Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Once you determine a trail to be persistent, it must obviously have been hanging around quite a while.
Consequentially, the plane that had created it may have been gone already.

Also, along that reasoning, the contrail WILL drift with any prevailing winds aloft, at the altitude of formation. Current winds based on regularly scheduled radiosonde readings can be found here (this is NOT the only source, however):

http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

Adding, and yes more of that pesky technical stuff, and facts and everything:

A visualization of the actual "network" of upper level jet Airways in the Northeast Region. I will center the link on Newark, NJ...but note that (like Google Maps) this can be slewed, zoomed in/out, etc:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=40.69257881822418,-74.16870117048495&chart=304&zoom=3

( Almost resembles a street map of London? ;) )

For easier "landlubber" orientation, here is the same area, nearly the same scale, but with more visual landmarks for reference:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=40.638411552472256,-73.90722655590139&chart=301&zoom=6

NOTE that it will be necessary to zoom in and slew around, to aid in local orientation. (It is MUCH easier when one has the actual paper Charts in one's hand...unless you are lucky enough to have a very big screen monitor?).
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
well if i was alive in the 60's to make an observation maybe. But I wasn't. Im only talking about planes in the 90's to now. How much bigger are they from the 90's if at all?
Both the aircraft, the numbers of such aircraft, and the size of the aircraft engines have been increasing in size quite smoothly in geometric progressions. If engines have increased in size tenfold in sixty years, then in twenty years their size increase would be slightly over threefold, all else being equal. It's not my usual teaching place - primary school.

"If at all"? You may be lying all the time, but I'm not. Please don't assume I am. I am a witness to the fact that engines have been increasing in size because their efficiency and profitability improves with size.

A Boeing 707 of the sixties was propelled by four 7,000 lb thrust turbojets. Three or four times as many people are carried on a modern two-engined Dreamliner. Its two turbofans have around 70,000 lbs thrust. It burns MORE FUEL. A pound of fuel makes 1.3 pounds of WATER, THEREFORE It makes more WATER.

But it cruises around 30-40,000 feet, and at temperatures below freezing, and especially around-40 deg C, it MAKES MORE ICE. And ICE is what ALL long persistent trails are made of.

Please don't waste our time demanding evidence you can easily find for yourself if you merely stop reading trash material in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Efftup

Senior Member.
some of the figures seem to vary depending on the source, and of course depending on which engines were used.

Boeing's OWN websitehttp://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/707family/product.page says that the Turbofan equipped 707-320B (first in service 1962) which came into service in 1962 had 4 Pratt & Whitney JT3Ds each developing 18,000lbs of thrust for a total of 72,000.
It could carry 189 passengers if all were in cattle class and had a range of 6160 Nautical miles on 157,285l of fuel*

The 777-300 (first in service 1995) has a total of 90,000lb of thrust but from only 2 Pratt & Whitney 4090 engines, so each engine has 45,000lbs of thrust or 2.5 times the thrust.
If they are all cattle class, this plane can carry up to 440 passengers and has a range of 7,125 Nautical miles on 171,170l of fuel

#Edited due to maths cock up# so the 707 did 25.53 litres per mile, the 777 only 24.02.
although this appears that the planes have got marginally more economical, the 777 Is carrying twice as many passengers.
MTOW of the 777 is 656,000 lbs compared to 336,000 for the 707



*fuel actually caclulated from weight of 90,290kg obtained from Flight Global Website http://www.flightglobal.com/directory/detail.aspx?aircraftCategory=CommercialAircraft&manufacturerType=CommercialAircraft&navigationItemId=389&aircraftId=2099&manufacturer=300 using a conversion obtained from airliners.net: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/200513/

So the engines haven't increased in power by quite the amount that has been suggested but they HAVE increased by a fair bit.

How any of this actually translates to the engine exhaust and the likelihood of persistent trails I couldn't say.

what I WILL say though is that I also did not really notice persistent trails until I heard of the chemtrail myth in approx 2012. NOW, I NOTICE them all the time, but I must have seen them before.
Just like I never really noticed Peugeot 206s until I borrowed one for a week or so and now I see THOSE all the time, too.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How reliable is the Radar24 site?

This is an oberservation I have made over the last 10 minutes. I will try to watch it continuously over time to see if it changes, but this is what ive found.

When I set the filter to show only planes at 26500ft and up, they are not flying where I am seeing the majority of the chemtrails...

Yet when I set it to 0-26500 i see the planes exactly where I see the majority of chemtrails.

Also, I will have to do this for my current area (NJ) because I dont live in MA anymore to actually be able to look outside and look up and see whats up there.

A very important consideration here is how far away the planes are.

People frequently misjudge this, and think the planes are "overhead", like within a mile or two of their current location. But given the planes are 6-8 miles up, you can see a huge field of sky. Contrails can be seen up to 100 miles away in normal conditions (200 in ideal conditions). When a contrail is very close to the horizon, and given the difference in altitude, then it could by 50 miles away, or 70 miles away, and it's hard to tell.

So where were you looking on this map (centered on Trenton, the approximate center of NJ), where are you, and where do you think the contrails were?


Take some pics of the contrails, and post them here.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
A few pages ago Vindog asked for a source for increasing aircraft numbers - Boeings annual statistical summary should suffice - the latest one is at this link - I have a picture from the 2008 one as an illustration of the info:

jet airplanes in service boeing.JPG
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Not sure where you got that from.

Trying not to seem "pedantic" ...(Ooops too late!)...the Boeing 777 is offered, to the purchaser, with options as to engine choice.

BUT....the POINT here is about High-Bypass Turbofan engines, and the advent and INCREASE of this technology, in more and more modern airliners, as they were introduced into airlines' fleets, even as the LESS EFFICIENT airliners, equipped with LESS EFFICIENT "lower"-bypass turbofan engines were retired.....ESPECIALLY after the horrible terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York City ( and Washington DC, and Shanksville PA ).

ETA: I "try" to explain...perhaps sometimes I might appear "abrubt"...it's not meant to be impolite, it's just "me", and how I talk/'communicate'. (I am MUCH better a communicator in person....after all, I DID teach scores of people how to fly....).
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
To be "pedantic"...the Boeing 777 is offered, to the purchaser, with options as to engine choice.

BUT....the POINT here is about High-Bypass Turbofan engines, and the advent and INCREASE of this technology, in more and more modern airliners, as they were introduced into airlines' fleets, even as the LESS EFFICIENT airliners, equipped with LESS EFFICIENT "lower"-bypass turbofan engines were retired.....ESPECIALLY after the horrible terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York City ( and Washington DC, and Shanksville PA ).

I was referring to the 45,000lb thrust engines. A 777 couldn't take off with engines of that thrust rating.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
A few pages ago Vindog asked for a source for increasing aircraft numbers - Boeings annual statistical summary should suffice - the latest one is at this link - I have a picture from the 2008 one as an

Am I reading that correctly...~21 MILLION flights per year (or at least in 2008)?

Thats astounding. And a lot of potential contrails.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Am I reading that correctly...~21 MILLION flights per year (or at least in 2008)?

Thats astounding. And a lot of potential contrails.

Worldwide, and that's 57,000 a day. FR24 is currently tracking 8,000 (not all jets), but if you do 8,000 flights, average length 3 hours (just making up numbers here) that's 8000*24/3, 64,000 flights a day based on the FR24.
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Am I reading that correctly...~21 MILLION flights per year (or at least in 2008)?

LAX alone had over 350,000 "aircraft movements" (which I assume is split between landings and takeoffs of both passenger and cargo aircraft?) and over 38.6 MILLION passengers in 2013. And they were number 2 on the busiest US airport list then. 21 million flights doesn't seem that crazy when you just extrapolate out a bit including world wide. It is kind of mind boggling though.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Am I reading that correctly...~21 MILLION flights per year (or at least in 2008)?

21.8 million in 2008...

Thats astounding. And a lot of potential contrails.

and 24.4 million in 2012 from the 2013 report

boeing aircraft data 93-12.jpg
Note also that the doubling period is about 15 years up until 2008 - as I think I saw someone post recently - a bit longer after that thanks to the GFC[/QUOTE]
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Not so. Not sure where you got that from.
I got it from Boeing's own website but a) I was actually talking about the 777-200ER and b) i misread it and assumed it was the total thrust.
The Pratt & Whitney 4090 engines make 90,000lb EACH. Sorry for that cock up.
Boeing's website: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.page? is not actually that clear.

I am aware they have a choice of engines but I picked Pratt & Whitney cos I was comparing to the Pratt & Whitney's on the 707 I was comparing, and as those were 18,000lb thrust each the new engines are exactly 5 times more powerful.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
Here's an example of a contrail 200 miles away. Multiple shots of the same contrail drifting in the wind.


See: http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/
You forgot to mention how that so called contrail freaked out half the nation ? Also now finally admitting our memory of older less contrail filled skies weren't as flawed as all of you said ? Finally you getting somewhere and may actually convince people they are not being Chemtrailed .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You forgot to mention how that so called contrail freaked out half the nation ? Also now finally admitting our memory of older less contrail filled skies weren't as flawed as all of you said ? Finally you getting somewhere and may actually convince people they are not being Chemtrailed .
HALF the nation?
 
J

Joe

Guest
3 billion people watch RT? huh. learn something new everyday.

No not really just pointing out there was quite a panic and it wasn't just the USA that noticed it . The point was why did a simple contrail attract so much Media attention ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You forgot to mention how that so called contrail freaked out half the nation ? Also now finally admitting our memory of older less contrail filled skies weren't as flawed as all of you said ? Finally you getting somewhere and may actually convince people they are not being Chemtrailed .

What? The fact that there is more air traffic has been a central point since day one. The claim I debunked (and continue to debunk) was that "contrail filled skies" did not exist.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
No not really just pointing out there was quite a panic and it wasn't just the USA that noticed it . The point was why did a simple contrail attract so much Media attention ?
it didn't attract the media in my area. did it attract media in your area?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No not really just pointing out there was quite a panic and it wasn't just the USA that noticed it . The point was why did a simple contrail attract so much Media attention ?

Because it looked like a missile launch by a foreign government just a few miles from Los Angeles, until it got debunked:
Lots of people STILL think it was a missile launch.
 
J

Joe

Guest
What? The fact that there is more air traffic has been a central point since day one. The claim I debunked (and continue to debunk) was that "contrail filled skies" did not exist.
No you questioned peoples Memory .The skies weren't as contrail filled in the past as today . Which you all seem to be admitting finally . As stated above there is more because of higher altitudes cleaner jet Engines and more flights .I would say without the Higher altitudes and cleaner engines even with more flights there would be less persistent contrails . Like I said why did a simple contrail attract so much media attention ? Would it today ? Telling people their memory is wrong is not going to convince them is all Im really trying to say . Even the Pentagon was Clueless :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No you questioned peoples Memory .The skies weren't as contrail filled in the past as today

I never questioned that fact. In fact it's something I say quite often - there's more air traffic now. I'm genuinely sorry that you got the wrong idea, as it demonstrate I must have been doing something wrong for quite a while.

I do question people's memories about there NEVER being contrail covered skies, or contrails NEVER persisting. But I have not ever questioned that there are more contrails now than there were in the past.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I had no idea Mick was that famous, and with only a laptop at his disposal he was the only person in the "world" that figured out what caused that infamous contrail. Way to go Mick!

Several people figured it out. I was just the only one with a contrail blog. Identifying the likely plane was initially done by someone else (and the plane I mention in the video was wrong). I did some extensive fitting of the photos to the radar track later to prove the correct plane.
http://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/

 
J

Joe

Guest
I remember it from Breitbarts Big Peace and Somehow this mysterious person showed up to debunk it ? There was a blog but the link no longer works . Those sunglasses remind me of someone else :)


marcus_sappus
1p
1 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

190 weeks ago @ Big Peace - The Missile Next Time · 4 replies · -2 points

US Airways Flight 808 from Honolulu to Phoenix flew over that exact area at the exact same time.
Coincidence? I think not.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history...
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airway... Liem Bahneman

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I remember it from Breitbarts Big Peace and Somehow this mysterious person showed up to debunk it ? There was a blog but the link no longer works . Those sunglasses remind me of someone else :)


marcus_sappus
1p
1 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

190 weeks ago @ Big Peace - The Missile Next Time · 4 replies · -2 points

US Airways Flight 808 from Honolulu to Phoenix flew over that exact area at the exact same time.
Coincidence? I think not.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history...
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airway...

Content from External Source
Regardless...."sunglasses" or not...this is OLD. Done, already covered.
 
J

Joe

Guest
I never questioned that fact. In fact it's something I say quite often - there's more air traffic now. I'm genuinely sorry that you got the wrong idea, as it demonstrate I must have been doing something wrong for quite a while.

I do question people's memories about there NEVER being contrail covered skies, or contrails NEVER persisting. But I have not ever questioned that there are more contrails now than there were in the past.
So if I say Iv never seen or noticed a contrail covered sky before 19?? . Is it because I just never looked up at a certain time or I just forgot ? So how can you question my memory or anyone elses ? You cant if we just failed to notice them at the time they were present . Thats where I have a problem with what you say .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
So if I say Iv never seen or noticed a contrail covered sky before 19?? . Is it because I just never looked up at a certain time or I just forgot ? So how can you question my memory or anyone elses ? You cant if we just failed to notice them at the time they were present . Thats where I have a problem with what you say .
vindog never said he didn't see a contrail COVERED sky. he said he never saw ANY contrails persisting over like 20 mins tops AND he was adamant about watching the sky. I can question his memory because I saw them an hour from him, as well as the 'black clouds' he implied are now suspicious. I actually remember sunsets and clouds he implied were suspicious IN salem Massachusetts in the late 80's and early 90's. I remember cause, well... it's Salem dark creepy skies are cool.

so I think his memory can be questioned.

If he admits he MAYBE just failed to notice them, that's cool. I cant even remember if I saw contrails last Saturday.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
So how can you question my memory or anyone elses ?

I don't think this should be seen as an attack on someone specific. The point is that human memory is generally unreliable, in varying degrees. As stated before, I don't trust my own memory very much, and every proper skeptic should do so in my opinion.

Vindog has demanded references - which is perfectly justified - but the only reference that he himself has given for his claim was his memory. That has turned the focus on the reliability issue.

Again: his memory may be correct after all - as stated before, there might be logical explanations for what he remembers, like new air traffic routes over his previously quiet area.

However, personal memory alone will always be weak evidence.
 
J

Joe

Guest
I don't think this should be seen as an attack on someone specific. The point is that human memory is generally unreliable, in varying degrees. As stated before, I don't trust my own memory very much, and every proper skeptic should do so in my opinion.

Vindog has demanded references - which is perfectly justified - but the only reference that he himself has given for his claim was his memory. That has turned the focus on the reliability issue.

Again: his memory may be correct after all - as stated before, there might be logical explanations for what he remembers, like new air traffic routes over his previously quiet area.

However, personal memory alone will always be weak evidence.
Well at first that's all I had was my memory . Then decided to go to thousands of my old photographs .Then came to Contrail Science and then Metabunk . Only found one that was possibly loaded with contrails at the Sebastian Inlet . But now they seem to show up a good percentage of the time . Just like the thread old photos we have here which clearly show them . But those photos A few that even I found are from many years and really are not that many . So its as many have said being more aware of them now and there being quite a increase of them as well . Clearly they are just Persistent Contrails and not chemtrails but they can make a beautiful day gloomy and are quite ugly when there are so many . IMO .
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...but they can make a beautiful day gloomy and are quite ugly when there are so many .

Well, welcome to the planet Earth, and weather. Didn't mean to seem offensive there, but it IS weather, and we do have climatic differences on this planet, depending on where we are.

High-altitude-induced (by aviation) cirrus clouds are NOT such a big issue nor concern. "Mother Nature" contributes already, in MUCH more vast quantities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But those photos A few that even I found are from many years and really are not that many . So its as many have said being more aware of them now and there being quite a increase of them as well .

While there's an increase, even modern photos don't generally show contrails. Try going through thousands of current photos from around the Sebastian Inlet. Quite hard to find contrails.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sebastian Inlet&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch


You can repeat this for any scene that you've see in a "chemtrail" photo. Some sets will have more, as they are generally looking up at the sky:

But even then, not so many.
 
Last edited:
Top