1. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    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: Oct 15, 2014
  4. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    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).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Debra

    Debra Member

    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/
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Debra

    Debra Member

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Half of the U.S. - and that was 45 years ago!
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 4
  8. Gary Cook

    Gary Cook Active Member

    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.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    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 :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. Gary Cook

    Gary Cook Active Member

    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. :)
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Gary Cook

    Gary Cook Active Member

    "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: Oct 31, 2014
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  13. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    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: Oct 31, 2014
  14. Gary Cook

    Gary Cook Active Member

    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: Nov 1, 2014
  15. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    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.)
     
  16. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    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?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    And that is the crux of the question (which deserves its own thread).

    (Although, I believe it has been "asked and answered" already, repeatedly).....
     
  18. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've clarified it to:
     
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 4
  21. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    • Like Like x 3
  22. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

  23. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Sticking with the old Battle of Britain theme

    [​IMG]

    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...
    There are also a shed load of handy links to PDF's of historical documents debating and explaining the whole vapour trail issue
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    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!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    • Like Like x 3
  26. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    • Like Like x 2
  27. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Contrails shown in model kit box art 1950's - 1980's

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 4
  28. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited: Dec 23, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  29. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  30. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    • Winner Winner x 1
  31. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I'm loving these classic BRitish aircraft, Meteros, Javelin, Sea Vixen ( I think) as well as Canberras.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  32. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  33. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    [​IMG]
    Valiant Tanker and Lightning circa 1960

    [​IMG]
    Valiant tanker and Avro Vulcan, circa 1960
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  34. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  35. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    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

     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

  37. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

  38. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    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: Jan 12, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1