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

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Scientists have long known that recollection of color is always more vibrant than the actual color.

What does that mean? Scientists have known alot of things for long or short times and then they didn't know them anymore because they are disproven. Non-theoretical scientists observe. So do I. Are you saying that everything is illusion and agreed upon reality? The color of the sky is only valid if a group agrees on it? My observations are only valid if I can get a group, say scientists or ping-pong players to agree on it? Are you saying I shouldn't be observing anything before reading the manual on what's allowed or not allowed?

Observation is one thing, memory is another.

People have ALWAYS had the impression that the sky was bluer when they were younger. Experiments have been performed that show that the recollection of color is invariably more saturated (more like a primary color) than the original viewed color.

If you want to research this, the term is "memory color",

scholar.google.com...

So it means that your recollection of bluer skies is an expected thing, something that people have always had through all of history.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by waynos


You can find some annual data on US operations - total hours by Part 121 & 135 airlines, scheduled, non-scheduled, etc on hte NTSB site - Table 5 and onward

Ok, Ive really enjoyed this thread and its been very informative to say the least however id like to add that just the other night while on one of my runs i saw much air traffic in the airspace above, I live near a major international airport, an air force installation and an Air National Guard Fighter Wing and what I saw were Contrails fom the aircraft I saw overhead which disspated very shortly after, so what did I see?...

reply to post by Blu82


sounds like you saw short lived contrails - they also exist!!

whether contrails are short or long lived basically depends on atmospheric conditions - if there is low-ish humidity then the moisture in the contrails can sublimate into the atmpshere quickly - hence they do not last long.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It was a bit chilly the night I was out on my run and from some people ive spoken to they said depending on the temperature and the time of season will dictate how long they stay visible.

reply to post by Blu82


It depends on the temperature & humidity at the altitude they were made of course - not that at gound level.

the rule of thumb is that temperature reduces at about 2 deg C per 1000 ft altitude in the troposphere - which is the bit of the atmosphere closest to the ground.

reply to post by Uncinus


Blue skies and memory:

scholar.lib.vt.edu...

Color memory and memory color are different concepts, yet they are often confused in the literature.

Ratner and McCarthy (1990) argued that it was better to use ecologically relevant stimuli rather than the traditionally used Munsell colorchips to investigate memory color.

www.usc.edu...

This result suggests that the influence of colour is occurring at a higher level of visual analysis where the knowledge of object properties is represented.

This is an ongoing area of discovery and similar to giving a French speaking child an I.Q. test in English, the proper format is still to be found if it can be found, organically, which I doubt is the whole story.

Also these tests will only work if there is an agreed upon base. Each person is different and making rash statements in group contexts trivializes an individuals' individuality.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Appreciated your link which is here again:web.mit.edu...

These statistics seem to be from the U.S. only. The overview I presented was global. In that sense they don't seem initially comparable.

In 1995, the total operating fleet count was 3228 and in 2010 it was 3450. That's 222 more craft in 2010. The airborn hours in 1995 increased from 9,840,533 to 11,361,537 in 2010. That's an increase of 1,521,004 with an increase of 222 craft. There's a 7% increase in craft but a 15% increase in airborn hours.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, an average craft is now spending 245 more hours a year airborn - without landing - then it did in 1995?

The block hours (tied to the departure and landing gates) (see link for definition):

aviationglossary.com...

taking out the rest of the hours of airborn are 1,743,493 in 1995 and 1,613,37 in 2010. That's a drop of 130,146 or 7%.

So even though the fleet has increased by 7%, landings and take-offs have decreased by 7%?

Why would they be flying longer average sectors? The 'free flight' was in phases and I think they were already into phase II in mid-2000. Also you did state that they're already largely 'free flight' now and Boeing back then said that about all they're going to really need for commercial airlines is a low-cost GPS.

They're not unloading anybody (like a bus with many stops) so how did the routes get to be longer?

reply to post by luxordelphi


If the sky has actually changed color, then that should be fairly easy to demonstrate from the photographic record. You'd just need to make sure to calibrate the images for the color response curve of the recording medium.

If you are just saying it's hazier, or cloudier, nowadays, then that should be also be apparent from a statistical sampling of the photographic record (although a bit harder, statically, than simple color). It should also be apparent from historical weather records.

Could you be more precise as to the dates and locations you are talking about?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thanks for the reply, I really like this topic and I didnt want to seem like I was attempting to derail a thread, I can only talk about what I see and what i see are contrails, water vapor caused by the aircrafts engine.It doesnt mean I can discredit the chemtrail argument either.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

If the sky has actually changed color, then that should be fairly easy to demonstrate from the photographic record. You'd just need to make sure to calibrate the images for the color response curve of the recording medium.

If you are just saying it's hazier, or cloudier, nowadays, then that should be also be apparent from a statistical sampling of the photographic record (although a bit harder, statically, than simple color). It should also be apparent from historical weather records.

Could you be more precise as to the dates and locations you are talking about?

The sky has not changed color. It is the same color it has always been. The interface between me and sky has occluded the sky and changed not only the color but the quality of light and the way that light acts in the sky. There was one day about 1.5 weeks ago where the color of the sky had returned to better then 60% of normal. It was a remarkable day and a rare occurrence here. Yesterday and the day before saw some hours where the color of the sky was about 25% of normal. These days are remarkable as well.

Over the past two years there have been a few days of pink which carried on into the night. In my assessment and observation this was caused by something other than chemtrails and chemtrails in those instances were involved only as reflective particulates. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The sky has not changed color. It is the same color it has always been.

Good, I'm glad we can establish this truth.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The interface between me and sky has occluded the sky and changed not only the color but the quality of light and the way that light acts in the sky. There was one day about 1.5 weeks ago where the color of the sky had returned to better then 60% of normal. It was a remarkable day and a rare occurrence here. Yesterday and the day before saw some hours where the color of the sky was about 25% of normal. These days are remarkable as well.

NO! You've undone all of the progress you've made. Nothing has changed with the sky, if it had, it would be measurable. Interface, sky, nothing.


Why not save yourself the time and mental gymnastics, conclude that a contrail is a "chemtrail" because it contains water, a chemical. Water is pretty dangerous, you can die from inhaling a teaspoon of it!

This talk of the sky not being right reminds me of Hamlet.

I have of late,—but wherefore I know not,—lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,—why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.

I would seem plausible that our "memory color" for the sky become relatively more intense as we become more depressed, like Hamlet is. Memories of blue skies harken back to happier times.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So if I'm understanding this correctly, an average craft is now spending 245 more hours a year airborn - without landing - then it did in 1995?

that could well be true. When I was planning maintenance for a small airline we go 3000 hours per aircraft per annum - these US airlines seem to be only getting in the mid-2000's, so IMO there's still room for improvement.

So even though the fleet has increased by 7%, landings and take-offs have decreased by 7%?

Why would they be flying longer average sectors?

Because longer flights are more economic - takeoffs are expensive in fuel, and landing fees are paid, as you might expect, per landing. Also most maintenance on large aircraft is done on the basis of how many landings it has done (eg a check every 500 flights) - some is done on the basis of how many hours it flies (eg a check every 500 hours), and some on simple calender time (eg a check every 24 months) - but a lot of the expensive stuff - undercarriages, engines, their supporting structure - that is all in terms of landings.

So if you can fly longer routes, charge more for the distance, and have fewer landings and takeoffs then you save a lot of "per hour" operating costs

The 'free flight' was in phases and I think they were already into phase II in mid-2000. Also you did state that they're already largely 'free flight' now and

I don't think I said that - I don't have a great deal of knowledge about hte details, but according to the Wiki article on it they are did Phase 1 back in 2002, and Phase 2 has yet to start - Wiki article on Free Flight

Boeing back then said that about all they're going to really need for commercial airlines is a low-cost GPS.

That was for general aviation - small aircraft, private flying - not for large airliners

They're not unloading anybody (like a bus with many stops) so how did the routes get to be longer?

As above - plus they abandon shorter routes to smaller airlines

In relation to skies being more or less blue than they "were" - check out this thread from a few months ago about another variation of chemtrails making the skies bluer!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have been watching these lines in the sky for about three years now. I watch these lines for an hour straight, and most of the time I see a ball of light appearing and disappearing. Ah, hence "orb". It definitely isn't a plane. Actually, I never see planes attached to these particular lines. The lines go downward and just stay there, not moving. For hours. Again with the ball of light, appearing and disappearing. A few times as I watch these downward straight lines slowly disappearing, (from top to bottom), I saw the ball of light, and then the line disappeared. All these occasions, the sky was clear and blue. No planes! Not saying I never see them with planes. But here's the thing, when I do see these lines with no planes and that "orb", I then see other lines with the planes flying by way higher. I was thinking one day, that "they" purposely fly by with planes with the lines, only to ward off the attention of the ones without planes and orbs. All anyone has to do, is sit and watch on a clear blue day and you will absolutely, no doubt see this. FYI. The only reason I watch this take place is while I'm outside for hours at a time watching my kids play sports. I don't just sit out there purposely looking for them, but now I do, and it's pretty much every day everywhere I go. Wtf?
One more note....if anyone is going to make wise ass cracks about this, I suggest you just look in the sky first and watch.

reply to post by intuitivegirl


Thank you for sharing your experience. I have never seen any of these orbs but I plan on looking more often. I stare at the trails if I'm outside. Sightings of these orbs are quite common now days. Maybe I will get the chance to film one

reply to post by adeclerk


You should be ashamed of yourself. "Dirty little Selective Quoting" She said this below,

The sky has not changed color. It is the same color it has always been. The interface between me and sky has occluded the sky and changed not only the color but the quality of light and the way that light acts in the sky.

You then say

Good, I'm glad we can establish this truth.

Then you quote the rest of her statement and say,

NO! You've undone all of the progress you've made. Nothing has changed with the sky, if it had, it would be measurable. Interface, sky, nothing.

And you Edit and Reword her post to fit your opinions and give no proof to substanciate your views while you decide and judge hers.Lastly telling her she has undone all the progress she has made? With who? One fact is clear also, You have undone all your credibility by your actions with me.. No wonder no one comes into this thread. Like myself they know they are going to get "Pounced On" and Cyber Bullied ..

Originally posted by Northwarden

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.

Just an add to the outrage ... are you unaware of how many British have been sprayed? Gulf War syndrome? Agent Orange in world war two? Please watch your absolutes, and don't spread disinformation. Yours, a capable lie.

The above post by the poster says it well..

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
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.



Well said .. Thanks..
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?

edit on 15-10-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: spelling