Some basic problems I have with believing chemtrail exist

taketheredpill

"Contrail persistence is nothing new or abnormal - there is ample evidence of them in WW2, and some from before then."

If you cite evidence then it is normally customary to show it. Without proof of what you claim, it’s hearsay, the weakest form of proof there is. I know of photos out there too, but they are photos. You cannot claim that you know how high in the atmosphere these planes were. Was this evidence something you heard of one of your friends when you were discussing how you would debunk these “believers”? If this evidence is ample as you say, then add the links – show me what you are referring to so I can at least reply.

The basic chemistry of hydrocarbon combustion creates water - eg for methane CH4(g) + 2O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2H2O(g) - eg wiki page on combustion

All hydrocarbons produce this water - diesel, petrol, propane or kerosene, and every other hydrocarbon you can think of as well.

the height aircraft operated at during WW2 varied considerably - from low level attacks to high level bombing by B-17's over Germany. B-17's typically bombed from over 22,000 feet - eg Schweinfurt-Regensburg raids were at 23,000-26,500 ft

so there you go - you have enough altitude, and you have the chemistry - what else would you like?

I’ll try to reply anyway. The first international all-jet passenger flight from London to Paris on 23 November 1946 ( that was able to fly at altitudes conducive to forming contrails – by the “official” atmospheric standards) was in 1946- a Avro Lancastrian, operated by BSAA.

Irrelevant - some aircraft operating at lower altitude has nothing to do with whether or not other aircraft operated at high enough altitude for contrails in WW2. The later development of jets has nothing to do with aircraft operating at high altitude in WW2.

and of course the Lancastrian test bed aircraftthat flew that flight actually had 2 Merlin piston engines fitted as well as 2 Nene jet engines.....and I'm not suer it was actually a "passenger flight" in the normal sense - there's a short announcement in this flight magazine page from 1946 saying it is going to carry a few VIP's.....but that's just general interst & of no real importance to chemtrails, etc

reply to post by network dude


thank-you for aknowledging that I am being rational - I can readily admit that contrails can persist given the right temperatures. I was merely addressing the fact that the original poster had very set rules for what could be responsible for chemtrails. I was trying to point out that for his point to be valid he would have to loose the WW2 evidence in this argument.
He requires them to be from Jet engines, airlners and from commercial flights. All not what he was pointing out - none were around before ww2. Those conditions seem to be often used when arguing the chemtrail/contrail theory.
No, I don't know about the changes to jet engines recently - I am a nurse. Could you enlighten me? Thanks.

taketheredpill
reply to post by network dude

 

No, I don't know about the changes to jet engines recently - I am a nurse. Could you enlighten me? Thanks.

the "recent" change is that the amount of air bypassing the combustion process has increased markedly.

This quantity is expressed as a ration - the Bypass ratio" - eg 1:1 or 9:1 - the wiki page probably has as good an explaination of that this means as anywhere.

An unintended effect of the increase in bypass ratio is that it means contrails can form at lower altitudes - hence such aircraft make more contr5ails than older aircraft would flying identical routes. This is discussed in this paper.

the abstract reads:

According to a previously established thermodynamic theory, contrails are expected to form at a threshold
temperature that increases with the overall efficiency of the aircraft propulsion. As a consequence, aircraft with
modern engines, with higher overall efficiency, cause contrails over a larger range of cruise altitudes. To validate
this theory, an experiment was performed in which contrail formation was observed behind two different four engine
jet aircraft with different engines  flying wing by wing. Photographs document the existence of an altitude
range in which the aircraft with high engine efficiency causes contrails whereas the other aircraft with lower
engine efficiency causes none. For overall efficiencies of 0.23 and 0.31 and an ambient temperature lapse rate of
12 K km¡ 1, the observed altitude difference is 80 m. This value would be larger (200m) in a standard atmosphere
with smaller temperature lapse rate (6.5K km¡ 1 ). In a standard atmosphere, an increase of overall efficiency from
0.3 to 0.5, which may be reached for future aircraft, would cause contrails at about 700 m lower altitude.

Here's one of the photographs mentioned:



On the left is a relatively modern A340 with high bypass ratio engines, and on the right is an older Boeing 707 with low bypass ratio engines.

the combination of many more aircraft flying than (say) 30 years ago + increased likelihood of contrails means that yes "things have changed" - but not as chemtrail conspiracy theorists believe.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

When I answered your point I was trying to highlight the fact that you were using "evidence" that contradicted your own requirements for chemtrails. Let me refresh your memory...

Perhaps you missed some of the items in the list:


1. contrail persistence is nothing new or abnormal - there is ample evidence of them in WW2, and some from before then.

2. Geoengineering wouldn't take place at altitudes being seen - it would be in the stratosphere -airliners and contrails are only operating in the lower part of het stratosphere, and that not all the time. The contrails being seen are not capable of accomplishing effective geoengineering at eh sort of altitudes being proposed.

7. The ice budget argument - contrails contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry, and water is lighter than any of the proposed substances, so there's no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place!

10. The gap between engine and trails indicates they are JUST condensing water. Trails of anything else would not have any gap - water has it because it takes a small time to freeze, and until it does so it is invisible water vapour.

11. Grid patterns are the inevitable result of intersecting routes, and wind.

12. Everything that's been identified as a chemtrail has, IMO, looked, behaved and been generated exactly like a contrail. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the oft repeated idea that "contrails always dissipate quickly"

###SNIPPED##

Care to comment?

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

reply to post by taketheredpill


Out of sheer lazieness, I waited for an expert to explain that. (he does a much better job than I can)
But the main point is that the "newer" engines are more prone to produce contrails than the older ones, and in a steady progression, the airliners have been changing over. So as that happens, the sky is filled with more and more persistent contrails at an exponential rate. That makes it so we all see many more contrails than we used to.

As with anything, please verify that.

So while it's always possible for "them" to be "spraying something" it just make more sense that until there is proof anyone is dumping chemicals on us, they are probably just contrails. (IMHO)

reply to post by taketheredpill


I haven't missed anything on that list - you noted some specific comments about aircraft in WW2 an I was answering those queries you have.

If you have any other specific comments then I would be happy to address them, but general insults and disbelief are not something that can be rationally discussed so I'm not going to bother.

It is no secret I am on "that other site" - the avatar is a dead give away and I have said as much before both here and there.

The rest of your comments are pretty much gibberish to me and I do not actually understand what you are asking.

taketheredpill
"Contrail persistence is nothing new or abnormal - there is ample evidence of them in WW2, and some from before then."

If you cite evidence then it is normally customary to show it.

I didn't "cite" evidence.

I said it exists.

Without proof of what you claim, it’s hearsay, the weakest form of proof there is.

I did not mention "proof" - I said "evidence".

You are clearly familiar with other sites that have a lot of the evidence on them.

you are clearly familiar enough with this forum to drag this particular thread up from a fair way down the page.

So I conclude that you already have access to all the evidence that has been produced, and I see no reason whatsoever to specifically address each and every point you have raised.

my OP was (and remains) what I BELIEVE about contrails and chemtrails. There is a lot of evidence "out there" that has led me to these - much of it is on various threads on here, and it is readily accessed. However I am stating my beliefs - not stating the detailed basis of them - nor am I going to bother doing so unless someone comes up with a cogent reason why it is that I might be WRONG.

The fact that you do not share my beliefs is not a reason for me to need to regurgitate every piece of evidence that exists that supports them.

sorry about that.

Get over it....or don't - your choice.

reply to post by network dude


Sure - I concur with what you are saying. However, it is not possible for a contrail to stay, as if magnetised, in the sky while other clouds blow right through. How, on gods green earth, is that possible?



These videos were taken by myself. Notice how the trail cuts through the clouds.
Please explain if you can. I wonder if, in fact these are the result of the following patent - for whatever reason I do not know, one can only suspect.

Generation of magnetic fields

i know chemtrails right? it's mythical stuff like, habeus corpus, or "free" speech or "constitution" free zones or affordable care will pay for itself or the war powers act is constitutional! wait! you said what? consti ....., where did you come up with that ancient concept? you WILL live by executive order, or you will DIE by executive order! get it? now, look at me and pay attention. watch what my right hand is doing, watch what my right hand is doing, watch what my right hand is doing, watch ..... Now, here, take your "flu shot" and everything will be better!

reply to post by taketheredpill


That would be different winds (potentially speed and direction) at different altitudes.

Here is today's aviation wind map for Australia - yuo can check the winds at different times and altitudes

-"FL" = altitude in hundreds of feet, so FL150 = 15,000 feet.
-Time is in "zulu" - which is UTC/Universal Time Code - essentially GMT - aviation uses this worldwide - so 00z = midnight (0000hrs) zulu
-Wind speed and direction are given by the "flag" at each point - the more "tails" on the flag the stronger the wind - they are called wind barbs, and this page explains them
-The numerals on hte maps are temperatures in deg C, and as noted on the map are NEGATIVE unless ther is a "+" next to them.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Sorry moderators -my bad. I'm still a baby on this site.

Aloysius, your actual point escapes me, but I'll roll with it anyway.I mentioned "proof" in regards to your "evidence". Show proof of his evidence is what I asked. Proof is a synonym for evidence and can be used interchangeably.
I use sources to back up what I say. If you were trying to get your point across in academic writing, an absence of sources to back up your assertations would result in a fail and would be thrown out by the professors. As to getting over it, Judging by the actual time you spend "debunking" chemtrails, on the number of forums that you do it seems to me that you sir, cannot get over it.
Seems like a pretty mundane way to spend your time,but I guess as the saying goes, each to their own.
What do you refer to when you say my other comments are gibberish? Which ones and I will endeavour to explain them to you if needs be. I did not mean to insult, I am sorry if it came across that way - I was merely trying to point out a conflict of interest as to your reason for such aggressive debunking.
You asked for someone to point out why you might be wrong - so I ask you the same thing - point out why I might be wrong in my points that I have covered and if you present a logical argument, then I shall concur. I spent a decent amount of time doing what you asked, be a sport and reciprocate - from one Kiwi to another - come on bro. Fair's fair.

That would be different winds (potentially speed and direction) at different altitudes.

Did you not see that the clouds were both above and below the trail and that the clouds blew through the trail ? So are you telling me that for that tiny strip of sky, the wind was completely absent. Do you actually expect me to buy that? Come on, you seem like an intelligent person - that sounds utterley ridiculous.

reply to post by taketheredpill


They are not Gauls rules, but I see how you got that impression with it being the OP in this thread. The points you have numbered answer specific chemtrail claims that get posted repeatedly in this forum by people who qualify them them by stating "this means they can only be chemtrails" or similar. If you take a look back through past threads on here you will be able to see just how often people come on here believing they have witnessed chemtrailing due to one or more of those. Gaul is not setting them as parameters, he is pointing out why such conclusions are in error.

I agree with him.

reply to post by taketheredpill


Well those fluffy clouds that are moving are not cirrus, therefore it is safe to say they will be several thousand feet lower than the contrails. Do you know that wind isn't going to be constant at all heights and that the atmosphere has eddys and currents like the sea does?

How are you determining that the trails are above and below the clouds? I don't see that and I'm not sure how one would from a flat two dimensional image with nothing to offer perspective? Similar with the image you posted where you say the trail goes upwards, it seems to me more likely that the aircraft turned towards the camera. These claims appear more mischievous than serious??

taketheredpill
reply to post by network dude

 

Sure - I concur with what you are saying. However, it is not possible for a contrail to stay, as if magnetised, in the sky while other clouds blow right through. How, on gods green earth, is that possible?

These videos were taken by myself. Notice how the trail cuts through the clouds.
Please explain if you can. I wonder if, in fact these are the result of the following patent - for whatever reason I do not know, one can only suspect.

Generation of magnetic fields

It is a real shame you didn't manage to video the plane leaving a trail where no contrail could possibly exist. That would be some real conclusive evidence. Never mind, next time eh.


BTW you might want to read that patent.

reply to post by taketheredpill

Did you not see that the clouds were both above and below the trail and that the clouds blew through the trail ? So are you telling me that for that tiny strip of sky, the wind was completely absent. Do you actually expect me to buy that? Come on, you seem like an intelligent person - that sounds utterley ridiculous.

Maybe it would help you if you started here and read through this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by taketheredpill


Well, let's look at the options. Either, there is some amazing new technology that can make a contrail stationary for reasons unknown, at great expense, or.... the contrail was at a different altitude than the clouds. What you filmed is cool. It's not something that you can see all the time, but it's a perfect example of how dynamic the sky is up there.

If you have ever released a balloon and watched it climb and noticed that it changed direction a bunch of times, that was the same thing. If you have kids, that's a very cool experiment to do with them to show that happening.

reply to post by mrthumpy


Actually, I have. This one was taken on December 16th 2013 at around 2.20pm by the Marybyrnong river in Melbourne Australia.





I was standing on the right side of the river where you can see the red circle at the top right of themap. Melbourne is a flat city. I was at the same altitude to where this seemed to originate from - in the same direction of the airforce base which is where the red circle is in the bottom left of the map.
Here are the flights above melbourne at that time. I was standing where I move the cursor to , facing the left side of the map.

Why does the flight not show up on the flight tracker?
Heres the weather info for the day...Definitely not minus 40 degrees.


Regardless of the weather for the day - how could it form from take off?
Your thoughts?

reply to post by taketheredpill


What altitude what that plane at? What was the temperature at that altitude?
Those are the questions that will answer all of your other ones.
If the plane was just taking off, it would look real big, instead, it's a tiny speck. Like it was 5 miles away or more. The temperature at 30,000ft is usually around -40 degrees. Even on the hottest day of summer.

Again, I am not saying this to disprove chemtrails, only to explain that what you see there is normal, and even expected.

reply to post by taketheredpill




Once you can identify the type of cloud you are looking at, you can estimate it's altitude. And you can always assume "assume" that persistent contrails are at the 25-35 thousand foot level. (since that is the elevation that best suits their formation)

This may help with identification.