Home » chemtrails » How Long do Contrails Last?

How Long do Contrails Last?

Q) How long do contrails last?
A) According to all the books on clouds in the last 70 years, contrails last anywhere from less than a second, up to several hours. If depends on the atmospheric conditions at the altitude the plane is flying. It’s unrelated to the weather on the ground.

This is an oft-asked question. The answer is reasonably straightforward, but misunderstanding is common. To understand why a contrail can last as little as a fraction of a second, or as long as several hours, you need to understand what a contrail is, and how it forms.

Here’s another question, which has the same answer:

snowflakecvr2.jpgQ) How long does a snowflake last?

Why is this basically the same question? Because contrails are generally made of ice crystals. Jet exhaust contains a lot of water vapor (the chemical reaction actually produces more water than there was originally jet fuel), and when this gets shot out of the back of the engine at 2000MPH, it hits the frigid air (typically colder than -40 degrees), and the water vapor condenses and freezes, very quickly, into tiny ice crystals, just like snowflakes.

So why do these ice crystals sometimes stay around for a long time, and sometimes vanish in seconds? The temperature is well below freezing, so they can’t melt, can they? This is puzzling because it involves something that most people know nothing about “sublimation“.

Sublimation is when a substance (in this case, water), goes directly from being solid to being vapor (a gas), without actually melting into a liquid. It’s like evaporation, except instead of a liquid evaporating, it’s a solid (ice). If the air is dry (i.e. there is little water vapor in it), then the ice crystals will quickly sublimate into vapor, and the trail will vanish quickly.

However, if the air already has a lot of water vapor in it, then the ice will sublimate slower, and the trail will last longer.

If the air has so much water vapor in it already that it can’t hold any more (i.e. it’s “supersaturated”), then the ice crystals can’t sublimate, and so the contrail will stay around for a long time. The ice crystals might even attract water from the air, if there is enough, and the contrail will get thicker. Winds might make the contrail spread out to even cover the whole sky.

The above is a simplification, as other factors like temperature, pressure, and sunlight have an effect. But it explains the basic reasons why some trails last only a few seconds, and some can last for hours, and spread out to cover the sky.

Finally, there is one more way of asking the question:

Q) How long do clouds last?

This is the same question because contrails are clouds. Contrails are physically very similar to cirrus clouds (except they are long and thin), and so they act almost exactly the same. You see cirrus clouds that last for hours, so why not contrails?

References – note the dates

“A Color Guide to clouds” from Richard Scorer & Harry Wexler, 1963

1972: Richard Scorer – “Cloud of the worlds”

558 thoughts on “How Long do Contrails Last?

  1. This is the satellite photo for the Gulf of Mexico, around noon that day, Dec 24th 2010.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2010358.aqua.1km

    Tells the whole story really. Lots of cirrus clouds, and the contrails match the band of moisture. The contrails also match the directions you’d expect of flights in that area.

  2. dz says:

    Thanks Uncinus. This is amazing, especially when looking at the higher resolution images.

    BTW, I was mistaken about the time of day of the video. It was sunrise, not sunset (determined by the moon’s daytime appearance. It was in the waning mode. Full moon occurred on the 21st). I didn’t see what time the satellite image was taken, but it was probably later that day as the area of contrail formation had moved eastward into Florida by that time.

  3. dz says:

    [file]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/redneck santa.bmp[/file]
    Good news, folks. Santa survived.

  4. Alhazred The Sane says:

    Incredible. I’ve spent over three hours on this site, which certainly wasn’t my intention. I’d like to commend your efforts to educate visitors, and also the patience you show when debating. I fear that many of those who appear here will never change their opinion, no matter how sound the scientific evidence is. They’ve discovered a plot, and that’s that.

    I’ve even encountered some of these loons in Ireland, where I was living up until last summer. The “chemtrails” are linked to Bilderberg who are linked to CFR who are run by the Illuminati who are actually lizards. Even the Queen of England gets it – consider, she is called Liz, or Lizzie, which is obviously a contraction of Lizard. Still, David Icke must get rich somehow, and it’s not going to be me buying his books.

    Keep up the good work.

  5. Mr. Suntour says:

    LOL Alhazred, I never caught the connection between Queen Elizabeth and her reptilian siblings. They’re going to take over the world! 😛

  6. Vic says:

    California Skywatch
    Protecting your right to know

    http://www.californiaskywatch.com/

  7. Kamran says:

    I wasn’t aware observing was the same as doing something. Unless it’s some sort of quantum deal.

  8. Faithinscience says:

    “California Skywatch
    Protecting your right to know”

    Our right to know what?! That gullible people exist?

  9. MikeC says:

    Oh that ignorance required protection…

    Happy New Year from Downunder everyone…well in an hour or so :):):)

  10. TheFactsMatter says:

    I have only one hope for the New Year….I hope the chemtrail hoax spreaders learn some basic science and aviation.

    I also hope that certain individuals learn to be less suspicious of others. Jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is, in a word, stupid.

    I hope for the end of this ridiculous witch-hunt.

    I’m an American and I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    I have seen absolutely no evidence that “chemtrails” are anything more than persistent contrails.

  11. My hope is that we all move up Paul Graham’s Disagreement Hierarchy a little:

    http://morgellonswatch.com/disagree/

  12. Faithinscience says:

    I sure hope I can improve my position.

  13. Vic says:

    Yup, they are contrails. I am totally convinced now from your post. I am so happy our government tells us everything. Hey, and they are always truthful about what they do. I feel much better now that you guys convinced me they are just sweet fluff. Don’t you geniuses feel better about yourself now for convincing an idiot. Thanks and Happy New Year!!

    Move along folks, nothing to see here, they are just sweet fluffy contrails. They will vanish in several hours. Don’t worry about the new historic weather patterns that are taking place, it’s all normal. Move along now.

  14. Vic, how do you make the leap from the government not always being honest to these contrails being chemtrails? Is there actually any evidence you can point to that indicates they are anything other than contrails?

    Contrails have always persisted and spread, and the weather has always varied greatly over multi-year periods.

  15. I wrote an article about preemptive debunking, based loosely on the Arizona story above:

    http://metabunk.org/content/131-The-Case-for-Preemptive-Debunking

  16. JFDee says:

    Re MorgellonsWatch: there is annother rock in the surf of internet-induced self-deception!

    Man, where did the enlightenment go? Global networking was supposed to make us smarter! Instead it amplifies and hardens beliefs that linger around a level of shamanism …

    In Germany, homeopaths are trying to push into universities. Cuts in the health insurance system make hospitals offer pseudo-medicine for which there seems to be an ever growing demand.

    My wish for the new decade is a mighty rebound of rationalism. But honestly I’m skeptical about the prospects. Unless the next generation will stand up for it.

    And yes, these tendencies – of which the conspiracy theory bloom is but one indication – would certainly justify a dedicated blog …

  17. JFDee says:

    “Metabunk” – that’s ingenious!

  18. Vic says:

    How do you make the leap they are not? You can’t prove either way. Have you been up there collecting samples? You just assume they are contrails based on your theories. You cannot prove otherwise.

  19. TheFactsMatter says:

    “How do you make the leap they are not? You can’t prove either way. Have you been up there collecting samples? You just assume they are contrails based on your theories. You cannot prove otherwise.”

    So?! That’s the way we are SUPPOSED to act! Until sufficient and credible evidence come around to support the claims about chemicals in the contrails, contrails they WILL remain…regardless of what YOU want to call them. So far, there isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence that supports the claim. It’s all misunderstandings made by people who have never studied aviation or meteorology. Give me the five most compelling bits of evidence that you have accepted as proof of “chemtrails” and I’m more than confident that I can show you that you are mistaken for accepting the “evidence” as proof of chemtrails.

  20. No, but you can’t prove there’s not an M5 tank in my garage. So why don’t you believe it? You can’t prove it isn’t so.

    WHY would I believe your theory if there is no evidence to support it?

    You don’t believe something exists just because you can’t prove that it doesn’t, otherwise you’d have to believe in everything.

  21. Kamran says:

    There are a lot of people making the “prove its not” argument lately. Well I guess it’s only two, but still.

  22. Actually, you can prove that all trails are not chemtrails

    1) If some trails were chemtrails, then there would be some evidence that they were.
    2) There is no evidence
    3) Hence no trails are chemtails

    Now you could counter this by either providing some evidence, or proving that 1) is false.

    Or admit that “you can’t prove it isn’t so” is meaningless, and move on to proving what IS.

  23. Zeke Daniels says:

    And nobody’s been able to prove to me that the metal taste I git in my mouth after I seen them chemtrails didn’t come from statins they was spraying up there.

  24. TheFactsMatter says:

    That’s true…and I can’t prove or disprove that the metal taste did or didn’t come from any one or two of the billions of other possible sources. The assumption that if one looks up and sees a trail, the metal taste came from the trail, is one of the funniest assumptions I have ever heard of. We are surrounded by all sorts of “chemicals” and have been since the beginning of time. The question is, how harmful are the natural and normal amounts we are all exposed to on a daily basis? How are we sure if we aren’t all being exposed to differing levels of these naturally and “normally” occurring elements as we move around our cities. Don’t people understand that if the smell or taste something in the air that there can be a SIMPLE and BENIGN explanation? Or is everyone out to get us and we can’t trust anyone. I keep asking…where is the evidence that anything has been intentionally sprayed on us as a result of long lasting persistent contrails? And no one provides anything more than assumptions and baseless accusations.

    Oops…sorry for the rant.

  25. JFDee says:

    Free statins would mean considerable savings for my health insurer. I wish it was true …

    Back to serious business; Vic wrote:

    “You just assume they are contrails based on your theories”

    Uhm, these are not just Uncinus’ theories, these are the generally accepted explanations for what we see on the sky above. About every variant of contrail fits these explanations. So if somebody claims there are others not covered by the known explanation, he/she would have to provide arguments or facts about that.

  26. Now that’s a pretty unusual source of a white trail.

  27. JFDee says:

    Could it be that the aerodynamic properties of the wingsuit combined with the ground effect and the breathing vapor and some sublimated snow …


    Uuuh, maybe it was a smoke cartridge after all.

  28. curious says:

    can someone tell me why this commercial aircraft is transformed into a sprayer?
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/inside%20chemtrail%20plane1500w.jpg For your information HAZMAT which is written in this photo means Hazardous Material

    http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/ChemTrails/DSC01774.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/2100883130_9ffdfd3205_o.jpg

    can someone tell me the reason why normal contrail planes have normal contrails while passing over the small island I live but other planes start to spray when they approach the island and stop spraying after they leave? (about two minutes of spraying) and those planes come and go for one hour in the afternoon only?

    enjoy your chemcocktails

  29. curious says:

    and something else I forgot to write. it’s the first year I have seen such long trails in the sky. I read about it 5 years ago and couldn’t believe i

  30. Yes, the photo has actually been doctored, the original is here:

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-777-240-LR/0855967/L/

    It’s a pre-production test aircraft. The barrels are full of water for load balancing tests. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

    The other photos show similar things in other aircraft.

    Different planes leaving different contrails are usually due to the planes being at different altitudes, but can be because the engines are different, or at different power settings. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

    The planes leaving trails over your island could just be due to local weather variations, but might be due to the wind lifting over the island, kind of a larger scale version of why lenticular clouds form. Or it might be to do with the uplift in air because of the heat from the ground – or in the morning because of the stored heat in the ocean. Have a look at the satellite photos of your region, you’ll often see changes in cloud cover that correspond with land/sea transitions.

  31. TheFactsMatter says:

    Curious, Couldn’t there be a logical explanation for all of this?

  32. The weather varies from year to year, that’s why some years you see really long trails, and some years you don’t. Just like some years it rains a lot, and some years it does not.

    You read about it five years ago, and this is the first year where you’re aware of the theory, and there are long trails. So you paid attention to them. Normally, like most people, you’d not pay any attention to them.

  33. curious says:

    the strange is that this happens here for the last year only and only at 15:00-16:00 daily.
    and against all forecasts for rain and thunderstorms, it doesn’t rain.
    Moreover there is a HAARP base around here which requires spraying the air with barium.

    patent of the HAARP
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605

    abstract from the above link:

    It has also been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.

  34. HAARP does not require the spraying of the air with barium. It operates on the ionosphere, ten times higher than where contrails form. The magnetosphere is even higher than that. The only way to get barium up there is with rockets.

  35. TheFactsMatter says:

    Great, now every time NASA (or whoever) fires a rocket, they’ll be “injecting barium into the sky” (run away!). The proof is right here, on this page, in black and white. Admitted to by Uncinus himself.

  36. And, of course, the Space Shuttle:

    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=190993.0

    (post from previous poster Phasma, who’s not been here for a while)

  37. TheFactsMatter says:

    Uncinus, any guesses as to what happened to the 1000 blackbirds that fell from the sky in Arkansas? More proof of “chemtrails” maybe?!

  38. MikeC says:

    It would be a chemspot wouldn’t it – it’s not like they died in a 100km long line 😉

    Down here it is reported that the potential causes are lightening, high altitude hail or stress from fireworks.

  39. Simon says:

    [Admin: you can’t post an entire article, copyright and spam issues]

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

    just thought it is something to think about for the ‘CONtrailers’

    Cheers

  40. Kamran says:

    It’s something that’s been addressed several times in past threads, though I don’t blame you for not looking through all the comments. Notice the omission of high altitude spraying in any of those experiments. That’s because it would be impossible to control or get data if you put stuff up where you’ve got high winds and stuff. It may stay up there for weeks or months before coming down.

  41. Simon says:

    I just think it is important to note that it is not crazy or paranoid to think that the government or whoever is behind them would spray the public with harmful substances.

    Depending on the extent to which people believe this is going on, in some cases it would not matter how long the chemicals took to ‘come down’ as it is a constant or cyclic process. I personally don’t think that the argument about chem/contrails is worth the time and effort as it is too hard to prove anything. Unless someone who believes in chemtrails gains the money to fund their own research anyway.

    Water fluoridation is on the same lines with this stuff except it is definitely present in a lot of water supplies (US/UK) and as far as i’m concerned even if it is not poison; it is medication without consent.

    Cheers for the response

    (I thought if i referenced the article it would be cool)

  42. I personally don’t think that the argument about chem/contrails is worth the time and effort as it is too hard to prove anything.

    Debunk isn’t about disproving a theory. It’s about point out the claims in the theory that are bunk. People say things like “contrails don’t last very long”, and I explain (with many references) why that is bunk.

    Ultimately it’s hard to prove a negative (can you prove unicorns don’t exist?) But you can demonstrate that there’s no actual evidence to support a theory, hence there’s no real justification for believing in it. You would not believe in unicorns just because you can’t prove they don’t exist, so why give any credence to the chemtrail theory?

  43. Simon says:

    I’m not saying that you should believe, without a doubt that this is going on. However, i think people have justification to think that the government would do this kind of thing. As the article i posted shows, they have sprayed us with chemicals in the past.

    The lack of high altitude experiments in the released MoD document doesn’t give me any confidence that i’m not subjected to chemical spraying.

    I completely understand where you are coming from Uncinus because there is nothing more annoying than people claiming that they know everything when they don’t.

    What i don’t understand is what you are defending with your posts. Is it the Government? Is it just truth in general? Or is it just the innocence of the contrail?

    Looking forward to getting a response,

    Simon

  44. I don’t feel like I’m “defending” something, although perhaps that’s what it amounts to.

    I’m debunking claims associated with the chemtrail theory. I’m not sure if there’s a great need, but I find it interesting, and many people find the information useful.

    I’m certainly not defending “the government”.

    The lack of high altitude experiments in the released MoD document doesn’t give me any confidence that i’m not subjected to chemical spraying.

    But is there even a smidgeon of evidence that you are? If people are to believe theories just because they sound superficially similar to something that was done decades ago, then why not start worrying about tranquilizers in the drinking water, subliminal messages on TV, beamed brain control, gang stalking, and other things for which there is also no evidence?

  45. Janet Detwiler says:

    I’m a person who really suffered because of my false belief in chemtrails, so once again I’d like to thank Uncinus for taking the time to put this site together. I also understand there’s a new site, metabunk, and I hope to join into the discussions there soon.

    Perhaps I am unusual in that my worry about chemtrails in early 2007 was an all-consuming obsession. It was also a bumper crop year for persistent contrail formation in the Pacific Northwest where I live. So when I was looking up and seeing grid patterns against the sky, I went back indoors, and I worried, and there’s no other way to describe it; I freaked out. I “googled chemtrails” when I should have googled contrails. My interests in life up until that point had been music, art, reading, and I had very little background in science.

    There are people selling chemtrail theory to gullible people. I am damn grateful this site exists as a counterbalance to that. But something good came out of my belief in chemtrails, and that is now I’m very interested in clouds, and contrails, the weather, and climate change. On a good day for lingering contrail formation I can look up and see planes flying the same air lanes they always fly. It’s just fascinating.

  46. Simon says:

    I too am greatful someone has took the time to provide so much good information, this thread alone has changed my understanding of chemtrails completely. To be fair to you Uncinus, i’ve been accusing you of ‘jumping’ to the defence of something; when in reality that is exactly what i was doing.

    Although it obviously isn’t a good idea to obsess, i always have a glance at the sky as i think there is a lot of information pointing towards that fact that people could be experimented on with chemical spraying. the comment made by Sue Ellison in that article says it all for me.

    “Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’ ”

    I don’t think people should worry themselves to death though, what will be will be at the end of the day. I am going to try and do some research into Porton Down and see if there is any way of getting information on current research as they have broken human rights laws anyway.

    Also i have heard the name Evergreen Air when discussing chemtrails and i went on their website and it was some sort of private aviation company, I imagin they are involved in sinister things 🙂

    HA. One more thing, anyone heard of orgonite? can anyone explain the supposed effect it has on the chem/contrails? the best i could find is this.
    http://www.baligifter.org/blog/uncategorized/how-orgonite-works

    you’ll have to let me know what you think as i find this stuff fascinating. Cheers for the input guys

  47. MikeC says:

    Orgone has its own wiki page – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone

  48. Also i have heard the name Evergreen Air when discussing chemtrails and i went on their website and it was some sort of private aviation company, I imagin they are involved in sinister things

    They have contracted with the CIA in the past. But I think they got associated with chemtrails almost by accident, via the demo video for the super tanker on youtube.

    the comment made by Sue Ellison in that article says it all for me.

    “Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’ ”

    Consider that that quote probably simply means they can’t confirm of deny ANYTHING. If they did then people could figure out what they were doing by a process of elimination. If you asked them if they were performing tests on ESP then you’d probably get the exact same response. It just means they won;t answer the question, that’s all, not that the question has any validity.

    Orgone has no demonstrable effect. It’s basically wishful magic.

  49. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    On the subject of orgone, it’s hardly surprising to find that some people are not happy with its linking to chemtrails and there are people out there who believe that people are having a detremental effect on the atmosphere by playing around with “cloud busters”. See here -> http://www.orgonelab.org/chemtrails.htm

    There literally is two sides to every story.

  50. Simon says:

    Thank you for that link, it was really useful!

    I just spent a long time writing and my computer froze and i lost it all, i should of wrote it on word or somethings. I thought i should at least post what i wrote in short form.

    James DeMeo from orgone lab seems very opposed to anythin involving other dimensions or entities. He uses the name of David Icke to discredit, using only the reptile theory to make David and any of the people who are interested in what he has to say sound like idiots. It doesn’t matter to me whether it is lizards or multi-coloured, two headed octopuses. Everyone knows the elite rule the world, and most people who hold power plan to keep hold of it. Ideas of things like the media, music and popular culture in general being placed specially to keep people stupid have been around since (and probably before) the frankfurt school with the work of Karl Marx or Theador Adorno. In reality, chemtrails are a very tiny part of the conspiracy that Icke promotes.

    Although i may not agree with everything he says, Ickey’s ideas have opened my eyes to other things which i now perceive to be elements of the control system. I’ll name a few things here which i think are important and people should be aware of in relation to peoples rights and the monetary system.

    Fractional Reserve Banking

    Part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzef43gdupk&playnext=1&list=PL9B071C179DADA141
    Part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wrrzsrb-wg&feature=related

    The difference between Common law and Admiralty law (Freeman on the Land Movement)

    a quick search on youtube will bring a lot of useful information to your attention.
    http://www.tpuc.org (i must say that i do not advocate the exchange of money for information, this is ridiculous, i just thought i should reference this as it is growing quite large.

    Also, the love police show quite a unique understanding of the nature of the world and i recommend the website below:
    http://www.cveitch.org/

    People seem to just accept things that are happening to them purely because ‘thats just how it is’, but the world has been manufactured in such a way that its ‘just how it is’ by very clever, manipulative people, The banking system has been under rothschild control since the battle of waterloo but whatever, im drifting.

    Also, i would like to note that i understand that my posts have slowly veered off to aspects of the global conspiracy that have nothing to do with chem/contrails and this will be my final post i imagin. Many of the views of conspiracy theorists may be way out there, but a lot of quality information is available from their ‘stories’ (if thats how you want to put it).

    Thank you for all the feedback and debate that have been provided to me, especially Uncinus and MyMatesBrainWashed. And again, thanks Uncinus for the very informative and accurate website, its helped keep my feet on the ground, hopefully i have helped someone, in some way.

    I’ll probably see you on another thread, unless someone says something that annoys me on here 😀

    Peace and Love to all

    Simon

    P.S. i couldn’t do it in short form. Ha

  51. Jag says:

    All of this is very interesting but what about the effect of the jet stream. These jets are flying at 30000-40000 ft and that is in many cases in the jet stream where the winds may be hundreds of miles per hour. Even at lower altitudes below the jet stream the winds aloft are usually very high and I would think would blow the contrails apart within minutes. For a contrail to go from horizon to horizon it would be in place for more than an hour. ??

  52. MikeC says:

    that comes from a misunderstaing about the nature of “winds” at high altitudes.

    We are used to winds at ground level swirling & having different speeds and directions even if all nominally going the same way. much of this is due to the presence of the ground – it creates turbulence, drag and thermals that all serve to disrupt the wind.

    However it is often not the case at high altitude – the “wind” is a large body of air all moving the same way at the same speed, so it does not actually “damage” the contrail at all.

    Of course this is not always the case – contrails that spread are often an indication of wind sheer at their altitude – and clear air turbulence is often associated with the edge of jet streams.

    Eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_air_turbulence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windshear

  53. Vic says:

    CBS Atlanta Georgia Covers Chemtrails Pictures By The Thousands

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftvny1J09NE&feature=feedbul

    Some day this may be resolved if we are still around. Its like just a few months ago when the Gov came out and apologized they had injected people with syphilis. Hey, it only took 60 plus years for the truth to come out on this. They called the experiments “clearly unethical.” Yea right…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html

  54. Kamran says:

    @Vic
    Sorry, I just don’t trust the mainstream media like you do.

  55. captfitch says:

    I wonder why none of those people being interviewed had any sort of masks or anything to prevent the ingestion of the chemtrail products.

    Maybe they are immune or have been innoculated? That’s the first question I would have asked them as the reporter.

    And they are willing to accept an answer from a law maker when thier main premise is the gov’t is responsible for the trails in the first place. That’s like asking the guy in the ski mask holding thr bag of money if he was the one who just robbed the bank.

  56. Casey says:

    Infecting a few hundred prisoners with an STD 64 years ago is hardly comparable to the idea of multiple governments working together in order to poison almost 7 billion people. It was also research carried out by one public health doctor, a little different than the thousands of scientists, pilots, government officials, etc. who would need to be involved for the chemtrail theory to be true.

  57. Vic says:

    All of you geniuses missed the point entirely. Wow!! Must be in the Jean/Jean/Gene Pool. LOL Book smart, but no common cents/scents/sense, lol, what so ever..

  58. Can you explain what the point was?

  59. swady says:

    i live in new york city a place where most planes land not fly over and for years it seems like every other day i see these”lingering contrails” (for all you “chemtrail” debunkers),expanding over my head. what we need to do is have an official discussion on the fact that some of these contrails do not fade and in fact they slowly expand and block out the sun. to most people who do not know about what is going on in the skies above there head, think they are just clouds and did not see the plane that made it. now whether it is for defense or just innocent ice crystals coming from burning jet fuel, it can and has blocked out our sun, which i find very news worthy.i can predict these supersaturation days so the news could do better and inform us so chemtrailers don’t drawl there own conclusions. conspiracies copout the big picture here when all you have to do is just look up and talk about the real obvious issue. its almost sinister that weather men rarely mention jet exhaust blocking our sun out or even just report it on the evening news.something is very fishy to say the least.
    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/andy mini sd card 829.jpg[/img]
    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/andy mini sd card 2050.jpg[/img]
    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/andy mini sd card 734.jpg[/img]

  60. Lots of planes fly over New York, and there’s been lots of science done on persisting contrails.

    Here a forecast
    http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/site/showdoc?docid=33&cmd=forecast

  61. Vic says:

    Swady, don’t waste your time with these guys, they work for the government. There job is to TRY & HIDE the truth that is in our PLANE site every day. “unc-in-us” = Under Cover In The United States.

  62. captfitch says:

    Swady- sure the weather men could start noting which days would have persistant contrails but what would be the point? The trails in no way alter how anyone on the ground (besides astronomers and photographers I guess) go about their lives. And I suppose one could argue that there is some sliight decrease in the amount of energy that reaches the ground but since these type of days are usually in advance of a weather system there is usually a large amount of cirrus present anyway.

    Ca-pt-fit-ch= can’t particularly fit in Chino’s

  63. SR1419 says:

    Swady-

    why don’t you think planes fly over NYC? IS NYC the only place planes fly to ? 🙂

    They have been studying the effects of persisting, spreading haze inducing contrails for decades:

    http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:zuYHX70fYYcJ:scholar.google.com/+effects+of+contrails+Alaska&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2828565

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

  64. MikeC says:

    Her’s a map of routes in and around NYC – obviously most are in/out, but there’s plenty go past, especially along the north-easr/south-west axis http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/17-03/ff_airspace?currentPage=all

    And here’s a link to google earth flight path animations – I haven’t downloaded it, so not sure how useful it is. http://www.barnabu.co.uk/google-earth-flight-path-animations/

    and I do wish the US gub’mint would pay me – it’d be worth a lot more than how much my own one does!!

  65. kelly says:

    yes chemtrails are real…. this is meant for that one in a thousand who filters through and passes this on to a friend who tells a friend who tells a friend pass this on. something is happening to the skys…

  66. Janet Detwiler says:

    “Swady, don’t waste your time with these guys, they work for the government. There job is to TRY & HIDE the truth that is in our PLANE site every day. “unc-in-us” = Under Cover In The United States.”

    Well, this “guy” is currently between jobs and living on ramen and cans of tuna, but whatever. I can tell you that I am not working for the government. I’m using my real name. I live in Seattle. I used to believe in “chemtrails”, and I believed in them very strongly from late 2006 through most of 2007. I have an email address, and it is [email protected]. Please feel free to contact me.

    Just keep reading the data that was first posted to this site. It IS the scientific explanation for what we are all witnessing.

  67. Vic says:

    http://www.change.org/members/1391790 WOW is all I can say. No wonder you say they are contrails.

  68. JFDee says:

    “No wonder you say they are contrails”

    I’m sure you are able to enlighten us how you came to that conclusion based on the link you posted.

    I don’t know about the others, but I could do with a step-by-step explanation.

  69. kelly says:

    does anyone here work for the nsa,cia,fbi,kgb,oss?

  70. Not that I know of. But if they did, you could still check their facts exactly the same.

  71. kelly says:

    we thought so… i don’t doubt that. Deception is their craft and distraction is the tool. facts are only as relevant as to convince someone to come over to ones side. a couple of very tall buildings hit the ground
    a space back in new york (thousands dead or dying, an horrible tragedy ) faster than the so called fact allows for. the fact that they fell faster than the laws of physics allow for means nothing to those opposed
    to the truth but to a minority it raises an eyebrow. some will be quick to discredit the facts to keep the
    reality hidden from others. of course this is just my opinion. is this a training site? HAVE A GOOD DAY.

  72. It’s a discussion and debunking site that I run as a hobby because the topic interests me. It exposes where bunk is.

    If you find any errors, then point them out.

  73. MikeC says:

    Janet you might want to check out this thread at Above Top Secret – page 32, look for Yankee451’s post a bit over half way down

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread666473/pg32

  74. Dude says:

    It’s funny that when someone gives logical, scientific explanation backed up with facts and evidence, that people who refuse to accept this information have nothing more in their ammunition than home made youtube videos or accusations that the OP is being paid by or works for the government.

    Confirmation bias is quite blinding.

  75. JaceA says:

    I have a question as to why in AZ when the high temperatures in June are typically 100-105 degrees with maybe a 1 degree difference from 104 to 105 degrees from day to day, there were will be 3 or 4 days in a row, such as Monday to Weds with clear skies, then 1 or 2 days with a sky full of contrails? Then clear again. I spend quite of bit of time outdoors for work and notice the differences, and I am typically outside at the same time of day.

    I understand as you said that the temperatures in the troposphere are much cooler and the amount of flight traffic varies, but why would there be a difference from Wednesday with zero contrail activity to Thursday with heavy contrail activity? The temperature being between 104 to105 both days on the ground.

  76. captfitch says:

    It’s because you’re living at the bottom of a very very big ocean of air. I would assume that you see even lower clouds sometimes that look all white and puffy. If the atmosphere can differ even in the space of a couple thousand feet imagine how different things can be 40000 feet up.

  77. SR1419 says:

    I would also suggest that the amount of air traffic is relatively constant from day to day…and that the amount of contrails you see or don’t see is purely based on the atmospheric conditions…

    Even tho its 104 on the ground- its still well below zero at flight level…and all that needs to change is the level of humidity at a specific altitude or layer in the upper atmosphere for contrails to form or not…

    Check you local upper air soundings for humidity levels on days you see contrails…

  78. JaceA says:

    Thanks. That makes sense. I will check it out on the days I see them and the days I don’t.

  79. Jay Reynolds says:

    I simplistically put it this way, “contrails don’t create weather, weather creates contrails”. Yes, in the detailed view, weather includes cloudiness, and yes, contrails can create cirrus clouds.

  80. Glenn says:

    Nothing posted on this website dis-proves anything. Who’s to say chemtrails dont look like contrails? So what if everything on here is science fact. Doesnt mean chemtrails arent happening. Are you saying every photo, every video IS a contrail? If so then i certainly wont be flying with those airlines. Criss crossing in each others paths. Why is it only recently that this has become an issue then if nothing has changed? You DO NOT have answers for these questions, because you DO NOT know the answers. All you can give are facts on contrails…like i said, doesnt mean chemtrails dont exist.

  81. MikeC says:

    If you’re not flying with airlines that criss-cross paths then you are not flying with any of them!!

    Certainly there “might” be “chemtrails” that looks exactly like contrails, behave exactly like contrails, are made in exactly the same way contrails are made.

    But unless you’re going to show some actual evidence that such things exist I’m going to go with the balance of probabilities and say they’re all contrails anyway.

    speculation is all well and good – but it doesn’t make anything true either.

  82. Glenn says:

    Thanks MikeC, finally one of you close minded types admits you dont know whether its happening or not, enough said.

  83. captfitch says:

    oh i’ll admit it could be happening as well. heck- i could have been chemtrailing people my whole career. but could is waaaaay different than is.

  84. MikeC says:

    Glen we “closed minded” types are the only ones actually interested in looking at evidence. Chemmie faithful are not interested in evidence, because they have none.

    Instead the world gets pelted with inane stupidity like “you can’t prove it isn’t true” as if that was evidence that is it true.

    I’m not the only “debunker” who says the same – if you come up with some real evidence we’ll all believe it.

    But when “we” come up with “real evidence” “we” get told we’re liars, shills, govt agents, blind, stupid, thowing our kids lives away and similar drivel.

    So if you think “we” are closed minded and chemmies are somehow open minded then I think you are a fruit loop.

    Don’t thank me Glenn – I dont’ think they are happening, and I regard the “chance” of them happening as being as likely as Russl’s Teapot actually existing.

  85. Glenn says:

    MikeC….Have you actually looked into it??!! There are many documentaries on the subject, tests HAVE been done. Do you live in every part of the world? Have you seen every photo? Seen every video? Chemmie faithful!!!??? What does that mean? Not interested in evidence!? What do you want me to do? Yes i agree with all the facts on contrails, so what! AGAIN, doesnt mean anything. I see these planes clog up my skies everyday, then it drops down making it hard to see the hills! This was not happening ten years ago. The same plane flying back and forth making an almost perfect grid of shitty mess isnt normal, surely?! Come to my town for a few days, take a look for yourself.

  86. JFDee says:

    Glenn said:
    “I see these planes clog up my skies everyday, then it drops down making it hard to see the hills! This was not happening ten years ago. The same plane flying back and forth making an almost perfect grid of shitty mess isnt normal, surely?!”

    That’s three claims if I am not mistaken. Three assumptions that need to be backed by evidence because they may conflict with established knowledge.

    1. Haze on the ground is jet exhaust sunken down (consisting of whatever materials)

    2. Clogged-up skies are a recent phenomenon

    3. Local grid patterns are produced by a single airplane

    You should be able to get image proof at least for claim 3 by using a good camera.

    There may be some data supporting claim 2:
    http://contrailscience.com/30-years-of-airline-travel

    Regarding claim 1, there are some questions to consider. Usually, trails are created at an altitude of around 35000 feet. Obviously, they are sometimes persisiting there for quite a while.
    How long would it take them to sink down?
    They obviously behave like clouds – do clouds sink down?
    Even if the trails do in fact come down after a while (hours? days?) – where will that be, considering the strong winds up there?

  87. captfitch says:

    Why do chemtrail believers hang on to the idea that it’s the same plane making the grids? Wouldn’t there be loops at the edges of the grid where the plane turned around? And how fast is this plane flying that its able to make a grid?

    Oddly I’ve never seen a video of this happening…

    PLus why is there no videos of the “fallout” from chemtrails descending from the sky? I can see videos of virga and microbursts and all sorsts of atmospheric events in time lapse where you can clearly see something falling but never any trails falling. And if they did fall to the ground then how can we stil see the trails? You would have to pick one or the other.

  88. Jay Reynolds says:

    Glenn, in debate what you are doing is admitting that you are perilously close to giving up. Your statement is a lame attempt to shift the burden of proof away from your argument and onto us.
    This is a logical fallacy known for centuries in Latin as “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.
    Look it up and read about it, for at it’s core, what you are saying is that you have a BELIEF, ut no evidence.

    So, other than to point out the fallacial roots, there is some logical discussion that we could have here.
    In order to do so, we must get back to arguing facts and evaluate them with known scientific principles and logical analysis.

    I will admit that IF you can provide us with even ONE instance where you can PROVE a “chemtrail” exists, I will agree with you. Otherwise, all you will have to offer is your BELIEF that such things exist.

    The ball is in your court, however, I will help you by showing you EXACTLY the proof that will be required. The first step will be to identify by tail number, model, and owner the unique airplane you say is making the putative “chemtrail”.

    Here is how you can accomplish this task independently and provide unimpeachable evidence of the EXACT identity of the planes you see:
    http://metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

    After reading this short essay, ask yourself why all your fellow chemmies, down through the decade+ that their claims have been made, have not implemented this positive action before. I hope this will be an eye-opener for you and assist in your quest to find the truth.(if you choose to do so)

    Jay Reynolds

  89. Occasionally a single plane can contribute several lines to a grid when doing high altitude racetrack patterns. This is not very common though.

    I think that a lot of the “falling to the ground” reports are basically contrails being blown over the horizon. A optical illusion. Others might be simply being unable to distinguish between low level cloud and high level cloud.

    In all cases video evidence is never available, which lends a lot of weight to the “observer error” theory.

  90. Thanks MikeC, finally one of you close minded types admits you dont know whether its happening or not, enough said.

    We don’t know if there’s a monster in Loch Ness either. We do know that there’s a lot of evidence that suggests there is not, and almost no evidence that there is.

    But then, would you trust your government not to put a monster in Loch Ness?

    Same thing.

  91. Glenn says:

    There is obviously a lot of passion regarding this argument. Jay, your statement is hypercritical. No, i do not have evidence chemtrails exist, nor have you studied every video, photo etc. YET AGAIN, ill will say you DO NOT know a chemtrail program doesnt exist, im not asking you to prove anything, show me where i ask you to do that?..As for the short essay…mmm. May i ask why you post on this site? If chemtrails are so ridiculous? How much are they paying you? hahahahaha. You asked for it.
    “all you will have to offer is your BELIEF that such things exist” – Yep! Which is all ive done.

  92. Glenn says:

    It is exactly the same thing, thankyou. My point proved, again! YOU DO NOT KNOW either way.

  93. captfitch says:

    Ok we get it- we don’t know either way do we? We’re all in the same boat here. We’re all arguing on the basis of belief. So what’s your point?

    But you want us to study EVERY photo or video out there to prove our side and yet all we ask is for ONE SINGLE shred of evidence to prove that chemtrails do exist.

    Under a few rocks cleverly hidden throughout the country resides a creature that no one has ever seen before- no go out and prove I’m wrong.

  94. Glenn says:

    We’re all in the same boat here. We’re all arguing on the basis of belief’- that i guess.
    Theres no evidence ‘God’ exists either, but billions believe anyway..is that also “argumentum ad ignorantiam Jay?

  95. Jay Reynolds says:

    The ball is in your court, Glenn. If ‘sprayplanes’ exist, I have shown you more about how you can prove your case than any chemmie website you’ve ever been to. Ask yourself why they didn’t do that……..?
    Show yourself approved, my friend, or stand convicted…………………..

    Glenn, what I know, factually, about ordinary contrails, my personal observations of actual identifiable aircraft making contrails over my home, and my personal study of the chemtrails hoax from it’s very inception, including personal correspondence with it’s originators tells me all I need to know about your BELIEF.
    Jay
    BTW, I’m sure your chemtrail websites never told you how this farrago got started. It’s an interesting history lesson about how a small hoax to promote a book turns into a belief:
    http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html

  96. MikeC says:

    Glen wrote:
    “MikeC….Have you actually looked into it??!! There are many documentaries on the subject, tests HAVE been done. Do you live in every part of the world? Have you seen every photo? Seen every video? Chemmie faithful!!!??? What does that mean? Not interested in evidence!? What do you want me to do?”

    To anser these:

    1/ Yes I have looked into “it” – so have many others.
    2/ (not a question) the “Documetnaries” and tests have at least mostly been addressed on this site – they are bunk, bad science, talking heads, assertion without proof, misrepresentation or even outright lies.
    3/ Of course I do not live in every part of the world. But I do live in a relatively isolated part of the world that has never been in NATO, where there are few overflights, and a relatively small numbe of jets. When I started work as an apprentice aircraft mechanic in 1976 I think there weer about 10 Boeing 737’s and a simlar number of DC-10’s in service here. I worked on all the 737’s – they made contrails, they had nothing strange fitted to them.
    4/ How do photos tell you what is “being sprayed”?
    5/ ditto with videos
    6/ chemmie faithful means those who believe in the chemmie faith of course – you yourself have pointed out that it is a mater of belief. I take it the next logical step to say since there is NO evidence there can ONLY be belief, so that makes it a religon.
    7/ chemmie faithful are not interested in verifiable evidence because ALL of it points to “chemtrails” being the normal combustion products of hydrocarbons burned at high altitudes and cold temperatures, and they don’t want to beleive their religon is wrong.
    8/ do whatever you like and live with the consequences, just like everyone else. One of the consequences of posting belief in chemtrails on a public forum is the request for evidence. Get used to the criticism or keep getting annoyed by it, get over the hoax,, or stop posting about it in public (there are chemmie sites where no dissent is allowed – perhaps you’d be happier there) seem to be

  97. Glenn says:

    You both make alot of good points. I only came here out of curiosity. Perhaps my convictions arnt as strong anymore! As I have learnt some things from the site/your comments, however i dont agree with them all. Jay if i did happen to find proof..tail number, model etc then what? Give the pilot a call? Hand over my evidence to a politician? MikeC if it is a religion, then that makes you an athiest right? As belief isnt something your a fan of. Like ive always said, its just my beleif, from what ive seen/read/heard.
    Anyway thanks again. Been fun.

Comments are closed.