AHA !!!! Here I have caught you.
There is a difference between a chemtrail and a contrail!
A chemtrail is a chemical trail which stays in the air and slowly expands into a massive, thin film across the sky which slowly descends to earth. They are often sprayed in grids or patterns.
A contrail is a normal trail from the back of an aircraft consisting of ice crystals which fades after around 15 seconds.
Quite obviously if they are spraying us, they will only fly high so the idiotic masses believe they are normal contrails.
If you want video evidence of these contrails expanding, consult youtube. These aren't faked as I have seen them with my very own eyes and so has anyone who looks above their own head on a clear day.
No, I'm afraid you haven't 'caught me' and I am not one of the 'idiotic masses'.
What you have done though, is highlighted a significant gap in your own understanding of the physical principles and facts which you're relying on to 'prove' your case for chemtrails.
If you don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the
basic science behind contrail formation, you are fundamentally incapable of differentiating between contrails
or chemtrails.
This is a basic fact, accept it or ignore it, but I assure you it is true:
Depending on altitude, temperature, vapour pressure and humidity, aircraft contrails can have a lifetime as short a 0 seconds, or as long as several hours.
But firstly, I'll take your quote, (my italic emphasis):
A contrail is a normal trail from the back of an aircraft consisting of ice crystals which fades after around 15 seconds.
....and illustrate why your addition of one single incorrect statement to a known fact not only seriously weakens your argument, but throws into doubt your ability to correctly identify, or differentiate between either a contrail or a chemtrail.
Presenting your own eyewitness accounts of seeing and photographing chemtrails above Wiltshire, and referring to similar Youtube video as 'evidence for' only strengthens the argument that the authors of such videos are
also wrong if they are relying upon the
'lifetime of a contrail is too long, therefore it proves it is a chemtrail' method for identifying chemtrails. It is not just a flawed basis from which to consider and investigate the subject,
it is also utterly wrong.
I've spent some time researching this and, although I don't claim to be an expert, I'm confident that my understanding of the scientific and provable facts surrounding the chemtrails vs contrails argument is now considerably better than many. I'm not trying to patronise chemtrail 'believers', I'm just stating an opinion based on what I've seen written so far, especially as it pertains to Wiltshire.
The Proven facts:Contrails are not specific to any particular kind of aircraft or speed range.
Contrails can be formed by military or civil aircraft, piston engined, jet engined, subsonic or supersonic vehicles, aircraft or rockets. The type of air vehicle is irrelevant.
Depending on altitude, temperature, vapour pressure and humidity, aircraft contrails can have a lifetime as short a 0 seconds, or as long as several hours
So why do contrails form and what are they?:The key to the formation of contrails is atmospheric conditions. Contrail formation is dependent upon the temperature, relative humidity, and air pressure in which the vehicle is flying.
In addition to temperature, humidity and pressure, the ratio of moisture to heat produced by the vehicle's engine is important. In particular, the ambient air temperature, and vapour pressure must both be low for a contrail to form. Vapour pressure is the pressure of water vapour within the atmosphere.
When ambient air is mixed with the humid, hot exhaust of an aircraft engine a contrail will, or will not form based one of three basic conditions.
1. If the exhaust mixture is
not saturated with moisture, a
contrail will not form.
2. If the exhaust mixture
is saturated or supersaturated with moisture,
and the ambient vapour pressure is just high enough, a
contrail will form, but it will be short lived.
3. If the exhaust mixture
is saturated or supersaturated with moisture,
and the ambient vapour pressure also saturated,
a lasting contrail will form and, if the vapour pressure is high enough may continue to grow as ice crystals multiply in the saturated atmosphere.The picture below illustrates the conditions under which both clouds and contrails form, (the same basic principles apply in the formation of both.
The blue line represents the saturation vapour pressure of ice versus air temperature. If the vapour pressure equals or exceeds this line at a given temperature, the water vapour will condense and form ice.
A quick recap then:The points labeled A and B represent two hypothetical conditions, both unsaturated. Let's assume that point A is the temperature and vapor pressure of the ambient air at the aircraft's cruising altitude. Point B is the conditions within the aircraft's exhaust. As the two mix, the temperature and pressure equalize. If the final conditions intersect or lie above the blue line, the mixture becomes saturated and a contrail will form. Otherwise, the mixture remains unsaturated and dissipates.
Eventually, all clouds and contrails will dissipate, but the length of time they endure is related to the atmospheric conditions as well as the strength of the winds. If the contrail is formed when the local atmosphere is dry, it may dissipate rapidly. But if the atmosphere is near saturation, it will exist for a long period of time, perhaps spreading or mixing with naturally-formed clouds until it is unrecognisable as a contrail but frequently misidentified as a chemtrail.
Climatologists have become concerned about the increase in air travel over recent decades, partly because of CO2 emmissions, but also because with the increased efficiency of turbofan engines, and an increasing frequency of flights, the numbers of visible contrails are rising.
It has been estimated elsewhere that cloud cover may increase by up to 20% in some heavily-travelled areas due to man-made contrails which may also impact on the climate due to solar radiation being reflected.
And now...chemtrails:I do not deny that chemtrails do exist, and have been deliberately produced by military aviation. Designers of stealth aircraft have tried injecting various chemicals, mostly toxic I suspect into aircrafts exhaust in attempts to modify both the infra red heat signatures of the vehicle and to eliminate visible contrails being spotted. I doubt that such vehicles are routinely tested in the skies above Wiltshire and, in the final analysis it is easier for a military pilot to adjust his altitude downwards to the point where a contrail will not form.
I do not deny that chemtrails are deliberately produced elsewhere by weather researchers, I do not deny that chemtrails are deliberately produced elsewhere by fire fighters.
I do not challenge the claim that the military tested chemical warfare agents over the county in the 1960s, in fact this wouldn't surprise me....
...but I do challenge the belief that chemtrails in Wiltshire skies are a regularly observable phenomenon and I think this belief stems from lack of understanding of how contrails actually form, and is encouraged by the indiscriminate use of 'dumbed down physics' by those people intent on promoting a great conspiracy theory. If you
think you are seeing chemtrail, and base that belief mostly on the 'contrails only last 'x' number of seconds argument, you're on a non-starter if you want to prove their existence in Wiltshire.
I'm happy to discuss the hideous logistical problem that operating the UK component of such a massive conspiracy throws up, but after spending some time within commercial pilots forums it's already evident to me that the closer you start looking at 'chemtrails', the less reliable the 'evidence' for them becomes, particularly 'eyewitness' evidence.
PL says:
If you want video evidence of these contrails expanding, consult youtube. These aren't faked as I have seen them with my very own eyes and so has anyone who looks above their own head on a clear day.
It shouldn't really be necessary to keep arguing the core points of the above quote unless there is a willingness to ignore the rules of physics as they relate to contrail formation and revert to a 'flat-earth' philosophical position.
I think PL's assertion that:
Quite obviously if they are spraying us, they will only fly high so the idiotic masses believe they are normal contrails.
Would be better expressed as:
Quite obviously if Wiltshire people believe they are being sprayed with chemtrails, they should acquaint themselves with the facts before listening to an idiotic minority who are publishing fiction as fact
A final thought, (for now). Here's a smashing picture of a formation of B17 flying fortresses on their way to bomb somewhere or other during the second world war.
Given that the B17's cruising speed was a fairly sedate 180'ish mph, and that the length and density of contrails in the picture would suggest a lengthy contrail 'lifetime', and that
deliberately creating a very visible trail for enemy fighter pilots to see during a daytime bombing raid seems idiotic.....
....I wonder whether Penhill Lad an Rob would like to make some comment.
