Pre 1995 Persistent Contrail Archive

And one more, from The Sunday Times, May 2 1965 (a few weeks after the first test flights of the Concorde prototypes), expressing concerns about persistent contrails from high-altitude supersonic flight.

upload_2014-10-14_19-5-40.png
 
So many great newspaper clips. Are you guys scanning these or do you have external links that can be included? I find if I link to Metabunk many people swayed by CT blogs immediately dismiss the info but they find that harder to do if shown an original source.
 
So many great newspaper clips. Are you guys scanning these or do you have external links that can be included? I find if I link to Metabunk many people swayed by CT blogs immediately dismiss the info but they find that harder to do if shown an original source.

Some of the ones posted upthread may be available through Google News. The Times ones I just posted are not (freely) publicly available AFAIK, although public libraries may have them.
 
Last edited:
And one more, from The Sunday Times, May 2 1965 (a few weeks after the first test flights of the Concorde prototypes), expressing concerns about persistent contrails from high-altitude supersonic flight.

upload_2014-10-14_19-5-40.png
Ooooh! Conroversy and disagreement among scientists and academics!
I think Prof. B. J. Mason of Imperial College means that because the atmosphere is so dry at those heights that contails won't persist.
R. C. Sutcliffe is a famous name in meteorology, and every meteorologist will immediately recognise the name.
Here is his story: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830906123.html
Unfortunately is insight was not very enlightening in this instance (the quote in the article).
 
So many great newspaper clips. Are you guys scanning these or do you have external links that can be included? I find if I link to Metabunk many people swayed by CT blogs immediately dismiss the info but they find that harder to do if shown an original source.

If you have lots of time to waste the Australian and NZ papers often carry articles from all over the world and are free online (use keywords vapour/vapor, condensation, trails, plane, jets, ice crystals together).

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper?q

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast

I see you're in Sydney, so you can apply for an NLA library card and have free at home online access to newspapers and journals etc. from all over the world.

http://www.nla.gov.au/getalibrarycard/

http://www.nla.gov.au/app/eresources/

Quite a large chunk is from Gale.

http://gdc.gale.com/products/gale-newsvault/
 
Full article is here (1954) http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50605162

This one is also a good lesson in perspective.

Wing Commander Colin Ackland was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in 1972 (Vietnam). If he thought the flying saucer story was silly, I wonder what he would say about the chemtrail hoax. He would probably be appalled.
 

Attachments

  • Mustang_1954.JPG
    Mustang_1954.JPG
    104 KB · Views: 418
Discussion of contrail cirrus in the slightly odd setting of Motor Boating magazine, back in 1969, when it was thought that it would have a cooling effect. (It has since been determined that the net effect is a slight warming one.)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&sa=X&ei=_RxHVNGMKYPP7Qb5p4BQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBA

upload_2014-10-22_12-10-17.png

And another from Popular Mechanics, March 1981:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&sa=X&ei=_RxHVNGMKYPP7Qb5p4BQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw

upload_2014-10-22_12-9-31.png

And Popular Mechanics again, October 1962. This time there really are "chemtrails" — they're the ones you can't see! (From what I've read this technique may have involved spraying either alcohol or sulphur dioxide into the exhaust to prevent ice crystal formation. Kind of ironic that chemtrail proponents say that the addition of chemicals is what causes them to persist, not disperse...)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...X&ei=3yFHVKfVM-Gc7gbB74C4DQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCTge

image.jpg

Note the typo in the headline there: controls vanishing at 40,000ft would be rather worrying...


And one more, from Popular Science, in May 1969:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=contrails&f=false

upload_2014-10-22_12-12-4.png

Half of the U.S. - and that was 45 years ago!
 
Last edited:
This is interesting and informative but the only objection I have is that it seems to me Mick is saying that all chemtrail theorists believe there were no persistent contrails in the past but I am basically a chemtrail theorists and I know there used to be persistent contrails in the past.
 
This is interesting and informative but the only objection I have is that it seems to me Mick is saying that all chemtrail theorists believe there were no persistent contrails in the past but I am basically a chemtrail theorists and I know there used to be persistent contrails in the past.

One of the major, defining premises of the theory is that contrails dont persist and spread and never have...and so, supposedly if you see a trail persist, it is by definition a "chemtrail".

This is obviously irrefutably false.

You are an anomaly :)
 
One of the major, defining premises of the theory is that contrails dont persist and spread and never have...and so, supposedly if you see a trail persist, it is by definition a "chemtrail".

This is obviously irrefutably false.

You are an anomaly :)

I have met hundreds of people that think like me in that sense. The most common chemtrail theories may include that claim of course but I personally dont know if that is the most common related theory. I would say my version is the more common one. Then again maybe thats just who I attract in to my life. Who knows. :)
 
This is interesting and informative but the only objection I have is that it seems to me Mick is saying that all chemtrail theorists believe there were no persistent contrails in the past

That's false. I would certainly say that MOST of them do.

If you want to say I'm saying something, then quote where I say it.
 
"There are thousands of photos of contrails pre-1995 that the chemtrail theorists say should not be possible. This alone should be enough to disprove the chemtrail theory."

If you meant some/most chemtrail theorists or chemtrail theorists of a particular theory that wasn't clear in my opinion. Just feedback. Nothing personal.

Your post is interesting and also useful to debunk those that do make that claim. Obviously irrationally.
 
Last edited:
If you meant some chemtrail theorists or chemtrail theorists of a particular theory

I'd wish to point out that the word "theory" (in referencing to "chemtrail theory") is possibly being used incorrectly here. (In the strict scientific definition of the word).

"Hypothesis" would be more appropriate. ("Guess" could also be accurate in these instances).

To expand, and stay in this topic: Persistent contrails and their existence is certainly proven, beyond doubt. But, jumping to an "hypothesis" some perfectly ordinary persistent contrails "might" be so-called "chem"trails? Sure, one can form that as a base point of a study.

But, one must then provide the rigorous scientific backing to properly categorize that 'hypothesis' as a potential theory. This involves many, many steps, and includes (among other things) a scientific community peer review by those who are educated and qualified in the related fields.
 
Last edited:
I'd wish to point out that the word "theory" (in referencing to "chemtrail theory") is possibly being used incorrectly here. (In the strict scientific definition of the word).

"Hypothesis" would be more appropriate. ("Guess" could also be accurate in these instances).

To expand, and stay in this topic: Persistent contrails and their existence is certainly proven, beyond doubt. But, jumping to an "hypothesis" some perfectly ordinary persistent contrails "might" be so-called "chem"trails? Sure, one can form that as a base point of a study.

But, one must then provide the rigorous scientific backing to properly categorize that 'hypothesis' as a potential theory. This involves many, many steps, and includes (among other things) a scientific community peer review by those who are educated and qualified in the related fields.

Thank you for helping me with that, sincerely. Although the last bit I am not understanding. Why is a hypothesis not a theory unless it is peer reviewed?

Seems to me you are talking more about theorems than theories, no?

Maybe this specific topic should be discussed elsewhere? I was trying to address the statement Mick made rather than debate definitions of these words.

It's of course a good post but I was concerned some people may take the wording as rather anti, even a bit confrontational.
 
Last edited:
Why is a hypothesis not a theory unless it is peer reviewed?

It takes a bit of research to determine and understand the meaning, of the words (when discussed in relation to science, and scientific inquiry).

I don't have (to hand) a comprehensive guide. I'd suggest a Google search as a starting point.

(Also it is true that often in common conversation, many equate the term "theory" with the word "guess"....or "opinion". This is unfortunate, when communicating).

Also, "Theorems vs. Theories"? Required ME to Google a bit (just for clarity):
Basically, a "theorem" applies in the realm of mathematics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

As compared to a "theory":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Hope this helps.

(ETA: The discussion above was hopefully useful in this discussion about a particular query, although not particularly relevant to the thread topic, per se.)
 
a hypothesis is an idea. a thing you think might be the case for a particular phenomenon. (chemtrails for example)
Having come up with your hypothesis, the proper scientific thing for you to do is to try and shoot it down (the idea, not the chemtrail plane) and attempt to prove yourself wrong. you try and find alternative explanations or reasons why you might be wrong. If you can't find anything wrong with your idea, you submit it for peer review. this is basically inviting everyone else to try and prove you wrong.

if nobody can prove you wrong and your explanation for the phenomenon is the BEST possible explanation that there is, it becomes a theory, or what you could call scientific fact (at least, until a better theory does come along. If a grand unified field theory of everything should be discovered, it will replace both quantum mechanics, AND Newtonion physics)

Pseudoscience is more like a court of law, or a detective solving a case than scientific method.
In that case, you have a "theory" which is what a detective would call a hunch of who the prime suspect is.
Then you go looking for evidence to suggest that the suspect did the crime
when it goes to court, the prosecuting attourney will try and "prove" the guilt by giving this evidence to the jury to convince them that their version of events is correct and the defence attourney's is wrong.
This will include attacking and attempting to discredit the defence attourney, and all his witnesses and evidence.

If you look closely and impartially at any given conspiracy theory, you can usually see quite clearly which of the two is being employed.

As for the chemtrails persist, contrails don;t meme, it makes sense to the person who believes it. You just have to "lookup" and you can see what is a contrail and what is a chemtrail.

You (and others like you) on the other hand accept that contrails can and have persisted since the first days of high altitude flight.

My question then is: So how do you know what is a chemtrail and what is a contrail? What makes you actually believe that they are NOT ordinary contrails? What is the difference?
 
Maybe this specific topic should be discussed elsewhere? I was trying to address the statement Mick made rather than debate definitions of these words.
the OP 1. never said ALL chemtrailists. 2. was dated 2 1/2 years ago. 3. something tells me Mick knows a tad bit more about the 'chemtrail community' than you do.

did you come back just to muck up more threads again with nonsense? if you are going to nitpick words, I think it's only fair we can nitpick yours. no?
 
"There are thousands of photos of contrails pre-1995 that the chemtrail theorists say should not be possible. This alone should be enough to disprove the chemtrail theory."

If you meant some/most chemtrail theorists or chemtrail theorists of a particular theory that wasn't clear in my opinion. Just feedback. Nothing personal.

Your post is interesting and also useful to debunk those that do make that claim. Obviously irrationally.

I've clarified it to:
There are thousands of photos of contrails pre-1995 that most chemtrail theorists say should not be possible. This alone should be enough to disprove the chemtrail theory for those people.
 
Sticking with the old Battle of Britain theme



This pic is from the following article
http://airminded.org/2010/04/01/visible-vortices/
Its a good read and some of the comments are worth a look as well, but the gem is a quote from the July 1940 edition of Flight magazine...

The explanation which has been given before as a possible reason for visibility of these vortices is that there is condensation of moisture. Such condensation might perhaps be caused in regions of low pressure which may be those parts of the vortex where the velocity is highest. Perhaps there is significance in the fact that it is at the tip of the airscrew (where the blade velocity is greatest) that the visible ring occurs. A fog formed by reduction of pressure can be seen in tunnelling work under the earth when, in order to keep out water, compressed air is supplied to the working face. The men, to get out, have to go into a chamber where the pressure is reduced before they can go into atmospheric pressure. During this decompression, the whole chamber may be filled with fog.


In the case of the trail behind an aeroplane, the condensation theory might be correct as there is plenty of water vapour in the products of combustion in the exhaust gas. If the atmospheric conditions are right, the condensation would certainly cause a visible trail.
Content from External Source
There are also a shed load of handy links to PDF's of historical documents debating and explaining the whole vapour trail issue
 
Looking at these old magazine articles etc I am often struck by just how "dumbed-down" we have become. Even the letters pages of newspapers had some fairly scholarly discussions of contrails. You certainly wouldn't see that nowadays!
 
Being in Bournemouth, I'm graced with such aircraft on a regular basis. The Sea Vixen particularly though I love the paint job the Hunter "Miss Demeanour" sports

 
Boeing 377 during the late 1940s creating a massive contrail at 40,000 feet according to the video. It's a prop plane :)

Time stamp: 13:50 till about 15:00



Great documentary/promo for airplane fans out that too.
 
Last edited:
Boeing 377 during the late 1940s creating a massive contrail at 40,000 feet according to the video. It's a prop plane :)

Time stamp: 13:50 till about 15:00



Great documentary/promo for airplane fans out that too.


The close-ups of the plane leaving contrails are actually taken from the 1944 film "The Memphis Belle". It's a B-17, not a B377, although they are similar planes in terms of engine configuration.
 
Back
Top