Home » chemtrails » Where are all the Chemtrail Photos?

Where are all the Chemtrail Photos?

Some people think that persistent spreading contrails are somehow unusual, and are actually something dangerous being deliberately sprayed on the US people by the government, or perhaps for weather control purposes. They call these persistent contrails “chemtrails”.

Some of them are very insistent that this is a practically constant assault, saying the sky is never blue any more, and there are “chemtrails” constantly criss-crossing the sky.

I think this is simply a case of observer bias.

It’s easy to amass a large collection of photos of persistent contrails. I’ve got a lot myself, and I live in Los Angeles, where we don’t really get very many days when the conditions are right. All you have to do is only take photos on days when there are contrails persisting, and it will seem like there are “chemtrails” every day.

To get a real picture of what is going on, you need to take photos every day, and then see how many have persistent contrails in them. To be really accurate, you should take photos all across the country, and even across the globe, and see how many have contrails in them. What we need is a huge database of photos of the sky taken at random places and times.

Luckily, with the advent of digital photography, we have several such databases in the form of Flickr.com and picasaweb.google.com, and several other sites, which contain millions of photos that have at least some sky in them.

How many contain contrails (persistent or otherwise?) well, it turns out that practically none of them do.

Of course if you search for “contrail” or “chemtrail”, you’ll find a bunch. But that’s just you selecting them. How do we get random photos of the sky?

A good way it to search for things where the photographer is looking up. Like, “skyscraper“, “radio tower“, “kites“, or “skyline“. This gives you a very nice random sampling of millions of photos of the sky in all different weather condition, in all different locations, over the past decade or so. Some of these tend to have a narrow field of view, which you can expand with the keyword “fisheye”, like “fisheye sky“.

And what do we find? ALMOST NO CONTRAILS!!! I had to look at hundreds of photos before I finally found ONE that had a contrail in it. Even more rare was finding a photo with several persisting contrails, and I never found one with anything like a “grid”.

Several things can be deduced from this. Firstly contrails are actually pretty rare across the country. Of course this depends on where you live, but basically on average, there are not that many visible contrails in the sky.

Secondly, there’s still lots of clear blue sky and fluffy white clouds. All kinds of skies actually. Nothing has changed.

Thirdly, “chemtrail” theorists often say “why are there no photo of contrails before 1999/1990/1980/whenever”, seeing as they can’t find any in their family photo albums. The answer is of course that there ARE photos of contrails, all through the history of aviation. You don’t see them in the old photo albums for the same reason you don’t see them on Flickr.

224 thoughts on “Where are all the Chemtrail Photos?

  1. brainfan says:

    “If you were content with your scientific research, why do you find it necessary to “carry on the cause”?
    As such, I can only pressume you to be a professional shill.”

    That’s a pretty broad leap. People regularly speak out against chemtrails, keeping it an active topic. As such, it’s reasonable that someone who has contrary information would want to provide answers to help correct persistent misinformation. And when it comes down to it, many people just like to debate.

    “I think we have a right to clear air and skies and evreyone should have that choice, not just corporations soley bent on profit.”

    This is why it’s so important to speak out against the chemtrail myth. All the time and energy taken to warn people about a nonexistent environmental problem is harmful because it takes time away from genuine environmental crises and it also robs the environmental movement of credibility. This will make people less likely to support real environmental causes in the future.

    I suspect there are few people here who are more impacted by this than me as I have multiple chemical sensitivity, and let me tell you, if you want to see some shills for industry, the subject of MCS has them crawling out of the woodwork. The reason why it’s so important — and detrimental — to me is for the same reason above. People with MCS naturally become “anti-chemical”, and we are also aware of conspiracies since we have a constant documented conspiracy to put off recognition of our illness. The unfortunate result is that a lot of MCS sufferers latch onto issues like chemtrails and man-made global warming as though they are inextricably linked with MCS, hence, MCS takes a hit every time chemtrails and AGW are debunked.

  2. brainfan says:

    “People regularly speak out against chemtrails, keeping it an active topic.”

    That should have read “People regularly speak out in support of chemtrails, keeping it an active topic.”

  3. blue shoe says:

    unicus, what do you think of the work of Rosaline Peterson?


    Your debunking of many of the typical arguments and observations is reassuring. I used to share these same views, until I saw this youtube video.

    I look forward to your thoughts.

  4. That’s a long video. What in it specifically did you find compelling?

  5. blue shoe says:

    I found many components of interest. First, Rosalind Peterson’s background in science, and her work for the USDA; she knows data collection and assessment. Her research based on the public record of well tests going back a few decades, in which she shows that spikes in certain metals have only occurred relatively recently, is compelling. She states that in her area in Northern CA, in the space where the most trails are observed, it is a no-fly zone for commercial airlines, and only used by military jets. She observes various trails and their appearance, and the implication is that some of these differences (such as different kinds of trial from the right and left sides of the jet) must result from intention. She looks into the matter of cloud creation and weather manipulation and the laws in place and actual cases and disputes across the US, and it is apparent that it is murky waters, with laws ignored and regulators not doing their job. She looks at the effect of weather changes and well-water acidity changes on agriculture and health, and raises disturbing questions that deserve attention.

    I found your site because you mention that near Medford, OR there are a lot of trails. I moved here recently and it is this preponderance of trails that has actually upset me. I do not understand, why should there be more trails here than anywhere else on the north-south flight line?

    Another question, I have noticed that after a rainstorm, there will be a couple days when there are no trails. Then they slowly begin. This last time, their number escalated from day to day until, the day before the next storm, the sky was full of trails. It seemed that the trails were contributing to the weather that became the next storm. And then, after the rain, no persistent trails again. None. Can you explain this meteorologically? From the ground up, as it were, it appears that the trails are intended to create the rain. Once that goal is achieved, they stop for a while, wait for water to naturally evaporate from the ground back into the sky, and then begin again. Much of the cloud thus formed travels away from this area. Some of it remains and lead to new rainfall. This is what appears to be happening.

    And if moisture is being gathered along the west coast and sent land inwards, as Rosalind Peterson suggests, isn’t it possible that it contributes to some of these awful storms and tornadoes we’ve been seeing? Wouldn’t this be a concern, whether the trails are commercial, military, intended, accidental, and seeded with heavy metals or not?

  6. Where is the data that Peterson claims shows only recent spikes in certain metals?

    I don’t think Medford in particular is a special spot, the whole of Oregon is like that along I5. Medford, as you know, is the only town of any size in Southern Oregon. So there’s more people to notice it. Do you have a particular place to compare it to?

    Contrails precede rain because the weather system is bringing moist air into the region. Science explains how normal contrails would naturally be more frequent ahead of an approaching warm front. You would EXPECT to see contrails ahead of rain.

    There is zero evidence that contrail change the weather beyond blocking out some sunlight. They are too high to effect precipitation patterns.

  7. blue shoe says:

    Thank you for the meterological info. I suspected something of the sort. I am not sure about the negligible influence of these clouds on precipitation–often, if there is no evidence for a thing, that means it has not yet been studied, and not that simply is so.

    Peterson discusses possible health problems from reduced sunlight, such as higher incidence of rickets in CA.

    The discussion about data collection of well water testing is toward the beginning of the film. It is a public record of all the tests and anyone can request it. Rosalind Peterson talks about the source in detail in the film, I’m sorry I don’t have a recollection of the exact source.

    Medford has more trails because more people to see them?

    I lived in the Monrovia area, but also in the mountains, five miles up, at Idyllwild. Many jets flew over Idyllwild but did not leave persistent trails that spread. The skies were clear and blue most every day. Why would there be no trails seen at that altitude?

    BTW, I do remember seeing persistent contrails as a child, starting in about 1968-9. Walking home from jr high, I remember noting that, in contrast to earlier, many of the trails lingered and fluffed up into cloud-trails. This was in the San Fernando Valley.

  8. People see more trails in Medford, because that’s where they live. There are not any more trails than anywhere else along that corridor.

    The weather varies by location, and flight patterns vary by location.

    I think Peterson’s extrapolations are suspect because she does not publish any figures. I strong suspect:

    A) The spikes correlate simply with winters that had higher than normal rainfall, thus leaching more aluminum etc from the ground into the water supply.
    B) The data does not go back far enough, and the “spikes” simply started around the time that the records started.

    If not, then why does she not publish the data?

    Rickets in CA? Again, let’s see some figures. Also would need figures for how much time people spend outdoors nowadays, and how that’s varied.

    Why not just give figures of how much sun is hitting the ground? Like from the pan evaporation rates? You know global dimming has decreased over the last 20 years?

  9. MikeC says:

    Apaprently rickets is increasing in the USA – see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412104 (from 2000) – but mostly among african-americans who are breastfed.

    If chemtrails were responsible for this they started their effect amazingly quickly to have ben noticed, studied and published in only the 3-5 years between when theysupposedly started and this was published!

    ther are numerous other papers on the ‘net on re-emerging rickets

  10. blue shoe says:

    Peterson says the records begin from 1984 with the level of the questionable metals very low and often at 0, and the spikes beginning after 1990. She does not make her data easily available and I didn’t have time today to see if it is hidden in one of her many articles. We could email her and ask 🙂

    I did not find published articles mentioning rickets increasing in CA, and MikeC, the increased rickets in breastfed babies of poorly nourished mothers of darker skin is very sad but to infer a connection to weather manipulation is a bit of a stretch. Best to ask Peterson what she is citing.

    She frequently refers to a NASA quote, something to the effect that “massive unintentional cloud building through contrails will impact the climate…” and again I didn’t have time to dig into her articles to find the reference.

    I like that Peterson keeps the argument away from chemtrails/contrails and looks for evidence of changes in the environment that could be related to jet emissions, while moving for more transparency. For instance, here: http://www.mtshastanews.com/opinions/x1950206316/Citizens-seeking-answers-to-aluminum-contamination-concerns

  11. JFDee says:

    The Mount Shasta issue is discussed in depth here:

    The sampling and the evaluation of the results seriously lacked professionalism.

  12. blue shoe says:

    Thanks, I’ve now read the article and comments — great discussion! I’m looking forward to reading more of the site.

  13. blue shoe says:

    Reading through this site has been like a good splash of cold water in the face.

    Question: You speak of the “hoax.” Obviously, most people today are not perpetrating a hoax, but in their ignorance are passing on their fear and misunderstandings.

    Was there an original “hoaxer?” Have you looked into the origins of the chemtrail mythology?


  14. I’m not sure that “hoax” is the best way to describe chemtrails. I’ve only used that word to describe some videos.

    I’ve looked into the history. See:


  15. cheech says:

    I have posted here in the past and realize we are all beings at keypads expressing opinions, ideas and responses. Charts, graphs, photos, data, etc. are interesting, but they don’t tell the whole story. “Believe nothing you hear, and half of what you see” is sometimes accurate. With about a half century of outside work, study, and recreation, I have a small amount of knowledge of the skies, weather, and trends. I have lived my whole life 25 mi. or so north of NYC in the suburbs.
    There are some trends I have observed in the last decade. I have no empirical data, and require none. I have seen a number of jet aircraft flying in a similar direction, usually one at a time, emiting a heavy, white vapor(contrail), which slowly spreads, and does not dissapate. As this long white line of vapor spreads widthwise, and rolls south en masse, another jet appears where the first jet flew, and the process is repeated, sometimes for hours. Eventually a sky covering haze is created. Other random jet aircraft can be seen elsewhere emiting no contrails, or contrails which dissapate almost instantly.These persistent contrails almost always originate in the NE, and terminate in the SE. And their occurrance increases prior to natural wet weather fronts. Wether it’s normal aircraft contrails, geoengineering, or sadly bioengineering, I observe a non random effort being exerted. These are my non scientific observations, and pehaps just folksy wisdom, and they need no explaining.

  16. SR1419 says:

    Cheech- interesting observations-

    sounds almost identical to this description from 1972:

    “It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”


    It is well known that persistent contrail outbreaks often occur in in advance of approaching weather fronts as air with more moisture moves in – often indicated by high level cirrus clouds as well. Humidity level is a key component to a contrail’s ability to persist.

    Alas, I would consider daily air traffic in this country- with literally 10s of thousands of flights every day to be decidedly non-random…but thats just me.

    and I know you do not want anything explained…but I find this page interesting:


  17. captfitch says:

    That area- Over NYC is literally the busiest air corridor in the world. I would imagine that if even one in ten aircraft travelling the area was in a contrail condusive layer there would be a lot of trails.

  18. Daddyo says:

    I am still laughing at what Mr. Ultimate Proof said. Everyone here is a fool? Maybe you should check out Operation Ranch Hand in Vietnam (true story mr. ultimate proof). Might educate you a little. And, it ended in 1971. Who has the last laugh here???

  19. Manzanita says:

    I’m so sorry you broke your neck and can’t look up at the sky. BUT I have an idea….. hold a mirror in front of you and you’ll be able to see the sky. Hope you recover soon.

  20. Denial anyone? says:


    Both U.S.Govt and UK have admitted to this, so the debate is over.

  21. Except all they have “admitted” to is dispersement tests, where they sprayed stuff in the air, and saw how far it went.

    And for the other claims in that video, see them debunked here:


  22. Scott says:



    the fact is, there are companies with US patents for weather modification. There is no disputing this fact. It’s on record, there’s no way out of this, and you cannot rationalize your way out of these websites. The fact is, there are programs for weather modification. People are being paid to spray both from the ground and in the air. There is absolutely no way anyone can dispute this.

  23. JFDee says:

    Scott, the companies are calling it “weather modification” but all they are able to do is cloud seeding.

    This is in no way connected to high altitude trails which are the main focus of this web site.

  24. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    No one disputes weather modification.

    It’s not secret.

    It’s not chemtrailing either.

    You can argue that persistent contrails modify the weather, but nothing you’ll find on weather modification will have any resemblance to what people refer to as chemtrailing.

    They are two different topics merged into one by the chemtrailers because chemtrails don’t exist but weather modifcation does.

Comments are closed.