Home » contrails » Thirty Contrails, Forty Years Ago

Thirty Contrails, Forty Years Ago

This photo has the largest number of contrails I’ve seen in a single photo:


There seem to be at least 30, possibly more (click the photo for a larger verision).  What is even more remarkable is that it was taken sometime before 1967.  That’s over forty years ago.

The photo is plate 113 of the book Cloud Studies in Colour, by Richard Scorer and Harry Wexler, published in 1967 by Pergamon Press.  The photo was taken by Richard Scorer, probably in England.  The accompanying text reads:

Condensation trails are left by aircraft when the air is sufficiently cold for the mixture of air and exhaust to be saturated.  This does not usually happen except when the temperature is close to or below -40C, in which case the cloud freezes almost instantaneously and does not readily evaporate.  The cloud is then spread out by any wind sheer which may be present.

133 thoughts on “Thirty Contrails, Forty Years Ago

  1. Not really. They did secret dispersion tests. They sprayed things that would disperse in the same way as biological and chemical agents, let cloud be tracked, and were actually thought to be totally harmless. So they used chemicals like zinc cadmium sulphate, or harmless bacteria.

    They did this to study the effect of an enemy attack, and how best to defend against it.

    The spraying was very limited. It was mostly done from ground level, or very low altitude flights. See:


    At worst I’d just consider that to be pollution.

  2. honest debate says:

    yes oodles of evidence. are you saying theirs no evidence of geoengineering. solar radiation management such as stratoshperic sulfer aerosols. marine cloud brightening. ocean fertilisation etc etc etc

  3. honest debate says:

    where the scientists invovled told to lie to public when asked what they where about and doing

  4. I’m saying there is no evidence they are doing it. Everyone in related fields has very specifically said they are not doing it.

    Where did they lie? Quote the lie.

  5. honest debate says:

    scientists invovled in test spraying of the public it was also done in england and they were told to lie to the public if questioned the tuskigy experiment scientist lied. and im sure that they never told the truth to those poor guamalons that president obama just had to lie to

  6. Oh okay, yes. Politicians lie and withhold facts all the time. Many military experiments, operations, and related information are classified as secret, so people are forced to lie about it. This is all true.

    But because a scientist in the past, working on a secret military project, did not reveal that project to the public, then what exactly does that tell you about the long white lines in the sky?

    What does it tell you about geoengineering.

    You can’t make a logical leap from “the military has secrets”, to “every conspiracy theory that anyone comes up with is true”.

    I’m asking what your evidence is.

    You say “the military has secrets”. and “the military sprayed things out of planes”. Both those things are both true, and obvious. All that tell us is that it’s not impossible for the military to be doing something secret. It might even involved spraying things out of planes.

    But nobody said it was impossible.

    Just that there’s no actual evidence they are doing it.

  7. and where is the “oodles of evidence” they are actually doing:

    geoengineering. solar radiation management such as stratoshperic sulfer aerosols. marine cloud brightening. ocean fertilisation etc etc etc


  8. honest debate says:

    cadmium and zinc are toxins and should never be inhaled or ingested and its naive or misleading to suggest otherwise a clip concerning british spraying of public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPJcfZH1euE

    see cadmium poisoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_poisoning and their no excuse whatsoever to spray this on youre own population

    are you suggesting that it is ok for our goverments to expose their unwitting populations to cadium

  9. You know what else is toxic. Everything.

    Take carbon monoxide for example. It’s spewed out of the back of cars. Are you suggesting that’s okay?

    It’s THE AMOUNT of a substance that determines the toxicity.

    Zinc is even used as a dietary supplement.

    Oxygen is toxic in sufficient quantities.

  10. I think you are getting away from the topic though. Where is the evidence of geoengineering? How are the white lines related?

  11. honest debate says:

    you never answersd my question do you think its ok for our goverments to spray their unwitting populations with cadium

  12. In non-toxic amounts, yes.

    You get cadmium in higher amounts in second hand cigarette smoke.

    Can we get back to the actual evidence though? We all agree that the Government sprayed stuff in the past. What do you think it is doing now, and why do you think it?

  13. honest debate says:

    well i dont . I dont appreciate being anybodies lab rat. no matter how innoccuos you think it may be, of which i beg to differ and i am not so willing to dismiss the testimony of a large group of peoples suffering which they say is caused due to chemtrails so readiliy .when the science community have been so willing to lie in the past of which i think we have ascertained and as for the secondry ciggerette smoke i do believe its been proven to kill hence thats why it was banned so thats just astupid thing to say bu t what can you expect when you try to defend the indefencable and on that note iwish you goodnight and would like to thank you for youre time

  14. They were not experimenting on people.

    They just wanted to see how far dust or spores would travel. They chose what they thought were harmless analogs they could detect, and they sprayed they to see where they went.

    But I think this is an entirely separate issue, the root point still remains there’s no actual evidence that the trails are anything other than contrails.

  15. Joe Saari says:

    What is wrong with this picture? Should we conclude that since we can see 30 trails just above those low altitude clouds that these are “normal” contrails? First, jet contrails occur at 6 miles high and higher. That’s where the -40 degree and colder air is. Buy a camera from Kmart and snap a picture of a “known” jet cruising at 6 miles high. You’ll find that it doesn’t show up. Why? Because cameras with standard lenses are not DESIGNED to take pictures of objects 6 miles high. Even Kodak technical support and tell you that. Based on that and assuming someone from the ground took the picture with standard camera at the time, can we conclude that the contrails in the photo are NORMAL? No!

    Second, look at the low altitude clouds. Visually, it looks like the trails are just above the low altitude clouds. How high do you think those stratus clouds are? Probably about 10,000ft. Do jet contrails form at 10,000ft? No! Why? Because the extreme cold is at altitudes of 30,000ft and higher.

    What do the contrails in this picture remind you of? An airshow! There’s no difference between the pictures of these 30 contrails and the smoke contrails by planes in an airshow. They both appear to be what? at a low altitude! What altitude do NORMAL jet contrails for at? HIGH ALTITUDES – How high? 6 to 8 miles high. Would you notice them? barely if you were sitting at the beach and looking up at the sky.

    What do these contrails really look like? They look like the zinc cadmium sulfide trails that the military carried on for 60 years in America. And I’m sure America wasn’t the only country doing open air testing over civilian population centers either.

  16. MikeC says:

    the contrails do not look to me like they are “just” above the lower level clouds at all.

    Why do you say that they do??

    the zinc-cadmium sulphide trails do not look anything liek those contrails – ther are films of them being dispersed over england on YT – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51BTEmZoNw – those trails often fade out within the width of the camera frame – they do not persist at all!

    Waht was hte 60 year time frame you think such trials weer carried out over the USA? Operation Dew – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew – was carried out in 1952-53, and Operation LAC – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC – 1957-58 – that is a 6 year time frame, not 60.

  17. Andrew says:

    I am a Horticulturlist in the Dandenong`s (Melbourne), and I can tell you what I observed in the last 2 years.
    Lots of hazy days, overcast, cloudy, rainy, etc….. and the tomato season was a flop for the past 2 years.
    The sun, if it can penetrate through what ever you want to call it just doesn`t have the same strength as it use to.
    I also get excited when it is a clear day, and I mean a clear , dark blue sky and nothing else.
    Lucky to have 2 weeks in a year of clear dark blue sky and that is being generous.

  18. Strawman says:


  19. 57states says:

    Since early Jan 2012 I have only seen 6 days with no chemtrails 3 days in June and 3 in August days with no chemtrails (And i’m not out all day so maybe they sprayed earlier or later) so if the conditions have to be just right for contrails to form why are we now seeing them everyday? well at least in my small country farm town in vermont, I seen a plane spew a contrail yesterday thin as a rope that lingered for hours, but every 5 min’s it kept getting wider and wider this contrail I mean chemtrail expanded at least 40 miles wide! IT DID NOT dissipate at all! it took 2 hours for it to leave the area but did not dissiapte, so I guess the conditions are always perfect now for contrails! the skies did not look like this when we were growing up~ in the 70’s 80’s & 90’s Because i see chemtrails and artificial clouds everyday! It all started when I looked up jogging, so happens I got very sick that night after jogging, that same day i had also noticed 14 military jets spewing white lines that did not dissipate, This was new to me, I pay attention to me surroundings, I am also a photographer and artist, and always took photos of the skies and painted sky scenes in the 80’s, i have never noticed contrails That lingered for hours, expanded 1000 fold only to slowly disperse into hazy wispy clouds, these synthetic clouds do not evolve like cumulus clouds where they move inside out and keep changing form, these stay still unless sometimes certing updrafts will break them apart, now IM no scientist, I’m 45 Never seen this before, they laid tic tac toe grids in the sky, came back and started again, Xmarks the spot go on my facebook page look at my pictures under”untitled” tell me these are not strange! brown and red chemtrails, aerosol chemtrial, rainbow chemtrail anyway now on the other side of the sky, i counted 9 jets doing the same, flying in tight formation ……. David keith says they need silver iodide, barium, strontium and aluminum to deflect sunlight back into space to cool the earth, that is what they are finding in rain all over the US now but not in normal ammounts normal but like 600 times more than the EPA safe limit!

  20. Hi 57States. Yes, conditions do have to be just right for contrails to form, just like conditions have to be just right for it to rain. You know sometimes it does not rain for weeks, sometimes it rains every days for weeks. Most times it just rains now and then. It’s the same kind of thing with contrails. It depends on the weather at above 30,000 feet, which can vary just as much as the weather down below.

    Have a look around this site, many of your questions and concerns should be answered. This is a good starting point:

  21. Jay Reynolds says:

    57 states wrote:
    “David keith says they need silver iodide, barium, strontium and aluminum to deflect sunlight back into space to cool the earth, that is what they are finding in rain all over the US now but not in normal ammounts normal but like 600 times more than the EPA safe limit!”

    David Keith never said anything like that. He said he would risk his own life to stop geoengineering if he knew it was happening. He has done research to try to determine if geoengineering could be done, that is all. No one ever has used any of the elements you name for geoengineering. Silver iodide is used to seed cumulus clouds at lower altitudes than any contrails people see. The claims about barium were made up by a man who said he worked for CIA turned out to be a postal service worker his whole career.
    No elements have been found in those rainwater samples that are anything more than ordinary levels found 30-40 years ago. If you want specifics return and I can show you evidence for all of this.

    BTW, in Vermont you live under one of the most highly trafficked aeas for flights to/from Europe, hundreds of ordinary flights/day pass over you. Considering the heavy traffic flying over your area,I doubt there is room in the sky for any “spraying”.

  22. Steve Funk says:

    ” Lots of hazy days, overcast, cloudy, rainy, etc….. and the tomato season was a flop for the past 2 years.”
    Anecdotal evidence doesn’t have much value, but if you want an ancedote, 2011 was my best year ever for tomatoes. 2012 was also good, although a late frost set us back a little.

  23. Josh says:

    1 how can I post a vid? 2 do you have an explanation for why after seeing four planes go back and forth for 2 hours this morning, when there were nothing but clear skies, now we have nothing but a sky full of dark fog?

  24. 1. Post it on youtube, then post a link

    2. Probably not the same planes. But contrails can sometimes spread out into a layer of cloud. “Fog” is usually lower level, and might just be a normal change in the weather.

  25. bRIAN says:

    Nazi Scientists were brought to America. End of Story. You think those big bright scientists didnt have an evil agenda they planned to follow through with. Their ideals have become so sneakily infused in our government, our science, and there’s nothing you can do about it. To be ignorant and naive and dismiss THIS as another conspiracy theory, is to admit you are Nazi scum. The only people that are preoccupied with power on this earth are the materialistic bozos with all the money. They make all the rules (Agenda 21). Get used to being told what to do or you might just get shuffled off to (Camp FEMA) (Chemtrails)….not debunked. Especially since the Government extensively sprayed the skies with sulfur in the sixties…(de-classified). Look it up! Aside from that, just look around you. There are things like fluoridated water which has no obvious health benefits and comes in a bag with skull and cross-bones on it. The NAZIs used Fluoride in the water supply at concentration camps to keep the jews complacent. Are people so gullible, that they believe the bad guys always get caught. Havent they ever experienced something in their life where somebody else manipulated or tricked them, or lied to them. I think all of these de-bunkers out there are the ones on the other side of that coin doing the tricking and the lying. Here’s a gooood one. Prove to me that two planes hit the trade towers and WTC7 fell like it did because of fire. Thousands of engineers and demolition experts will tell you that those buildings could not have fallen like they did with out being a planned demolition. SO WHO DO YOU BELIEVE????? A bunch of highly intelligent people who have for decades, studied physics and engineering of physical structures or some lunatic that was on the ground that day who heard a bunch of shit and couldnt wait to tell there totally awesome STORY.

  26. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Yay! Chemtrails exist cos 9/11.

    It’s not the strongest argument but unfortunately it’s still about the best “they” got.

  27. MikeC says:

    Nazi Scientists coming to America make chemtrails?? Godwin’s law strikes again.

    I’m pretty sure that staying out of the hands of the Soviets and war crime trials was probably uppermost in their minds.

    BTW the Nazis did NOT use fluoride in concentration camps at all – see http://metabunk.org/threads/749-Why-are-we-dosing-babies-with-fluoride?p=14458&viewfull=1#post14458

    but then if you do not believe the 100 or so amateur videos that show aircraft hitting the Twin Towers why would you beleive anything I say anyway?

    It is not up to anyone to prove to you that aircraft hit he twin towers – it is up to you to beleive the evidence or not as you choose. and if you choose to not beleive the vast amount of evidence that supports “the official story” then that is your problem, not mine.

  28. Don Gisselbeck says:

    Wow! Some of the best crank magnetism ever.

  29. Bryansail says:

    That is a beauty of a photo. Especially for having so many contrails from 1967. So are the contrails in the photo the same as what is commonly seen today? The photo here shows all trails being relatively compact with very little spreading. The photo does not have any sun dogs or circumhorizontal arcs and the albedo of the contrails also looks less bright than contrails commonly seen today. The position of the Sun in this photo is very high. So what has changed? Atmosphere we increasingly know to be extremely variable, jet engine designs have changed and jet fuel additives have definitely changed.

    Today’s contrails ARE different. Sun dogs and arcs are increasingly common. Contrails today are exceedingly bright (reflective) vs. my Dad’s contrails. This can be seen and detailed by studying JP-8 and the effects fuel additives have on fuel efficiency and jet engine wear. The albedo of todays trails is brighter from my observations, would you agree?

  30. MikeC says:

    What is there to agree about? you have not provided any actual evidence.

    Civilian jets do not use JP-8 – they use Jet A1, and while some additives have changed where is the evidence that those changes affect contrails at all?

    There are numerous “modern” pcontrail photos that show no sun dogs or arcs – so why would you expect one photo from a few decades ago to necessarily show them ?

    the photo is an old photo – again why would you be surprised that it is not very bright when it has been through a couple of stages of processing – initially with technology that is 40 years old?

    I remember contrails from the 1960’s as being just as white and bright as those I see today – so in general I disagree with all your assumptions – both stated and unstated.

  31. Captfitch says:

    I haven’t seen the conversion table in a while but I think JP-8 and JetA1 are the same. And we’re using Jet A here in the states. But regardless, kerosene is kerosene. Virtually all modern engines can burn everything. The ubiquitous PT-6 can burn all sorts of awful stuff. Vodka probably. I think sometimes the biggest limitation is how the fuel is heated. Some fuel systems heat the fuel to a temperature close to it’s flashpoint so they can’t be used.

  32. MikeC says:

    Yes JP-8 and Jet A1 are simlar – as are all kerosenes – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP8

    I think it was the introduction of additives in JP-8+100 in 1994 that chemmies see as a change that caused chemtails to start in the mid 1990’s, or something like that.

    Turbines can indeed burn pretty much anything – as witness the multi-fuel units in various armoured vehicles.

    But civil airliners are restricted to use only approved fuels – I used to work on BAe-146’s that had markings on ethfuel control units for Diesel, various grades of petrol & maybe 1 or 2 other things – but htere was no provisions to set the unit to those marks – the case was apaprently simply the same case as fitted to M-1 Abrahms or something like that, but the aircraft version was not adustable.

Comments are closed.