Pre 1995 Persistent Contrail Archive

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.png
 

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.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff 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.
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:

Ross Marsden

Senior 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.

View attachment 9577
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).
 

Debra

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.
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/
 

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.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:

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.
 

SR1419

Senior 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.
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 :)
 

Gary Cook

Active 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 :)
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. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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
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.
 

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:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
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:

Gary Cook

Active 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.
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:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
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.)
 

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?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.
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.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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...
There are also a shed load of handy links to PDF's of historical documents debating and explaining the whole vapour trail issue
 

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!
 

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

 

Rico

Senior 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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff 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.
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Contrails in literary fiction - Pre 1995 Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Leifer 1951 airplane spotters guide, USAF Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
cmnit Contrails in satellite images pre-1995 Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Clouds Givemethewillies Persistent Aerodynamic Contrails From Propellor Tips Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Forming @28,500 on 787 Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Giant Dark Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 6
Trailblazer Persistent contrails at 26,000ft Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Mick West 1952 - Condensation Trails From Aircraft - With a 1937 Persistent Contrail Photo - Oldest Ever? Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West An unusual persistent aerodynamic contrail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
MikeG "Non-Persistent" and "Non-Visible Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Mick West Persistent Cumuliform Contrails at 25,000 feet over California? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 20
S Persistent Spreading Contrail Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Trailspotter Persistent Blue Spiral in the Gulf of Oman General Discussion 8
D [NeedInfo]Persistent Contrails Picture Show Contrails and Chemtrails 2
M Converting Relative Humidity with regards to water, to Relative Humidity with regards to ice Contrails and Chemtrails 3
O More on debunking "no persistent contrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 12
cmnit Debunked: No persistent contrails in Russia Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Trailblazer Busy Sky over Southern UK - July 30 2014 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Dylmar Are there more persistent contrails these days? Contrails and Chemtrails 49
Mick West Debunking "Contrails don't Persist" with a Study of 70 Years of Books on Clouds Contrails and Chemtrails 98
Ross Marsden Aerodynamic and Exhaust Mediated Persistent Contrails - When do they Form? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
Jay Reynolds Debunked: "Hygroscopic Smoke" Produces Persistent Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
mrfintoil Discussion: False memories and "No persistent trails in the past" Contrails and Chemtrails 46
WavedRhyme Persistent contrails and overcast the day after Contrails and Chemtrails 12
George B Debunk Global Warming can reduce the number of Persistent Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Michael J. Murphy Admits Persistent Contrails Exist. Can't tell the difference. Contrails and Chemtrails 26
M Relative humidity difference between persistent and non-persistent contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 41
G Persistent Contrail Since 1919 Contrails and Chemtrails 0
JFDee Research: Consequences of Travel Shutdown for Contrail Coverage Contrails and Chemtrails 1
TEEJ Sunlit contrail, Cambridgeshire, UK causing media flap 15th April 2020 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Curt Collins UFO: Contrail over Canada? Jackhead, Manitoba UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 32
Rory Unidentified "space vehicle" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Mick West Sunset Contrail "UFO" over Denver, Nov 23 2018 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Aerodynamic Contrails at 27,000 to 31,000 feet near Sacramento Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
C Explanation Strange contrail like structures over English Bay, Vancouver 8:30 PM Aug 5 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Cut off contrail at sunrise with Corona Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Illusion of Contrail Asymmetry from Flying perpendicular to the Sun Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
JFDee Falcon Heavy First Launch - Vertical Rocket Contrail Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 3
Mick West Late Distrail and Later Contrail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Clouds Givemethewillies Contrail lobes or mamma? The importance of correct terminology Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailspotter Contrail cross over Tasmania and spinning contrails over Victoria Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Tracking the Contrail of ANA173 with GOES-16 Images Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Zigzag contrail on Terra Image Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Halifax, NS: Regularly Spaced Gaps in Contrails [Ethiopian Flight 501] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 47
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top