Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

reply to post by Uncinus


Thanks Uncinus, I do tend to forget to distinguish between RHW and RHI when posting on this and I always just put RH by default.

Originally posted by mmakshak
What I read on this was very interesting, and I have some naive questions to ask. I saw a plane, fairly low flying, and leaving a com/chem trail, when all of a sudden, the trail disappeared for just a short distance, then started up again at the same height. What is the explanation for that?

It was flying though a different region of air. Possibly an ascending thermal, but maybe just a different region. The atmosphere is very variable, even when it's a clear blue sky. See:
contrailscience.com...

Number two: a plane was descending, leaving no chem/con trail, when all of sudden it started to leave one. What would the explanation be for that?

It descended into a region where the humidity was high enough (and it was still cold enough) for an exhaust contrail to form.
contrailscience.com...

Or possibly it was an aerodynamic contrail.
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by mmakshak


To expand on an earlier answer, above.....I wanted to clear this bit up:

....I have some naive questions to ask. I saw a plane, fairly low flying....

To address the "fairly low flying" aspect. Contrails won't form at low altitudes.....so, this airplane that was seen, was it out in the distance?

Because, horizontal distance away from the viewer can give the illusion that the airplane is lower in altitude than it actually is.

For example, look at this photo:



See those contrails vanishing off into the distance, away from the camera.....they are not moving lower above the ground, it is an illusion.

(In artist's terms, it's a "vanishing point" off in the distance)

Unicus, I appreciate the reply, as I believe part of the problem lies with the lack of replies officially. I have one other question. Do planes file a flight plan, and are they allowed to deviate from that? The reason I ask this is that I saw contrails that did a big "x", just like one on x-files. You didn't have to look up to see it. It was right in front of your windshield on a busy street, during a very busy commute. How many planes are just flying around, in comparison to planes that are going from one destination to another? Note: I did see that corkscrew-like contrail that looked like it was just sitting there, on the site you sent me to.

I am learning quickly who seems to have all the answers around here, and they just make me more suspicious.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac

 

What you wrote in the second sentence, does not change the meaning of the first, self contained, sentence. It may expand upon it or qualify it to some extent, but that first sentence is clear and unambiguous. To then flat out deny that you said it is dishonest, pure and simple.


That ok with you?

edit on 18-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Not really. I think it might be pertinent to explain - a sentence is a part of a paragraph; sentences within a paragraph are contained within a sentence, but each sentence in a paragraph progresses the narrative and they are, in fact, connected elements of a paragraph.

What did I flat out deny? Where? You're imagining things.

reply to post by SDSkyWatcher


The answers are all known because the questoins are not actually new.

You may be new to "chemtrail suspicion", but generally there are several people on here asking the same questoins in, say, a 3-4 month period. And those questions are the same ones that were asked back in 200, and 2005, and 2010.

And since the answers were true then they haven't' changed - so it is often very easy for a "debunker" to find "the answer" to any given question - if s/he doesn't know it themselves, then there are a few sites like www.contrailscience.com that have assembled the answers and organised them into topics that make them easy to find.

That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher

 

You may be new...but generally there are several people on here asking...those questions are the same ones that were asked back in 200, and 2005, and 2010.

And since the answers ...haven't' changed ....

That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.

The 'thing' about science? This statement is completely the wrong way round. Science is just currently accepted theory awaiting inevitable falsification. It waits to get disproved.
If people are still asking questions, and they're the same questions, and since the answers haven't changed....then maybe, by deduction, the people doing the answering aren't doing a very good job. What do you reckon? The stats don't look too good...

reply to post by ProudBird


I love your 9/11 hi-jackers fiction. Did you write it? It reads like a bad thriller. Were you there?
What a lot of ungrounded conjecture; utter nonsense.

And all that stuff about people complaining about things like aircraft noise. Damn pesky people, always complaining, eh? So, they're not complaining about noise any more; now something else might have come up, no?
Your answers on both issues didn't answer anything.

Originally posted by SDSkyWatcher
I am learning quickly who seems to have all the answers around here, and they just make me more suspicious.

Hm. So it goes.

Just remember SDSky, the most important thing to remember is that everything is lovely and normal. If it's said often enough, we may start to doubt something fundamental is not right.

Ring the bells that still can ring.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Scientists are humans. Humans are known for making errors.

That contrail website is obviously one of you "debunker" (pilot?) guys site and clearly you have lots of time on your hands. Shouldn't you be out flying planes with all your expertise?

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."

~ Albert Einstein

reply to post by SDSkyWatcher


Sure humans make errors - which is why science relies upon checking and repeatability as some of its main supports. So if you find something that is incorrect you can get it corrected - there is a standing invitation to do so on contrail science - and occasionally it does even happen!

the flip side is that the people who claim chemtrails exist are also human and prone to make errors - but their errors are not subjected to scrutiny except by debunkers. If they did more checking and verification of their own, and held to standards of "proof" that were also transparent and verifiable then there would be nothing to debunk - because the only stuff they would be presenting us would be well founded.

And of course my answer still stands - answers are easy to give to most "chemtrail" questions because the questions are not new - although they may be new to you. the answers are well known, and so quite easy to find and post.

contrail science is run by the guy who posts as Uncinus on here - his personal details are available on the site. I am not a pilot - I was a mechanic and a maintenance planner and a quality assurance engineer and a safety analyst.....now I work a 9-5 (more or less) day job, and live in the South Pacific so my posting times appear strange to some people who forget that the world has 24 or more time zones.

It is quite normal for hoax believers to start complaining about debunkers posting "at all hours", being online "24/7", "obviously doing this as a paid job", etc when the verifiable facts and scientific evidence show they are believing in a fairy tale.

I suggest that if you find yourself tempted to start down that path then you should perhaps wonder why it is that that is all the argument you have left.

Originally posted by jackmac

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher

 

That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.

The 'thing' about science? This statement is completely the wrong way round. Science is just currently accepted theory awaiting inevitable falsification. It waits to get disproved.

That's prety much what I said - dunno why you think it is different?

Of course "inevitable" disproving is emotive nonsense - much science will never be disproved - I'm sure you can think of examples - the gas laws, ohms law, the potential of a lead-acid cell, the energy released by hydrogen/oxygen combustion,etc.

But apart from your broad brush inaccuracies I'm pretty sure whet you said and what I said are effectively teh same thing.

thanks Lee.

Originally posted by SDSkyWatcher
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That contrail website is obviously one of you "debunker" (pilot?) guys site and clearly you have lots of time on your hands. Shouldn't you be out flying planes with all your expertise?

Yes! Well spotted. Almost dead right. He's not a pilot though, as far as I know he's a computer programmer. The guy who started and runs 'contrailscience.com' is Mick West. He's also started another site called 'metabunk.org' about a year ago, where do people find the time? Have a guess what 'metabunk' is all about? Aloysius posts there under a different name.

Funnily enough, I'd say Mick himself wasn't too far away.

Mick lives in LA

reply to post by jackmac


Why do you say he's not a pilot, when he quite clearly identifies himself as a private pilot?

He has more time than most of us for reasons he states on his websites - perhaps you should research a bit more??

Most of what is written on the internet is what somebody wants you to believe.

Why should I believe anything that a couple guys claiming to have all the answers, and posting "the truth" according to them on EVERY feed related to geo-engineering?

You are just like the haze that covers our cities after days of heavy DELIBERATE PERSISTENT flight trails.

I will keep my eyes open and continue to document and share what I witness.

I have no doubt you will keep spreading your hazy version.

reply to post by SDSkyWatcher

Most of what is written on the internet is what somebody wants you to believe.

Yes, when a person visits and reads sites on the Internet devoted to the myth and hoax of "chemtrails", that is what they want you to "believe".

Some people promote "chemtrails" because they are con artists and charlatans --- others, because they have fallen for the con-job put forth by these hoaxsters.

Simple as that.

The actual science can be found everywhere, not just on the Internet: Your local library, the knowledge and experience of thousands and thousands of aviation and aerospace professionals, and at your local University science departments, for many different areas of science....to, of course, include primarily meteorology.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by jackmac

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by SDSkyWatcher

 

That's the thing about science - its true for a long time, and it gets remembered and documented and proved.

The 'thing' about science? This statement is completely the wrong way round. Science is just currently accepted theory awaiting inevitable falsification. It waits to get disproved.

That's prety much what I said - dunno why you think it is different?

Of course "inevitable" disproving is emotive nonsense - much science will never be disproved - I'm sure you can think of examples - the gas laws, ohms law, the potential of a lead-acid cell, the energy released by hydrogen/oxygen combustion,etc.

But apart from your broad brush inaccuracies I'm pretty sure whet you said and what I said are effectively teh same thing.

thanks Lee.

Well, fancy that! You have a strange idea of comprehension if you think our two statements are the same thing. You:

'dunno why you think it is different?'

Well, in the argument, you said 'proved' and I said 'disproved' in relation to what science becomes. How much more 'different' does it need to be before you can see it? - and, when we're talking about science, we're really talking about the cutting edge, the frontiers, the bits that make 'progress', no? And anyway, I disagree with the premise that 'much science will never be disproved'. If humans continue to live and develop science, then it is inevitable that every single current law of physics will be altered. It is how we 'progress'. It's a philosophical point.

reply to post by jackmac


>sigh<

I love your 9/11 hi-jackers fiction.

Conjecture, based on a lifetime of experience flying the damn airplanes, the types that were hijacked. Being IN one, and then figuring out how the events went down, aren't too difficult to understand. The pilots were overcome, because there was no warning, no time for them to react....it is on one of the ATC tapes, where a pilot keyed his boom mic, and you can hear him shouting "Get out of here!".....it's quite chilling to hear. [**]

But, I guess you've never flown on a passenger airliner, and can't relate to the reality of it?

And all that stuff about people complaining about things like aircraft noise.

??? Well, at least that's on topic....AND, is the reason for the Federal Regulations (in the USA) and similar that were drafted to regulate the sound levels from airliners. The "Stage 3" limits were adopted as far back as 1975....later, more restrictions known as "Stage 4" were implemented. (This is all available to research, knowledgeable people in the industry can verify this). SO can the fact that community activism played a role.


[**] Oh, and the cockpit intrusion scenario, as I outlined (with a photo, BTW, to illustrate my points)?

Have a listen:




This is a compilation of both the ATC transmissions, and the time delays in between many of the transmissions have been edited out.

Early on, you hear some of the ground-to-ground communications, as air traffic controllers talk to each other on the landlines. (Controllers, and sometimes pilots, will monitor two or more frequencies simultaneously, at times).

(You also hear one hijacker thinking he's on the PA, but he transmits on the ATC frequency. Hear him out of breath?? The first time, he's out of breath....minutes later, he does it again, less breathless)....

Reality.....it sucks, doesn't it???

Originally posted by jackmac
and, when we're talking about science, we're really talking about the cutting edge, the frontiers, the bits that make 'progress', no?

No - why would you think that??

that is "cutting edge science" - and is a fairly small subset of the totality of science.

And anyway, I disagree with the premise that 'much science will never be disproved'. If humans continue to live and develop science, then it is inevitable that every single current law of physics will be altered. It is how we 'progress'. It's a philosophical point.

hose are laws of physics - even those are a small subset of science - and if our understanding of the laws changes, it does not actually affect how those laws apply in the real world - water will always boil at 100 & freeze at 0 deg C at standard atmosphere - that is the sort of thing that is the vast majority of science.

for a relevant example as we research contrails we may get a better understanding of how and why they form - but that will not actually change the formation of a single contrail in any given conditions - only our understanding of it.