Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:18 am Post Subject: Contrails again today - 19 Aug 2006
There will be more condensation trails today over central New Zealand.
They will be above about Flight Level 280 (F280, 28000 feet, ~8600 metres).
Some will be itermittent - that is only in part of the sky, and they will persist for several hours. This lowest level for formation will lower during the day by a fet hundred feet.
There are some visible far to the west from where I am in here in Hastings. They where formed about 2 hours ago.
I think there will be more tomorrow as well in the same area.
The point is, if any Joe Bloggs can predict when, where and some characteristics of the appearance, then this is not some "spraying operation". It must be the expected behaviour of jet airplanes in the atmosphere in certain favourable conditions in their normal operating heights. :idea:
If anyone observed contrails over central New Zealand today, I would appreciate a description of them, and photos if you can. Thank you.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:07 pm Post Subject:
Is this a joke Hector?
Quote:
And the "grey beams", I've been thinking about them. I think they are shadows from the sun, cast by the contrail itself.
That's a serious question. We had a good laugh when we read the above, but then we thought maybe it's not meant as a joke, maybe Hector is being serious...
So, before we answer your comment, please clarify the actual nature of the comment for us.
Here is my thinking. We have all seen crepuscular rays. The sun, usually at a low elevation but not always, shines through a gap in clouds or past the edge of clouds. The irregualar shape of the cloud casts a shadow which has the appearance of rays in the haze and dust particles in the atmosphere. Very well.
Contrails cast shadows - they are just clouds after all. The shadow of a contrail will behave the same way as crepuscular rays. If the sun is in the right position in relation to the contrail and the observer, the shaddow will appear to be a beam along the line of the contrail.
Have a look at the photos of these "beams" and see if crepuscular rays might be a plausable explanation. Where is the sun in relation to the contrail?
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:11 pm Post Subject:
Hi Hector,
What does this mean? :shock: :o
Quote:
I am offended, John, that you think I was joking.
Offend? Little ol me, offend someone? #-o :oops:
Quote:
Offend: to cause to feel vexation or resentment usually by violation of what is proper or fitting
I don't really think you were offended Hector by our simple request for clarification and our thinking that you were perhaps making a joke, surely not. :(
Quote:
And the "grey beams", I've been thinking about them. I think they are shadows from the sun, cast by the contrail itself.
Deano thought that your statement was funny. And we would rather perceive you as having made a joke about Grey Beams and shadows, than as a debunking pseudo-scientist who makes pronouncements without due research and consideration. That is the job of others Hector, you are here to demonstrate rationality, reason and objective and thorough research processes. Or did I get your job description wrong? :P
And we prefer to maintain our sense of humour and not get too serious. There are many genuine reasons to be offended in this world of ours and in your field especially Hector. Global warming, Global dimming, atmospheric pollution from aircraft and ships together with, of course all the other forms of man-made pollution that sully our atmosphere and probably dramatically affect our weather - and the real ‘biggie’, it’s going to get a lot worse…
We will have a lot more to say about these matters in due course, and hope to do so in a well-informed and rational manner. We're sure you will help to keep us on the 'straight and narrow' - and we'll do our best to reciprocate. :-)
Now as to the Grey Beams and your comments, we'd prefer to create a new thread on this topic as the subject is most compelling and could get buried here in this unrelated thread. We also think we'd better start calling the phenomena 'Black Lines' as that seems to be the preferred designation within the accepted nomenclature of such stuff on the web. We actually have had an article on this particular phenomenon in preparation for some time (one of many), so now we'll rush it to print in the form of a post and that will give you something to sink your scientific teeth into. :mrgreen:
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:18 pm Post Subject: Hector....
Greetings
Hector, please tell me your stance on the 911 attacks..... i know it's off the topic but it'll decide whether i take you seriously or pin you as an a55hole. Interesting way to spend a sunday.... hey hey hey.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:21 pm Post Subject:
Hi Hector,
Quote:
John, I am eagerly waiting for your article about "Black lines".
...and we're eager to complete it. We are working on a series of articles at this time, the first item to be released will be the map of International and Domestic flight vectors over New Zealand. This map is nearing completion, or at least to the point where it is publishable. There are still some of the international routes to finalise but we'll probably have to rely on feedback to establish some of these. Be patient, we also have a business to run and sometimes it gets very hectic seven days a week around here. :shock:
By the way, when roofdoggy wrote:
Quote:
Hector, please tell me your stance on the 911 attacks..... i know it's off the topic but it'll decide whether i take you seriously or pin you as an a55hole. Interesting way to spend a sunday.... hey hey hey.
...he had a point. The 9/11 issue is a bit of a litmus test to determine those who prefer to get their 'facts' and beliefs from mainstream sources, who prefer to accept what they are given by the 'powers-that-be' and those who tend to remain cautious in accepting official views and seek the truth through their own research. :research:
Here's a case in point, a Nelson resident...
Quote:
In mid-2002, Paul Thompson, a Northern California native and Stanford University alumnus with no previous interest in the subject of terrorism, became intrigued by several stories regarding 9/11 which suddenly appeared in the press—among them, CBS News’ revelation that President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) on August 6th, 2001, warning of an impending attack by Osama bin Laden in the United States involving aircraft. Thompson found himself poring over news of the attacks on the internet and growing increasingly frustrated with how incomplete the story of September 11th was. He began gathering and condensing every credible fact on 9/11, setting a rule for himself that he would only include what he could find in mainstream news sources, and posted those facts online in chronological order.
Today, The Complete 9/11 Timeline consists of information from over 7,000 mainstream news stories on 9/11, each fact immediately followed by sourcing which links back to the original news article. New York newsweekly The Village Voice became the first to bring public attention to Paul’s work, but he was eventually featured everywhere from the Esquire ‘Genius’ Issue to Fox News. As Village Voice reporter James Ridgeway puts it, “Paul Thompson’s timeline is based on public documentation of what we know—what the world knows—about 9/11. It almost has to be taken more seriously than the 9/11 Commission Report because it’s open. There’s nothing secret here.” In early 2004, Thompson finally quit his job at a San Francisco-based environmental protection group to focus on his timeline full time.
The 9/11 families discovered the timeline early on, and it became a highly-valued tool for research by the Family Steering Committee. When HarperCollins published ‘The Terror Timeline’ as a book in late 2004, all four of the “Jersey Girls” wrote an introduction praising it. “Paul Thompson’s exhaustive and richly detailed research has now provided the world with a veritable treasure trove of 9/11 information. If you want to know everything about 9/11, you must read [it],” wrote Kristen Breitweiser. ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’ is based, with permission, on ‘The Terror Timeline’, and Thompson served as story adviser to the production...
Individuals such as Paul Thompson and roofdoggy know that the only 'conspiracy theory' associated with 9/11 has issued forth from the White House in collaboration with mainstream media.
So despite your adroit attempt at humour, you probably failed roofdoggy's little test. #-o 8-[
All you have to do to redeem yourself is to read all 7000 news articles, listen to or watch the interviews, then post a new reply to roofdoggy's challenge...
Thank you for your update about progress on your black lines article, and about international and domestic flight paths. I suppose the map is not as straight forward as one would imagine. The flight paths and holding areas probably change from time to time as CAA responds to changing air traffic demands on routes and destinations.
About the other matter you mentioned in passing... I gave roofdoggy an answer to his question. He can take whatever he wants from it.
I'm not running for public office in Amerika, so I won't be doing your litmus test.
Interestingly, you quoted the Nelson resident saying that for his time line, Paul Thompson set "a rule for himself that he would only include what he could find in mainstream news sources". So Paul Thompson, and others by proxy, are failing your litmus test, aren't they?
I took the results from a paper in a scientific journal, then developed and applied it to atmospheric sounding data at few locations and a few dates. I also produced a climatology of contrail conditions in New Zealand; something that someone had expressed a desire for. So, accepting that I applied the results of someone else's work, this activity can not be far from "seek the truth through their own research".
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:14 pm Post Subject:
Hi Hector,
Quote:
Thank you for your update about progress on your black lines article, and about international and domestic flight paths. I suppose the map is not as straight forward as one would imagine. The flight paths and holding areas probably change from time to time as CAA responds to changing air traffic demands on routes and destinations.
The map is relatively straightforward, just time consuming. The vectors are in the main part based on precise official flight vectors and waypoints and then confirmed by repeated observation from Flight explorer. The few we have not been able to obtain from official sources have been obtained from many hours of Flight Explorer observation, double-checked from other sources and then accurately plotted onto our map. It would seem that existing vectors do not change, new destinations generally use existing official flight paths. It is possible, however, that flights direct to a particular destination may cease and that subsequent routes to that destination may now include stopovers en-route. Other destinations may also use two routes. So, for example, flights to a destination such as Taipei may seem to be heading in a strange direction if you don't know that it stops over in Brisbane. To us and for our purposes, that flight then is a Brisbane flight, even though it may be officially designated as a flight to Taipei and other flights go directly there. Holding patterns don't concern us much as they are usually at relatively low altitude and most unlikely to be producing contrails. So yes, all very time consuming, but all in the good cause of accuracy.
Quote:
About the other matter you mentioned in passing... I gave roofdoggy an answer to his question. He can take whatever he wants from it.
I'm not running for public office in Amerika, so I won't be doing your litmus test.
Interestingly, you quoted the Nelson resident saying that for his time line, Paul Thompson set "a rule for himself that he would only include what he could find in mainstream news sources". So Paul Thompson, and others by proxy, are failing your litmus test, aren't they?
I took the results from a paper in a scientific journal, then developed and applied it to atmospheric sounding data at few locations and a few dates. I also produced a climatology of contrail conditions in New Zealand; something that someone had expressed a desire for. So, accepting that I applied the results of someone else's work, this activity can not be far from "seek the truth through their own research".
You can understand a lot about a person by what they say, but sometimes more by what they don't say and the nature of the ways and means they adopt to avoid saying. You are being very 'clever' Hector, no doubt you have your reasons for not being more straightforward with your views on this subject...
