The Chemtrail theory proposes that some of the persistent white trails we see in the sky behind airplanes are not actually normal contrails, but are either modified contrails, or some kind of different trail entirely. The theory states that the trails contain chemicals that do something, and that there is a huge secret operation to create these trails that has been going on since at least 1999.

I personally don’t believe in this theory. I’m an avid cloud watcher, and a private pilot (only single engine VFR), and the photos and videos of supposed “chemtrails” all look like contrails to me. So I’ve been discussing this on this site, and quite often proponents of the theory come on to join the discussion.

Unfortunately this frequently devolved into me (or other commenters) saying “show me the evidence”, and the chemtrail theorists saying “there’s lots of evidence”. Then no evidence gets presented, or if it does it’s something I addressed months ago.

The problem here for the theorists is that there seems to be no one place that simply lists all this evidence that they claim is out there. Without this central evidence repository, they just bring up the random bits of supposed evidence in a haphazard and counterproductive manner.

So I’ve decided to help, and on this page to arrange as well presented, organized and honest a representation of the best evidence for “chemtrails” that I can muster.

What I’ll do is take each claim, such as “the government has admitted it”, or “persistent trails have been observed in conditions that should not support them”, and I’ll find the five (or so) best examples of evidence for that particular claim. I’ll leave it up as a work in progress – anyone can challenge a particular piece of evidence, and anyone can suggest a new piece in the comments section.

If the evidence is something I’ve looked at before, then I’ll just add a link to the relevant article. If not, then I might add a comment, or maybe write a new article.

I’ll start out with less than five pieces of evidence, to allow suggestions to be quickly added. Also feel free to suggest new categories. My hope is that eventually this will grow to be a definitive collection of the best evidence for the chemtrail theory.

I apologize for the incomplete nature of this list. I hope to refine it as time goes by. Please feel very free to speak up with any suggestions, which should make it into the list within a few hours.

Persistent Trails were not observed before 1998 (date varies)
(Note:  not all theorists agree with this, some simply state things are different)

1. California Skywatch / Rosaline Peterson – Notes on Discovery Show Transcript, page 8, claims a review of outdoor photos says contrails changed in the late 1980s.

2. Many individual accounts of recollecting contrails not persisting.  Details vary.

3. Ideally I’d like a science book or pre 1990 book that says how long contrails last.  Lots of books say they last for hours.  Any counter evidence?

4.

5.

Persistent trails have been observed in conditions that would not support persistent contrails (Specifically RH <70% and/or temperature >-40F)

1. Chemtrail Central’s Trail Research Report

2. WatchTheSky.org Chemtrails captured on NWS Doppler Weather Data

3. Holmestead – How to detect unusual trails

4.

5.

Trails appear in grid patterns

1. William Thomas

2. Educate-Yourself

3.

4.

5.

Unidentified Spray Planes have been photographed

1. I await candidates. First check here and here.

2.

3.

4.

5.

People Get sick after Chemtrail Spraying

1. William Thomas “Emergency Rooms Jammed

2. I think there’s a KTLA video about this, some mountain community?

3.

4.

5.

Chemical Analysis has shown the presence of unexpected chemicals in rain water.

1. KSLA Barium contrails.

2. Arizona Skywatch – Phoenix Air Particulates.

3. Clifford Carnicom – Barium, etc. Confirmed in rainwater.

4. What in the World are they Spraying

5.

The government has admitted spraying/bioweapon testing/geoengineering/weather modification.

1. Welsbach patent

2. British bioweapon tests

3. Owning the Weather in 2025

4. AP: Obama looks at climate engineering (Alex Jones likes this story)

5. Kucinich and HR 2977.

People don’t remember persistent contrails

1. There’s several individual claims of this, but also several claims to the contrary. Awaiting some kind of study, or even a poll. But I’ll post pretty much any link you think is good evidence of this.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The sky is a different color now

1. See above.

2.

3.

4.

5.

There are open plans to spray aerosols into the atmosphere to mitigate global warming.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The government are doing similar things, and have done before, so why not this?

1. HAARP

2. I’m a little reluctant to include this category, but since it’s brought up, I might as well.

3. Fake Moon Landings (yeah yeah, it belittles your cause, I’ll remove it if you think so, speak up, either way).

4.

5.

I am very willing to add, remove, reorder, or edit the above, based on any suggestions in the comments section below.

  843 Responses to “Chemtrails: The Best Evidence”

  • Chemtrails(aka aerosols)are a relatively new phenomenon,and a man-made one,with the express purpose of altering the atmosphere for a myriad of applications(mostly military)They are not just water vapor formed from jet exhaust.In fact,chemtrails are made without the engines at all.They are not just “theory” either.Most of the hypotheses regarding chemtrails,including the use of fine ionized metallic salts,have been confirmed for more than 8 years.Another thing we know about chemtrail operations,is that they are carried out in cycles dependent on conditions related to humidity,solar activity and other.In other words,at optimal times.

  • Chockie, please do me a favour and read this newspaper article from 1972 -> http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dgoQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2YoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=768,7921577&dq=contrail+persist&hl=en

    Written 38 years ago. It discusses pretty much exactly the same thing we are discussing today. Right down to producing clouds.

    Now, please justify “relatively new phenomenon”.

  • Chockie, this page is for adding links to the best pro-chemtrail data. Please supply your best links and I’ll add them to the page. Chemical analysis links would be great.

  • another supposed sample of “chemtrails”

    http://www.rense.com/general79/chemm.htm

  • That seems like a bit of an outlier, and more aimed at the “Morgellons” thing. They do say:

    The Chemtrail samples from Texas were a collection of three specimens collected by an individual in Texas. The samples had the appearance of white filamentous spider web material and/or white cotton candy. These specimens were falling from the sky after a Chemtrail spraying in the area. The specimens streamed from the sky like spider webs and landed on the plants, grass and back yard of the individual.

    Which, to be honest, sounds like spider webs to me.

    Since I’ve not seen this referenced before, I’ll leave it out for now as being too fringe, unless some pro-chemtrail person likes it?

  • Ok Unicus, it is currently
    2:20pm on Wednesday Feb,10th , 2010
    Northeast LA
    I see 1 dissapating contrail from one plane overhead and mainly
    clear skies (above average because of the “rains”) with a few “natural looking” “clouds”(rare).
    Local humidity for NELA is around 50-60% so I can only speculate as to UPwards.
    Why no persistant contrails today?
    Answers now….

  • Why no persistant contrails today?

    Because conditions are not right for persistent contrails to form.

    There are lots of things you can do to verify this. Have a look at the daily satellite photo – on a contrail day you usually see some nearby (within 50 miles) cirrus clouds – they look wispy, like smoke:

    (Site is broken right now – but here’s the top level link for when it comes up)
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/

    You can also look at the most recent upper air soundings from Vandenberg and San Diego.

    http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/skew/skew_KVBG.txt
    http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/skew/skew_KNKX.txt

    Both of which show low humidity at high altitudes (30% above 6000m) – not a guarantee, as they are both so far away, but a good indication of the general conditions.

    But the simplest indication of the low humidity in the upper air is the lack of contrails. Even if you feel that persistent contrails are something new, you would accept that “normal” contrails require some moisture in the atmosphere in order to be visible. The fact that there are hardly any planes leaving even short contrails is pretty much proof that humidity at most cruising altitudes was very low today.

  • CTYForg, I took this photo today, from Santa Monica, looking North. Looks like a lovely day to me.

  • Yeah, that’s clear and dry. The top of the picture is quite a deep blue. :)

  • And if the whitening of the sky towards the horizon is troublesome, I’d urge people to compare it to older photos, like this one from 1910 (well before ANY contrails)

    Or try this search:

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=blue%20skies&w=8623220@N02

  • oh my god, man, I’m no dunce!

    so. you’re saying that 30% humidity isnt enough?! ok. lets see tomorrow.
    til then:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWoFJ3yVEME&feature=related

  • @CTYForg

    Oh my god, airplanes are crossing over Las Vegas and making grids!?!? What a conspiracy!

    Plane A – Flying from Dallas to Toronto
    Plane B – Flying from NY to LA

    How do their paths NOT cross, please explain that to me.

    Actually it WOULD be a conspiracy if contrails NEVER crossed, I sincerely hope that you realize…airplanes DO NOT fly strictly in parallel paths.

  • It’s tomorrow now, and MUCH more interesting weather. Some fascinating forms up in the sky, including some very unusual cirrus forms. Photos later, but here’s some from 1905:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#

  • yeah its a PERSISTANT CONTRAIL or “CHEMTRAIL” day!
    gimme them readings.
    You’ve got to make this daily if you want to be scientific.
    Stats, radars. lets see em.

  • Same links as before, latest is 4AM today, Vandenberg.

    http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/skew/skew_KVBG.txt

    Note it’s a lot more humid at 30,000+ Easily within the bounds of contrails down here in LA.

    How’s about you find some good examples where you think that contrails should not have formed?

    Specifically, how do you justify the claims you make in your videos? How do you know what the humidity is at altitude in those videos?

  • Interesting clouds this morning.

    (Photo enhanced to show detail)

    The cloud on the left I am pretty sure is NOT a contrail. Fascinating stuff.

  • That looks to me the way I’d imagine a very humid-centred ribbon element of a jet stream might look like. I’ve not seen one looking like that here in the Canary Isles at Lat 28 degrees. But I haven’t seen KH clouds either. Nor tornado supercells…

  • BULLL FUCKING SHIT! All there were today were the INDEPENDENT SMALL COTTON white/grey CLOUDS and
    as you call them “persistant contrails” and that is what you have pictures of.
    CURRENTLY, 2:50 pm
    the WHOLE SKY IS WHITE. “persistant contrail/chemtrail” i dont care… its a whiteout.
    Uni totally lives on the west side. maggot.

  • Uncinus, where are the stats for today?
    I want all radar, photos, humidity…
    Do your job man! Work for that money!

  • What exactly is the problem with the sky being white? I don’t understand what you are getting so upset about? What is “bull shit” here? Why, scientifically, should the sky not be white?

    You know that the “cotton” clouds are far lower than the cirrus clouds?

  • I’m going to pop out and take some more photos. I do live on the West Side, as I’ve said before.

  • It was very hazy in the upper sky today. Did you see the corona?

    Do you know what causes a corona?

    Hint – it’s not white powder.

    I gave you links to the soundings. You can look them up yourself. Is there something you think is wrong?

  • Also a brief sun dog:

    What could cause that?

  • OMG a SUNDOG in LA, that only happens when it’s cold!!! Uh oh yeah…it IS cold at 30,000 feet. :P

  • Suntour, you really are a piece of shit eating shit arent you! go fuck yourself again.

    Anyway , heres my pics….much more telling than all of yours.
    I got a “contrail shadow”/black beam, halos and multiple persistant, while also non and dissapating contrails all while shopping for organic produce.
    And yes..this is NORMAL. This is why people dont believe you fucktards.
    You guys really are shitty photographers too. Not to mention bad taste is music sheesh. Pathetic.

    http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images02/131/1679c5691f844dbab0053f1c33681d8d/l.jpg

    http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images02/114/9734bfc9f6b34c9cb8b0d0019bd06eaa/l.jpg

  • CTYForg:

    BULLL FUCKING SHIT! maggot. you really are a piece of shit eating shit arent you! go fuck yourself again. Do your job man! Work for that money! This is why people dont believe you fucktards. You guys really are shitty photographers too. Not to mention bad taste is music sheesh. Pathetic. oh my god, man, I’m no dunce!

    Of course you’re not. Whoever gave you that idea?

  • Personal attacks, excellent strategy for driving your point home!

    I’m starting to get the feeling that you’re new to this “chemtrail” business because everything in the pictures has already been discussed by Uncinus (in his articles and comments) as well as Jazzroc (comments and his site as well).

    This stuff is really basic science. If you open any book on meteorology, it’ll clear up the majority of your confusion with regards to halos, sundogs, haze and might even touch on how contrails are formed! Knowledge is an awesome thing, I highly recommend it!

    I’m sure others will chime in but in the meantime, I’ll describe what’s happening in your pictures for you.

    Photo 1 –
    ““contrail shadow”/black beam” –
    I never thought I’d be explaining how shadows work to a grown adult, but here it goes. A hazy sky with a contrail between the haze and the sun? How is this NOT the shadow of the contrail? Please explain how something between the sun and miles of atmosphere doesn’t cast a shadow? Look at the location of the sun (just below the contrail) and the shadow (just above the contrail). Or maybe it IS some new fangled secret “black beam” technology at work? Nah, just a shadow.

    “halo” –
    There is nothing strange about halos or sundogs. They simply point out that there are ice crystals in the air, basic meteorology

    “multiple persistant” (sic) –
    Persistent contrails are not “chemtrails”, this has been observed and documented time and time again for the last 80+ years. To cling to this idea is to do yourself and your fellow chemtrailers a disservice.

    Photo 2 –
    “non and dissapating contrails” -
    The airplanes are flying at different altitudes. Airplanes DO fly at different altitudes, otherwise they would crash into each other when their paths crossed (which BTW creates the grids and the ominous “X” contrails that are so scary). Airplanes also have to maintain a minimum distance of 1000ft when they get close to each other, that’s one fifth of a mile btw. More than enough distance to be in a different layer of air with slightly different temperature or humidity.

    I hope this helps clear things up for you. Good luck dodging cars and breathing exhaust on your commute today.

  • CTYForg, let’s take a photo from your web site:

    http://ctyf.org/

    Now compare it to a photo from 1905:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#5236029652179080754

    What’s the difference?

    What exactly are you claiming? What’s the science behind your claims? Can you find ANY printed evidence that the skies have changed? Anything that say we’d never get contrail shadows in LA? Anything that says halos in LA in February are impossible or unlikely? Any science at all to back up your claims?

    Because I do. I’ve got ALL the books on clouds and meteorology, and all the scientific papers, and all the newspaper accounts. They all back up the assertion that the skies and the trails we are seeing are just byproducts of the weather and normal aviation traffic.

    Now, you might be happy to just shout at us, call us fucktards, say we are shills, say you don’t need to produce evidence, because it’s obvious, and you remember blue skies. But what’s your goal here? Don’t you want to point out these things to other people? Don’t you think that the evidence I’m asking for is the same evidence you’d need to convince them?

    You’ve produced some photos of a hazy day, with high altitude ice haze, and said it’s “not normal”. Now produce some evidence that supports this.

  • And now Rapidfire is back up, so you can see why the 11th was different from the 10th

    10th: Sunny with scattered clouds
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2010041.terra.1km

    11th: Overcast with cirrus stratus
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2010042.terra.1km

    And today, the 12th: still a bit of high level haze, but mostly clear:
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2010043.terra.1km

    I’d also encourage people, to get the larger picture to look at the “Daily Planet”
    http://onearth.jpl.nasa.gov/

    Particularly the Google Earth view, which is fascinating (only shows the view from the previous day):
    http://onearth.jpl.nasa.gov/OnEarth_DailyPlanet.kml

  • Yes UNCINUS you’re right that today it is a bit hazy with NO persisting “trails”.
    HOWEVER!… Your description of:
    11th: Overcast with cirrus stratus (that I so documented with the above photos)
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2010042.terra.1km
    is totally BOGUS!…..
    those are SPRAYED-CIRRUS!!! As in NOT “natural”.
    My definition of “natural” would be
    if there were NO planes flying…there would by no “artificial-cirrus”
    100% of everything on that day but the few “grey/white cottony” clouds were MAN-MADE!!

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

    What are contrails?

    Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
    The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and METAL PARTICLES.

    METAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLESMETAL PARTICLES

  • I’m sure some of it was caused by planes, maybe quite a bit of the local cloud cover, but the larger streaking cirrus structures in the upper right of the photo you link look pretty natural. Why do you think it’s ALL from planes?

    Of course the clouds caused by planes are not “natural”, but they are not deliberate either, and nor are they anything new. They have been doing this for decades.

    And yes, there are very small amounts of metal particles in the exhaust, as there are in car exhausts. Again, this is not deliberate, nor is it anything new. The metal does not contribute much, if anything, to the cloud formation, as there is not a lot of it, See:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm

    3.2.3.2 Metal Particles

    Aircraft jet engines also directly emit metal particles. Their sources include engine erosion and the combustion of fuel containing trace metal impurities or metal particles that enter the exhaust with the fuel . Metal particles-comprising elements such as Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ba-are estimated to be present at the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level at nozzle exit planes (CIAP, 1975; Fordyce and Sheibley, 1975). The corresponding concentrations of 107 to 108 particles/kg fuel (assuming 1-mm radius; see below) are much smaller than for soot. Although metals have been found as residuals in cirrus and contrail ice particles (Chen et al., 1998; Petzold et al., 1998; Twohy and Gandrud, 1998), their number and associated mass are considered too small to affect the formation or properties of more abundant volatile and soot plume aerosol particles.

    You seem to be suggesting that there’s some deliberate and common procedure that adds metal to jet fuel to alter the weather? But you don’t present any evidence to back this up. Can you explain why you believe this?

  • Heres another problem presented by NASA’s (dis)Info:
    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/efs_cloud_id.pdf

    In all of my documentation of CONTRAIL/CHEMTRAILS there
    has NEVER EVER EVER EVER been a “persistant trail” which DID NOT SPREAD.
    What I’m saying is….why is there a catagory for “persistant non-spreading”>???
    this is an OXYMORON. All “persistant trails” spread!! Hence: PERSISTANT.
    WTF would NASA go and screw something like that up for?
    Oh yeah…because is BULLSHIT!
    How come NASA didnt have this site up YEARS AND YEARS AGO???
    Because its BULLLSHIT!

  • Hey UNCINUS….post My PICS not as links…allow the HTML…so people can see what FEB11 really looked like:

  • For a contrail to spread significantly it needs wind sheer. It the air mass is moving evenly, then the trails simply moves with it and spread very little. If it’s only there for a few minutes (say 20-30) it will also not spread much, yet still count as “persistent”. So persistent non-spreading is a reasonable classification.

    I suspect though that you either count the normal expansion as “spreading”, or you don’t count 20 minutes as “persistent”. It all depends on where you draw your lines. For you, how long does a contrail have to last to count as “persistent”?

  • I’ll convert images to links if they are not too big (1000 pix wide max), I have to do it manually, as the site software seems to automatically filter out html from comments. Even mine, I have to edit the comment after I add it, and convert my own links.

  • Now, you know that the last image above simply shows planes at different altitudes. The inset plane is probably inbound to LAX. But it’s hard to tell without the original image, and the focal length of the camera.

    I also think you need to look at all the other things that are altering the weather, and see what an incredibly tiny portion of that is from contrails. Global dimming in particular is mostly from ground based pollution.

    Are you still claiming there is some deliberate spraying going on?

  • You might want to look up the science, there’s a very good overview in this 1972 book:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudsOfTheWorld1972?feat=embedwebsite#5363666784200204914

    I scanned in the chapter on contrails.

  • UNCINUS. How do I know?
    I WATCHED THE SKIES ALL DAY LONG. thats how I know. ALL FUCKING DAY!
    How do ya like that!? I’m not bullshitting you. And for about the last 2 years I’ve gotten around 5:30(6 or 7 days a week) and watched the skies, litterally ALL DAY! that’s how I know. Its a Unique perspective I have
    as someone who rides Bicycle and Gets up early looking out HUGE windows all day long.
    Thats how I know. ok?
    I’ve lived in LA for a Long time.
    I know how people like you live. You dont strike me as an environmentalist, or conservationist,
    or naturalist, in the slightest degree. You are most likely a MOTOR-FUCKER. Someone who doesnt really
    see the larger picture or impact your “hobbies” have on the rest of the world.
    I bet you even voted for one of the major so-called “2 party” candidates didnt you? Predictable.

    And dont pull any IPPC bullshit on me. Laughable. They didnt even begin to look into the effects of
    “contrail-induced global dimming”… The IPPC is a farce.
    Try again.
    Despite the fact that they CONFIRMED these metals in jet exhaust.
    You think thats just fine and dandy huh?

    I’m sure some of it was caused by planes, maybe quite a bit of the local cloud cover, but the larger streaking cirrus structures in the upper right of the photo you link look pretty natural. Why do you think it’s ALL from planes?

    Of course the clouds caused by planes are not “natural”, but they are not deliberate either, and nor are they anything new. They have been doing this for decades.

    And yes, there are very small amounts of metal particles in the exhaust, as there are in car exhausts. Again, this is not deliberate, nor is it anything new. The metal does not contribute much, if anything, to the cloud formation, as there is not a lot of it, See:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm

    3.2.3.2 Metal Particles

    Aircraft jet engines also directly emit metal particles. Their sources include engine erosion and the combustion of fuel containing trace metal impurities or metal particles that enter the exhaust with the fuel . Metal particles-comprising elements such as Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ba-are estimated to be present at the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level at nozzle exit planes (CIAP, 1975; Fordyce and Sheibley, 1975). The corresponding concentrations of 107 to 108 particles/kg fuel (assuming 1-mm radius; see below) are much smaller than for soot. Although metals have been found as residuals in cirrus and contrail ice particles (Chen et al., 1998; Petzold et al., 1998; Twohy and Gandrud, 1998), their number and associated mass are considered too small to affect the formation or properties of more abundant volatile and soot plume aerosol particles.

    You seem to be suggesting that there’s some deliberate and common procedure that adds metal to jet fuel to alter the weather? But you don’t present any evidence to back this up. Can you explain why you believe this?

    OMFG man. Can you read?Then READ!
    NO, I’m not “suggesting” anything(YOU ARE THE ONE ‘SUGGESTING’ that I’m “suggesting”)
    …I just posted what NASA wrote.
    You consider it a reputable source, no? You posted it on your site!
    So, what we have proven is that there ARE METAL PARTICLES in JET EXHAUST!
    Fan-FUCKING-tastic! Thats all the proof I need. In fact that IS the whole premise behind the “chemtrail” issue.
    I could give a flying fuck what some douche on the westside believes!!!(aka you)
    Because I know for a fact that there have been and there ARE ongoing “experiments/Weather mitigation/modification”……Cant disprove that.
    THEREFORE, I’ve proven that “CHEMTRAILS” exist, because “condensation trails” are composed
    of more that just WATER! You can call it Benign All you want!!
    Its not benign…and the idiots at NASA already admitted it. Morons that they are.
    I serve JPL and CALTECH proff’s and researchers all the time (WOULDNT TRUST EM with a thing) MORONS, absent mind-ed, like horses with blinders on.

  • Uncinus
    Now, you know that the last image above simply shows planes at different altitudes. The inset plane is probably inbound to LAX. But it’s hard to tell without the original image, and the focal length of the camera.

    I also think you need to look at all the other things that are altering the weather, and see what an incredibly tiny portion of that is from contrails. Global dimming in particular is mostly from ground based pollution.

    Actually the “non-trail” plane was headed NORTH..and of course,I’m NORTH of LA.

    And no, I don’t think “sky based pollution” is only a “tiny amount” of what contributes to “global dimming”
    or a NUMBER of other unforseen problems.
    REMEMBER!:::
    Importance of Student Data in the Study of Contrails

    Why is it important to study contrails?

    Clouds are the largest variable controlling Earth’s atmospheric temperature and climate. Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate (see The Role of Clouds from the S’COOL Project). Likewise, any change in Earth’s climate may have effects on natural resources. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in high thin clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources.

    What type of contrail is most interesting to scientists?

    Scientists are most interested in persistent contrails because they form long-lasting and sometimes extensive clouds that would not normally have formed in the atmosphere. Persistent contrails can last for hours to days, and spread over thousands of square kilometers, becoming indistinguishable from naturally occurring cirrus clouds. Scientists are concerned about contrails because predicted increases in air-traffic could result in a continued increase in cloud cover. Knowing when and where contrails form is key to determining their contribution to cirrus cloud cover and their effect on the energy balance. Thus, collecting information on short-lived contrails is also of interest.

  • Also, UNCINUS, dont worry I have tons of photos for you to drool over.
    In time.

  • I WATCHED THE SKIES ALL DAY LONG. thats how I know. ALL FUCKING DAY!
    How do ya like that!? I’m not bullshitting you. And for about the last 2 years I’ve gotten around 5:30(6 or 7 days a week) and watched the skies, litterally ALL DAY!

    Well, that explain why you did not notice them before. When you start looking for something, then you start seeing it a lot. You think this only started two years ago?

    So, what we have proven is that there ARE METAL PARTICLES in JET EXHAUST!
    Fan-FUCKING-tastic! Thats all the proof I need. In fact that IS the whole premise behind the “chemtrail” issue.

    No it’s not. Metal has always been in engine exhausts in small amounts. Nobody has ever disputed that, or thought it odd. The “chemtrail” issues is that things have been deliberately and secretly added to the exhaust. The natural and unavoidable trace amounts of metal are nothing like the “chemtrail” issue.

    Because, if the metal has always been there, then why do you claim that chemtrails only started round here two years ago?

  • I look forward to seeing your images. But could you address one:

    Given there are lots of historical photos of clouds that look like this, would you admit it’s probably a natural cloud? And that there’s no reason to suspect that this particular cloud was caused by spraying?

    So will you remove it from your website?

  • If I was somebody who was on the fence about whether or not chemtrails are contrails, or vice- versa, I certainly would give more creedence to what Uncinus has to say, rather than a foul mouthed cretin like CTYorg.

  • Jimmy, I really dont care, its all in the delivery man,….and you, eh…weak sauce.
    Everyone should think for themselves, not think what Jimmy and Uncinus want them to think.
    Its actually a matter of intellectual diversity. Y’know, evolution of consciousness.

    So will you remove it from your website?

    Hahahaha! Surely you jest!>,,, What an agenda you have!

    First and foremost, (with additional thanks to your croppin skillz) it is probably one of the coolest images on
    your whole site! you should thank me for such quality work! i have a silly ass degree and evrrythang. IV league foo.

    Secondly, If you look at image you cropped from, just below it I have detailed the trails in the distance which created that massive cloud form. Same day , same spray. I know, I took the pics, and remember the day quite vividly.
    Really pissed too…inauguration day! Those skies were crisp blue til the spray was on.
    Hey man, I’m an environmentalist por vida homey. Dont think I’m going to not raise alarm now that I know how fucked up our skies are! Weather all wacko because of sky-traffic!! HA, you must think I dont have an authentic heartful care for how we treat the earth, and each other! wrong dude. majorly wrong.

    Best recognize. You see, what we have here is not some debate on the technicalities of pseudo-scientific
    aviation jargon, no sir. This is about ethics, values, divine laws. You willfully choose destruction without
    careful reflection in all aspects of your “life”, your soul, or do you not? Just an average amateur pilot or
    a waste of humanity? I’m here because I’m concerned about our(humanity) impact on the world to mitigate that, not mitigate/manipulate the weather! Look, when they tested the “bomb” did they really know how much they were fucking up the world? Are you one of those zombies who’d do as told?

    I dunno, you’ve got one strike against you already because you’re from Santa monica or something! lolzzzzz.
    Anywho, where was I? oh, yes….I remember the day quite well. Just because you have some
    photos which do look like similar or related clouds does not negate the fact that I watched these many planes throughout the day created the “clouds” in question…..
    I’m just doing my duty to humanity, my “country” and NASA!
    you should be thanking me! Be proud!
    People should really take note of this sort of thing.
    IMHO

    I remember the day after 9/11. you could see the stars in LA….
    Never thought about the planes. Neither did they….how ignorant man can be.

    If you saw this just about every morning out your bedroom window…
    http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images02/133/9c7e4378404b4d7594700d39ba8da4ae/l.jpg
    I’m sure you’ll like this, did you miss it, last year, front page LA times…during and mid the fires.
    I have pics from those days.
    http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images02/113/b396c0c3114a4f83bd320e2c33e4d969/l.jpg

  • CTYForg, you never answered this:
    Plane A – Flying from Dallas to Toronto
    Plane B – Flying from NY to LA

    How do their paths NOT cross to form an evil “X” in the sky? Do all airplanes fly in parallel across the country, never crossing paths, never turning?

    By CTYForg – “THEREFORE, I’ve proven that “CHEMTRAILS” exist, because “condensation trails” are composed of more that just WATER!”

    The miniscule amount of metal (parts per BILLION) is your deadly “CHEMTRAIL”? If that is the “danger” then you are really grasping at straws.

    By CTYForg – “You see, what we have here is not some debate on the technicalities of pseudo-scientific aviation jargon, no sir.”

    That’s very true, because you don’t WANT to understand the science of it, so you don’t address the science, you simply poo poo it as “pseudo-scientific aviation jargon”.

    By CTYForg – “photos which do look like similar or related clouds does not negate the fact that I watched these many planes throughout the day created the “clouds” in question”

    Yes, it does negate that, because the persisting and spreading contrails BECOME clouds exactly like those pictured. They act like airborne ice crystals because they ARE airborne ice crystals. There is no mystery here beyond the one you’ve created in your mind.

    By CTYForg – “I WATCHED THE SKIES ALL DAY LONG. thats how I know.”

    From what you’ve said in your posts, it seems that you pretty much believe what you can see and what you feel deep down inside. It also appears that you aren’t willing to take scientific data into consideration.

    Considering the stance you’ve taken here, do you also believe in other naked eye observations? Like, the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun etc revolve around it? (that question was rhetorical btw)

    Of course you don’t believe that stuff, because science has taught you better. Science isn’t the enemy here, knowledge isn’t a dirty word. If you just sat down and learned about atmospheric science as well as studies regarding contrails, you’d recognize that your fears are misplaced. Wouldn’t it be nice to have one less thing to worry about, especially when you’re dodging that LA traffic and breathing in all that exhaust.

  • Well said, Suntour, but CCTYForg hasn’t listened so far and shows no sign of ever wanting to listen.
    Walk away?

  • Secondly, If you look at image you cropped from, just below it I have detailed the trails in the distance which created that massive cloud form. Same day , same spray. I know, I took the pics, and remember the day quite vividly.
    Really pissed too…inauguration day! Those skies were crisp blue til the spray was on.

    You really think there was DELIBERATE spraying?

    Have a look at the weather that day. Aqua photos are taken around noon:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2009020.terra.1km

    Here’s the LA area:

    Here’s the big picture:

    Look, those clouds are everywhere. They are natural windblow cirrus, like you would find anywhere in the world. Now it’s quite possible that some clouds were seeded or their growth influence by contrails. But there’s noting deliberate about it. It’s just a consequence of air travel.

    You spend a lot of time looking out of your window. But I’d encourage you to get a wider perspective. Have a look at some other areas of the world:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/

    Or even the whole world:

    http://onearth.jpl.nasa.gov/

    You’ll see the cloud conditions you observe happen all over the world, regardless of if there are contrails present.

  • CtyFoo spat:

    In all of my documentation of CONTRAIL/CHEMTRAILS there
    has NEVER EVER EVER EVER been a “persistant trail” which DID NOT SPREAD.

    So….is your hubris such that you speak for all possible experiences in the World? Non-spreading persistent contrails are a reality despite your limited experiences and views…

    I have seen them. Lots of other people have seen them. Ansel Adams took a pictures of them in 1954:

    http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=963

    There are plenty on this page:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

    Your constant foaming at the mouth seems to prohibit you from legitimately reviewing the information provided to you…You accuse UNicinus of having an agenda and yet spend countless hours trying to ram YOUR OPINION down others throats with fear-based speculation, insults and belligerent rantings…You fancy yourself as someone who “cares” when you clearly don’t. Not about others, not about rational debate or effective learning. You are all about YOUR agenda- naive and devoid of substance as it may be. You are your own zombie…lurching across town on your bike crying in shrill fear to look up when you really should look within…steadfast in your belief that anyone who disagrees with you or can provide evidence contrary to your beliefs is really out to get you or part of the problem

    In typical close-minded “believer” fashion, you dismiss any data that doesn’t fit your beliefs- instead attack the source.

    Your inconsistent dialectic has you straining to avoid admitting you might be wrong for every new piece of evidence or information provided to you- Playing the semantics game when you jump on the fact that there are indeed some extremely minute amounts of metal ejected in contrails as somehow “proof” – when you know damn well that is not the same as global, clandestine “spraying” operation. You can’t seem to make up your mind as to whether your are just upset at the man-made ice clouds produced by jet planes- or truly believe every persistent trail you see is deliberately “sprayed” as part of a clandestine campaign of the NWO agenda.

    EVERYTHING you have photographed has been documented by scientists, observed and photographed by citizens around the world decades before you became “aware”

    How do you reconcile that?

  • I think that this person CTYorg is probably angry or embarrassed for falling for the chemtrail hoax. When confronted by evidence that chemtrails do not exist, CTYorg lashes out at the people providing that evidence.

  • Jimmy, that may be. It would be nice to think that we’ve brought another one back to reality. :D

    The “chemtrail” theory reminds me a lot of the “Airplane on a Treadmill” puzzle. People who grasp the concept and physics involved, understand that the airplane will fly. Other people, for some reason have a mental block when it comes to visualizing powerful jets attached to freely spinning wheels. They concentrate on the tiny amount of friction in the wheel bearings, much the same way CTYForg concentrates on metal shavings (parts per billion) in the exhaust.

    Anyway, that’s a subject for a different website, so don’t argue “fly” or “no fly” here lol.

  • Yeah, Suntour, even when Mythbusters showed that the plane took off from the conveyor, some people still did not believe it! The dreaded “downwind turn” is still being debated on the internet as well, even pilots can have the wrong ideas about that.

  • Downwind turns? That interesting, so people think a plane can crash (or just fall out fo the sky?) if it turns downwind in high winds? It seems to have a long history, like in this 1940 article:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19400830&id=0IoRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=X-gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4028,2013917

    You could see how the misconception, and the terminology, could arise. To a non-pilot, the difference between ground speed and air speed is not something that is always thought about. Even pilots mix up what is actually happening when they transition their frame for reference from moving in an air mass to moving relative to the ground.

    An interesting perspective:

    http://www.flyingmag.com/technicalities-4?page=0,3

    Having laid out all these cautions, I wonder if it’s not best for pilots, or at least some pilots, to go on believing that a downwind turn is inherently dangerous because it necessarily involves a loss of airspeed. This is factually false and implies a misunderstanding of the relationship between the airplane and the air. But if it instills fear and concentrates attention, perhaps the myth of the downwind turn ought to be allowed to survive on the grounds that it does less harm than good.

    There are parallels to the “chemtrail” theory – particularly when people don’t understand the difference between the air at 30,000 feet and the air at ground level. They often don’t notice the contrails are actually often moving at 100 mph, which explains why they form grids, or sometimes spread out. You also get “it’s a hot day, so how can contrails be made of ice”?

  • I’ve never heard of the “downwind turn” controversy, I’ll have to take a look at that, it sounds interesting.

  • “Persistent trails have been observed in conditions that would not support persistent contrails (Specifically RH 40F)”

    That’s a MINUS 40F! :)

  • Not sure what you’re referencing JazzRoc but that made me think of the “-50 DKP!” World of Warcraft reference.

  • Typo in in the post. I’ve fixed it.

  • Uncinus:

    Typo in in the post. I’ve fixed it.

    Yes, odd that. I transferred the whole line, but some of the text disappeared from within my paste. WordPress software?

  • Yes, anything with angled brackets < and > can get messed up.

  • Anyway, I notice you have fixed it. :)

  • I’m a bit concerned about CTYForg and how they simply stopped posting. As we all know, CTYForg commutes via bike in LA and as much as we differ on our idea of contrails/”chemtrails” I’d hate to see anything happen to him/her.

    Of course, there is always the hope that CTYForg realized that he/she was in the wrong and is simply embarrassed. :D

  • I suspect he has simply moved on to other subjects of discussion.

  • I don’t know how you guys have the patience to keep refuting the same ridiculous claims in comment thread after comment thread, but it sure does make for entertaining reading!

    I only became aware of this “chemtrail conspiracy” a few weeks ago, but this site was a breath of fresh air after wading through the large fonts and garish colours that most discussion of this subject is laid out in. Also I think logical arguments are a bit easier on the eyes (and brain). Good work Uncinus!

  • Uncinus, you might like this film clip of the liftoff of the Solar Dynamics Observatory probe.
    Watch as the shockwaves “destroy” a sundog. It’s kind of an elegant proof that sundogs are made from ice crystals, and not “oily” substances.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/18feb_coolmovie.htm?list1355633
    Sorry, but I’m not sure I know how to post a link to the video properly.

  • VERY cool! There’s quite a few videos of the event on YouTube now.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sdo+sundog&search_type=&aq=f

    This one is probably the best. See around 1:50

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDEfu8s1Lw#t=1m45s

    Also this one shows the rocket cast a shadow across the cloud layer

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9S0z1ofcIc#t=0m20s

    I suspect it might be an edge shadow, as it does not show up in other videos – so is dependent on the viewpoint of the camera.

  • Amazing.

    So…what actually happening there? The rocket hits the speed of sound…the shock waves spreads out and the disturbs the crystals?? jostles them and changes the refraction? or what exactly?

  • http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/18feb_coolmovie.htm?list1355633

    “When the Atlas V rocket penetrated the cirrus, shock waves rippled through the cloud and destroyed the alignment of the crystals,” explains atmospheric optics expert Les Cowley. “This extinguished the sundog.”

    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/dogfm.htm

    Sundogs, parhelia, are formed by plate crystals high in the cirrus clouds that occur world-wide. In cold climates the plates can also be in ground level as diamond dust.

    The plates drift and float gently downwards with their large hexagonal faces almost horizontal. Rays that eventually contribute their glint to a sundog enter a side face and leave through another inclined 60° to the first. The two refractions deviate the ray by 22° or more depending on the ray’s initial angle of incidence when it enters the crystal. The condition where the internal ray crossing the crystal is parallel to an adjacent face gives the minimum deviation of about 22°.

  • That was a lot of fun! :)

  • The quality of a chemtrailer’s argument is almost universally inversely proportionate to their use OF SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS, affinity for exclamation points!!!!!!! failed grammer speling mistakes run on sentences
    ODD indentation::: bizarre puncuation,,,

    FUCKING swearing and ad hominem attacks, you blind idiots just look(!)at the evidence!! and appeals to authority (I’m Ivy League, foo).

    Now that ive provin MY POINT,,, I’m going to stomp my feet and leave you dis-in-formation agents of the NWO to get
    BACK to spreding the TRUTH!!! assholes

    P.S. Hans shot first.

  • Now THAT was a quality post ATP. :)

  • After two weeks I’m a little disappointed to the response to this post. Why are the people who believe in chemtrails not bringing forth their evidence? Is it secret?

  • Yeah- I’ve left a few questions that so far no one has been able to answer as well. I still want to know why I am leaving chemtrails over the ocean at night and why I’m still exposing myself and my family to my own aircraft’s chemtrails.

    And so far no one has offered to pay me a “no-spray fee”. I’m going all over the country tomorrow and I might just chemtrail the whole nation unless someone convince$ me otherwise. I’ll start at $100 bucks per address.

    It seems that if someone was truly a believer they would be willing to pay the very people who are spraying them to protect them. So prove it- give me just your state and pay me $100 (paypal only please) and I’ll turn it off over your state. I’ll give you my tail number and you can track me and see if you want proof of purchase.

  • Strange flights over LA , Feb 16th 2010
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdvJ9cAe6X8

  • Hi CTYForg, interesting video. That double curved contrail, did you see it forming? I wonder if it was two planes flying on formation, or just one following the other. They are pretty close together.

    You do the whole pesistent/non-persistent thing again. Can you explain how you can tell the two planes are at the exact same altitude? Because otherwise there’s nothing strange there.

    It sure was a contrail-friendly day on Feb 16th:

    Just to be clear, what bits exactly do you consider “strange”? And why?

  • That double curved contrail is a tough one.
    I don’t know where this was taken exactly but there is quite a bit of restricted airspace over the SoCal region which points to military activity or airspace avoidance.

    That change in direction is pretty large but not unheard of- I might make that kind of turn once a month or so. Our autopilots restrict the turn rates to a max of .25 gs. so if you have to make large heading changes the radii can get pretty large.

    If I had to guess I would say these are two aircraft seperated by 2000 feet going from the east to somewhere in NorCal. I would further posit that they were not very high and thus were affected by some of the MOAs. All last week continuing through this week the temps have been very low at lower altitudes with a low tropopause (typical winter).

    On a side note-
    I can say that except for over the Gulf and White Sands, we are almost never affected by airspace restrictions at altitude (that I’m aware of). ATC may be keeping us from the MOAs without telling us but most of the time if we ask for a shortcut they give it to us.

    I can also say that on average, I might see ONE military aircraft a month. In fact it’s so rare that when military are pointed out we feel like it’s a treat to see them. There just aren’t that many military aircraft operating up at our altitude

  • Yeah, it’s pretty interesting. CTYForg, was this filmed in Hollywood? What time of day was it? Any idea what direction the contrail was, relative to you? I don’t suppose you have it in higher resolution?

    I almost wonder if it might be a bit of an illusion. The lower trail seems short, and almost as if it is going in the opposite direction.

  • Silverlake looking south. Mid afternoon.
    Its 2 planes flying relatively fast in parrallel formation making a 180 from NW to East.
    All other planes oncoming north then turn NW.

  • I’ve never seen two jets doing stuff like that. Maybe a flight test of some kind? Looking south would put in a similar area to the Voodoo trails:

    http://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/

    I’m guessing that since Voodoo1 did some similar test flights there, then that’s a reasonably common area for test/research flights (San Pedro to Catalina), and maybe this was a test flight with a follow-plane videoing it.

  • I really wish that folks who post these videos would at least describe:

    - The place the video was recorded (address would be nice, LAT/LONG would be awesome)
    - The time and date the video was recorded
    - The direction the camera was facing

    The central California coast (especially over the ocean between Santa Barbara and LA out to Catalina and beyond) has been used for aircraft testing for *decades*. And not just manned vehicles. This was one of the primary testing areas for the cruise missile… which wasn’t really a missile, but rather a turbine-powered flying bomb.

  • @ ATP
    yes there were 2 planes flying in tandem, rather fast.
    could I be any more specific?
    The video I posted
    feb 16th 2010 (approx 3or 4 pm)
    Hyperion and Sunset, Silverlake
    LOS ANGELES, CA
    facing South-ish.

  • It’s pretty interesting that on both satellite images there are pairs of trails. I wonder if these are related.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_UCSB.2010047.aqua.250m

  • mmmm…its all rather goofy to me, Uncinus.
    Those 2 sets of parallel trails in the satellite image you mention are 100′s of miles long and 10 miles wide,
    they would not be able to be distinguished as persistent trails at all. They even look like what is commonly claimed to be “boat”contrails, but also seem likely to be aircraft trails.

    Unike the trails noticeable in my video, these 3-5(+) trails were all layed out within a short period of time (30 mins?).
    You are able to see them making very precise turns all within LA airspace.
    This is not reflected in any radar/satellite image that I am aware of.
    Also your reference to the “voodoo trails”is not correct,
    these actually do not come up north and west of Los Angeles.

  • 10 miles wide? Hardly. The thinner trails look around 1 mile wide, at most. Look at the scale on this image.

    They would easily be visible as persisten contrails. For reference have a look at these LARGER trails viewed from above and below:


    From: http://contrailscience.com/contrails-above-and-below/

    What do you mean by “within LA airspace”? LAX Airspace only extends to 10,000 feet.

    When you say “these actually do not come up north and west of Los Angeles”, I think you are incorrectly assuming that the contrails are much closer than they actually are.

    Consider, if the trails are at 37,000 feet (7 miles up), and are 20 degrees above the horizon, then that means they are 20 miles away (over Long Beach). If it’s 10 degrees, then they are 40 miles away. Set the trails in my images above – they are quite visible, yet a long way away.

    Are you actually claiming anything is specifically odd in your video there? Because all it look like is two jets flying together. Not something you see every day, but hardly evidence of anything.

  • “CTYForg

    @ ATP
    yes there were 2 planes flying in tandem, rather fast.
    could I be any more specific?
    The video I posted
    feb 16th 2010 (approx 3or 4 pm)
    Hyperion and Sunset, Silverlake
    LOS ANGELES, CA
    facing South-ish.”

    That does help a lot, thank you.

  • Uncinus
    10 miles wide? Hardly. The thinner trails look around 1 mile wide, at most. Look at the scale on this image.

    Yes, as I was saying the LARGER “east-west”trails in the picture on post 81
    are miles wide…and the
    peculiar thing regardless…is, for that day if “persistent trails” were prevalent,
    why just 2 pairs of rather large continuous trails? Surely there were hundreds of planes on those routes?
    What gives?

    And forget I mentioned “LA airspace” you obviously didnt understand that I meant “visible space directly over Los Angeles”.
    And yes, if I’m looking up 40%, 60%, up to directly above my head, how far away would it put these trails?
    5 miles? 1 mile?
    If something is literally straight ABOVE you that means its…..above you, straight up…..
    understand?
    Or does pure logic mystify you?
    you say those planes are 37,000 feet up?
    not so!!
    35000ft even!..thats pretty high, intercontinental cruising altitude.
    Usually dont make it to that height until a ways into the ascent out of LAX…..
    I’ve flown far too many times to forget that.
    So,no these planes are NOT 7 miles up as you say.

    Do I think there is anything particularly odd about my video?
    to be bluntly honest This is where you begin to look either like a disinfo puppet, or a moron.

    Did you pay attention to the information it contained. The statement from NASA and my personal
    statements? This is the content of what I have presented. Is that “odd”? To be a concerned observer>?
    Needless wasteful air pollution with known environmental effects and a society
    that doesnt think twice about it? Climategate, population culling agendas, carbon taxes?
    Yes, thats odd.

  • Yes, as I was saying the LARGER “east-west”trails in the picture on post 81
    are miles wide…and the
    peculiar thing regardless…is, for that day if “persistent trails” were prevalent,
    why just 2 pairs of rather large continuous trails? Surely there were hundreds of planes on those routes?
    What gives?

    Still only about 3 miles wide, not 10. Easily visible as trails from the ground.

    Obviously that day persistent trails were NOT prevalent, as you only see four trails. Persistent contrail conditions must have only occurred in limited 3D regions. Seeing those two jets in your video leave trails makes me wonder if they also left the other trails. Possible. The likely explanation there would be that they were doing some kind of flight test or practice at an unusual altitude, above normal air traffic. Still, there’s no way of knowing right now witht he limited information.

    And forget I mentioned “LA airspace” you obviously didnt understand that I meant “visible space directly over Los Angeles”.

    “LA Airspace” is used both to refer to that, and (more commonly for pilots) to the Class B airspace around Los Angeles airport. You seemed to be implying it was flying somewhere it should not be, hence I assumed you meant the latter.

    And yes, if I’m looking up 40%, 60%, up to directly above my head, how far away would it put these trails?
    5 miles? 1 mile?

    40 degrees is pretty high up, probably 90% of contrails you see are at a lower angle than that. Still, I was talking about the two jets. The angle seemed low enough, and they seemed high enough, to put them some distance (at least 10 miles) to the south of you.

    you say those planes are 37,000 feet up?
    not so!!
    35000ft even!..thats pretty high, intercontinental cruising altitude.
    Usually dont make it to that height until a ways into the ascent out of LAX…..
    I’ve flown far too many times to forget that.
    So,no these planes are NOT 7 miles up as you say.

    Well, of course they were not simply ascending from LAX. But exactly how do you know they are not at 7 miles up? I base it on the thinness of the trails laid, and that you can’t see the jets. But it’s quite hard to tell from the video.

    Did you pay attention to the information it contained. The statement from NASA and my personal
    statements? This is the content of what I have presented. Is that “odd”? To be a concerned observer?
    Needless wasteful air pollution with known environmental effects and a society
    that doesnt think twice about it? Climategate, population culling agendas, carbon taxes?
    Yes, thats odd.

    I meant was there something odd about the contrails. Here I’m concerned about the science of contrail formation. You are claiming that there are not normal contrails, yet you provide no evidence ABOUT THE CONTRAILS to back it up. You simply show a video of two jets making a turn together above, or to the south of, Los Angeles. Now I understand if you are ALREADY convinced there is a Zionist conspiracy to cull the population then you might be inclined to read things into that. But really all it is is two jets making a turn together over Los Angeles.

    So, explain: what is odd ABOUT THE CONTRAILS?

  • HEY UNCINUS!!!!!
    (you are frustrating me to no end NOT BEING OBJECTIVE.
    either PAY ATTENTION or dont bother at all)
    You cannot “lump” me in with any “camp”
    that says “this” or thinks “that”
    …understand? Ok.
    Make reference to what your issue is…be very clear.
    If you want to argue semantics, slang, popular vernacular
    aka the “meaning of the term” “chemtrail”…don’t bother.
    There is NO “official definition”.
    My use and definition may be different than another person.
    For instance, “persistant aerosol” could be synonymous with “chemtrail”
    …but who cares? Thats not why you have this web site.
    Do you understand that? good.

    READ, WATCH, LISTEN.
    Do you have learning problems? Thats ok if you do.
    Can you not read? Hear? Its okay if you cannot.

    now,
    watch the video again….because you are having a
    REALLY HARD TIME paying attention.
    watch the video again from beginning to end

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4A0Io4Hyp0
    (i’ve reuploaded this because the spelling error on “persistent” was bugging me)

    here is a still photo:
    http://hotlink.myspacecdn.com/images02/137/8cdcf0f4136046e780fc732ba5b9dae2/l.jpg

    then tell me what you DIS-AGREE with about my video?
    can you find anything?
    Am I making any claims that are not scientifically valid?

    Dont tell me what I see or in what portion of the sky I see anything in.
    got it?
    You have no clue what I’ve been documenting/seeing/noticing/ and
    at what point in the sky I’m noticing it. right?
    Go back and watch my other videos…the majority of what I’m documenting is
    ABOVE ME, literally.
    GO WATCH!
    PAY ATTENTION.

    40 degrees is pretty high up, probably 90% of contrails you see are at a lower angle than that. Still, I was talking about the two jets. The angle seemed low enough, and they seemed high enough, to put them some distance (at least 10 miles) to the south of you.

    What an AUDACIOUS statement to make!
    Wow Uncinus, way to throw OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION right out the window!
    90% or more of the PERSISTENT TRAILS I DOCUMENT AND OBSERVE
    ARE RIGHT ABOVE MY
    HEAD!
    Thats why its alarming/odd/concerning/annoying/ ad infinitum…
    Are we CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THAT issue?

    YOU DONT KNOW what I’ve been seeing at all!!!
    Where I live MOST of the “persistent trails” ARE
    LITERALLY ABOVE ME….I’m not searching for them,not looking “off into the distance”.
    they are
    DIRECTLY ABOVE ME WHEN I LEAVE MY FRONT DOOR!!
    got that? Really….do you understand?
    ABOVE ME
    ABOVE ME
    ABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE MEABOVE ME
    ABOVE ME
    Do I have to write that again?
    Are we clear?
    OK. Understand this Uncinus…
    I know the distance from where I am to the Altadena foothills…
    SO…
    Unless you are a presumptuous ASSHOLE
    Dont tell me that I do not know that distance.
    It hinders any sort of objective analysis.
    Therefore,
    ANY AND ALL “artificial cloud cover” aka “persistent jet trails” that is/are
    LITERALLY above my head and move from my location
    toward pasadena/altadena and mountains (which I’ve been looking at for over 20 years)
    …IS not 10, 20 or 40 miles away. You are WRONG.
    got it?
    Or are you an asshole who is going to tell me I dont know
    these distances? again.

    Obviously that day persistent trails were NOT prevalent, as you only see four trails. Persistent contrail conditions must have only occurred in limited 3D regions. Seeing those two jets in your video leave trails makes me wonder if they also left the other trails

    WHICH DAY IS THIS SATELLITE IMAGE FROM?
    the “DAY IN QUESTION”? WHAT DATE?

    IN MY VIDEO (FEB 16th 2010) the “two jets pulling a 180 in tandem” are leaving
    “persistant trails” JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ONES I FILMED IN THE EXACT SAME VIDEO.
    Now, UNCINUS, either you’re an ASSHOLE who is just making stuff up to be spiteful…
    OR you have to accept that the “2 planes” were most certainly not the only planes leaving
    “persistant trails”. Its there, in the video.
    THE ONLY THING ODD ABOUT THESE PLANES(2 in a pair)
    is:
    a)they seemed to obviously not be COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
    b)they made a very sharp and fast 180 degree turn, IN TANDEM.
    c)they were basically above the LA area

    Do I think there is something “odd” about the “contrails”(as you call them) in my videos?
    Sure. Thats why I keep documenting. I’m being a good person.
    They are QUITE prevalent dont you think?
    Unlike yourself, who thinks they are “no big deal” and “not a concern” for personal health or global weather/climate/life….
    NASA disagrees with you…and even they are Gov’t stooges.
    Do you have to go back and RE-READ the text in my video, or NASA’s own statements?

    Let’s just put it this way UNCINUS….
    If you, as an individual, were to tell me “hey man, there is NO proof of Gov’t geo-engineering/weather-modification/spraying the citizenry in tests”…then I sure as hell wouldnt believe you.

    In fact, you’ve proven these things on your website already.

    Its all very odd, indeed.

    Well, of course they were not simply ascending from LAX. But exactly how do you know they are not at 7 miles up? I base it on the thinness of the trails laid, and that you can’t see the jets. But it’s quite hard to tell from the video.

    Really Uncinus? Is that an objective scientific analysis?
    You cannot prove they were at 7miles, just like I cannot prove they were not.
    I just want DATA, dont speculate for the sake of it.

  • 40 degrees is pretty high up, probably 90% of contrails you see are at a lower angle than that. Still, I was talking about the two jets. The angle seemed low enough, and they seemed high enough, to put them some distance (at least 10 miles) to the south of you.

    What an AUDACIOUS statement to make!
    Wow Uncinus, way to throw OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION right out the window!
    90% or more of the PERSISTENT TRAILS I DOCUMENT AND OBSERVE
    ARE RIGHT ABOVE MY
    HEAD!
    Thats why its alarming/odd/concerning/annoying/ ad infinitum…

    Okay, perhaps there’s a problem of terms here. What do you mean by “right over my head”? Do you mean that horizontally they are within one or two miles of you?

    Now, you know that most contrails form above 30,000 feet round here. Let’s simplify that to 32,000 feet, or about six miles.

    Now if we were to say that right over your head meant within a couple of miles, then that would mean you were looking up at 70 degrees or more, at a circle of sky 2 miles in radius, an area of 12.5 square miles.

    Now if we widen that a bit, let’s say “right over my head” is a more reasonable 45 degrees, then you’d be looking at a circle 6 miles in radius, or an area of 113 square miles.

    Now what I was claiming that that kind of area would only encompass 10% of visible contrails. If that were so then all the visible contrails would be in a circle of 1130 square miles, or a radius of 19 miles. That’s looking up at 17.5 degrees.

    Here’s what the relative areas look like on the map, centered around Silver Lake, where you took the video:

    Hopefully that explains what I meant by the 90% comment. Contrails are fairly evenly distributed over LA, so in the visible area, only 10% would be above you, if you took “above” to mean 45 degrees. Far less (under 1%) if it were 75%

    So, when you say there were “ABOVE” you, could you be a bit more specific? Approximately what angle above the horizon? Here’s a protractor for reference:

    THE ONLY THING ODD ABOUT THESE PLANES(2 in a pair)
    is:
    a)they seemed to obviously not be COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
    b)they made a very sharp and fast 180 degree turn, IN TANDEM.
    c)they were basically above the LA area

    Sure, that’s a bit odd. But is it evidence of something? Is there any reason why someone would NOT do that type of thing? Non-commercial planes are not banned from the airspace above LA.

    If they were spraying something, why would they do it like that?

    Really Uncinus? Is that an objective scientific analysis?
    You cannot prove they were at 7miles, just like I cannot prove they were not.
    I just want DATA, dont speculate for the sake of it.

    My best estimate was 7 miles, based on:

    1) Contrails only form at those altitudes here.
    2) The trails were very thin.
    3) The jets are too small to be seen.

    What are you basing your supposition on?

  • Here’s an interesting old thing I found, related to the discussion of angles:

    And another – it’s printed on transparent celluloid:

    Of course now you can use a digital camera, if you figure out the focal length in pixels.

  • You guys a re getting pretty wraped around this perception thing.

    Let me muddy the waters:
    These are 90 Degree turns- not 180 as previously stated.
    Nothing (military or commercial) flies “fast” above the continental US. We are all restricted to mach .99 or less airspeed and many private jets travel faster than commercial jets- military jets tend to operate at the same speeds we do to save fuel since the closer you get to the speed of sound the more fuel you use.
    There is no way to judge aircraft speed from the ground. Our groundspeed yesterday hit almost 600 kts. How fast does that look? If you don’t know the altitude there is no way to judge speed. Period.

  • @ CaptFitch

    Well sure, I was in downtown LA yesterday and there was a plane that seemed to be nearly hovering barely above the buildings, had i wanted to i could’ve read the markings~! it looked like it was going 35mph max. surreal.

    Back to the matter at hand.
    Are you saying the 2 planes were most likely private planes?
    What do you mean by 90degree vs 180degree… Am I missing something? It looks like 180degrees of a full circle to me.

    And I get it, you’re saying “fast” is really fast. point taken.
    whatever.

    @UNCINUS

    Well, to be honest with you I’m 50/50 on the chemtrail issue.
    There is a mountain of “evidence” to examine. Its an ongoing investigation.
    As a matter of pollution and weather modification I would classify all persistent contrails as “chemtrails”.
    I understand the physics involved in contrails, but I am yet unconvinced that there are not deliberate contrail/aerosol campaigns ongoing now that would produce similar effects. Beyond the actual composition of the persistent trails, their effect on the weather balance of earth is now beginning to be understood. I think it can and will be a big issue.
    It is a big issue. Thats why i came here for the lessons.

    As for the february 16th video, I was already looking up over a 10 foot fence.
    All trails were at 45degrees or more in the sky. This would place them nearly over downtown.

    As for flight activity over los angeles, i’ve got a couple hundred photos which document
    the many things these trails do in our skies. The first thing is, the flight patterns are NEVER uniform and contrail patterns almost NEVER identical. Is this as documented on official records? Or should I expect to see the same flights in the same area each day>? If humidity and temp permitted, this would make it almost a certainty that when persistent trails formed, there would be the same sorts of orientations observed as often as contrails form.
    Is this an bad assumption? Is the scattered more random orientations of flights/trails a more logical assumption?
    Do you have resources to look at this data daily?

    Now, when I say “ABOVE MY HEAD” I mean like this:
    try this video out first, and try to count the trails from beginning to end.
    ignore my commentary if it annoys you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUYbWrmxchc
    At one point near the end of the clip I look DIRECTLY ABOVE my head and you see…guess what?…..
    an already spreading persistent contrail! Theres plenty of them, side to side and above my head.
    when I say Above My Head thats what I mean.
    When you step out your front door and literally look up and thats what you see, day after day.
    you’d care.

  • In that video I counted maybe 12 persistent contrails in the air at once, maybe a few more. That’s a bit unusual, and indicates a deep region of cold humid air. Often you only get a few trails as the region of cold humid air is smaller. On Oct 9th 2009, the satellite image tells the story: lots of cloud, and lots of cirrus to the south (looks like your video was a bit later in the day than this image)

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA5.2009282.aqua.500m

    Flight patterns are uniform to some degree, but still can be highly variable. I just pilot small planes, but from observing the larger planes from both inside and outside I can see that they could fly the same route several miles different each time. And planes rarely leave the airpot on time, so the schedule varies from day to day.

    Your best resource here is FlightAware, which gives you a near real time look at the planes in the air.

    http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KLAX

    The blue planes are local (to LAX) the green planes are to/from other airports and are more likely to be the contrailers:

    Move your mouse over a plane to see it’s details. Click on it to get precise tracking. Note the one I’ve highlighted:

    SWA3085 B737 (Southwest flight 3085, a Boeing 737)
    322 485 (altitude 32,200 feet, speed 485 knots)
    KSFO KSAN (From San Francisco to San Diego)

    It’s not real time, and can be annoying to match trails with planes. I’ve done it a few times though.

  • CTYForg-

    All I saw in the video was the two aircraft make a heading change of 90 degrees. I never saw them reverse course so I’m sticking with 90. That said, it is plausable that a civilian plane could make a full 90 degree turn in the course of everyday activities. We endevour not to to save time and fuel but sometimes you just have to. As far as two aircraft- if the first guy had to do it the next guy probably will too to maintain seperation. In fact- if I was told to make the same kind of turn as the first guy and he was leaving a trail I would probably try to match his track just for fun. (You can do this by either hand flying or messing with the heading bug as you make the turn- not hard).

    As far as “normal, everyday” routes. At the altitudes that we usually make contrails, our routes, tracks, paths whatever, are almost NEVER the same. There are so many variables and options that if I were to have the same planned flight everyday for ten days I would NEVER follow the same route at same times- especially in highly congested areas like SoCAL. Basically there is no way to look up and say “Oh that must be the 10:45 Southwest flight from LA to Phoenix.” One of the strong arguments that proponants of Chemtrails use is that Chemtrail planes fly in non-standard flight patterns which is fundamentally flawed simply because there is no such thing as “standard” flight patterns, especially up high. Obviously there are a few instances where we do tend to follow the same routes (arrivals, departures and close to the runway) but even those are hard to see with good predictability because we are so often turned off the arrivals early or given shortcuts. Add wind to the mix and visualizing “normal” flight paths is nearly impossible.

    I can’t tell you from the video what type of planes these are and anyone who says they can from the video is flat out lying. Everyday I have to search for and try to identify aircraft above me, below me, at the same altitude as me and at virtually every distance and combination imaginable. We must often do this acurately to avoid following the wrong plane or avoiding one plane and hitting another. I can tell you confidently that identifying aircraft type is very difficult until you’re within a couple miles of each other and unless you’re within a few thousand feet it’s pretty tough. So when someone states in a video that “these are clearly not commercial aircraft” or “these just don’t look like civilian aircraft” I have to question that type of statement. Also please disregard all talk of color or markings. If I wanted to go paint my aircraft in perfect up to date Airforce markings there is nothing preventing me from doing that (except I would be laughed at everywhere I went). All white is pretty common for new aircraft and there are a few all white planes operating out there for the gov’t doing perfectly normal stuff. Janet out of Vegas is all white with a small red stripe doing runs for the government. Omni out of TUL is gov’t charter and they are all white except fo the small logo on the tail. Heck I even ran all white for a week once waiting for the paint shop to open back up.

    I guess My whole point is that many hang their hat on hard and fast rules about what they believe is normal and abnormal in aviation and I’d like to reinforce that most of these statements are patently wrong. Unfortunately these false statements are often how they prove validity to thier arguments time and time again.

  • One big assumption people make is connecting contrails with their proximity to airports – usually along the lines of “I’m nowhere near an airport, but I see contrails all the time”, but also “I live near an airport, so I know what normal flight patterns are”.

    Contrails are almost entirely unrelated to any airport within 50 miles of you, or the lack thereof. It’s planes flying over you from distant airports, usually hundreds of miles away. Los Angeles gets contrails not because of LAX, but because it’s on the coast between several major cites. It’s also between Hawaii and several US airports.

  • Routes are indeed never the same. I’m a student pilot and just started learning how to fly routes. To practice we start off with an easy route and fly that one a couple of times. The route takes me from Oxford (EGTK) to Bournemouth (EGHH).

    To fly this one I file a flightplan: EGTK direct to CPT (a VOR beacon) direct to PEPIS (a navigation waypoint) and then via R41 which is an airway that runs roughly north south trough the UK to SAM (a VOR near Southhampton) and then direct to Bournemouth.

    I’ve flown this route 3 times so far. The first time I had to fly a holding pattern (a racetrack) before I got to CPT, because the airway was busy. Then I had followed the route all the way to SAM where the controller told me directions to fly (radar vectors in aviation talk) to the runway at Bournemouth.

    The second time the controller told me I could go direct from CPT to SAM. Essentially giving me a shortcut.

    The third time I flew the route, just after I got to PEPIS the controller gave me radar vectors to fly to the Runway at Bournemouth. Also to provide me with a shortcut.

    As you can see, 3 times exactly the same route filed on the flightplan, and 3 times a completely different route flown. A controller always tries to give pilots the shortest routing possible as it saves fuel and thus money. But it isn’t always possible. The first time I flew the route was on Monday morning, so the airspace was very busy. The second time was on Saturday so it was relatively calm.

    If you want to see this route on a map you can go to: http://www.simroutes.com/fb2/ParseRoute.aspx

    Departure: EGTK

    Route: CPT PEPIS R41 SAM

    Arrival: EGHH

    and then generate route. You’ll get a google map with the route displayed on it.

    That there is so much traffic over down town Los Angeles doesn’t surprise me as the LAX VOR beacon which is located at the western edge of Los Angeles international is a major intersection between airways. J1, J93, J4, V25, V23, V165, V64, V370, V25, V210, V165, V16, J96, J78, J74, J64, J60, J5, J169, J134, J128, J107, J104, J10, C1318 and C1316 all come together at LAX. So a lot of planes on these airways fly to LAX to go off on another airway. Some major routes from the southern US to Hawaii, Australia and Asia all go via the LAX VOR. Lot’s of traffic that flies directly over Los Angeles at high altitude.

    Wickid

  • My, my, my…

    Uncinus, I thank you sincerely for the very levelheaded, non-judgmental look at this alleged phenomenon.

    As for the chemtrail theorists, I appreciate a bit of comedy as much as the next guy. I can also see that a conspiracy hobby is far more socially useful than, say, a crime hobby.

  • Oh shit what? It’s a YouTube video where a scientist explains his theory that cosmic rays have more of an effect on the weather than we thought?

    Now why exactly do you:

    A) Think he’s right
    B) Think it has something to do with persistent contrails.

    And before you answer, read this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

We are no longer taking comments on Contrail Science
If you would like to comment, or ask questions about Contrails or The Chemtrail Theory,
then please head over to the contrail forum at our sister site:

METABUNK.ORG

   
© 2014 Contrail Science Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha