The book “Cloud Studies” was published in 1905, over a hundred years ago. It was written by Arthur W. Clayden, M.A., Former principal of University College, Exeter, UK. The book is available in PDF form since it’s out of copyright:
https://contrailscience.com/files/Cloud_Studies.pdf
But the images are rather low quality, so I scanned them in from my copy of the 1925 edition (mostly the same photos), and I present them here:
It’s interesting that there are some clouds there that you might think look unnatural, or man made. But these photos were taken before powered flight was invented.
So if you are ever looking up at the sky, and you see a cloud that looks a little odd, and you are wondering if this is a recent phenomenon, then have a look back at what clouds were like in 1905. You’ll probably find your cloud here.
[Update March 23, 2011] I’ve also scanned in a good copy of the chapter on calculating cloud altitude using two cameras and the sun. This technique could easily (once the equations are worked out) be used to calculate the height of contrails, so would be highly recommended if you somehow suspect there’s some low-altitude spraying going on.
[Update Dec 12th, 2011]
High res scans of the 1905 version available on archive.org (in the HTTP section, the jp2 zip) The “read online” version is also very good.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002961203
Some of the photos were used in the earlier book CloudLand by William Clement Ley, 1894
who said planes were necessary.
i like how tesla was born like 50 years before this book was made.
I’m not sure what you are saying there Jen, that the entire planet’s cloud systems have been continually modified by scalar technology for over 100 years?
If so, what makes you think that?
i thought i explained what made me think it. tesla.
is the idea of it that wild? does that make it less credible as well?
Actually, yes that is a rather wild idea. Especially when you compare it to the alternative.
So, you’ve got two ideas:
A) These are normal cloud formations, just like they have always been.
B) These are unusual cloud formations modified by electromagnetic scalar technology, since around 1900.
So, explain to me, why would anyone choose B?
The issue here is one of evidence. It’s the same thing with “chemtrails”. Someone proposes a rather extreme explanation for something that all the scientists in the world would tell you is nothing unusual. Evidence to back up the odd theory is either non-existent, or along the lines of “I don’t remember the sky looking like that”. And when pressed, the best defense of their theory is “you can’t prove it isn’t”.
So what’s going on Jen? What are you trying to do here? Joking or serious?
i am never serious, only sincere.
i bet a lot of people that have sat in prisons for decades (only to be proven innocent) are disgusted by views like that. “you can’t prove it isn’t just isn’t good enough for our technology/records.” you’re full of conditions & limitations. until you look past that it very much so will probably seem like a joke.
but i definitely did not intend to give that vibe, “you can’t prove it isn’t.” more like “who says that’s proof it isn’t?” just like you say “who says chemtrails are proof?” i definitely didn’t say they were, so don’t know why it was really brought up, as far as that goes.
nikola tesla was USING scalar technology before the turn of the century, and without flight. it’s just an observation, take it in stride, possibilities are endless. my point was not made in judgement, but to open eyes. just because some silly website says these clouds are from before we could have possibly influenced them…doesn’t mean it’s so. it’s not my fault if the creators of it are lacking in showing all sides of the view. but that’s why there are people like me, so i don’t mind their folly, nor yours. you see this book and think evidence. but you don’t when i mention tesla. he and his work are my evidence. research. but remember not to limit yourself to your research.
😉
science only ever go’s along with what happens to be the “fashinable” view at that period in history, and as with many things a great deal of “scientificaly” minded people belive in the possibility of these things but remain silent as that would be the end of their carears.
the classic example is that both the definitive proof for the big bang theory and near death experiences are unobtainable with or current technology. however, we talk about the big bang as if it is common fact despite concreate evidence, and dissmiss NDE,OBE shamanistic experinces as a trick of the brain, despite the fact that science is inadvertently proving this isnt the case, and the numerous similarities in accounts accross all time periods, cultures etc. only when these things become provided as “fact” and therfore part of the education system, do the majority of scientists accept it.
so as informative as your slide show was, i still did not see the patterns that im seeing being etched accross the sky and appear to not move in relation to the wind speed as the other clouds do.
im not trying to go into “conspiricy theories” here, but basing my judgments upon what i see myself . I work outside most of the time and began seeing these trails in the last 3 years despite being an avid sky watcher. now, these planes only seem to be around between 6-8 am (where i am anyway), and on numerous occasions ive seen 6 planes in the sky and only 1, or 2 are spraying this stuff out. the fact that these planes dont seem to be on any of the normal flight paths going both over my home and workplace also seems a little strange anyway.
so the bottom line is that im not commenting on “what” they are or what they are for, other than the fact that they are there and are coming from these planes…and from obsevation alone, seem to fan out into a thin layer of cloud cover
Okay, on one side we have the Big bang Theory, a complex, detailed and verifiable scientific theory that explained how the Universe formed from a few microseconds after a “Big Bang” (of unknown cause). And on the other we have the theory that because some near death experiences are similar, then this is proves that the spirit is separate from the physical body and that it lives on after death.
It’s not the same thing at all. There is a vast amount of evidence that indicates the Big Bang theor is accurate. Have a look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence
That’s loads of real verifiable evidence, evidence that have been very carefully studies by thousands of scientists over a hundred years.
On the other hand NDE is not even really a theory – it’s a bit of supposed evidence that some people say supports the theory of life-after-death. When you look at it carefully, all it says is that near death experiences tend to be similar. Scientists take this to mean the rather obvious fact that brains are similar, and dying brains tend to behave in similar ways. Believers say it proves life after death. But their “science” seems to just be saying the same thing over and over again.
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
Not the same thing at all. Comparing NDE theory to Big Bang theory is like comparing a box of chocolates to an aircraft carrier because they both have a flat top and have some chocolate in them.
theories have been proven to be fact, facts have been proven to be wrong.
limiting yourself to what other people say is true or not, is not wise.
Here and Now is constant change. that is something you can always count on.
Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει
Sure, all is flux, but some things are reasonably constant from day to day, and year to year – you breath, you sleep, you see – are those things in flux?
How do you chose what you believe in? What criteria underlies your beliefs?
yes, they are in constant flux. just because they show up the same patterns most of the time doesn’t mean they can’t change or be changed, or influenced, or engineered and so on. look at some nanotechnology videos, you think it’s really that obscene to think there’s stuff going on not publicly known/talked about? and that weather manipulation wouldn’t be a main focus of something they WOULDN’T want the public to know they had control of? the technology exists, there’s plenty of this EVIDENCE you seek.
i don’t know what else to tell you other than your belief is just as valid as mine. that’s all i came here to say in the first place. 😉
How is your belief as valid as mine? I think:
The cloud photos in this 100 year old book are natural.
You think
The cloud photos in this 100 year old book indicate the use of Tesla’s scalar energy used to modify the weather, a practice that has gone on for the last 100 years and continues today.
To back up my belief (really a theory, but let’s call it a belief, no need for semantic arguments), I point out that the science of meteorology, as practiced in every country in the world by hundreds of thousands of scientists, and as reported in tens of thousands of scientific articles and research papers, and verified by millions of experiments, and as followed by millions of amateur scientists and meteorologists, and modeled by thousands of weather forecasting systems, and taught in schools and universities, is entirely consistent with the photos in the book. In addition, the exact same clouds were observed hundreds (and even thousands) of years BEFORE the book was published.
To back up your belief, what? Tesla made vague mention of “Scalar Energy”, a technology that nobody has every demonstrated by experiment in any way. Technology supposedly invented 100 years ago that no county in the entire world has ever used – despite its promise of “free” energy. Somehow this is being used to modify the weather of the entire planet – and you can offer no evidence other than “it seems like something they would cover up if they were doing it”.
Not all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that clouds were the condensed breath of invisible dragons, then you would quite likely disagree. If you want your alternative beliefs to be taken seriously, you need to at least approach the degree of evidence that supports the mainstream beliefs.
my point was you think they COULDNT?
why?
because of “proof”
it’s like mik said:
“science only ever go’s along with what happens to be the “fashinable” view at that period in history, and as with many things a great deal of “scientificaly” minded people belive in the possibility of these things but remain silent as that would be the end of their carears.”
it’s people who can’t think outside their own personal belief on a theory that keep science at a standstill
in turn, proving you wrong is still fun later on when it’s widely accepted.
Well, I’m all for thinking “outside the box” – that’s a fundamental part of good science.
But, Jen, surely you don’t think that all beliefs are equally valid? If I said that many clouds were actually the spirits of dead aliens, and they helped clean up the atmosphere, then you would surely not give it as much credence as the more popular belief that clouds were just condensed moisture?
The point being – you have to have some basis for your beliefs. You can’t just go around saying “well, you’re obviously nor opened minded, my belief is just as valid as yours”. You have to have some reason behind your belief – otherwise it’s just like religion or astrology – not science at all.
Wah? Say again?
Technology supposedly invented 100 years ago that no county in the entire world has ever used – despite its promise of “free” energy.
So, because the government has’nt released it, it could’nt possibly exist?
Tesla…”vague”? Mate, which planet are you from? Tesla gave DETAILED plans on Scalar Technology and HAARP type effects possible.
I was happy to find your site at first as an “opposing view” but you are a very dishonest man and no doubt in somebodies employ and I dont mean Starbucks.
ALL the governments? Iran? Pakistan? North Korea? They all have TOTAL control over all the scientists in the world?
Come on – one the one hand he gave DETAILED plans, and on the other nobody has built anything from them, in 100 years?
I’m self employed.
I’m self employed – all that means is that payment comes from various people rather than just one obvious one ;o)
As for not building anything of Tesla’s, isn’t that because Hoover took hold of all of his ideas/knowledge upon his (Tesla’s) death?
Ucinus,
You seem to have forgotten to respond to this portion of mik’s comment:
I too have seen different patterns as of late than those portrayed in your 1905 book. The planes I see (creating what I know to be chemtrails, not contrails) fly at much higher altitudes than commercial flights. They also fly in very unique patterns, sometimes going back and forth (creating grids across a certain section of the sky). The trails left behind linger hundreds of times longer than contrails (having seen chemtrailing and contrailing at the same time). Out of curiosity and slightly off topic (barely), have you ever watched a documentary called Global Dimming? I would like to hear your reaction.
Most importantly, I know someone who was a standout pilot in the airforce during his time in the Gulf War, and once he was released from his duties he and a friend were offered a very, very nice pay raise to fly planes for a top secret purpose which was described to me to be a lot like chemtrailing. He declined and his friend accepted. Obviously this is not enough evidence for you, but if you look hard enough I’m sure you could find simlar stories.
And lastly, in response to this statement:
Saying Tesla’s technologies were bought and used by one government is very different than saying all the scientists in the world were controlled by all the governments. To say that Tesla’s findings were used on a massive scale in a secret program is not at all a stretch of the imagination. You know a lot about condensation in the skies but you seem to know very little about government.
I hope you are not selective in your response, as you were in many others.
Being selective is a good thing, if it goes to the heart of the argument. If there is one thing that can be addressed that explained everything else, then why not simply explain that. For example, you said:
That’s the crux here. You have made a simple mistake. All scientists agree that contrails can last for several hours. See:
https://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
Hence, if everything else you say is based on this mistaken assumption, then there’s not a lot of point in addressing those points.
Feel free to ask some specific questions though.
And yes, I have watched a documentary on Global Dimming, and I though it was interesting. The Wikipedia page is also interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Many thanks for these, Have added the link to my special issue on ‘Cloud Studies’ (the art, culture and history of looking at the clouds), at: http://www.jurn.org/ejournal/vol1-no3.html
I’m glad you have this. I posted a photo I took of a halo appearing near Seattle and the chemheads are cluttering the comments section with their tripe. Won’t listen to reason, these things have been around long before their ‘chemtrails’ were in the sky.
I saw that halo, it was last Saturday, right?
Are photochrom prints from the 1890’s evidence of anything? The Library of Congress has a searchable data base – I especially like this one from c.1899: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/18200/18289v.jpg
Zurich Central Library has a huge collection too, but it’s a bit harder to search – http://tinyurl.com/2dpsolq
Photochrom from c 1899 in Library of Congress collection: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/pgz/item/2008679690/
Here’s the low detail version:
[img]https://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/18289r.jpg[/img]
Some fascinating images there. Thanks!
How can i get high quality copies of these cloud photos delivered to my email? And how do i know which were taken in 1905 and which were taken in 1925?
You can download them from the picasa link.
I think they are all pre-1905. Check against the Google books scan, which is 1905. But I scanned them from my 1925 edition.
I want to smack every one in the face who is arguing the evidence of HAARP causing storms and clouds. Chem-trails!? Holy crap people, do some science.
Was just looking at my copy of 400 Photographs – Ansel Adams (in my view, the greatest photographer ever) and noticed lots of his photos from before 1960 also contain the clouds that Chemtrail Theorists are proclaiming to be “chemclouds” such as this one from 1947 “Burro Mesa and the Chisos Mountains, Big Bend National Park”.
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/AD001074/burro-mesa-and-the-chisos-mountains-big
His photos are also of exceptional quality.
I think clouds could be made before planes its all about what rises from the ground. You dont need planes to create this.
if you mean visible trails behind airplanes I think you actually need airplanes for that.
There is little doubt that clouds can, at times, take the shape of the artificial clouds we often see today. This seems to be the “contrail science” approach, if it looks like something that has been photographed before, then it must be the same. Some science. The fact is, governments and NGO’s have, and continue, and will continue to spray whatever the hell they want, whenever they want, into the atmosphere for whatever (military) uses they want, and YOU guys know it. Contrail Science. What a joke.
Hi Mike,
I don’t think anyone is saying that contrails are anything other than artificial clouds. The debate is over if they are deliberate or not.
Since contrails have always looked like they do, is there any reason to think a particular trail is not a contrail?
(Of course the government might be spraying you – but CAN YOU TELL?)
Did you read the cloud book? For instance pg.31 talks about the timing of cirrus. The clouds that appear on that page are seen in the skies today, although when these conditions for forming these type of clouds don’t. I am not so much worried about chemtrails persay. I am more concerned about what the environmentalist are finding in our water & soil since the large amounts of aerosols have been released. Weather engineering has been going on since the 40’s it appears as if it is on a larger scale today. Why not question what is being allowed to fly in our airways? Why not question the amount of pollution being pumped into the sky? I believe if many citizens are concerned then we should be given answers by our officials. Why not?
I think you need to be a bit more specific in your questions and claims Nicole. What exactly are the conditions you say exist/don’t exit? What have people found in water and soil? How can you tell there is large scale weather engineering?
Aircraft emissions are regulated, precisely because of concerns about pollution.
Hi Nicole-
don’t confuse weather modification…which is basically cloud seeding specific storms or sometime hail mitigation with Geo-engineering which is a catch-term for a myriad of ways to supposedly alter the climate.
Cloud seeding has been done since the 1940s…whereas Geo-engineering has been talked about but not been implemented.
Why is there such a difference between the contrailscience.com PDF and the archive.org PDF?
The 1st available PDF on archive.org has only 1(?) barley visible photo, Very poor Quality!! (crapscans)
The contrailscience PDF has all photos visible and are of GOOD quality!! (why?how?)
– are the photos from the contrailscience PDF enhanced ???
– both PDF’s claim to be from: books.google.com
– both claim to be the 1905 edition
– why would google release a Digitized book with no photos ?
http://archive.org/details/cloudstudies01claygoog
Balloons & Rockets before planes : )
That archive.org scan you link to is a 1-bit scan, meaning everything is either black or white. The grays of the photo have all come out white. It’s a setting used when you are scanning a book that is just text.
There’s an archive.org version that’s scanned in grayscale, which has the images:
http://archive.org/details/cu31924002961203
Ahh!!
Very good!!
Thanks : )
The grayscale version turned-out Great!! (Better Quality)) both the text and photos are legible/discernible.
Why would google release a 1-bit scan and not a grayscale version? ? ?
also:
have you noticed the differences between the two editions ? (1905&1925) the “List of Illustrations” (cloud names) there seems to be some major NAME changes, and the list order is different.
I suspect it was just because the person digitizing the book had the software set for all text, instead of text and images.
Here’s another from Google, scanned in color, so that’s three different scans of different copies, all of the 1905 edition.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lIkIAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
And no, I don’t see any major name changes. The biggest change seems to be that Band Cirrus was changed to Cirrus Bands
List of Illustrations 1925 edition: – 64 plates
List of Illustrations 1905 edition.PDF: – 61 plates
List of Illustrations 1925 edition: – plate 1 – A Sunset Sky
List of Illustrations 1905 edition.PDF: – plate 1 – Part of a Great Halo
List of Illustrations, BOTH editions: – last plate – Cloud Camera for Studies
-subtract one plate on the 1925 edition (A Sunset Sky) 64-1= 63
That is a 2 plate difference from the Two editions.
I haven’t found the two additional plates yet, will try again when I have more time.