Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Have you even read any of the earlier posts or the thread that Aloysius linked. In that thread I provided pictures with soundings. We also had
flight heights. I provided evidence that what was observed does not match the science.
No you didn't.
You said that there were contrails over LA and the data from Vandenberg wouldn't allow them to happen - conveniently ignoring that Vandenberg is 130
When Phage showed that data from San Diego did show that hey could happen, and that clearly somewhere between Van & SD conditions had changed, you
accused him of cherry picking data to suit his argument - which is exactly what you had done.
Aloysius made a claim that I stated there were no observations from 100 years ago. I never made this claim.
So you think there were observations of contrails 100 years ago??
You are right - you never made the claim that there were no observations 100 years ago - what you said was:
I could not assume that the details or circumstances of my observation today matches the circumstances occurring by a different person 100
You were making an observation that HAD someone observed contrails 100 years ago, you would not assume the conditions etc matched those of an
And what I said in reply was:
Bills' objection that no-one has seen contrails from 100 years ago to compare with today is spurious....
I apologise unreservedly for making such a massive and vital error....well for makign the error. Hope that helps with your problem.
He stated I was ignoring WW2 pics and comparative data. I asked him to provide it. He never provided any data.
You are obsfucating now.
You asked for pictures and video AND ACCOMPANYING ATMOSPHERIC DATA.
If you have WW2 evidence of contrails over Los Angeles with comparative data, I would like to see it. If you have WW2 evidence from any city
with comparative data ( temp, humidity, height), I would love to discuss it with you.
I replied that I did not have the atmospheric data
I even allowed him to go back to the 80's with data.
Gosh that's very good of you to allow me that. But again - I did not have the data, and clearly you were not interested in photos, video
You can't compare apples and oranges and say they are the same thing.
You CAN look at the information that is available in such evidence, and compare it with the same information that is available in other evidence of
the same type
- is the trail coming from an engine
- is the aircraft at high altitude
- is there a separation between the exhaust egress and the formation of the trail
- does the visible behaviour of the trail match what is known about the behaviour of any other known type of trail
And you can make a logical deduction based upon that evidence that the visible evidence for rail A does or does not match that for trail B.
It is perfectly valid science.
I never denied contrails. If the science is 90% accurate to say that contrails should not be in the sky then it is possible we are looking at
Except your science did not say any such thing - and as soon as that was pointed out you left that thread, and are now trying to resurrect your error
hoping no-one will remember or notice it.
so for anyone who has made it this far, here's Bills' proposition:
The atmospheric conditions from soundings at Vandenberg showed with 90% certainty that contrails could not form over LA country 130 miles away.
Straight away the poor science and presumption is obvious!
And in answer Phage showed that the conditions on the opposite side of LA, at San Diego 110 miles away, WERE conducive to contrails, and therefore the
conditions must have changed at some point between the 2 locations for the readings, therefore the c0onditions at Vandenberg are essentially useless
for saying whether or not there should be contrails over LA.
Which is just common sense as well as basic science, but Phage also went to some effort to show WHY it is wrong.