Life Magazine Contrail Photos
1988 – A vapour trail crosses the sky above the Suleymaniye Mosque and the Yeni Cami or New Mosque in Istanbul
1970 – Vapour trails across the sky
1970 – Vapour trails across a pink sky at sunset
1956 – Trio of B-47 bombers in flight leave multiple vapor trails across the sky
1956 – A sky shot of the UN headquarters (Contrails over the Empire State Building).
1949 – Vapor trails from RAF planes in the skies over England recall the convolutions of British & German pilots fighting air duels throughout the summer of 1940 during the Battle of Britain.
1944 – Alerted GIs of M-51 Anti-aircraft Battery silhoutted against German sky streaked w. vapor trails from Allied & enemy planes engaged in Christmas Day dogfight
1944 – Allied aircraft vapor trails in skies above US soldier unloading a jeep outside (prob.) farmhouse in the Ardennes Forest during last days of the Battle of the Bulge, the final major German offensive of WWII.
1944 – Allied aircraft vapor trails in skies above (prob.) farmhouse in the Ardennes Forest during last days of the Battle of the Bulge, the final major German offensive of WWII.
1940 – 6th September 1940: Interwoven vapour trails over London during an early morning air raid in the Battle of Britain.
1940 – City workers were treated to thrill during a morning air raid when British fighter planes let out vapour trails during the morning’s patrol.
24 comments Friday 24 Apr 2009 | Uncinus | contrails
24 Responses to “Life Magazine Contrail Photos”
Leave a Reply
To quote someone, please use <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags, for example:
<blockquote>But surely the contrails would evaporate?
How do you explain that, given those facts?</blockquote>
Great job!
Thanks a lot!
Best Regards
Piotr Djakow
Poland.
Another “chemtrail” youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yk_fnLMnzc#
And explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvBRWTumoZI
Thanks Piotr.
I mention the Evergreen plane on this page:
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/
we want the VIDEOS not the photos.
what?? the videos with ultra-persistent “contrails” doesn’t exist?? oh….
try again stupid disinfo.
THERE IS NO VIDEO SHOWING PERSISTENT CONTRAIL PRIOR 1999!!!!
that’s because atmospheric GEOENGINEERING it’s used in the late 90′
You think all these photos are fake and that Life Magazine is part of the conspiracy?
Do you have a video showing “normal” contrails prior to 1999?
Another “Chemtrail – Morgellons ‘connection’”
Unfortunetaly from “my own backyard” (Wroclaw, Poland)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz6-fqV1mlQ
Great finds again.
I point a lot of people to this site so they can educate themselves.
Good work and keep it up.
Nighthawk
@ PiotrD
Chemtrails from Poland Wrocław are now here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4XKU2wRemw&feature=quicklist
Your video seems to show contrails, like these:
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
OK, I have to say that this site is by far the best written and most compelling site I have seen for information concerning the alleged chemtrails phenomena. Your level of knowledge, target specific information and manner in which you convey it are virtually unparalleled.
Here’s my challenge and it’s a good one. I was in Naval Aviation for four years in the 70’s. I traveled with a squadron all over the world and was not only assigned to an air base but also served at several others throughout that time.
These DID NOT EXIST then. They were short and relativity consistent in every fashion.
That is what got me thinking about the possibility this was real. However, that just fueled curiosity and motive that having overlooked your site is still in question and here’s why.
More importantly than the four years of my service to my country is the way you answer things.
Since leaving the military I was a master trainer for the biggest name in the world of personal development. During that time, we were trained by ex-CIA operatives on techniques to answer people’s questions and get ways to “help” them see things in a differently light. To be frank, any light or perspective we would choose.
YOU DO THAT BETTER THAN ANY TRAINER I HAVE EVER SEE IN THOUSANDS OF ENCOUNTERS. So let’s see what you got when you meet head on with one that’s been trained well.
The ENTIRE CRUX of your argument is this:
If I show you the facts in a totally transparent way, give you verifiable information that is contrary to your current believe system, you will reach the conclusion that chem. Trails are a hoax.
That entire premise has a fault. It’s you. You hide behind a name and to be frank, anyone with your knowledge and background, that has put THIS MUCH TIME AND EFFORT into this would stating who they are. That fact that you will not state who you are makes your claims (to the trained eye) less than credible. Here’s why.
Within FIVE DAYS of telling the world who you are, guys like me can know where you live, what your REAL background is, who you flew for, and whether or not you’re a plant for the CIA or not. With today’s world of information, “almost” no one is immune from being found out.
As good as you are, you lack the transparency of showing the world your identity. Thus, you are very able (in every sense of the word ) to be a highly, highly trained disinformation specialists.
So my question is: When are you going to tell us who you are so the world can have a leading expert to go to in this area?
Or, are you in fact part of the plan in helping to cover this up?
Would you like to take me on in explaining why you can’t do that?
Michael,
Actually, I’d prefer it if you assumed that I’m a highly trained CIA operative, because it would then force you to examine the evidence independently of any perceived spin I put on it.
You see, I’m not using my authority or my renown as a contrail expert (which I’m not) to try to convince people. I’m not saying “I’m an expert, and this is how it is, you have to think this way because I’m an expert”.
What I do is present and discuss evidence. Like, if you say you never saw persistent contrails in the 1970, then I’d point out all the independent accounts of persistent contrails dating back to 1921 (including the photos above), and you can do what you like with that information.
So please, assume I’m a CIA plant, or some geek in his parents basement, or whatever you like. I’m not important, I’m not an expert. The evidence speaks for itself.
Ahh but here’s the problem with your response.. It is the precise language patterns someone skilled in “reframe response” would give. It always has a strong factual element, standing along side of a marginalization shot..
I did not claim you to be a CIA operative. I claim & know that you are using language patterns that I happen to understand at deep level. They consistently create dialogue the spins you around to the point you REFUSE TO ADDRESS. Instead, of answering the direct question you create an answer where “your” answer becomes the next point of dialogue. I won’t go there with you..
Again, I see your site as the best informational site out there. It had to take you years to get this much info. No LEGITIMATE PERSON working on their own does that unanimously unless they have something to hide.
So, why do you hide Mr. Unicus?
Why not settle this once and for all, who are you really?
What’s to address? I’m anonymous for personal reasons. I post facts that have nothing to do with my identity. I suggest you assume the worse about me, so what’s the downside? I don’t care if my anonymity makes people suspicious – in fact I welcome it, as, like I said, it shifts the burden of argument onto the actual facts.
Perhaps you might want to discuss these actual facts. Do you seriously claim that contrails did not persist in the 1970s?
It’s an easy out to say you want to stay unanimous for personal reasons. The big question is who spends years debunking something reasonable people have a lot of questions about only to say, I need to hide behind a screen name.
Why would someone do that if they had nothing to hide?
Again, I have to state the obvious.. Why hide?
The fact that you claim to have this insatiable unbiased interest in this is completely shaded by your lack of integrity in telling people who you are.
I assume you will answer my last blog with a spin about your issue stating who you really are as no bearing on the undeniable credibility to your cause. Lie just doesn’t work that way and you and I know it..
That said I have to state the likely conclusion of our interaction. Even though you have the MOST professional site on the net for this issue, the fact that you hide your ID takes you right back down to the people (who do in fact look crazy to me.)
They don’t look nearly as well researched or as well read but at least they say who they are so that you can weigh that into your view.. The fact that you won’t do that says more likely than not there is a VERY GOOD REASON why you’re hiding and thus, your information (though appearing very valid) is just as questionable as everyone else’. Because you hide and will not tell us who you really are I encourage readers to reach the same conclusion as I did.. You are a HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS source if you’re seeking truth in this.
Bummer, I thought I found the truth after a year or so of searching..
I’m anonymous for personal reasons. You, and everyone else, are free to read whatever you like into that. I don’t mind.
That’s fine. I encourage people to be suspicious, or more accurately: skeptical. It’s a hallmark of good science.
Speaking of which, I take from your argument that you have no problem with any of the science on this site, but simply think it’s suspicious that I argue it so well, and yet am anonymous?
Or was there something specific you want to take issue with? Perhaps to do with the persistence of contrails?
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”
“The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”
- Wikipedia
Michael B:
That is NOT the interpretation that occurs to ME.
Thank you Suntour. Well said….uh….well quoted!
Michael B – “You are well informed and anonymous thus your intentions are suspect. I’ve will not refute the evidence you present, nor will I accept it. Oh, you sound like CIA operative… just sayin.”
Wow. Just wow.
[...] patterns of vapor trails? The answer is wherever there are military activities occurring. Check out these photos. The photos I snapped were taken in North Haven, CT, and the closest military aircraft to there is [...]
Excellent work. We recently had a media flurry over three sunset contrails in Newfoundland Canada. People were yelling UFOs and missile launches. Thanks to your site I was able to explain just how it was merely three jetliners. It’s amazing how people see something they can’t explain and they immediately reach to most extraordinary explanations instead of the most simple. It’s not all a bad thing though as people love to use their imagination and a sense of mystery can be inspiring and exhilarating.
That’s a great story Grant!