Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Jack White]

Oh. I'm sorry. Jack apparently can do something no one else in the world can. He can tell the altitude of a plane from the ground with nothing more than his eyes.

Jack, I've asked before and I'm asking again. Would you say that persisent contrails do not exist?

I do NOT know the altitudes nor the size of the planes...BUT IF the planes were of equal size,

they appeared to be the same size in the sky...a barely visible black speck at the

end of the 'trails. If the planes were different sizes, their altitudes were slightly different.

If the planes were the same size, they were at about the same altitude.

Jack

Edited January 10, 2008 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

On a slightly, but perhaps in some way connected, I'd like to add as an Environmental Scientist, it has long been known that contrails add to the 'cloud' cover that reflects solar radiation. An interesting experiment was done in the few days after 9/11 when most planes were grounded. The entire USA experienced about a statistically significant average 1-2 degree increase in temperature those days.

Yep, it was a very strong argument for the reduction in air services. Jet aircraft, specifically airliners, are coming under increasing pressure as they are a significant contributer to greenhouse gases (IIRC).

[Peter McKenna]

On a slightly, but perhaps in some way connected, I'd like to add as an Environmental Scientist, it has long been known that contrails add to the 'cloud' cover that reflects solar radiation. An interesting experiment was done in the few days after 9/11 when most planes were grounded. The entire USA experienced about a statistically significant average 1-2 degree increase in temperature those days.

Just out of curiosity, what did the sky look like on 11/22/63?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

On a slightly, but perhaps in some way connected, I'd like to add as an Environmental Scientist, it has long been known that contrails add to the 'cloud' cover that reflects solar radiation. An interesting experiment was done in the few days after 9/11 when most planes were grounded. The entire USA experienced about a statistically significant average 1-2 degree increase in temperature those days.

Just out of curiosity, what did the sky look like on 11/22/63?

Over Dallas? clear I believe, following rain earlier in the day, quite windy. And now a word from our sponsors.

[Peter McKenna]

So different planes that are likely at different altitudes leave different types of contrails. So what?

The planes all appeared to be at the same altitude. The groups of three were laid

by three planes flying in formation together in the same direction. The contrail plane

was flying alone. The chemtrails persisted, and expanded into cirrus clouds. The

contrail dissipated within ten seconds. I know what I saw. Lewis does not.

Jack

Disposible cameras are quite available. Disposible digital cameras can be purchased at most convenience stores or drugstores for around twenty dollars.

If you had wanted a photographic record it could be quite easily obtained.

You haven't addressed the challenge of how you are able to differentiate between contrails and chemtrails purely from visual observation. informational sites indicate that contrails are either persistent or non persistent (lasting less than or more than 5 minutes).

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/SCOOL/contrails.html

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/deception5.html

[Matthew Lewis]

Oh. I'm sorry. Jack apparently can do something no one else in the world can. He can tell the altitude of a plane from the ground with nothing more than his eyes.

Jack, I've asked before and I'm asking again. Would you say that persisent contrails do not exist?

I do NOT know the altitudes nor the size of the planes...BUT IF the planes were of equal size,

they appeared to be the same size in the sky...a barely visible black speck at the

end of the 'trails. If the planes were different sizes, their altitudes were slightly different.

If the planes were the same size, they were at about the same altitude.

Jack

It is nearly impossible to know the altitude of a plane from the ground with the naked eye. Even if the same size, a plane at 30,000 feet will look almost exactly the same as a plane at 35,000 feet. And again, as I've mentioned, different planes with different engines could leave different contrails even at the same altitude.

Again, would you say that persistent contrails do not exist?

[Charles Drago]

Let us apply the hard-earned lessons of our search for truth and justice for John F. Kennedy.

The issue at hand is NOT how altitude, meteorological conditions, engine construction and characteristics, fuel composition, limitations of ground observation relative to judgements of altitude and platform specifics, relatively persistent contrails, the availability of digital cameras, and/or the practical necessity of a bumbershoot in Dealey Plaza at noon on November 22, 1963 demonstrate the chemtrail phenomenon to be of prosaic origins.

Provide the science that explains the world-wide observation of con/chemtrails expanding into massive and persistent "cloud" formations.

The photos reproduced below were shot in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in July, 1999 over a three-hour period. The photographer notes that "normal" clouds were not present in the sky during the time frame in question, and that the overcast conditions were solely the result of con/chemtrails.

NOTE: THE POSITIONING OF THE PHOTOS IS OUT OF SEQUENCE. THE PROPER ORDER IS: TOP ROW RIGHT; BOTTOM ROW; TOP ROW LEFT.

Absent evidence of a hoax and/or faulty observation of pre-existing cloud condtions, and given the consistency of this report with literally thousands of others worldwide, provide scientific evidence for the expansion of contrails into cloud cover as seen here and elsewhere.

The concensus start date for what have come to be known as chemtrails is December, 1998. Either provide scientific evidence for observations prior to that date that confirm the presence of contrails that expand into faux cirrus formations that can persist for hours, or account for the factors post 12/98 that account for a sea change in con/chemtrail characteristics.

My mind remains open.

And, I might add, alert for other forms of human-generated ... cloud cover.

Charles

Edited January 10, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Matthew Lewis]

Persistent contrails have existed and been known about since aircraft could fly high enough.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf

Good sites

http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm

http://contrail.gi.alaska.edu/

The following are pictures of contrails from the past. The first two show persistent contrails and the third shows those contrails dispersing into cloud cover. Unfortunately I don't have a date for the third.

Dogfights create contrails over London's St. Pauls Cathedral during the Battle of Britain

in 1940- at sixty years one of the oldest contrail photos

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg

Crewmen of an American ship watch the contrails as American

and Japanese planes fight it out above Task Force 58 in the Great

Marianas Turkey Shoot on June 19, 1944.

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg

Satellite image of the North Atlantic corridor shows contrails west of Great Britain and in mid-Atlantic forming preferentially ahead of two different frontal systems due to higher moisture as the front approaches.

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg

1981 NOAA photo of contrail at sunset (persistent spreading contrail from 81)

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg

Many pictures of persistent contrails here taken from space on early shuttle missions. (starts an autmatic slide show after a few seconds)

http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html

A navigator's log from WWII. Note in particular mission #24 and this quote "The contrails were dense, persistent - really hard to even see our own squadron."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html

WWII pilot's diary Note mission #33

http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm

More WWII pics

http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes...es2/Trails6.jpg

http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg

1. Jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70's. It is projected to double again in just 10 years.

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

3. Jets travel higher now (on average) partly due to increased traffic and partly due to increased power allowing higher flight. Higher flight means more contrails. Read that study from 1942 for more explanation on this.

4. An increase in traffic increases the exhaust put into the atmosphere. This exhaust has a cumulative effect and results in conditions more conducive to contrail formation over the long run. I've read some studies about it and will try to find them, though not everything is available online.

5. Evidence that airlines have changed their engines can be found in the noise regulations that the FAA has put out. Around 2000, Stage 3 regs went into effect. This is a regulation governing the noise output of jet engines and required every airline to either replace their engines or install hush kits. These newer engines are not only quieter but are more fuel efficient meaning again, more water vapor. Incidentally, Stage 4 regs were due to take effect in January of this year requiring even more changes. I haven't heard specifically if Stage 4 engines are more fuel efficient but I wouldn't doubt it. I do know that many Stage 3 engines already met Stage 4 regs though so many airlines did not have to update. Some of those that did have applied for extensions as they can't make their planes compliant in time.

I've also seen a video of a Phil Collins concert in 1987. The camera pans up in the sky and some persistent contrails can be seen.

[Matthew Lewis]

Another very good website specifically showing evidence of persisting contrails well before the 90's

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-...ding-contrails/

It has some quotes from newspapers in the 40's, 50's, and 70's as well

The News, Frederick, MD, March 7, 1944

“Contrails frequently have a tendency to cause a complete overcast and cause rain. In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted“

One of the earliest reference to contrails covering the sky is from the Mansfield News Journal, August 11, 1957, Page 29:

“Within the past few years, the weather bureau has begun to report the trails as actual cloud layers when there are sufficient trails to cover a portion of the sky.”

the Arcadia Tribune, April 29, 1970:

Aircraft contrails begin to streak the normally bright Arizona sky at dawn. Through the day, as air traffic peaks, these contrails gradually merge into and almost solid interlaced sheet of cirrus cloud - an artificial cirrus cloud that is frequently as much as 500 meters deep.

All of those people were just lying back then though right Jack?

Edited January 10, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

I am reposting this image here because when I tried to edit it in

the hamster thread, it got messed up. I was not allowed to

delete the incorrect image and replace it with the typo fixed.

Jack

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE CORRECTED IMAGE POSTED IN DUPLICATE.

By Mod (Burton): Removed extra attachment. Also deleted the other posts in the Hamster thread as they are repeated here.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Jack White]

This appears to be the Boeing aircraft manufactured by Spirit Aerosystems.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

God Forbid they may actually understand the science behind contrail formation and understand there is nothing sinister about it.

Jack, do you believe that persistent contrails do not exist? Especially given the evidence posted in this thread that shows that there is science behind persistent contrails and photos and reports of them dating back to the 40's?

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

To remove an attachment in a post you have made:

- Find the post you want to edit. In the bottom right-hand corner there is a button marked EDIT. Select that button.

- A drop down menu will appear with two options: QUICK EDIT and FULL EDIT. Select FULL EDIT.

- When the window changes, down the bottom right-hand area will be a section marked MANAGE CURRENT ATTACHMENTS followed by a down arrow. Hitting the down arrow brings up a list of the attachments for that post.

- The list will have a green plus sign (+) or a red cross sign (X) next to each attachment, and the name of the attachment. To remove the attachment, select the red (X) next to the attachment you want to remove.

- It will ask you to confirm that you want to remove that attachment. Select OK.

- Hit the SUBMIT MODIFIED POST button to save the post.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Jack White]

QUOTE:

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

UNQUOTE.

Is this the scientific explanation?

Migod, with that much WATER VAPOR IN JET FUEL, how does it burn? The CHEMTRAILS that I see cannot

be CONDENSED MOISTURE FROM JET FUEL! The volume is TOO IMMENSE!

I always thought that the hot exhaust meeting the cold air CONDENSED MOISTURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

TO FORM CONTRAILS.

I may have to research the chemistry of CONtrails. I cannot believe they are from WATER in the fuel.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Quick chemistry lesson for Jack. Any hydrocarbon (fuel) when burned chemically changes into other compounds. The burning breaks the bonds of the hydrocarbon which releases energy and forms smaller, simpler compounds. When a fuel is not burned very cleanly or efficiently, the resulting compounds will have less water vapor and carbon dioxide and more carbon monoxide and other various pollutants. Jet fuel when burned efficiently forms carbon dioxide, water vapor, and smaller amounts of nitrous oxides. Newer engines burn fuel more efficiently and produce more thrust as they are burning more fuel overall so much more water vapor is in the exhaust. More water vapor in the exhaust means more water vapor for the moisture already present in the air to condense upon.

From here

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-...ding-contrails/

(A contrail) forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Matthew Lewis