Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]


I'm not an expert in contrails, but I would imagine that these contrails are a mix of new and persistant contrails from WWII.
key words here. you are guessing. I can make a guess too. Im guessing that seeing how the men in the picture have their Binoculars pointed skyward they are watching some sort of dog fight. The dog fight is more than likely still on going and those are more than likely fresh trails. Do you think these guys are just checking out the trails in the middle of a war?
 
Like I said before. Im finding now that you guys are giving me photo evidence, that one picture of a condensation or chemical trail doesn't really show anything. It doesnt show how long it was up there, how much it spread out, when it was taken, weather/atmospheric conditions(which most certainly make a difference) or altitude of the planes. Now that I am on the receiving end of 1 random picture here and there, I am seeing why it helps to have all that other information. I have seen what I believe to be normal CONtrails spread out like that 1 vertical trail in a matter of minutes before. It's when they stay up there for hours and hours that I believe it is suspicious.

Contrails are made of the same stuff as cirrus clouds. Are you suspicious of cirrus clouds when they stay up there for "hours and hours"?
 
Your disclaimer may claim to be lopsided in my favor, but in my own experience that is a bold face lie.

Could you set aside the snark and focus on contrails instead?

If you do not believe that condensation trails left by fossil fuel-burning engines can persist, then please explain THIS video from WW 2:
 
key words here. you are guessing. I can make a guess too. Im guessing that seeing how the men in the picture have their Binoculars pointed skyward they are watching some sort of dog fight. The dog fight is more than likely still on going and those are more than likely fresh trails. Do you think these guys are just checking out the trails in the middle of a war?
No, I have no idea why they are looking up. Maybe they thought the sky was pretty with all the contrails in them, and it inspired the photographer to take a photo of it. Hell, maybe the photographer staged the photo and asked a bunch of military men to sit in front of him pointing at the sky with their guns in their hands for all we know. But the truth of the matter is, it's easy to identify the contrails that are newer from those that have persisted due to their size and density
 
You came here as a non believer only 1 year ago, yet you are a forgotten staff member? explain.
Well, I think it was well over a year. I would have to look. I agree with the method of debate and policies here. I think Mick has done a great job of consistency and giving people a chance to present their position within the rules. So when he needed some help to moderate several months ago I said I would volunteer.

P.S. I think it says much of Mick to trust someone who does not believe everything he believes. He trusted me though we differ in many ways.
 
Could you set aside the snark and focus on contrails instead?

If you do not believe that condensation trails left by fossil fuel-burning engines can persist, then please explain THIS video from WW 2:

The video shows what appears to be fresh trails and other trails that are spreading out. so? they are obviously filming an on going dog fight, wich is on going or just ended. Or do you think they are documenting the contrails for science during the battle?
 
Sorry, but I don't get your point. Please explain. Why have you not responded to the point of my post, which is that you have altered your criterion about what is a "normal" contrail?
Touche is a way to acknowledge a blow. I dont know how to put accents in so maybe that is why you misunderstood. The latter means that I am standing by my latter statements.
 
Like I said before. Im finding now that you guys are giving me photo evidence, that one picture of a condensation or chemical trail doesn't really show anything.

Why isnt that logic applied to the 1000s of "chemtrail" photos posted on the internet?
 
Touche is a way to acknowledge a blow. I dont know how to put accents in so maybe that is why you misunderstood. The latter means that I am standing by my latter statements.

So I repeat: There is no way to determine, from a still photo, whether a trail has persisted for more than 20 minutes. You have just "moved the goalposts" to where it is impossible to falsify your (new, altered) claim.

There is now no point in trying to find photos of persistent trails from your area in the 1990s.

PS: So you now say that any, say, 15-minute-persisting trails are equivalent to your remembered gone within "seconds" trails?
 
Interesting that you only disagree with the Politeness policy part...no comment on the rest of your little set up?
It's hardly a secret that Mick wants Metabunk and Contrailscience to function in such a way that it provides a source of useful information for people to respond to the claims surrounding the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory. Mick states this explicitly. But saying that it's a "scam" suggests that the information provided is incorrect. Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
 
Interesting that you only disagree with the Politeness policy part...no comment on the rest of your little set up?

Your disclaimer may claim to be lopsided in my favor, but in my own experience that is a bold face lie.

Again, let's stick to the actual contrail science here. There's a site feedback forum if you wish to offer some criticism.
https://www.metabunk.org/forums/site-feedback-news.15/

Is there anything in this thread that people have told you that is incorrect? Please quote it, and explain why.
 
Why isnt that logic applied to the 1000s of "chemtrail" photos posted on the internet?
That is a fair question now that I am on the other end of the spectrum. There are also videos of timelapse captures though which i believe could be used as more credible evidence.







these are only the first 3 videos that came up when I searched for "chemtrail time lapse" on youtube. Even in these videos though they dont include any kind of radar information, date or weather information which I intend on including after I make some of my own timelapse recordings.

with that being said, I believe that this conversation is going to keep going in circles until I can produce some of my own research and videos to present to you guys and go from there....thoughts?
 
Again, let's stick to the actual contrail science here. There's a site feedback forum if you wish to offer some criticism.
https://www.metabunk.org/forums/site-feedback-news.15/

Is there anything in this thread that people have told you that is incorrect? Please quote it, and explain why.
Well I believe that using old pictures and videos of contrails behaving "suspicously" over 70 years does not explain my own personal observations.
like I said in my last post, I think what I need to do is make my own Timelapse video of the phenomenon with Timestamps, indication of which direction im facing, radar and humidity readings...my only problem is that Im not very tech savvy and have never put together a video like that and have no idea on how to edit. I also dont know if once i make a recording if I can go backwards in time on that RADAR24 site to figure out the altitude of the planes i recorded....
 
Well I believe that using old pictures and videos of contrails behaving "suspicously" over 70 years does not explain my own personal observations.
like I said in my last post, I think what I need to do is make my own Timelapse video of the phenomenon with Timestamps, indication of which direction im facing, radar and humidity readings...my only problem is that Im not very tech savvy and have never put together a video like that and have no idea on how to edit. I also dont know if once i make a recording if I can go backwards in time on that RADAR24 site to figure out the altitude of the planes i recorded....

I came late to this discussion so this may have been covered but what percentage of contrails do you consider "suspicious"?
 
I came late to this discussion so this may have been covered but what percentage of contrails do you consider "suspicious"?
Its hard to put a percentage on it. Some days it is the majority, others not so much.

To be fair to this argument, I am going to do my best to make a good timelapse capture with directional indicators, date/timestamps, Radar information etc, because as this conversation has progressed, I am understanding more why this is all important information. At this moment the only thing I know how to do is make a timelapse video. I dont know how to edit it and add stuff like the radar information (if i can even go backwards through the radar data to figure out the altitudes). any information on how to do this stuff would be GREATLY appreciated.
 
Not pictures but also research confirm the existence of persistent contrails for hours in the seventies:

The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
Content from External Source
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.
Content from External Source
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2
 
Well I believe that using old pictures and videos of contrails behaving "suspicously" over 70 years does not explain my own personal observations.
like I said in my last post, I think what I need to do is make my own Timelapse video of the phenomenon with Timestamps, indication of which direction im facing, radar and humidity readings...my only problem is that Im not very tech savvy and have never put together a video like that and have no idea on how to edit. I also dont know if once i make a recording if I can go backwards in time on that RADAR24 site to figure out the altitude of the planes i recorded....


These guys did what you are proposing to do- this could be a good model for you:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2325.1


The major logic point is as such- since we know contrails can and often do persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud- and always have....how does filming trails behaving identically to that description actually suggest they are something else?
 
Not pictures but also research confirm the existence of persistent contrails for hours in the seventies:

The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
Content from External Source
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.
Content from External Source
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2
When I click the link to verify that information this is all i see


Abstract
Direct infrared and solar radiometric observations were made to analyse the effects on the environment of any alterations in the radiation budget in regions of heavy jet traffic. The observations, made from the NASA Convair 990 jet laboratory, were coupled with Mie scattering and absorption theory calculations to analyze any inadvertent alterations in the natural atmospheric thermal radiation budget. It was found that a 500 m thick contrail sheet increases the infrared emission below the sheet by 21% but decreases the solar power below the sheet by 15%. The infrared increase cannot make up for the solar depiction, resulting in a net available incoming power depletion at the base of the sheet of 12%. Such a change at altitude results in a 7% reduction in the net total available thermal power at the earth's surface, which, in turn, results in a 5.3C decrease in the surface temperature, if we assume contrail persistence. The actual temperature decrease is ∼0.15C with 5% contrail persistence.


Received: March 6, 1970

was there a seperate link I need to click once im on the page you linked me to?
 
These guys did what you are proposing to do- this could be a good model for you:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2325.1


The major logic point is as such- since we know contrails can and often do persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud- and always have....how does filming trails behaving identically to that description actually suggest they are something else?
If I can prove that its happening when it should not is the whole point. W/o all that other information though its hard to prove with out a shadow of a doubt.
 
When I click the link to verify that information this is all i see


Abstract
Direct infrared and solar radiometric observations were made to analyse the effects on the environment of any alterations in the radiation budget in regions of heavy jet traffic. The observations, made from the NASA Convair 990 jet laboratory, were coupled with Mie scattering and absorption theory calculations to analyze any inadvertent alterations in the natural atmospheric thermal radiation budget. It was found that a 500 m thick contrail sheet increases the infrared emission below the sheet by 21% but decreases the solar power below the sheet by 15%. The infrared increase cannot make up for the solar depiction, resulting in a net available incoming power depletion at the base of the sheet of 12%. Such a change at altitude results in a 7% reduction in the net total available thermal power at the earth's surface, which, in turn, results in a 5.3C decrease in the surface temperature, if we assume contrail persistence. The actual temperature decrease is ∼0.15C with 5% contrail persistence.


Received: March 6, 1970

was there a seperate link I need to click once im on the page you linked me to?
Never mind I found it.
 
That is a fair question now that I am on the other end of the spectrum. There are also videos of timelapse captures though which i believe could be used as more credible evidence.







these are only the first 3 videos that came up when I searched for "chemtrail time lapse" on youtube. Even in these videos though they dont include any kind of radar information, date or weather information which I intend on including after I make some of my own timelapse recordings.

with that being said, I believe that this conversation is going to keep going in circles until I can produce some of my own research and videos to present to you guys and go from there....thoughts?


My thoughts are that you keep shotgunning us with videos without specifying what point you are trying to make with them.

PS: What is it, specifically, that you intend to try to capture with your own vids that isn't represented in existing vids?

PPS: Sorry, I missed where you talked about "weather information". Is it your position that trails are forming where conditions would not allow normal contrails to form?

PPPS: I exchanged messages with someone the other day who claims to have done years of careful research into that. I invited them to bring their methods and data here and show it. They never did.
 
Last edited:
If I can prove that its happening when it should not is the whole point. W/o all that other information though its hard to prove with out a shadow of a doubt.

But since we know for a fact that contrails do persist, spread and cover the sky...why does seeing one do so seem suspicious?

None of the videos of "chemtrails" have EVER included "all that other information"- yet cry definitively that they are "chemtrails".

Do you even know the basic science behind contrail formation and persistence?

Why do clouds persist?

Have you looked at this paper?:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2325.1
 
My thoughts are that you keep shotgunning us with videos without specifying what point you are trying to make with them.

PS: What is it, specifically, that you intend to try to capture with your own vids that isn't represented in existing vids?

PPS: Sorry, I missed where you talked about "weather information". Is it your position that trails are forming where conditions would not allow normal contrails to form?
Well not exactly. Ideally i could make a SERIES of captures covering a span of different days, and them compare the humidity and temperature levels, as I know that those can play a factor on how long trails will persist. I hope to show evidence that regardless of those conditions the trails are forming either way at the same rate. I also believe that I have seen low altitude planes leaving them when they should not have.

p.s. what I hope to include in my video is the altitude of the planes. Those videos do not show the altitude.

The point of me posting those 3 videos was to show that there is not ONLY random pictures which dont show any kind of duration, and there are timelapse videos showing the trails lasting for hours and hours.
 
Well not exactly. Ideally i could make a SERIES of captures covering a span of different days, and them compare the humidity and temperature levels, as I know that those can play a factor on how long trails will persist. I hope to show evidence that regardless of those conditions the trails are forming either way at the same rate. I also believe that I have seen low altitude planes leaving them when they should not have.

p.s. what I hope to include in my video is the altitude of the planes. Those videos do not show the altitude.

The point of me posting those 3 videos was to show that there is not ONLY random pictures which dont show any kind of duration, and there are timelapse videos showing the trails lasting for hours and hours.
Where do you intend to get your atmospheric data? This is a source: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
 
But since we know for a fact that contrails do persist, spread and cover the sky...why does seeing one do so seem suspicious?
I have repeatedly acknowledged that a contrail can behave that way. My issue is that I believe they are doing so in MY OWN area when they should not.
None of the videos of "chemtrails" have EVER included "all that other information"- yet cry definitively that they are "chemtrails".
Perhaps you missed it, but I acknowledged that fact in a statement right under the 3 videos on that post, and stated that I intend to include that information as to be more credible.
I'll check it out.
 
Well not exactly. Ideally i could make a SERIES of captures covering a span of different days, and them compare the humidity and temperature levels, as I know that those can play a factor on how long trails will persist. I hope to show evidence that regardless of those conditions the trails are forming either way at the same rate. I also believe that I have seen low altitude planes leaving them when they should not have.

p.s. what I hope to include in my video is the altitude of the planes. Those videos do not show the altitude.

The point of me posting those 3 videos was to show that there is not ONLY random pictures which dont show any kind of duration, and there are timelapse videos showing the trails lasting for hours and hours.

No one here is unfamiliar with anything shown in those vids. There is nothing mysterious about contrails which last "for hours and hours". You are taking on quite a project and most all of it will be plowing old ground, but more power to ya.
 
I hadn't thought that far ahead yet. Thanks for the link.
I don't know where you are but the conditions below in Chatham suggests persistent contrails were rather possible. It must be remembered the soundings are only done twice in 24 hours and things can change dramatically in time and distance from the weather balloon to where an aircraft may be flying.

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sou...AR=2014&MONTH=07&FROM=0112&TO=0112&STNM=74494
74494 CHH Chatham Observations at 12Z 01 Jul 2014
Content from External Source

 
It will be interesting to see you try to back up that "believe" with actual proof.
Well my intent is to record it, and then show data from the radar 24 site showing that the planes are low altitude.

Im wondering what kind of feedback you guys will give me if I can successfully record the video/time-lapse and also include radar information showing the Planes to be too low.
 
I don't know where you are but the conditions below in Chatham suggests persistent contrails were rather possible. It must be remembered the soundings are only done twice in 24 hours and things can change dramatically in time and distance from the weather balloon to where an aircraft may be flying.
Also, those sounding data do not provide accurate humidity readings at contrail altitude. The humidity sensors basically freeze up and stop working. All in all, they are not very useful for determining ice-supersaturation.
 
Well my intent is to record it, and then show data from the radar 24 site showing that the planes are low altitude.

Im wondering what kind of feedback you guys will give me if I can successfully record the video/time-lapse and also include radar information showing the Planes to be too low.
Excellent, go for it.
 
I don't know where you are but the conditions below in Chatham suggests persistent contrails were rather possible. It must be remembered the soundings are only done twice in 24 hours and things can change dramatically in time and distance from the weather balloon to where an aircraft may be flying.

http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=naconf&TYPE=TEXT:LIST&YEAR=2014&MONTH=07&FROM=0112&TO=0112&STNM=74494
74494 CHH Chatham Observations at 12Z 01 Jul 2014
Content from External Source
Well right now I currently LIVE just outside Princeton NJ. I am going back north tonight MA for vacation. I wont be able to make the Time-lapse video that I want to be extensive, but at the very least I will be able to pull out my smartphone and at least get some good smaller videos. IDK. When I make the extensive time-lapse video with radar information it will be from my NJ location.
 
Back
Top