie lying. You posted a quote, I posted something that proved that quote to be a lie. If that offends you then it shows you aren't interested in truth.

So thats that then.

Why do "chemtrail" supporters get mad at debunkers for pointing out actual facts and inconsistencies, but not at the charlatans who are lying to them about "chemtrails"?

reply to post by adeclerk


It's essentially the same as a religion now IMO - where facts contradict the belief it must be the facts that are wrong.

And in internal inconsistencies never get mentioned either - is it 20 seconds, or 1, 10, 20 or 40 minutes lingering that sets a contrail apart from a chemtrail?

Can chemtrail planes be identified on flight software or not? Are commercial airliners spraying them or not? Are they only being sprayed by military aircraft?

Do chemtrails include cloud seeding or not?

etc....you've seen it all I know

Originally posted by waynos
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.

www.flightglobal.com...

That's a great example. Here's an excerpt from it, scroll over to see the second column where persistent contrails are mentioned. But the entire article is great, as it describes why contrails form and persist, and how it changes with the weather.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Sham doesn't mean unofficial, it means false, ie lying. You posted a quote, I posted something that proved that quote to be a lie. If that offends you then it shows you aren't interested in truth.

So thats that then.

Yours is bigger than mine? Give it a rest. Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing. This is the day of neo paint etc. and there's nothing you can do about it. To use something virtual as a proof has to be a good term for a new type of psychosis: virtual reality syndrome. There - I've coined a new term. Now I'm going to go back and fix up some documents to reflect that this has been a long-term problem. Go outside and look up if you dare and then come back and tell me that all's right in River City.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Yours is bigger than mine? Give it a rest. Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing.

There are physical books too, lots of them. That issue of Flight can probably be found in a library somewhere. Or on eBay. But there are hundred or similar examples, printed on decades old paper.

reply to post by Uncinus


Thanks, yes I was also going to say how it also illustrates how what people are now presenting as a mysterious recent phenomena has been perfectly understood for at least half a century as this is an original source scan, not a web page.

There were no digital archives until quite recently so to create that database every single paper issue of Flight was manually scanned.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Did you read that? the bit above? Correct me if Im wrong but are you suggesting Flight spent time going back through 100+ years of paper copy manually inserting fake chemtrail debunking?

So what was so convincing about the chemtrail 'proof' that makes you think that was more real?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Websites etc. on the internet are proof of nothing. .

So what evidence do you have of chemtrails that isn't on or hasn't come via a website??

reply to post by Uncinus

In what way is it not supportable? It's a contrail that persists. It's a persistent contrail. It describes exactly what it is. Like if you have some swans, and some were black, you'd call those black swans. There's nothing complicated about the term - and as you saw, it's been in use for meteorology and aviation for over 50 years.

I've got a new term to describe exactly what it looks like. Instead of cirrus aviaticus, how about circus aviaticus? I'm liking it already. I think it perfectly describes the OP opening video encompassing the trailing antics, the trail within a trail and the mysterious non-trailing orbish item.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

It's essentially the same as a religion now IMO - where facts contradict the belief it must be the facts that are wrong.

If you believe that chemtrails are like a religion that's fine. In my opinion people who want to spend hours online trying to debunk chemtrails are like a cult. A cult full of insane, blind and deaf followers of the status quo. Who do what they are told and believe anything their superiors tell them. Regardless if it conflicts with what has already been proven.

A cult of people who spend their time trying to debunk something they call a hoax created by charlatans or crazy people. Yet they spend more time at the alter of their cult than the craziest chemtrailer ever has.

There is an old saying..."Thou dost protest too much"

If you think we're all so crazy and non of what we ever say holds any credibility, then why do you refuse to let us crazy chemtrail religion folk worship in peace? Why do you insist on interrupting the priest giving sermons with your cult full of narcissistic self proclaimed saviors who spout ridiculous dogma and contradictions?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


So, Matty - got any actual evidence that chemtrails exist yet??

2nd