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.
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.
Ooooh! Conroversy and disagreement among scientists and academics!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.
View attachment 9577
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.
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
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
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.
Why is a hypothesis not a theory unless it is peer reviewed?
My question then is: So how do you know what is a chemtrail and what is a contrail?
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.Maybe this specific topic should be discussed elsewhere? I was trying to address the statement Mick made rather than debate definitions of these words.
"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.
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.
Stamp which was released as part of the 25th anniversary of the battle of britain in 1965 :A couple I came across on Flickr:
And something a bit different, from 1965 but using a picture from 1940 - see the bottom right stamp! http://www.grosvenorauctions.com/dyn_pages/current_sale_summary.php?Sale_no=71&ShowAll=yes&page=26
View attachment 10487
That led me to search for "contrails on stamps" and came up with this from 1968, marking the launch of Concorde.Stamp which was released as part of the 25th anniversary of the battle of britain in 1965 :
http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/page/3483/David-Gentlemans-103-Issued-Stamps--1962-1969
There are also a shed load of handy links to PDF's of historical documents debating and explaining the whole vapour trail issueExternal Quote:
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.
I'm loving these classic BRitish aircraft, Meteros, Javelin, Sea Vixen ( I think) as well as Canberras.
wow, the quality of the image fooled meThe 'Hawker Hunter circa 1970' is actually a screen shot from a flight simulator game.
http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/5095/fsx-royal-navy-hawker-hunter/
wow, the quality of the image fooled me
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.