Home » contrails » AC-130 Flares and Chaff

AC-130 Flares and Chaff

Not a contrail, but a nice image:


A U.S. Air Force AC-130 Gunship aircraft executes an evasive maneuver and drops chaff and flares during a firepower demonstration at the Nevada Test and Training Range in Nevada on Sept. 14, 2007.


I don’t know if you can actually see the chaff. I suspect that’s all just smoke from the flares. I suspect that when they are released simultaneously then it’s as a countermeasure for incoming missiles, and so will be very short-lived, a few seconds at most.

I’ve never actually seen a photo of modern chaff being dispensed. Is such a thing even possible to photograph? I’d be grateful if someone could point me at a photo of chaff.

26 thoughts on “AC-130 Flares and Chaff

  1. JazzRoc says:

    It truly IS a “chemtrail”. Now the jig’s up! 🙂

  2. Warlock says:

    No chaff that day… (i am pretty sure this is shot is from a firepower demo) rarely see chaff used stateside for many reasons… you don’t normally dump that many flares out at one time but it was the end of the fiscal year so units tend to get “showy” at the the FPDs

  3. The image caption says it’s a firepower demo. Not sure what that means though. Why do you say there’s no chaff if the caption claims there is chaff?


  4. JazzRoc says:


    Why do you say there’s no chaff if the caption claims there is chaff?

    Because chaff may be finely-divided, Uncinus, but it won’t be invisible, will it? (At least not until it has fallen some distance and its elements have separated from each other to a considerable degree?)
    Every trail visible in the picture has a flare at the end of it, so these are infra-red missile decoy flares, for sure.
    My understanding tells me that radar-decoying chaff would be released earlier in any battle scenario, as missiles employing radar are typically long-range devices (up to 30 miles).
    Infra-red decoying flares would be deployed against infra-red missiles, which are typically close-up weapons (up to 3 miles).
    Can YOU see any chaff anywhere?

  5. No I don’t see chaff. I don’t think there is chaff there. But I’m VERY curious as to what chaff actually looks like when deployed without flares. I just can’t find a photo of this.

    Chaff looks like this:

    So I’m thinking it would be VERY hard to see almost immediately after deployment, which would explain why there are no photos of it.

  6. JazzRoc says:

    [Admin – broken link, was www army-technology com /projects/horizon/images/horizon4.jpg – now flagged as malware]

    I think the “dots” here are chaff. But I’m not sure about it.

  7. JazzRoc says:

    There’s a flare here, but the rest may be chaff


  8. Well, I think we can say fairly conclusively that whatever chaff deployment look like, it looks nothing like a persistent contrail.

  9. Kamran says:

    Hey Uncinus, there is a new History Channel program called “That’s Impossible.” One of the episodes is called “Weather Warfare” and it looks like they’re giving “chemtrail” conspiracy theorists a platform to air their views unchallenged. Have you already heard about it? From what I’ve seen it’s stuff you’ve gone over already, since the basic evidence and arguments of “chemtrail” proponents haven’t really changed.

  10. Nice try at Debunking. You post a picture showing flares being deployed from an aircraft, which is an air to air missile defense system, and you imply that the persistent plumes of photoionizing particulate matter that is being spread out over our heads (at least here in California) day in and out can be explained as Chaff?…because you’ve shown us a picture of flares?

    My house is in the foothills of Burbank, overlooking the San Fernando Valley & looking out my window right now I can see the results of the last 5 days of heavy particulate disbursal. There is a massive body of photo-ionizing particulate matter in aggregate with the air lofted over the entire city.

    I grew up in this Valley during the height of the smog era. I remember smog alerts at school, when we were not permitted to play outside during recess because the air was unhealthful.

    I remember trying to sleep at night and not being able to breath deeply because my lungs were sore from the air. One could not breath deeply during those days because of searing pain.

    This particulate matter is clearly different. You may claim that what I’m seeing is smog or fog, but it’s clearly not. Smog is brown in color and caused by automobile pollution or industrial emissions. We no longer have any industry in Los Angeles, nor do we have any coal powerplants. The oil burning powerplants have mostly been converted to gas turbine. This white “haze” is clearly not brown smog. Smog used to leave brown residue on your skin. You could wipe it off at the end of the day with a white cloth and see it.

    Fog is generally a morning condition in the San Fernando Valley, which burns off by mid morning. This white glowing particulate matter often times is less severe in the a.m. hours, becoming much more severe in the afternoon. This stuff appears on days where the humidity is extremely low (as compared with fog, which occurs only when humidity is VERY high).

    Its very interesting to hearing scientists simultaneously emphatically deny the very existence of the very activity they are proposing as a solution to climate change. The San Diego convention on climate change featured the top geo engineering scientists. They gave long detailed dissertations of methods of mitigating climate change, with all the dire predictions for inaction. All the speakers seemed to rest their arguments on the same theme. The one thing that everyone took home from the convention was that aerosol spraying in the atmosphere was the best way to mitigate global warming, and that its possible to do with current technology, within the financial reach of our government & other governments, and even the world’s wealthiest individuals & charities. We also found out that not only is this ridiculously cheap, but it could be implemented within literally months, and most importantly that…IT’S NOT BEING UNDERTAKEN CURRENTLY, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN TRIED.

    At the end of the conference the most influential speaker David Keith mentioned that there has been NO STUDIES as to the human reaction to such programs, and that “we could find out tomorrow that it’s unhealthy, or worse”…yet Mr. Keith still thinks that regardless of human consequences, this “teraforming” should begin, without delay….oh yeah, and its NOT HAPPENING NOW, never mind the dramatic change in the condition of our sky.

    Anyone who makes the argument that we are not being bombarded by some form of aerosol simply hasn’t looked up, or is actively prostyletizing on behalf of those that are doing the actual spraying. The group that is engaged in this operation honestly believes that if this project is not undertaken now, the earth will virtually self destruct within 20 years.

  11. Why on earth has someone actually created a web-page on Contrail Science? For what purpose other than to debunk those who have caught on to the program of “Project Shield”.

    Really, who funds this site? Is there really a segment of people who are interested in the condensation that is created by planes passing through the air?

    Why not have a web-set about “Ice Freezing”, or “water pouring”, or something else as mundane. This site was set up to try to counter the public’s becoming aware that we’re being sprayed like bugs.

  12. The flares were just a pretty picture, not really a contrail. Sorry for any confusion.

    Interesting how you use Keith to confim your claims, yet dismiss his refutation of the same. How do you know when he’s telling the truth?

    Can you quote some science to back up your claims?

  13. faithinscience says:

    “Is there really a segment of people who are interested in the condensation that is created by planes passing through the air?”

    This site is about the love for aviation. Informing people that “chemtrails” don’t exist is protecting aviation against those who haven’t bothered to take the time to learn the facts and have, instead, decided to accept the “chemtrail” hoax as fact and spread lies about things they don’t understand.

  14. faithinscience says:

    Richard, I suggest you learn what aerosols are, and their sources. It’s interesting how some people see the word aerosol and automatically “believe” that they are being “sprayed”. Aerosols have been around since the beginning of time. PLEASE take the time to understand what they are.

  15. CC says:

    I find some of these conclusions suspect. For instance in this news report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFik80-DYM the weather man reports chaff not only causing “elongated” line patterns on his radar (what one may imagine from a “chemtrail” if they did exist) but also that said chaff is mylar strips (up to a foot long) and small glass fibers coated in metallic substances that are “dumped” by planes into the atmosphere.

    Again this effect is observed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_W7WETYoqA and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1HgWZJAouQ causing elongated “bands” across the screen. No I am not saying chafftrails are chemtrails but could some one point me in the direction of a military document stating chaff is not to be seen or suppose to be seen from the ground, or whether or not this is even taken into consideration? To the best I can put together, chaff dispersal when it is being used to cause a disruption, particularly a large disruption of ground radar, enough material will be used to be seen from the ground.

    If their objectives were to disrupt ground radar then it may have been deemed a necessary evil to allow visible trails from the sky. Certainly when chaff is being used to disrupt radar guided missiles it can be released in small enough amounts to remain unseen, however this is not chaff’s only application. So if anybody can help me in understanding these slight discrepancies, particularly this WWII era photo of a chaff cloud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Window_-_Lancaster_Dropping_Window.jpg I would greatly appreciate it.

  16. Chaff used to be quite large. The size of chaff is actually dictated by the wavelength of the radar used, as higher frequency radars are used then the chaff has to be smaller.



    Chaff is made of aluminum-coated thin fibers and is released by the military to create widespread echoes and, thus, confuse noncooperating tracking radars. To maximize backscattering cross section, chaff length is chosen to equal one-half radar wavelength. As predominant wavelengths for military surveillance and tracking are 3, 5, and 10 cm, the standard chaff lengths are 1.5, 2.5, and 5 cm.

    I think the best evidence that chaff is basically invisible is that that WWII photo you link to is the only photo of chaff I have ever seen. That was 27×2 cm, about 11″x1″.

  17. CC says:

    I will admit I am very much an amateur on this chaff issue, so would you happen to know, even if smaller parts had to be used, whether the amount of the material used would have to remain the same or not? Or I guess maybe a better way of putting it is to say “if at one time x weight of larger chaff was used to confuse radar, would that same x weight still have to be used with smaller chaff?”

  18. I don’t know. I would strong suspect though that less weight would be required, as the surface area to weight ratio of the smaller chaff would be a lot larger.

  19. Stupid says:

    Richard Lefew said…

    I grew up in this (San Fernando) Valley during the height of the smog era. I remember smog alerts at school, when we were not permitted to play outside during recess because the air was unhealthful. I remember trying to sleep at night and not being able to breath deeply because my lungs were sore from the air. One could not breath deeply during those days because of searing pain.

    I grew up here too. I also remember those days, and had that lung pain. There were 1st Stage smog alerts, even 2nd Stage smog alerts….and Third Stage !!
    The last Third Stage smog alert was in 1974, in Upland, just outside of LA. The AQMD mandated vehicle emissions-control systems, and by the year 2000, there have been few, but no “smog alerts”, other than wild-fire air health alerts. (need source).

    But the major culprit of LA’s smog was not “coal-fired” electricity plants, or not from “other industry”….the majority of smog came from on-road vehicles (cars and trucks).

    Check out this statistic released by the SCAQMD…(2005)
    “Statewide, 9,600 people die every year from air-pollution-caused ailments. Each year, 3,200 die in car crashes, and 2,000 are victims of homicide.”
    Yes, the smog in LA was bad, and it’s still taking out people due to the decades-ago pollution problem.

    To interpret the whitish “Haze” seen across the SF Valley as some chemtrail residue, is jumping to a conclusion before other more logical conclusions are examined/considered.

    Haze, comprises mainly of…
    “Particulate pollution, including sulfates, nitrates, organics, soot, fine soil dust, and particles”
    If I searched enough, I could find a detailed analysis of SF Valley haze (but I got a date tonight, so ‘fer get about it.) You could find this too, if you are in search of the facts.

    Nowhere that I have read, is the common “haze”, ever attributed to any aerial spraying.
    Just because it “looks” whitish, you cannot automatically attribute it with what happens six miles overhead. Even then, you’d have to find evidence that there is anything being released six miles overhead, other than ice/water vapor.
    This would be the same as attributing the whitish haze to harmless steam, just because steam is also white.

  20. Stupid says:

    Where did my quotes go… text….no ??

  21. <blockquote> is the tag that works. Yet another thing I need to fix.

    Interesting quote from Wikipedia:

    The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to “the valley of smoke” because of the smog from native campfires.

  22. NOT Stupid says:

    My house was tested for barium by an independent lab in the North Bay. They found it in swipe tests from interior and exterior windows and in the soil in front of my house (city property). Also three serum barium tests, draw dates 5/24/10, 260 mcg/L; 6/11/10, 220 mcg/L; 7/5/11, 110 mcg/L. LOTS of chem trails (yes, that is what the Air Force calls them, sorry that’s just a fact… don’t even try to “debunk” that, because I know military people…). The acceptable serum level for barium is =/> 11 mcg/L. I was put in the hospital on 6/11/10, diagnosis, ACUTE BARIUM POISONING. And DO know that barium salts are used all the time in weather modification (forced rain) projects by agencies such as PG&E, as they are under pressure from the Feds to use more “renewable” and “green” energy, such as hydroelectric power… so pack that snow, and make it rain like hell, never mind the poisonous chems…

  23. Kamran says:

    NOT Stupid,

    I am confused. How did you draw a causal link between household barium and airplanes?

  24. MikeC says:

    This article – http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/coxroad_barium.pdf – notes various measures of “normal” barium blood levels as 30-200 mcg/l, 30-290 mcg/l, and 30-400 mcg/l, and notes that actual symptoms of barium poisoning would not be expected at much less than several times those levels.

    It also gives references for those sources that are better than yours.

    http://curriculum.toxicology.wikispaces.net/ – notes that death has been associated with a level of 9.9mg/l in blood – so that is 9,900 mcg/l

    Chemtrail sites that post barium toxicity info usually seem to use the same data as this one – http://www.healthfreedom.info/Chemtrails%20Barium%20Toxicity.htm – it has no mention of a blood limit.

  25. MikeC says:

    Here’s another source – http://tinyurl.com/3qtaq98 – “Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies, Ninth Edition”, page 1435 – “serum concentrations of more than 2 mg/l are considered abnormal” – thats 2000 mcg/l.


Comments are closed.