Home » contrails » Life Magazine Contrail Photos

Life Magazine Contrail Photos

[UPDATE: Some of these photos are now available again with a “personal non-commercial use” licence via Google.


The following images were all found on the Life Magazine web site. Originally they linked to the page on Life where the photo could be ordered, but Life has since re-organized the site, and many photos are no longer available. The small version of each photo is embedded directly from Life.com, and originally went to page where you could order the photo. It still works for some of the older photos (like the WWII photos with the Jeep).

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.

67 thoughts on “Life Magazine Contrail Photos

  1. pdjakow says:

    Great job!
    Thanks a lot!

    Best Regards

    Piotr Djakow

  2. Thanks Piotr.

    I mention the Evergreen plane on this page:

  3. geoengineer says:

    we want the VIDEOS not the photos.

    what?? the videos with ultra-persistent “contrails” doesn’t exist?? oh….

    try again stupid disinfo.


    that’s because atmospheric GEOENGINEERING it’s used in the late 90′

  4. 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?

  5. PiotrD says:

    Another “Chemtrail – Morgellons ‘connection'”
    Unfortunetaly from “my own backyard” (Wroclaw, Poland)


  6. Nighthawk says:

    Great finds again.
    I point a lot of people to this site so they can educate themselves.

    Good work and keep it up.


  7. Michael B says:

    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?

  8. 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.

  9. Michael B says:

    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?

  10. 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?

  11. Michael B says:

    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.

  12. Michael B says:

    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..

  13. I’m anonymous for personal reasons. You, and everyone else, are free to read whatever you like into that. I don’t mind.

  14. You are a HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS source

    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?

  15. Suntour says:

    “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

  16. JazzRoc says:

    Michael B:

    Bummer, I thought I found the truth after a year or so of searching..

    That is NOT the interpretation that occurs to ME.

  17. Stars15k says:

    Thank you Suntour. Well said….uh….well quoted!

  18. BocScar says:

    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.

  19. Grant says:

    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.

  20. Suntour says:

    That’s a great story Grant!

  21. moxaman says:

    NUMBERS DON’T LIE. Air, soil, and water tests in Mt. Shasta CA show levels of aluminum and barium to be THOUSANDS of times above normal. You can’t explain this away.

    What in the World Are They Spraying? Part II
    Published on 03-24-2010 Email To Friend Print Version

    By Michael J. Murphy – BLN Contributing Writer

    Could Aluminum, Barium and Other Substances from Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering Programs be Destroying Eco-Systems around the World?

    What would you do if you were told that toxic substances being sprayed into the sky are falling to the ground and decimating eco-systems around the world? This very claim, made by concerned citizens outside the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting last month in San Diego, sparked my interest to investigate further.

    The AAAS meeting hosted several top geo-engineering scientists who gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various geo-engineering programs throughout the world. One of the options addressed was the stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering (SAG) , AKA chemtrail program, where scientists discussed the “plausibility” of spraying aerosol aluminum, barium and other particles into the sky to block the sun as a means to “reduce” the Earth’s temperature. When asked specifically about the potential risks associated with using aluminum in the program as an aerosol, scientists replied by stating that they have not studied much about the risks associated with aluminum and added that something terrible could be found tomorrow that they haven’t looked at. When probed further about the deployment of existing aerosol programs, the scientists stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been deployed to date.

    The concerned citizens I met outside the meeting were claiming quite the opposite. They came in protest after witnessing airplanes that they believe are regularly spraying aerosols into the upper-part of the sky. Many from this group have tested and found extremely high levels of aluminum, barium and other substances in their soil, rain, water and snow. Ironically, the substances that they reported finding are the same substances the scientists are “considering” implementing in the various aerosol spraying programs discussed at the meeting. They also believe that these substances are leading to the destruction of eco-systems and are coming from already deployed SAG programs. Due to the severity of this issue and my desire to know the truth, I was led to Shasta County in the Northern part of California to investigate not only the claims of what is being reported in the sky, but also claims of what is in the rain, water, snow and soil from what many residents are saying is the result of SAG programs.

    The first stop on this trip led me to Dane Wigington’s beautiful 2000 acre property overlooking Lake Shasta. As we toured his breath-taking land, he pointed to multiple trails that blanketed the sky. He claimed the trails are present on most days above Northern California. Wigington referred to this as a “moderate spraying day”. Like many other residents in Shasta County, Wigington moved to the area to get away from the heavy pollution of Southern California that he grew up with as a child. His dreams of living off the land and becoming one with nature are now coming to a grinding halt as he is focusing his time and energy on the issue of geo-engineering.

    Wigington became concerned about SAG when he began to notice dramatic changes in the solar power that he uses to supply his home and property. Owner of one of the largest residential solar systems in Northern California, he began to notice very high declines in solar power. It can be decreased by as much as 60 percent on what he calls “heavy spraying days”. Wigington said, “The trails are literally blocking the sun”. He also went on to say that he regularly samples the fine dust layers on top of his solar panels and other outdoor surface areas and frequently finds very high levels of aluminum and barium. Wigington believes that these are a product of SAG programs.

    At the same time as finding decreased solar power, Wigington also began to witness dramatic changes on his property as the trees, grass, insects and wildlife started dying. This led him to get his first rain test just four years ago. The results were shocking as they found aluminum levels at 7 ug/l or 7 parts per billion. Although aluminum can be found around the world in smaller quantities, geo-hydrologists told him that this number was quite high. Since that time, he has had aluminum tests escalate as high as 50,000 percent to 3,400ug/l. That is literally toxic rain. These results prompted him to get additional pH tests from two USDA soil scientists which yielded more shocking results. The pH of the soil was 6.6 in one area and 7.4 in another. This is over 11 times the normal alkalinity of the soil which should be in the range of 5.0 to 5.5. It is important to note the tests were taken in the forest far removed from any highway or industry.

    When asked what these changes can do to the ecosystem, Wigington replied by saying that it is devastating. He went on to say, “if this continues, we can only expect to see things get much worse. Not only are we seeing our trees dying here, but also a major decline in our wildlife and fish”. As a matter of fact, Wigington stated that according to The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the salmon run, once seen in abundance in this area has declined from 769,868 in 2002 to 39,530 in 2009. That is over a 90 percent decline. Amazingly enough, this decline started occurring about the same period of time when residents began to see a dramatic increase in what they believe to be SAG programs. Wigington’s efforts to get these issues and test results addressed has been largely ignored by government agencies and officials.

    After a closer look at Wigington’s property, my initial awe of the beauty and breath taking views led to sadness, frustration and anger over the contamination that is literally destroying the eco-system. This led me to investigate further by seeking an expert in biology. I packed up the car and headed north to the breathtaking town of Mt. Shasta. Mt. Shasta has been known for its beauty, clean air and as being the source of water for some bottled water companies. Many travel from around the world to mountain climb and vacation in this beautiful part of Western America.

    Francis Mangels, BS in Forestry, Masters in zoology and a retired soil conservationist and wildlife biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for over thirty five years, welcomed me into his beautiful home in the town of Mt. Shasta to discuss the “hidden” crisis that is occurring. Mangels alerted me to the rapid decline of fish in the nearby rivers and streams. Mangels brought me to a nearby creek that had an abundant supply of fish just a few years ago. Because the primary diet of the fish in the creek is aquatic insects, he performed a standard sample method to measure the amount of insects present. The samples he had performed before the alleged aerosol spraying campaign had yielded an average of 1000 aquatic insects. Our sample yielded only 31. This is over a 96% decline from samples taken just a few years ago. Mangels stated that because the fish live off of the insects, they are literally starving. This rapid decline is likely due to changes in the chemistry of the water. The only changes that Mangels is aware of are the dramatic increases of aluminum, barium and strontium which he believes is from SAG programs.

    We also took time to test the pH of nearby soil and snow which contained over 10 times the alkalinity of the normal pH. Mangels has evidence that this drastic change in pH is also due to the massive increases of aluminum. He stated that forests, fields and farm ecologies thrive in acidic soils. Aluminum acts as a buffer that increases alkalinity and can decimate ecologies in large amounts. Mangels also pointed out that snow on Mt. Shasta was tested and sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) who found results that contained 61,100 ug/l or parts per billion of aluminum and 83 ug/l of barium. The normal amount of aluminum in the snow at Mt. Shasta is 0.5 ug/l. Drinking water allowable is 50ug/l. That means that the snow on Mt. Shasta has tested at 1200 times more poisonous than water standards allow for aluminum. Mangels said, “Mountain climbers that come from around the world are drinking the poisonous water from the snow on the mountain”. Mangels went on to say that government action is required at just 1000 ug/l of detected aluminum. Although he alerted several government agencies of these findings, no governmental action has been taken to date.

    Mengels brought me to several other locations around the town of Mt. Shasta where he tested the soil, rain, water and snow that also yielded tests that revealed the pH to be over ten times the normal alkalinity. He went on to say that these types of changes in soil, water and snow are very uncommon except in other areas around the world where people have been witnessing what many believe to be spraying from SAG programs. Mengels also stated that these changes have produced an “ecological crisis” and will have horrible consequences if continued. Mengels said, “Losses to our economy will be incredible and are on their way as we speak. Tree growth will be decreased which will result in the loss of logging jobs. It is also causing the decline of naturally occurring plant and grass growth that occurs in the normally acidic soils of grazing pastures, resulting in the demise of our grazing industry, fishing industry, and worst of all, basic agriculture in Northern California.”

    What is amazing is that these tests and many others throughout the world are largely being ignored by the very governmental entities that are required to address them. Some politicians, like Mt. Shasta City Council member Ed Valenzuela may choose to ignore the issue. Valenzuela was made aware of the mass contamination at a city council meeting where he stated that the city did not want to sample the water for aluminum because the request was a “can of worms” that would, “open a Pandora’s box” that the city would have to pay for. Although several local citizens volunteered to pay the $22.00 cost of the test at an EPA lab, both Republican Committee Chairman Russ Porterfield, and Valenzuela voted no to having the water tested. The mayor Stearns wanted the test, but was overruled by a 3-2 vote. This response is not uncommon as Mengels has presented this issue and his scientific data to over 15 local and federal agencies including Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer’s office. To date he has received no response or action.

    Is it a coincidence that the substances found in the rain, snow and soil in this region and around the world match the exact substances that scientists are “considering” implementing in various geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world? If not, then why have agencies and officials largely ignored these findings that are destroying our planet’s eco-system? Could it be that officials are fearful of exposing a massive cover-up of a world-wide ecological crime? Or is it the belief that this issue is simply too large and too complicated a problem for them to tackle? Whatever the reason for this ignorance, we need to demand that our questions and shocking test results get addressed not only in Shasta County, but in every part of the world. Our future on this planet is dependent on this issue being addressed.

    Because this movement has come under attack from those who appear to be protecting the many political and corporate interests associated with SAG, it is essential that all of us around the world get involved by testing the rain, snow, soil and various outdoor surfaces and reporting the results to our elected officials and local environmental agencies. We must also reach out and educate all those involved with SAG who might be unaware of the environmental implications associated with their programs. Testing for pH changes and metals is simple and can be performed almost anywhere at a nominal price. Simple testing instructions and more information about geo-engineering programs can be found on the internet at http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org . Biologist Francis Mengels can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected] for more information on this issue, the tests he has performed and suggestions on testing procedures. Please take action by testing, reporting and demanding answers on this ever so important issue. Both nature and humanity depend on it. For more information, please contact me at [email protected] or visit my blog: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/ .

  22. JazzRoc says:


    We also took time to test the pH of {snip} taken to date.

    I’m sorry, but your description of that didn’t make much sense.

    Do you have the direct figures?

  23. Joe says:

    “You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…..”

    95% of all “chemtrail” photos show a light blue sky and light winds.
    IOW, high humidity, water saturated air, and not enough wind to blow
    the trails away. Many of the photos in this thread show glassy water
    in the foreground (no wind):


    Some of the shots clearly were late in the day, B/W, used red filters
    or polarizers to darken the sky. Some were taken at night.

    Take note “Chemtrails” only exist on humid days. If there was “stuff”
    in there, why does it need water content in the air to be visible?

    I challenge anyone to show a lingering contrail in a low humidity

  24. MikeC says:

    Unfortunately most of these seem to be no longer available??

    the only ones I could find today were the 1st Ardennes one (soldier unloading a jeep), and the UN/Empire State one.

  25. Joe says:


    Are you referring to the above MikeC? All the photos are there.

  26. MikeC says:

    No – the ones at the top of this page

  27. Honki says:

    Uncinus (whoever you are):
    would you kindly please publish the actual covers of the Life editions showing these photos, as several are not at the Life site.
    PS I think its a bit rich for you to demand our names and email addresses when you choose to remain anon.

  28. They are not all covers, they are just photos that appeared in Life Magazine. That’s just the way that Life shows them when they get embedded.

    I ask for names so conversations are not all “guest” talking to “guest”. There’s just no option in WordPress to only ask for a name. You can just put anything in either field, it’s not checked.

    I’m Mick West. [email protected]. I live in Los Angeles. It’s on the “about” page.

  29. JFDee says:

    As MikeC noticed, some of the more recent photos are obviously not accessible anymore on the Life site. Either the links give you a blank, or a page with the caption but with an empty image frame.

    It’s a shame, really.

  30. That is a shame. It must be some kind of licensing issue. I’ll see if I can track them down – at least some larger thumbnails.

  31. I’ve updated the post to show the image as it originally appeared on the Life web site.

    The smaller thumbnails are actually embedded from Life, so it’s a bit weird that they don’t go anywhere. I notice though that Life seem to have shifted some Photo licensing over to Snapfish.com

  32. tryblinking says:

    Michael B didn’t really seem to understand. One of the main aims of science is to obtain verifiable experimetal evidence without emotional bias. Remaining mostly anonymous forces focus onto the evidence, avoiding emotional attachment, and is hence ‘better science’.

    Who knew that all those tax dollars spent on CIA counter-intel training boiled down to nothing more than a politeness policy? Now there’s a conspiracy!

  33. tryblinking says:

    Also, are we led to assume ‘moxaman’ is MJM?

  34. Bryan says:

    Whether or not your believe chemtrails to be real, what is very real is that there are plenty of patents related to aerosol sprays (with plenty of references to aluminum oxides) and plenty of very well funded scientists that publicly advocate for seeding the atmosphere (ie. geo-engineering).

    You can sit around and waste your time arguing about what pictures really depict, it matters not to me. I know this as fact; on days when I do witness your persistent “condensation trails” I will at times see what appears to be commercial aircraft at cruising altitude with either no contrails, or rarely, a typical contrail (one that follows the aircraft across the horizon… in other words it does not disperse over the course of a few hours).

    So, with the debate over the symptoms aside, where do you all stand on the real issue of geo-engineering? I am throwing it out there to you all to personally ponder it, not seeking any reply what-so-ever, as I will not be monitoring or returning.

  35. I think we should research it at least short of field trials, as insurance. I generally agree with David Keith.

    Regarding your two planes, did you read this explanation:


  36. Jay Reynolds says:

    Brian is already half way to understanding that atmospheric conditions can make the difference between no trails at all, and short non-persisting trails. That is a good start. In a few years he will probably understand and accept the rest. What will he do after about ten years, or fifteen? I predict he will look back and laugh about where he was in 2011. I have seen that to be the case with hundreds of people.
    Happy ‘Trails, Jay

  37. !!!!!!!!!! says:


  38. michael says:

    Has anyone analyzed jet fuel?
    Just where are these chemicals coming from and how are they getting into the aircraft?

    Human beings don’t usually put a lot of money into something with no expectation of return on investment…Follow the money, you may discover the truth.

  39. captfitch says:

    Yes- jet fuel is analyzed by thousands of groups, thousands of times a day. It’s analyzed at all levels from preproduction to the final end user just before it enters the engine.

    How in the world could you hide anything in the fuel? It would be impossible.

    If you could hide it how would it survive the combustion process? Again, impossible.

  40. GregOrca says:

    “Follow the money, you may discover the truth.”

    Indeed !!


  41. MikeC says:

    Does anyone analyse jet fuel? I am aware of a case recently where a batch of jet fuel was found to have too much icing inhibitor – the whole batch was quarantined, and diluted to get the right concentration. The mistake was found by routine analysis at the tank farm on receipt.

    the make-up of Jet A1 is governed by Def Std 91-91, which is freely available on the web, eg http://www.compass-instruments.com/downloads/DEFSTAN_91-91_R6_Amendment1.pdf

    So you can go buy a drum of it and get it analysed and compare the results to that standard.

  42. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Conspiracy theorists. Ignoring something new every day.

  43. Justin says:

    I have a very open mind but there are glaring things here that the chemtrail debunkers just continually ignore.
    1. The many patents to seed the sky at 30,000 feet including putting baride oxide into the jet fuel
    2. The extreme levels of aluminum in heavily chemtrail/contrail areas like CA
    3. I have seen youtube videos of trails turning on and off behind clouds, (on behind cloud, off in blue sky), how is that possible and why behind clouds if not to target the clouds or mask what they are doing.

    Thats just a few things I care to mention, but everything doesnt add up. It would make perfect sens for them to drop chemicals into the ozone layer for many reasons, they dont want to acknowledge it as they dont want to be accountable or high rates of cancer etc etc etc its a big can of worms.

    Keep your minds open and take in as much as you can.

  44. MikeC says:

    I’m not aware of any patents putting Baride oxide into fuel – do you have a number?

    All the “extreme levels of aluminum” I have seen turn out to be very normal levels of aluminium – the people worried about them seem to not know how much aluminium there is around and therefore are mistaken when they say levels are high.

    Lastly the conditions for clouds are often the conditions which also result in contrails forming – contrails are ice crystals, and so are cirrus clouds. So it is reasonably common, and quiet logical, that you get contrails forming in exactly the same areas that cirrus clouds form.

    It does not always happen of course – there are numerous factors that decide whether a particular aircraft will generate a contrail at any given time, but there is a similarity in the conditions that goes a long way to explaining why the correlation between contrails and clouds is often noted.

  45. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    I have seen youtube videos of trails turning on and off behind clouds, (on behind cloud, off in blue sky)

    mask what they are doing

    You saw it therefore it wasn’t masked.

    Make sure your own shit adds up first.

  46. SR1419 says:

    who turns the clouds on and off?

  47. Truth Talker says:

    please do the morally right thing and spread the truth

  48. Strawman says:

    Maybe you can tell that Murphy guy. He’s busy spreading – well, by now we can say – lies.

  49. Luigi says:

    I am researching air pollution and aviation impact on environment, and I do NOT believe in cospiracy theory.
    Anyhow, I have noticed that last two photos (1940 & 1941) are quite “strange”.
    Infact the contrails in the two photos are exactly the same (with few photoshop correction), no doubt about.
    At least one of these photos is fake. Can you explain ? Thanks.

  50. Don Gisselbeck says:

    Come on, it is obvious the the two were taken at about the same time from different places with slightly different camera settings (And different photographers?)

  51. Alexey says:

    Don Gisselbeck said:

    “it is obvious the the two were taken at about the same time from different places with slightly different camera settings”

    Assuming that the above is true, the two pictures had to be taken within minutes from each other and essentially from the same spot (no more than a few hundred metres apart). For comparison, see the two other pictures above, taken in the Ardennes on Dec 20, 1944. They also show one and the same bunch of contrails from somewhat different viewpoints and with a greater time lapse, during which the contrails have aged and moved.

    In contrast, the London contrails appear to be very similar. After bringing them to the same scale, they superimpose well onto each other. When placed side-by-side, as in a stereopicture, they produce no notable 3D effect. One of the photos has been taken in Fleet Street toward the St Paul Cathedral. The other contains no recognisable landmarks and probably has been taken from rooftops of City of London just a few minutes later (there are additional younger contrails).

  52. It’s hard to tell with the different picture quality, but the photos, while obviously of the same sky scene, are not identical. The “1941” photo was simply dated “circa 1941”. Like Alexy says, the St Pauls photo is a few minutes earlier, there’s more spreading in the clearer rooftops photo.

  53. Don Gisselbeck says:

    The lack of a stereo effect initially surprised me since I have seen it with pictures I have taken of mountains several kilometers off and camera separation of 10 m or so. After further thought, the contrail layer must be only a few hundred meters thick while the near and far parts of the mountain a several km apart. Has anyone seen stereo viewsof modern contrails?

  54. Alexey says:

    @Don Gisselbeck

    I have tried making pseudo stereo pictures of unusual contrails from their photos taken by others. My first attempt was the “mystery missile” contrail:

  55. ashley says:

    Your Life photographs are fake the “Battle of the Bulge” sky is a blatant and a disgusting slur on those that fought for your freedom.
    For reference the real pictures are to be found here :-

  56. ashley says:

    The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (English: “Swallow”) was the world’s first operational jet-powered fighter aircraft.[5] Design work started before World War II began but engine problems prevented the aircraft from attaining operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944. Compared with Allied fighters of its day, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor, it was much faster and better armed.[6] One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II,[7] the Me 262 was used in a variety of roles, including light bomber, reconnaissance and even experimental night fighter versions.
    Me 262 pilots claimed a total of 542 Allied kills[8] (although higher claims are sometimes made)[Notes 1] The Allies countered its potential effectiveness in the air by relentlessly attacking the aircraft on the ground and while they were taking off or landing. Maintenance problems and a lack of fuel during the deteriorating late-war situation also reduced the effectiveness of the aircraft as a fighting force. In the end, the Me 262 had a negligible impact on the course of the war as a result of its late introduction and the consequently small numbers that were deployed in operational service.[10] The Me 262 influenced the designs of post-war aircraft such as the North American F-86 Sabre and Boeing B-47 Stratojet.[7]

  57. Jay Reynolds says:

    You seem to believe that only jet planes can make contrails. That is not true. All engines burning hydrocarbon fuel combine the fuel with oxygen and the products of combistion are mainly water and carbon dioxide. Jets do this, piston planes do this, even your car does this. Notice that on a cold day water drips from a car’s tailpipe? Water made contrails in WWII just like water makes contrails today.

    Mick noted at the top of the page that some of the photos he originally got from Life aren’t on that site anymore, but plenty of WWII photos have been around ever since the war. You cannot deny this because these photos are on original negative film. my own father flew B-24 bombers and made such contrails himself. You won’t find even one WWII pilot who will deny that their planes made contrails that persisted, but you can find some still alive that remember making them. Go to the WWII vets who flew and ask them, you can see for yourself.

    here are more photos which you cannot deny:


  58. Sarah says:

    It’s rather convenient that these photos are “no longer available” at Life’s website.

  59. Jay Reynolds says:

    It doesn’t really matter, since Life featured pleny of other contrails, even on cover photos.and in hard copy antique magazines you can buy. There are also newsreels from the period and other films which everybody has known about for many years. Here is one:

    No World War veterans or anyone else who studies the war will disagree that persistent contrails were a part of it. They happened, they were photoraphed and people remember them. This isn’t something deniable or just made up

  60. dad says:

    photoshop – simply google “mountain peaks 1970” at look at the pics, .. of course by the time people figure out you can do this, these results will be planted photoshop as well, .. i also didnt realize ww2 planes used jet engines instead of gas ones, . you my friend are a con

  61. Steve Funk says:

    Piston engines will make contrails just as well as jet engines or any engine using fossil fuels, provided that they are high enough for the temp to be -40. Fortunately for our WWII pilots, the nights when contrails would form at 25,000 feet were the exception, not the rule.

  62. Yes, I love this video. I hope 343 saw this. They messed up man. You didnt even talk about the race gametype though

Comments are closed.