# Woody's observations of contrails in MN

Hey, thanks, I like this idea giving coordinates that can be matched to trajectory and angles. Less homework for me taking the compass out and plotting its course.

Elevation is also useful for working out how far away the planes are.

Try getting something like this (presuming it will work on your tablet)

I like it, I was telling Mick about this, using triangulation and known altitude, a planes distance can be determined using this, it gives me the one equation needed tha I told him about, angle. I will gather some today so you can all guess at its distance, and find out how far off many of you are. Pictures can not tell distance in comparison to being on site, and I will be able to show this today.

A likely candidate is this flight from Winnipeg to Orlando, which passed right over St. Cloud at 35,000 ft at about 4:10 pm (taking into account the 5 minute delay for FAA data). At 4:05 it would have been easily visible in the sky, about 40 miles to the NW and heading in your direction.
View attachment 4395

Isn't the time difference 5 hours? which would also make this a good candidate:

This is too far south by at least 10 miles.
I'm not sure what/how you are measuring exactly but it seems to me the two lines in your picture aren't anymore then 4 miles apart:
http://goo.gl/maps/wodbT
Or do you mean something else?
With the flight above an hour later the distance is even less (below 2 miles)
http://goo.gl/maps/3KUWn

I like it, I was telling Mick about this, using triangulation and known altitude, a planes distance can be determined using this, it gives me the one equation needed tha I told him about, angle. I will gather some today so you can all guess at its distance, and find out how far off many of you are. Pictures can not tell distance in comparison to being on site, and I will be able to show this today.

I assume you're familiar with this too?:
http://contrailscience.com/how-far-away-is-that-contrail/

In the last candidate the plane is flying at 7 miles height and with an offset of not even 2 miles, the angle off only has to be around 15 degrees.

Last edited:
LOL, you are too funny, seriously, you think I am going to spend that kind of money? Have you ever tried to hold a camera still and take a stable picture of a plane from the distance of of 5 miles? You need a tripod with a super fast shutter, because its moving, and remove trigger to maintain stability. I run my own business and I do want to upgrade to digital here, but I don't have an extra 10k for the Avigilan system I want, but donations are being accepted I have other priorities, and as I said, I am here to discuss this, I could care less and you all seem to care more, but either way, no one has came up with anything except "Atmospheric conditions" Its a good excuse, for a while, until it becomes worn out.

Woody, If I thought that unmarked, unidentifiable planes were poisoning me 24 hours a day 7 days a week I would spend all the money I had to to prove that. As it is, you've posted a bunch of photos of contrails and clouds and using your imagination to interpret the results as "dumps". You've handwaved any evidence anyone gave you earlier in the thread about your ability to judge distance of a contrail. I don't understand the kind of thinking process that causes people to document clouds that they are afraid of, yet stops short of actually doing anything that could prove or disprove.

Isn't the time difference 5 hours?

You know what, I did mess that up.

What, not a pic or description of the plane, I am disappointed now.

Here's two of them:

Both left a trail from horizon to horizon, both showed up on FlightRadar.

Last edited:
This one is the second flight taken at 17:15 CST, over 1/2 hour later. Another unidentified craft with only a section of the trail remaining. This cloud was created via specific aircraft and did not leave anything before the trail began, indicating once again, a dump of some kind.

Can you explain what "specific aircraft" and "did not leave anything before the trail began" means?

A trail starting suddenly does not indicate a dump. It indicates it's flown into air that supports trail formation.

T If we are making clouds and cooling the planet, then whats the big deal about chemtrail activists and those so entrenched in disproving it? I'm sure the chemtrail activists have subjected themselves to far greater respiratory threats throughout their life. We must expect alterations, but if we can alter them to our benefit, then we do expect our government to do something about it.

The point is that we are not, other than normal contrails. You are jumping the gun with your argument here.

LOL, you are too funny, seriously, you think I am going to spend that kind of money? Have you ever tried to hold a camera still and take a stable picture of a plane from the distance of of 5 miles? You need a tripod with a super fast shutter, because its moving, and remove trigger to maintain stability. I run my own business and I do want to upgrade to digital here, but I don't have an extra 10k for the Avigilan system I want, but donations are being accepted I have other priorities, and as I said, I am here to discuss this, I could care less and you all seem to care more, but either way, no one has came up with anything except "Atmospheric conditions" Its a good excuse, for a while, until it becomes worn out.

All you need is this \$389 camera.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-Digital-Camera-2-8-Inch/dp/B009B0MZ1M
Results:

Last edited:
Is there a way to prove this through an exercise?
I'm thinking maybe a fresh satellite photo that shows an identifiable cloud a certain distance away and some outside observation?
Probably the best way to show how far away a contrail can be seen from the ground is to turn the situation around. In other words, how far across the earth can an observer flying in an airplane see when looking down? Probably one of our pilot friends can demonstrate this on video by approaching a coastline or other recognizable sea-level landmark and noting the point at which it comes into view, in clear atmospheric conditions, then pan across to the GPS coordinates.

Woody, if you have ever been on a high mountain certainly you understand that you can se much much further than 30 miles? Likely the mountain was no igher than 10,000 feet, right(unless you were carrying oxygen. Well, 30-40,000 feet in clear conditions you could see much much further. A sunlit contrail against a featureless blue sky can be seen a long way off.

Alternatively, you can fairly easily simulate any of this on a computer using Google Earth.

We are probably remiss in not yet providing a complete video for dummies detailing how to track planes using the FAA feeds. Such a video in excruciating detail would tend to help many people and become one of the most valuable tools we could provide to free these people from their fears and from the leadership of the movement who have failed to concentrate any energy at all in actually solving the connundrum

Great point Jay!

This is too far south by at least 10 miles. ...
Really? You can determine a difference of 10miles in the sky? You either have a vastly inflated estimation of your own abilities, or you have a rare skill.

On most but totally overcast days, we can easily see Mount Jefferson and the Three Sisters in the Oregon Cascades from Corvallis, OR at an elevation of around 300 feet. Mt. Jefferson is about 75 miles away and the Sisters are about 83 miles away "as the crow flies" and the elevations range from 10,047 feet to 10,495 feet. If I get a chance later this week I'll try to get a pic.

On most but totally overcast days, we can easily see Mount Jefferson and the Three Sisters in the Oregon Cascades from Corvallis, OR at an elevation of around 300 feet. Mt. Jefferson is about 75 miles away and the Sisters are about 83 miles away "as the crow flies" and the elevations range from 10,047 feet to 10,495 feet. If I get a chance later this week I'll try to get a pic.

These photos may work. this was taken at the intersection of Hwy 190 and Hwy 395, near Olancha CA., looking up the eastern flank of the Sierra Mtns. I was standing at an elevation of 5100 ft., the far mtn. on the right is Birch Mtn. elevation of 13,602 feet, it's nearly 60 miles away.

These photos may work. this was taken at the intersection of Hwy 190 and Hwy 395, near Olancha CA., looking up the eastern flank of the Sierra Mtns. I was standing at an elevation of 5100 ft., the far mtn. on the right is Birch Mtn. elevation of 13,602 feet, it's nearly 60 miles away.

View attachment 4425

View attachment 4426
We dont have any mountains to see in Minnesota, but my question is this, and this is the issue of this topic, 60 mils away, can you see the plane or the contrail its leaving let alone get a pic of it?

If we can return to the issue that began this discussion, how far can you see a plane or contrail before it becomes no longer distinguishable?

In order for Clouds to develop there are only 2 additives needed, water vapor and dust particulates. Here in Minnesota we have vast amounts of water offering the ability to create clouds by adding particulates nearly every day. On days when the weather is hot and dry, usually in Late July and August, we see clear skies more frequently, but still see these specific trails attempting to create clouds. They often precede storm fronts as they enter the area. Over the past 3 years we have identified 11 sectors in the Twin Cities area. No sector is ever seen with continuously maintaining trails for more than 2 days, and they revolve between these sectors. Here is a map of the sectors identified, this encompasses their major focus on any given day. Today the major focus was the very lower right sector. Today was one of those unusual days like October 9th in the previous report with standard contrails remaining for hours, yet the other trails were noticeable different being more condense than their contrail counter parts making identifying them easy. Due to a Samsung Malfunction, a power issue when they get more than 15% low, I was unable to use it today but will tomorrow.
I believe there is also a patent available, I have read it, on ground monitoring of atmospheric conditions that may be implemented. I hope they have, because oscillating it means they are monitoring it, meaning its safe and if our water can help generate cool weather and aid in crop production next year, well then its great!

A side note for everyone to think about over night, Arctic Ice melt. Global dimming indicates that the planet cooled during the pollution era, and if it cooled then the Arctic had to grow beyond its "Norm" Question is, what is the "Norm" for the Arctic and have we only met the norm or surpassed the norm? Thoughts on the subject welcome.

Woody, do you agree with my post here?

This is the flight you seem to have photographed:

Otherwise you should be able post a picture of this flight since it was passing over at exact the same time at exact the same location.
No, wrong trajectory, look at my drawing of the flight path. Now that my Tablet is working I will be able to get the true trajectory by the coordinates and plot it, no guessing. This flight went directly over the spot I drew on their, and they do not average miles off, just 5 minute delay.

Last edited by a moderator:
Woody, do you agree with my post here?

This is the flight you seem to have photographed:

Otherwise you should be able post a picture of this flight since it was passing over at exact the same time at exact the same location.

There does appear to be a jump in RH around that altitude in that area too

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sou...AR=2013&MONTH=10&FROM=0712&TO=0712&STNM=72649

Last edited by a moderator:
No, wrong trajectory, look at my drawing of the flight path. Now that my Tablet is working I will be able to get the true trajectory by the coordinates and plot it, no guessing. This flight went directly over the spot I drew on their, and they do not average miles off, just 5 minute delay.

Don't forget the angle of elevation from your location too

I was flying to Perth today. We were at 40000 feet. I took a photo of a distinctive dry lake and found the lake on some navigation software I have on my IPad. The software gave the distance worked out at about 96 statute miles and although the IPad photo is not terribly clear, the lake remained very visible welll after 100 miles.

No, wrong trajectory, look at my drawing of the flight path.
How is it possible you haven't noticed this plane then, it should be visible in the picture you shot, it was there at exact the same time, and only 2 miles off.

This flight went directly over the spot I drew on their,
How did you take a picture, was it on a leveled tripod? How did you make sure there was no angle involved at all? All this information you don't have (or give) which make it impossible for you to claim it was flying exactly over that spot.

and they do not average miles off, just 5 minute delay.
This was a 6 minute delay, you said your picture was 4:05, the plane flies over in flightradar at 4:11 your time.

There wasn't an average miles off, it was way below 2 miles, something you even got wrong with with Belfrey's first attempt, you said
"This is too far south by at least 10 miles."
while in all reality it was below 4 miles. I really think you overestimate your own observation qualities.

Can't wait to see the information you are going to grab with the new app.

Last edited:
Here in Minnesota we have vast amounts of water offering the ability to create clouds by adding particulates nearly every day.

The water that is in the contrails you see doesn't typically come from Minnesota. It is advected in from elsewhere by the same jet stream that makes it so the trails travel from horizon to horizon in short order if you are stationary as an observer.

We dont have any mountains to see in Minnesota, but my question is this, and this is the issue of this topic, 60 mils away, can you see the plane or the contrail its leaving let alone get a pic of it?

No, Minnesota does not have mountains, the point of the picture was to show how far away something can be seen with only a variance in elevation of 8000 feet, planes are flying 30-40,000 feet over your head. Take a look at these photos that Mick took of the Delta IV Rocket in August.
Delta IV Heavy Launch from Vandenberg, California
The Delta IV is 72 meters in length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV#Delta_IV_Heavy), that is similar to the length of a 747, at 76.3 meters (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/747-8_fact_sheet.page). Venice Beach is approx. 125 miles from Vandenberg AFB and still, Mick has a photo of the rocket. The rocket is burning a lot more fuel, so I'm sure the vapor trail is larger, but I'm pretty sure that under the right conditions you could make out a contrail at 100 miles and the plane with a zoom comparable to Micks, my guess from his earlier post about the Canon, he's probably got a 50X zoom.

Last edited by a moderator:
I was flying to Perth today. We were at 40000 feet. I took a photo of a distinctive dry lake and found the lake on some navigation software I have on my IPad. The software gave the distance worked out at about 96 statute miles and although the IPad photo is not terribly clear, the lake remained very visible welll after 100 miles.

View attachment 4430 View attachment 4431
It is far easier to see further from a higher altitude In fact if you go high enough you can see half the planet! The question remains, from the ground what is the maximum distance one can identify a plane with a contrail? I find it hard to believe that such a small object can be observed easily, even from 40,000 feet. The moon or the north star can be seen and they are a long way away, this is about the ability to see before an object becomes too small to see with the naked eye. This has nothing to do with the eyes ability to see light or the reflection coming from it. I already mentioned this before

Today the major focus was the very lower right sector.

1445Z, 8 October 2013, visible satellite image, don't know about your claim of "very lower right sector".

Cirrus clouds and attendant contrails drifted across the entire state off and on all day.

#### Attachments

• Minnesota_OCT8_1445Z.gif
102.1 KB · Views: 413
It is far easier to see further from a higher altitude In fact if you go high enough you can see half the planet!

From ground level I can see a couple of thousand light years without too much bother - height of observation makes the earth-bound horizon further away - it does nothing else to make things more visible..

From 30,000 feet the horizon on earth is about 200 miles away - which means that someone 200 miles away at ground level can also see you if you are at 30,000 feet (sans clouds, hills, etc)

Over the past 3 years we have identified 11 sectors in the Twin Cities area. No sector is ever seen with continuously maintaining trails for more than 2 days, and they revolve between these sectors.

You said the trails drift from horizon to horizon in as little as an hour. Why would "they" have separate sectors so close together?

Of course you could test/demonstrate your theory pretty easily with archive satellite imagery if you really care to do more than make assertions.

How is it possible you haven't noticed this plane then, it should be visible in the picture you shot, it was there at exact the same time, and only 2 miles off.

How did you take a picture, was it on a leveled tripod? How did you make sure there was no angle involved at all? All this information you don't have (or give) which make it impossible for you to claim it was flying exactly over that spot.

This was a 6 minute delay, you said your picture was 4:05, the plane flies over in flightradar at 4:11 your time.

There wasn't an average miles off, it was way below 2 miles, something you even got wrong with with Belfrey's first attempt, you said while in all reality it was below 4 miles. I really think you overestimate your own observation qualities.

Can't wait to see the information you are going to grab with the new app.
If I had an extra 400 bucks I would get it, but my roof and garage door are priorities, not everyone has this \$\$\$ laying around, but, if you are stating you are willing to donate it, I will give you my shipping address BTW, don't forget the accesories

Last edited by a moderator:
From ground level I can see a couple of thousand light years without too much bother - height of observation makes the earth-bound horizon further away - it does nothing else to make things more visible..

From 30,000 feet the horizon on earth is about 200 miles away - which means that someone 200 miles away at ground level can also see you if you are at 30,000 feet (sans clouds, hills, etc)
At 500 yards a mans silhouette is the entire width of the front site on an M-16. In art there is something we use called "The Vanishing Point." Its that point in which an object appears to vanish. I would challenge you on this any day, your ability to see a plane with the naked eye 200 miles away, I know the vanishing point is well before this, its just not that big!

From ground level I can see a couple of thousand light years without too much bother - height of observation makes the earth-bound horizon further away - it does nothing else to make things more visible..

From 30,000 feet the horizon on earth is about 200 miles away - which means that someone 200 miles away at ground level can also see you if you are at 30,000 feet (sans clouds, hills, etc)
Woody really could not understand this? Amazing...........

At 500 yards a mans silhouette is the entire width of the front site on an M-16. In art there is something we use called "The Vanishing Point." Its that point in which an object appears to vanish. I would challenge you on this any day, your ability to see a plane with the naked eye 200 miles away, I know the vanishing point is well before this, its just not that big!
Woody, no, you wouldn't be able to see the airplane. However,a persistent contrail can be a mile wide and against a clear sky could be visible for 100 miles. You claimed no more than 30 miles. You were wrong.

Woody wrote:
Woody said:
It is far easier to see further from a higher altitude.

Woody, if someone can see you, you can see them. Same whether you are on the ground or way high in the sky. This shouldn't have been a difficult concept to understand. I would be impolite if I mentioned what your failure to understand this means.

Woody, no, you wouldn't be able to see the airplane. However,a persistent contrail can be a mile wide and against a clear sky could be visible for 100 miles. You claimed no more than 30 miles. You were wrong.

Woody wrote:

Woody, if someone can see you, you can see them. Same whether you are on the ground or way high in the sky. This shouldn't have been a difficult concept to understand. I would be impolite if I mentioned what your failure to understand this means.
See Trigonometry I just listed, as I have said since the beginning, the average area of viewing is about 40 miles, from her to Monticello, Others say I can see the weather in the Twin Cities from St. Cloud at a distance of 72 miles, well, they are wrong. Trig calculation supports what I have been saying, try it yourself and look at the pic that started this entire thing in the first place and realize, Mick was wrong and I was right, at least according to the math.

Woody, no, you wouldn't be able to see the airplane. However,a persistent contrail can be a mile wide and against a clear sky could be visible for 100 miles. You claimed no more than 30 miles. You were wrong.

Woody wrote:

Woody, if someone can see you, you can see them. Same whether you are on the ground or way high in the sky. This shouldn't have been a difficult concept to understand. I would be impolite if I mentioned what your failure to understand this means.
Also, research refraction and how water interacts with this and decreases the vision on a horizon. Lake on every corner here LOL

At 500 yards a mans silhouette is the entire width of the front site on an M-16. In art there is something we use called "The Vanishing Point." Its that point in which an object appears to vanish. I would challenge you on this any day, your ability to see a plane with the naked eye 200 miles away, I know the vanishing point is well before this, its just not that big!
Of course I wouldn't be able to see a plane 200 miles away - but I can certainly see a substantial cloud on the horizon - whether it is a contrail or "natural".

You also posted:

sine of 8 degrees = .139173
.139173 = 30,000' / D.
Multiply Distance with both sides we come up with D x .139173 = 30,000' therefore D = 30,000/.139173.
Solving for this we find that Distance of a plane at 30,000' at an 8 degree grade would be 215,559 feet away, or 40.8 miles. At a 6 degree grade it would be 50.51 miles, exactly as I have been stating this whole time. A 3 degree angle would be 108.5 miles, and as this subject began, you can clearly see in the photo that started this conversation was Mick saying a cloud was 100 miles away, we can see it was far closer. We can clearly see the angle is far more than a 3 degree pitch. Now this is not exact, refraction has to be considered into the equation but this is accurate for right angels and for this discussion is far more accurate than any other posts. Can't argue with the math

Actually I can't understand your math - your prose is rambling and uninformative.

Here is a link that provides a much better explanation - at 10,000m the horizon is 356 km away - somewhat over 200 miles.

8 degrees is plenty of angle above the horizon to see a contrail clearly - Mick has done it all for you here with a nice photos illustrating how high things an be at "low angles", and has made a handy reference chart:

100 miles away is easily visible above the horizon.

Last edited by a moderator:
Remember, this math equation is the distance from you to the cloud or aircraft, if you want to determine the distance on the ground, ex, what area on the Earth is that plane currently over you have to use this equasion
Of course I wouldn't be able to see a plane 200 miles away - but I can certainly see a substantial cloud on the horizon - whether it is a contrail or "natural".

You also posted:

Actually I can't understand your math - your prose is rambling and uninformative.

Here is a link that provides a much better explanation - at 10,000m the horizon is 356 km away - somewhat over 200 miles.

8 degrees is plenty of angle above the horizon to see a contrail clearly - Mick has done it all for you here with a nice photos illustrating how high things an be at "low angles", and has made a handy reference chart:

100 miles away is easily visible above the horizon.
An 8 degree visual of an object at 30,000' would be 40.43 miles away regardless of a drawing. We are not talking about the distance from you to the object, but ground distance. Learn more or just plug the equations in if you like. http://www.webmath.com/rtri.html In a right triangle we have 3 uneven sides, we are talking about distance on the ground, side a.

Last edited by a moderator:
Of course I wouldn't be able to see a plane 200 miles away - but I can certainly see a substantial cloud on the horizon - whether it is a contrail or "natural".

You also posted:

Actually I can't understand your math - your prose is rambling and uninformative.

Here is a link that provides a much better explanation - at 10,000m the horizon is 356 km away - somewhat over 200 miles.

8 degrees is plenty of angle above the horizon to see a contrail clearly - Mick has done it all for you here with a nice photos illustrating how high things an be at "low angles", and has made a handy reference chart:

100 miles away is easily visible above the horizon.
Somewhere between 60 and 70 in the drawing would be an 8 degree rise, check it out tomorrow. On the ground that would make it around 40 miles away. This pic would have some accuracy if it was taken several floors up as the degree to the horizon goes negative, that would explain the distortion.

Last edited by a moderator: