Clouds over Mount Shasta - Dissipation Trail?

i dont recall anyone discussing it. i remember you telling us that without linking any scientific paper or article backing you up.
I think he may be referring to this post of mine where I did some very basic cloud research and brought it up, but I am honestly unsure whether his take on it matches my take on it, or whether my take on it matches the article accurately. I'm very much not a meteorologist.
 
You show contrails that are close to the same diameter from one end to the other. The vapor trail is wide on end and tapers to a point. You have yet to show an example of a contrail that matches the geometry of the vapor trail. Yes, I do see the shadow of the contrails and that is a possible explanation, until you consider the poor geometrical match. To suggest that the stream of moisture that condenses to form the lenticular cloud is miles in width was dicussed previously. Unless the mountain top is several is 20-25 miles in width, you cannot get a lenticular cloud 20-25 miles in length.

"As air travels along the surface of the Earth, obstructions are often encountered, including natural features, such as mountains or hills, and artificial structures, such as buildings and other constructions, which disrupt the flow of air into "eddies", or areas of turbulence."

As you can see in the image captured over Mt. Shasta that morning, the cloud is a narrow band mountain.In fact, compared to the rm over the mountain, this one is very unspectacular. You need an obstruction to cause the moisture to condense. You do not see lenticular clouds over large bodies of water, there are no obstructions. In this particular cases the width from front to back, not left to right, is a thousand feet, more or less, not 20-25 miles. You can see sky coming through just below the lenticular cloud, that is a narrow band. I hope that makes sense.
The idea that a jet would fly at that steep of a downward angle that close to the mountain, to produce a contrail behind the narrow band of the lenticular cloud, seems from highly unlikely to impossible. The contrail is very narrow as next to the jet engin, soon widens as the aircraft proceeds forward. So the jet would be perilous close to the ground to make the pointed shape of the vapor trail in the image. I think this line of reasoning debunks your contrail hypothesis. Perhaps someone else can throw some light on the topic. Thank you.vapor trail 6.jpg
 
I appreciate your skepticism and with a Ph.D. In experimental psychology I am well aware of problem of going from correlation to causation. However, in many instances where there is correlation there can also be causation. Correlation does not exclude causation. I said earlier that I did not know if it was just a coincidence. I was not interested in the clouds with my naked eyeball, the detail was blown out by the morning sunshine.
your observations are correlated with morning sunshine

we know that condensation and cloud-forming is caused by changes in pressure and temperature that happen as air is carried over the slope

we know that sunlight heats the slope, making the air in contact with it warmer, which naked the air more difficult to condense and become cloud, and also reduces its density, making it want to rise, which adds moments of vertical motion to the sideways breeze flowing up the mountain.

sunshine can explain the beautiful turbulent cloud phenomena you have photographed
remember, this is the frame you took after the vapor trail frame

your own black arrow indicates what looks like the signature of a fixed-wing aircraft passing through a spot where the vapor trail points to

we also see, indicated by my red arrow, another place where visible turbulence has already formed. this strongly suggests that the turbulence and the flying object are not related.

as the sun continues to shine, the ground-proximate air warms up more, allowing the condensation boundary to move up higher into areas of lower pressure.
 

How long do they last in the sky?​

Thermodynamics is the controlling factor for contrail formation, described by an equation that is a function of atmospheric temperature and pressure, and among other parameters, water content in the exhaust and the atmosphere. If the relative humidity is over 100%, they can persist for long periods of time, typically a few minutes to hours, thus covering much of the sky in a narrow path. Frequently, because of mixing due to turbulence in the upper atmosphere, the jets broaden vertically and horizontally. The horizontal broadening can at times cover a large portion of the sky depending on the amount of water vapor available in the atmosphere at cruise altitudes, resulting in contrail-induced cirrus clouds. These can persist for much longer times — typically several hours, similar to ordinary cirrus clouds that are also composed of ice particles.

If the vapor trail was produced by the shadow of a contrail it would have been present in more than one image. These were photographed seconds apart. The contrail appears in only one frame. The sky was cloud free other than the cloud, the notion that a second cloud blocked the sun immediately after the image with the shadow is also not a viable hypothesis. Thank you I agree that alternative explanations must be ruled out. However, the object I saw on the lcd screen had a movement that was coincident with the time and the same path on the screen. I pointed earlier that the lenticular cloud is formed immediately above the mountain and does not bread out for many miles. The vapor trail was immediately above the mountain. Barring a deliberate alteration of the image, the most plausible explanation appears to be my account. In statistics we call these rival hypotheses. Once the rival hypotheses can be reasonably excluded, the argument for a causal relation becomes very strong. We might conjecture that there was a volcanic emission from the ridge below, Mt Shasta is an active volcano, however no gaseous emissions have been reported in that area. We might speculate that the hikers shot off a rocket from below, 4th of July was only a few days away, but hikers typically don’t shoot off rockets. One matters more the most is the eye witness account and none of the speculations square with that account. Therefore, we are left questioning the honesty of the observer since drawing a shadow over the cloud in photoshop is childś play. There are no other witnesses to corroborate the object and no airport radar accounts of an object movements.
Therefore, the most likely explanation, since it seems that no one can accept the idea that an object produced the so called vapor trail, is fraud. So we must now come up with rival hypotheses to exclude fraud. Polygraph, previous incidences of deception, mental health, hallucinatory drug use, professional back ground, interview acquaintances, criminal records

You don´t know me, so there should be no assumption that I am telling the truth. Thus we are at an impasse and no serious debunking can take
place.

In the meantime tahe claim has been made that we have see these cloud patterns all before. Well, look at the images below and show the equivalents. I have searched but do not have experience of. many here. Thank you.tube.jpgvapor trail 6.jpg
 
Last edited:
You show contrails that are close to the same diameter from one end to the other.
youre kidding me, right? i provide a pic to demonstrate what i mean by "miles away" and you can't take that concept and apply it to your own pics?

i think now you are just messing with us.
Unless the mountain top is several is 20-25 miles in width, you cannot get a lenticular cloud 20-25 miles in length.
you didnt say miles in width, you said "miles away". so i thought you were talking about the contrail shadow.

you dont even need a mountain top to make a lenticular cloud! but these in the Mt. Shasta museum are certainly miles wide or "in length"< you keep changing what you are talking about.
1670682998939.png



and where are you getting 25 miles? your "flow" pics show like this much of the mountain.
from Spring Hill
spring hill.png


is this pic the same day zoomed out?
0F828075-3BDC-456A-9D86-5041415DD7E7.jpeg
 
Last edited:

If the vapor trail was produced by the shadow of a contrail it would have been present in more than one image. These were photographed seconds apart. The contrail appears in only one frame.
This would seem to argue against your “vapor trail” hypothesis. You keep saying “vapor trail” as if that’s already a known fact. What is the physical process you are positing to explain a vapor trail that lasts for no more than a couple seconds? I’m curious.
 
The laminar flow, presumably 40 to 50 mph will erase an vapor trail or whatever it is. The lenticular cloud is a static cloud, it is a continuous flow of moisture that condenses and than dissipates on the lee side of the mountain. A contrail in the sky can last hours because there is no turbulence, typically, to disrupt the pattern. I meant to say the width of the laminar flow is not 20 miles. I meant to say the width of the laminar flow is not miles in width, the length is longer than the width. I am about 10 miles from the summit, that is my house. The lenticular cloud does not extend very far toward me, it is just over the ridge of Mt. Shasta and thumb rock, the protrusion in the picture. An object piercing the cloud from my vantage point cannot be miles behind the mountain, there would be no way for the vapor trail to be visible through a mile of dense clouds from the top of the mountain and behind it. I can assure you that it is not my intention to mess with anyone, I take this matter very seriously and have made every effort to respond to your questions. If the object entered the field of view miles closer to me it would leave no path in the mountain and if it entered the field of view thousands of feet or miles beyond the mountain top, it would could leave a trace in the cloud, but that would be impossible for me to detect through thousands of feet of cloud. I think this is indisputable. The contrail shadow hypothesis is what I attempted to debunk and I see no response to the fact that the contrail shadow would have lasted for more than one frame.
Perhaps you can address this comment. Are you still of the opinion that it was a contrail shadow? If you can see my effort to answer your questions as directly as possible then we have a real problem. This is not who I am and it unfortunate you feel this way. Incidentally, I climbed to summit in the late 70s and have the record for the dumbest ascent every attempted and survived. I left in 10:00 a.m. from the Ski Bowl, arrive at the summit at sunset, magnificent view. On the descent down my two companions and I hit a mudslide and lost our path back to the path that takes you to the Ski Bowl. We had descend straight down without a path until 5:00 a.m., we rested for half an hour in a flat spot, we were a one from the tree line but had not clue where to proceed. No water, no food, like jackets and no brains.
So perhaps I am not the one you want to discuss this issue with!

Below is another complex pattern, just enjoy the exquisite beauty. Yes, I see the heart cloud you posted, but I am asking to respond to the previous two images I uploaded and show me equivalents. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
The laminar flow, presumably 40 to 50 mph will erase an vapor trail or whatever it is. The lenticular cloud is a static cloud, it is a continuous flow of moisture that condenses and than dissipates on the lee side of the mountain. A contrail in the sky can last hours because there is no turbulence, typically, to disrupt the pattern. I meant to say the width of the laminar flow is not 20 miles. I meant to say the width of the laminar flow is not miles in width, the length is longer than the width. I am about 10 miles from the summit, that is my house. The lenticular cloud does not extend very far toward me, it is just over the ridge of Mt. Shasta and thumb rock, the protrusion in the picture. An object piercing the cloud from my vantage point cannot be miles behind the mountain, there would be no way for the vapor trail to be visible through a mile of dense clouds from the top of the mountain and behind it. I can assure you that it is not my intention to mess with anyone, I take this matter very seriously and have made every effort to respond to your questions. If the object entered the field of view miles closer to me it would leave no path in the mountain and if it entered the field of view thousands of feet or miles beyond the mountain top, it would could leave a trace in the cloud, but that would be impossible for me to detect through thousands of feet of cloud. I think this is indisputable. The contrail shadow hypothesis is what I attempted to debunk and I see no response to the fact that the contrail shadow would have lasted for more than one frame.
Perhaps you can address this comment. Are you still of the opinion that it was a contrail shadow? If you can see my effort to answer your questions as directly as possible then we have a real problem. This is not who I am and it unfortunate you feel this way. Incidentally, I climbed to summit in the late 70s and have the record for the dumbest ascent every attempted and survived. I left in 10:00 a.m. from the Ski Bowl, arrive at the summit at sunset, magnificent view. On the descent down my two companions and I hit a mudslide and lost our path back to the path that takes you to the Ski Bowl. We had descend straight down without a path until 5:00 a.m., we rested for half an hour in a flat spot, we were a one from the tree line but had not clue where to proceed. No water, no food, like jackets and no brains.
So perhaps I am not the one you want to discuss this issue with!
Who is the “you” that you are referring to here? Multiple people are conversing with you and you didn’t quote anyone here.

I personally am not saying it is a contrail shadow. I personally am just skeptical of the “vapor trail” hypothesis. You have a linear feature of slightly darker tone in one photo of a sequence of photos taken within seconds of each other. It has not yet been established what this darker streak is so I find the repeated use of the phrase “vapor trail” to be presumptuous.
 
but I am asking to respond to the previous two images I uploaded and show me equivalents.
We don't know what your picture shows. You don't know what your picture shows, and you're dissatisfied with our suggestions. There's no progress being made here, so I suggest the case be closed. I agree with @Z.W. Wolf .
 
I personally am not saying it is a contrail shadow. I personally am just skeptical of the “vapor trail” hypothesis. You have a linear feature of slightly darker tone in one photo of a sequence of photos taken within seconds of each other. It has not yet been established what this darker streak is so I find the repeated use of the phrase “vapor trail” to be presumptuous.
for the record, i myself am just using that term because what else do we call it? it's bad enough Mitz keeps talking about 3 different "phenomenon" and we often don't know which he is talking about or what comment he is responding to.

the photos were 45 seconds apart and had drastically different camera settings. the "contrail" is BARELY barely visible in one, and the next pic has drastically different lighting..very possible the camera just didn't pick it up once he changed his camera setttings (whether it is a reflection on the window glass, a hair, a contrail shadow etc.)

Perhaps you can address this comment. Are you still of the opinion that it was a contrail shadow?
i dont have a definite opinion. im quite happy with the glass reflection or hair too. esp since i think i see such linear reflections within the trees, in your zoomed out shot that you refuse to say if that was taken the same day.

pretty much everything you say about contrails and cloud density relating to contrails is wrong. (i am though of the opinion it is not an actual contrail [vs contrail shadow] we are seeing..it just doesnt look like one. i also dont think it looks like a distrail, imo.) It's not your fault you haven't read 5/10 years worth of contrail threads on this site.. but you trying to sound like you know more about contrails than me is like me trying to tell you i know more about psychology than you. This is not me bragging about my contrail knowledge, i'm more making fun of just how much minute detail the contrail threads on this site went into.
 
Last edited:
Well, look at the images below and show the equivalents.
i already showed you the equivalent turbulent clouds, just without the lenticular cloud in the picture, the last time you claimed lack of precedent
The laminar flow, presumably 40 to 50 mph will erase an vapor trail or whatever it is.
no, it won't
contrails can be unstable, but a nonturbulent wind would just shift it
 
complex pattern.jpg
I suggest for everyone who wants this thread locked to simply stop responding

or
SmartSelect_20221210-181830_Samsung Internet.jpg

it's still on-topic & polite, it'll wear itself out, no heavy hand needed
I will be happy to withdraw from your website. No need to lock the thread. Thank you for your comments, they are very useful. I am sorry you perceive me as so uncooperative. This was not my intention. Happy debunking. Adieu
 
Please review the following the following sequence of images. images got flipped The second image of the first two, occurs first it shows the bifurcating or lightning like pattern referred to earlier. This pattern will return several frames later, in the first image posted. The intervening frames show no such pattern and yet it re-establishes itself I believe that there is some form of energetic process that is driving the formation of this pattern. it would seem that wind that is moving from right to left would not favor the return. I have the full sequence included. Your thoughts?F4B2240F-5C13-4496-9940-8FA2FC8F9F7D.jpegD75E1FA0-75F1-4135-9760-7EA18B8E2512.jpegD75E1FA0-75F1-4135-9760-7EA18B8E2512.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 513876CC-5CE5-4507-B697-3146A51AEE2E.png
    513876CC-5CE5-4507-B697-3146A51AEE2E.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 86
  • 7D9FA8B0-0807-4AFB-B4D2-02F6DDBF08F6.png
    7D9FA8B0-0807-4AFB-B4D2-02F6DDBF08F6.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 84
  • 61EFA5E5-F750-46A5-8201-EB7F4EB1DE2A.png
    61EFA5E5-F750-46A5-8201-EB7F4EB1DE2A.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 76
  • 7238CAD8-F966-4737-9937-DE2EA7ED28E8.png
    7238CAD8-F966-4737-9937-DE2EA7ED28E8.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 79
  • 2953A7F5-A7E3-4DFD-8125-3E10C0738844.png
    2953A7F5-A7E3-4DFD-8125-3E10C0738844.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 83
  • CD4EB4DD-E10A-4BEB-BDE3-386CAF11A86B.png
    CD4EB4DD-E10A-4BEB-BDE3-386CAF11A86B.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 85
  • B89A4685-F46E-4BD8-9EA4-50C4E6789E1E.png
    B89A4685-F46E-4BD8-9EA4-50C4E6789E1E.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 89
  • 005C5060-FBDC-4CB1-9A8E-4EBF54E52ED7.png
    005C5060-FBDC-4CB1-9A8E-4EBF54E52ED7.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 98
Last edited:
Sorry, but after 4 pages of (beautiful, yes) pictures I am still unsure what is the main question.. I see interesting cloud formations, likely formed by chaotic turbulent air motions. What else? Is this a prime example of WANTING to see something that is not there? Is this an attempt to convince "us"?
 
Sorry, but after 4 pages of (beautiful, yes) pictures I am still unsure what is the main question.. I see interesting cloud formations, likely formed by chaotic turbulent air motions. What else? Is this a prime example of WANTING to see something that is not there? Is this an attempt to convince "us"?
No one to my knowledge has recorded complex patterns between the summit and a lenticular cloud. It is an anomalous event that may require an anomalous explanation. Can chaotic turbulent air motions produce orderly patterns over a period of two hours. The bifurcating cloud is unique and disappears and reforms later. Again it suggests that it is not random. I did not want to see the patterns, they are there. Thank you for your response.
 
Sorry, but after 4 pages of (beautiful, yes) pictures I am still unsure what is the main question.. I see interesting cloud formations, likely formed by chaotic turbulent air motions. What else? Is this a prime example of WANTING to see something that is not there? Is this an attempt to convince "us"?
Yes.
 
No one to my knowledge has recorded complex patterns between the summit and a lenticular cloud

let's do it this way... please link me (paste a URL link) to another photographer who zoomed in to your extent, under a lenticular cloud formed over a mountain, using the 8x10 camera and 4000 speed and your filters.

this way we can compare your photographs to theirs.

You don't know if this is unusual unless you have something to compare it to.
 
Is this a prime example of WANTING to see something that is not there?
I think it is an example of seeing something that is there but misidentifying/misunderstanding what you are seeing.

Like angel shaped clouds being interpreted as signs from heaven. or like funky clouds shapes being interpreted as H.A.A. R.P controlling our weather. the alleged UFO is like a mini HAARP from outerspace that made allegedly "impossible" clouds with its "radar waves"*.

*i forget what HAARP emits, maybe not radar so take that statement with a big grain of salt, but it emits something.
 
let's do it this way... please link me (paste a URL link) to another photographer who zoomed in to your extent, under a lenticular cloud formed over a mountain, using the 8x10 camera and 4000 speed and your filters.

this way we can compare your photographs to theirs.

You don't know if this is unusual unless you have something to compare it to.
Lenticular clouds have been photographed for decades. You do not need a telephone lens to capture the detail in the underbelly. Most images captured are shit from below and the underbelly is clearly visible. The high shutter speed was in response to the brightness. When the sun is at other angles it is not necessary. I emailed Kevin Lahey that specialized in photographing lenticular clouds over Mt Shasta. I uploaded images to see if he had comparable photos. If I hear back I will share his response. There are thousands lenticular cloud images on the internet. Nothing comes even close. This is an anomalous event and the area of the patterns is coincident with another anomalous event, the object that pierced the clouds and left the vapor trail. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume these two events are connected. Thank you for your response.
 
No one to my knowledge has recorded complex patterns between the summit and a lenticular cloud. It is an anomalous event that may require an anomalous explanation. Can chaotic turbulent air motions produce orderly patterns over a period of two hours. The bifurcating cloud is unique and disappears and reforms later. Again it suggests that it is not random. I did not want to see the patterns, they are there. Thank you for your response.
I guess I am not meteorologically skilled enough to know if your claim is correct. Like mentioned earlier by others, you have to prove it is out of the ordinary using links, references etc.
 
Lenticular clouds have been photographed for decades. You do not need a telephone lens to capture the detail in the underbelly.
please link me (paste a URL link) to another photographer who zoomed in to your extent, under a lenticular cloud formed over a mountain,
 
I think it is an example of seeing something that is there but misidentifying/misunderstanding what you are seeing.

Like angel shaped clouds being interpreted as signs from heaven. or like funky clouds shapes being interpreted as H.A.A. R.P controlling our weather. the alleged UFO is like a mini HAARP from outerspace that made allegedly "impossible" clouds with its "radar waves"*.

*i forget what HAARP emits, maybe not radar so take that statement with a big grain of salt, but it emits something.
Please refer to my response to Deidre. These are complex patterns that cannot be produced over and over for two hours. A cloud angel would be of interest if it occurred a hundred times in the sky over a period of two hours. If you saw your name spelled out on seashells on a beach, that is coincidence. If you saw it spelled out ten times that would not be coincidence, probability is now at play. Thank you.
 
no photos of lenticular clouds posted reveal patterns in the underbelly. I cannot link thousands of those images but you can look for yourself. See Kevin Lacey.
 
Please refer to my response to Deidre. These are complex patterns that cannot be produced over and over for two hours.
“Cannot”. That is at this point an unsupported assertion. Did the lenticular cloud last two hours?

And the object and “vapor trail” are not currently established facts in evidence.
 
Can chaotic turbulent air motions produce orderly patterns over a period of two hours.
you seem to have little to no experience with nonlinear dynamic (chaotic) systems. Turbulent flows are an example of that, and the patterns themselves are by no means extraordinary: similar turbulent patterns are seen at the edges of other clouds many times. Just because the pattern occurs at the underside of a lenticular cloud this time is no reason to assume a different explanation.

Go look up an animation of the Mandelbrot set: similar but not identical random-seeming order, that's chaos.
 
no photos of lenticular clouds posted reveal patterns in the underbelly. I cannot link thousands of those images but you can look for yourself. See Kevin Lacey.
please link me (paste a URL link) to another photographer who zoomed in to your extent, under a lenticular cloud formed over a mountain,
 
Kevin Lahey that specialized in photographing lenticular clouds over Mt Shasta
Can you post one example of a Kevin Lahey photo that shows how his captures aren't this? Just one shouldn't be too hard to find. Extra credit if you post 2 shots in a sequence.
 
From a glider pilot's article on seeing air wave movement:
Rotor Clouds

Rotor Clouds, also called Roll Clouds or Rotor Cumuli, form downwind of the trigger in the lee of the mountain. They are often approx. at the same altitude as the cap cloud and directly below a lenticular.
Tha accompanying photo:

Another photo, same website:


By the way, I found this by googling "turbulent cloud over mountain."
 
Tha accompanying photo:
yea most photos arent sharp enough or zoomed in enough to likely ever satisfy Mitz
fg.jpg

this is the closest i got to sharp enough (zoomed in), paragliders on the mountain. but still most hiker or paragliders on top the mountain upload at low pixels too. not spending too much time on it, but this was the only sharp pic i found of clouds above a peak. @Mitz can't find any either, which is why he isnt sharing them :)
gh.jpg
 
Back
Top