The Chemtrail Hoax, page 28

privacy

Pages: << 25 26 27 28 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 06:22 PM by CatJockey

So what is hte time limit for "normal" contrails to exist?

From my observations over the years, not all day. That is one of the changes I have noticed. The amount of 'extremely persistent contrails' increasing and a corresponding decrease in the quickly disappearing type. Same observation others have. Although I have noticed this for a while, I had the opportunity to watch the sky a bit more this summer, specifically analyzing such. I did pay attention and what I noticed this summer was that there was a distinct lack of contrails that dissipated quickly. A distinct lack based off of DAILY observation. There tended to be either no signs or double digit numbers of trails that lasted all day, turning in to the cirrus type clouds. But a distinct lack of the quickly disappearing ones that I have grown accustomed to seeing over the decades.

It is not an insult, it is a fact because there is evidence to support it. Your statement is not a fact in the first place bvecause people like me DO notice the increasing number of persistent contrails.

Now you're confusing me. First you imply there is not an increase in 'extremely persistent contrails' and they were always there, and people like me are just now noticing them for the first time, and now, you concur with me in their increasing occurence. A change, like I said. You said it, not me:

Basically the fact that you and other people didn't notice it is not evidence that it wasn't happening - it is just evidence that you didn't notice it.

See? You are denying the change that I and others notice, and now you come around to admitting there is a change.

You said they were always there, like they are today and folks like me just didn't notice, now you amend your statement to agree with me that there is a noticable increase.

So you no longer think I wasn't paying attention, like you stated? Hmmm.

No you can't - if you had read the references I gave you would see that the increasing number of contrails has been seen by science for decades.

I did read your links. The 1955 one was limited in scope and dealt with ONLY military planes (of which I NEVER expect full disclosure), as I said. Further, although one might reasonably infer a change from 'Con trails seen lately ...', you will not find the word INCREASE or INCREASING anywhere in that article, as you claim. As for the other, the increasing in the 1968 article was predicated upon an increase in supersonic flights, which has not occurred. That article did not mention an observed increase, it SPECULATED about an increase from rockets launching into space and super sonic flights traveling at 70,000 feet. And those SST have not manifested, have they? Nowhere do they acknowledge or speculate about an increase for normal passenger jets, which is the observation I am talking about. So I think your synopsis of those articles is not accurate. Maybe you should go reread them as I think I understood them better than you as those articles said no such thing you are claiming them to. I am talking about an increase in non supersonic passenger jets. An absolute increase in the 'extremely persistent contrails' with a corresponding decrease in the amount of the quickly dispersing. I have no problems amending the absolute type wording of my original post (since you show no quams about changing your statements, I shan't either) as the change is still noticed. And I do not mind as I wasn't entirely consistent. I put in bold that they did not exist thirty years ago as we see them today, followed by some absolutism I don't mind backing away from, as my overall point is the CHANGE. Higher percentage of chemtrails per plane and lower percentage of contrails.

I just do not see quickly dissipated ones as frequently as I have in the past. And I am seeing more of the 'extremely persistent' variety. An observation many share with me. All or nothing - little inbetween these days.

So htey hae too many variables....and yet you have a certainty that chemtrails exist based upon nothing except more contrails??

I am certain of a change. A change in prevalence. A change in the proportion of planes putting out 'extremely persistent contrails', compared to those that put out the quickly dissappearing ones. And just more contrails. The contrails have changed. There are less of the quickly dissipated ones and more of the 'extremely persistent ones'. All or nothing these days, which is why I wonder about a change in jet fuel composition.

there are now many times the numbr of large jets flying than there were 30 or 40 years ago

Yes. Which is why I described your words as a thinly veiled insult. There is an obvious change if for no other reason, yet you said I just didn't notice before, hence why. Again, proportions and proportions I don't think explained merely by increased travel.

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 06:35 PM by CatJockey

Reached character limit in last post. Concerning your graphs, again, why the thinly veiled insult part. You denied that myself and others have noticed a change, when obviously, for no other reason than increased air travel there should be a difference. To deny that and write folks like me off as just having noticed what is going on today while being oblivious to conditions 30 years ago I put in the thinly veiled insult category. Beleive me or not, while walking the dog, I decided to post stating such that of course there is a noticable change if for no other reason than increased air travel. To help you out with your argument and to help you back away from your assertion that I and others are dolts with no comprehension of what the skies looked like 30 years ago But, again, the change runs deeper than just more plane more trails. Namely, a lack of the disappearing ones I used to see often to the all or nothing variety. Either no trail or ones lasting all day long.

In the end, neither one of us will convince the other, and, despite what you may think, science is not on your side as there is no concrete data collected to analyze scientifically and come to conclusion either way. To conclude whether I am right or you are. We can only both start paying more attention to the skies and start counting ...

Only our individual observations ...

edit on 3-1-2012 by CatJockey because: added a sentence or two

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 06:54 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

reply to post by CatJockey

if you choose to be insulted that is up to you - people don't notice things all the time - especially when those things change gradually.

So what is hte time limit for "normal" contrails to exist?

From my observations over the years, not all day.

Yet from the observations of many others, documented over even more years they do. The first mention of this happening I know of was written by a French aviator Antoine Saint-Exupery:

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

-Wakes of war: contrails and the rise of air power, 1918-1945 Part IIthe air war over Europe, 1939-1945

He was writing about flying reconnaissance missions over German forces in 1940

Sorry if I prefer to better documented evidence that also fits with known science.

Now you're confusing me. First you imply there is not an increase in 'extremely persistent contrails' and they were always there, and people like me are just now noticing them for the first time, and now, you concur with me in their increasing occurence.

You said there are more chemtrails - but since there is no credible evidence chemtrails exist I disagree.

Contrails have been around since before the end of WW1, and there has never been any suggestion otherwise from "debunkers" - I have posted those graphs before & am well aware of the increasing numbers of contrails and do not believe I have ever intimated otherwise.

edit on 3-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Add

reply posted on 3-1-2012 @ 10:21 PM by CatJockey

reply to post by Imagewerx

One thing I have noticed though is that here in the UK we had a lot more in the way of stratus clouds in those days,all we seem to get now is nimbus and similar.

Interesting. I have a back injury that forced me down to the Dirty D (Denver) and afforded me all kinds of time to stare the skies this summer, which I did intentionally to observe the changing of the trails. One thing I noticed was that in addition to it be particualry dry and hot, the clouds were pretty much all cirrus all summer long. And quite a few of them for a State that is known for the amount of days it has with clear blue skies. I noticed a distinct absence cumulonimbus clouds as well. And it sure seemed to be more cirrus than normal.

That on top of contrails being either absent or the 'extremely persistent'/chemtrail type. No inbetween.

There were days when the trail was only a few aircraft lengths and was gone after 30 second

This is what I notice a distinct lack of in the last few years, and this past summer, they were virtually nonexsistent. Only trails that lasted all day.

The important thing I remember from that era is that the average contrail was gone after about five minutes at the most

That is what I remember from years ago as well. Those types of trails seem to be anything but the average anymore. They are rare. Cloud seeding is certainly not a new science, by any means. The fact that the quickly disappearing trails have, well, all but disappeared, makes me wonder if some folks are taking it upon themselves to tamper and experiment with the weather. Your observations certainly do not dimish my wonderment about that possibility ...

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 02:11 PM by CatJockey

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

if you choose to be insulted that is up to you - people don't notice things all the time - especially when those things change gradually.

Personally, I wasn't insulted. I was expressing my thoughts on the nature of your comment is all, namely dismissing people's observations out of hand without any evidence to do so. And you still have not produced any evidence to show my or others observations are wrong, that we are seeing more and more of the extremely persistent variety and less of the quickly dispersing ones.

Yet from the observations of many others, documented over even more years they do.

My point, and the point of others is that the FREQUENCY of these 'extremely persistent contrails' realtive to the quickly disappaering ones has changed. We have noticed a change. There are less and less planes leaving the quickly disappearing variety and more and more planes leaving the all day, cirrus forming ones.

You said there are more chemtrails - but since there is no credible evidence chemtrails exist I disagree.

Yes. And I stand by that. And if you don't like that nomenclature, I have no problem, as I have shown, to referring to them as 'extremely persistent contrails'. As I keep iterating, it is a change in the type of contrail many of us beleive we have observed to occur. And again, I ask, What has caused this change? You seem to dismiss the change, which is certainly your perogative. But the reality is you have NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC evidence to dismiss the observations of myself and others. There is no data that has been collected over the course of decades documenting such.

That doesn't mean my assertions are right. But it also doesn't mean yours are either.

Contrails have been around since before the end of WW1, and there has never been any suggestion otherwise from "debunkers" - I have posted those graphs before & am well aware of the increasing numbers of contrails and do not believe I have ever intimated otherwise.

Again, the frequency and numbers. The amount of planes leaving the extremely persistent variety today as compared to the past. And the only thing, at this point, that either of us can draw upon is the observations we have made and the personal observations of others. Neither of which are entirely scientific.

And at this point, about the only thing you and I can do is agree to disagree on whether a change has occurred, and I will leave it at that.

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 04:26 PM by waynos

When considering the increased frequency it may be useful to look at the numbers of turboprop, turbojet and low-bypass ratio turbofan powered aircraft that became due for replacement from the early nineties onwards.

Also, it is useful to consider how, in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness, high bypass engines, which are the sort in which up to ten times more air passes unburned through the front fan and outer duct than actually goes through the middle of the engine and gets mixed with fuel and burned, which by itself leads to increased contrail formation because of the moisture content of that air, were developed for aircraft all the way down to 36 seats. From memory I think the Dornier 328JET was one of the smallest types to use this sort of power plant. In previous generations such engines had been restricted to the largest types of airliner in service such as the 747 or Tristar class of aircraft. Nowadays they are the ONLY type of jet engine that airliners use.

It is this change, coupled with a general upward trend in overall aircraft numbers, that makes trails more prevalent in the last decade or so.

edit on 4-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 04:27 PM by Uncinus

reply to post by CatJockey

Can you at least say over what years the change occurred, where you were when you noticed it, and how much the change was.

For example, you might say "between 1999 and 2002, in persistent contrails went from about 5% of the contrails I noticed to 90%"

If enough people do this, then we can narrow down when the change occurred in various locations (assuming it's different in different locations).

reply posted on 4-1-2012 @ 04:45 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by CatJockey
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You said there are more chemtrails - but since there is no credible evidence chemtrails exist I disagree.

Yes. And I stand by that. And if you don't like that nomenclature, I have no problem, as I have shown, to referring to them as 'extremely persistent contrails'. As I keep iterating, it is a change in the type of contrail many of us beleive we have observed to occur. And again, I ask, What has caused this change? You seem to dismiss the change, which is certainly your perogative.

That is very strange for you to say - I though I addressed the change quite specifically in terms of aircraft numbers and engine types - and you did say that you saw the graphs

So why then claim that I seem to dismiss it when I addressed it quite specifically??

You may disagree with my answers or not like them - in which case I would ask you why - but they are there and you did read them.

But the reality is you have NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC evidence to dismiss the observations of myself and others. There is no data that has been collected over the course of decades documenting such.

Since I did not dismiss your observations I think you might like to try a different tack.

That doesn't mean my assertions are right. But it also doesn't mean yours are either.

My assertions of the numbers of aircraft are right according to Boeing - do you dispute them?

And hte greater contrail formation by more efficient engines has also been established by research - see elib.dlr.de...

So they are not my assertions as such - they are research and information that exists and has been done by others. I am happy to look at anything that contradicts them of course.

Again, the frequency and numbers. The amount of planes leaving the extremely persistent variety today as compared to the past. And the only thing, at this point, that either of us can draw upon is the observations we have made and the personal observations of others. Neither of which are entirely scientific.

As above that is not the case - the 2 reasons I gave for increasing numbers of persistent contrails are factual - a "simple" count of aircraft from Boeing - and scientific - a paper documenting the experimental results of looking at engine propulsive efficiency vs contrail formation.