Deciphering what I once saw, and what I now see

Hello,

Being a landscape photographer for 18 years (1991-2009), I did a lot of visual study of sky/clouds. I have no interest in the why or how of clouds, so won't pretend to have any scientific knowledge of sky life. My knowledge of clouds relates simply to visual memory, which I would like to believe is mostly accurate.

A few years ago, perhaps beginning in 2011, I began to notice planes leaving long, sky-wide vapors, white/gray in color. This by itself was something I had not seen before. Living in the Chicago area since childhood, which has a high concentration of air traffic, I was always looking up at the sky, and cannot recall a single instance of planes leaving long vapors. The most I would see was what I would call a contrail, a thin, short, white line, which quickly disappeared (a few seconds) after being emitted from the plane. Having a visual interest in the sky, I began to observe these vapors and discovered that instead of quickly dissipating, they would begin to spread across the sky, become slightly grayish, or a dull milk white color, and eventually mix with other vapor trails left by other planes, resulting with what I call a “white out” of the sky. This white out is something I cannot recall seeing prior to 2011.

Beginning in mid - 2012, and continuing to the present (2014), I noticed an increase in these plane vapors. They are now being left by planes on a daily basis. During the day in which I observe them (while out running), the planes and the resulting vapors are constant. It sometimes lasts from morning to evening. By noon the sky exhibits white out, and the light of day appears less intense, with the sun blocked over, as if covered in gauze. On certain rare days, the planes are completely absent, which causes the sky to exhibit its normal pre-2011 features - intense blue and clear. However, the next day, the planes and vapors return.

During the summer of 2012 I spent 4 months in SE Asia. Not once did I see a long vapor trail in the sky. When I returned to the USA the long vapor trails could be seen daily.

Doing some research on the internet, I came to learn of the term “chemtrails”, and two groups of people - those who believe the vapors are metallic compounds intentionally being sprayed from the planes, and those who believe that the vapors are caused by fuel/engine exhaust. As I said, I am not a scientist, and know nothing of aviation engineering, so have no idea what the planes are leaving behind.

Here are the facts which I am 99.9 % certain of -


1) Prior to 2011, I observed no long vapor trails left in the sky from airplanes. For visual proof, in case I want to question the validity of my memory, I have over 20,000 landscape film negatives (exposed from 1991-2009) which show not a single instance of long vapor trails in the sky.

2) From 2011-present, I began to observe long vapor trails, with the trails becoming more numerous and consistent in 2013-2014.

3) Sky white out occurs regularly in 2013-2014.

4) No long vapor trails seen in SE Asia in 2012.


Keeping these facts in mind, I perused the websites of both groups - the chemtrail believers, and the contrail believers. Knowing I am not the only one observing this sky change gives me confidence that my eyes, memory, and judgement are not going bad.

As to what they are called, I could care less. What I want to discover is if indeed the pilots are intentionally spraying substances into the atmosphere, which if they are, would lead to concern for the safety of the planet and its inhabitants. I know that your site claims that the pilots are not “spraying”, and are simply flying their planes in a normal way. Knowing your position, I would like to ask a few questions to help add to my knowledge of this subject.


1) You give examples of photographs prior to 1990 which show clouds resembling modern day jet trails. While these look convincing enough, I remind myself that I am looking at photos on the internet, which means each of these pictures has the potential to be manipulated (adding trail lines, etc). The scanned photos of pages from old cloud books could also be manipulated. I am not saying they have been, but the potential is there, and it could easily be done. Therefore, any pictures you show cannot be used as evidence, due to the possibility of manipulation. The only visual photo evidence which would be acceptable would be actual books which I hold in my hand. I have looked at some of these cloud books, and have not found any pictures with long vapor trails. I also have my own collection of 20,000 landscape film negatives which show no instances of long vapor trails.

If all of the photos you show on your site have the potential of being manipulated, why do you include/exhibit them as proof of long vapor trails existing prior to 1990? These photos would not be allowed as evidence in a courtroom, so why are you using them as one of your proofs?


2) You say in your bio that you are not a scientist, so how do you justify writing a blog article entitled “how to debunk chemtrails?” The title means you possess scientific evidence that chemtrails are a myth, or a false concept. Yet you have no scientific background in this matter. You most likely are not a goverrnment or military employee, so have no inside information as to what military pilots are doing. If you are simply stating a nonscientific opinion, I won't be able to use it as evidence in my quest to learn what the long vapor trails are.


3) Everything on your site which I have read (I have not read every word, so realize I may have missed something) relates to things outside of your own personal experience. For example, if you stated something such as “I am a small aircraft pilot, and indeed, I do remember when the skies were more clear prior to 1990. This is what I think happened to make the long vapor trails more prevalent today....” I would find you and your site more authentic. Because everything you have written is outside of your own experience, I find that your site is basically just a dumping ground of random information, which is fine, but your opinions should be muted, and articles such as “how to debunk chemtrails” should be read with a high degree of skepticism.

Can you perhaps share some of your own experiences with contrails? When is the first time you observed sky white out? Did you find it surprising, since it is a new phenomenon? Did it bother you at all, since most people find clear blue skies to be pleasant and enjoyable? Are you concerned about your health, knowing, if it is jet exhaust which is causing white out, you are breathing exhaust vapors into your lungs? What makes you believe sky white out is a contrail, since it is a recent phenomenon? (scanned/internet cloud photos cannot be used as evidence due to the possibility of manipulation)


4) Finally, I have seen internet videos of people calling you a shill, a spook, or some such entity, saying it is absurd a man with no scientific background is writing articles about debunking chemtrails. I don't know you, and have no opinion either way as to if you are employed by a govt. spook house or not. What I want to know is, if you are not a scientist, why do you call your site contrail science? Should it not be called, instead, contrail opinion?


Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's a lot of questions.

I call the site Contrail Science because I point at the actual science. I make no claim to have performed any science regarding contrails, I've simply read the science, and I include it by reference. So the site does have a lot of science in. For example I often reference scientific papers on persistent contrails. That is contrail science.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=persistent+contrails&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

I include the old photos of contrails because they are generally verifiable, for example, the photos from old books come from actual old books, multiple copies of which exist in book stores and libraries. These books, for example:

My own experience with contrails is that I never really paid them much attention until around 2006, when I heard about "chemtrails". Most people don't pay much attention to the sky. But once you start looking for a thing, you notice it all the time.

Your photographic record is interesting. Do you have photos from 2009 to 2011? Can you identify a point at which you first accidentally get a contrail in shot? (i.e. in a shot where you were not actually setting out to take photos of contrails).
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Most interesting! Would love to see the photo collection myself.

Would suspect a change in overflight patterns or weather patterns which could possibly correlate with the change in visual patterns if it is shown to be statically trending.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I remind myself that I am looking at photos on the internet, which means each of these pictures has the potential to be manipulated (adding trail lines, etc). The scanned photos of pages from old cloud books could also be manipulated. I am not saying they have been, but the potential is there, and it could easily be done. Therefore, any pictures you show cannot be used as evidence, due to the possibility of manipulation.
Why is it your first reaction is to consider they are faked rather than genuine? That implies you believe an intent to deceive on Mick's part, which implies a reason for that and so on. Why not the simpler answer the pictures are genuine, why the complicated scenario?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The location, Chicago, is interesting in the light of the claim that there were no persistent contrails before 2011. Chicago (ORD) gets a LOT of flyover traffic between the East and West coasts, in both directions, and has for decades. It seems very unlikely that there has been a significant change in 2011.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
4) No long vapor trails seen in SE Asia in 2012.

Here is a thread about persistent contrails over Malaysia with pictures from 2011 and 2013 (though not 2012 specifically)

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/contrails-in-malaysia-and-singapore.1625/

picture of persistent contrails over Malaysia

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Location..._Towers-Kuala_Lumpur_Wilayah_Persekutuan.html


Knowing I am not the only one observing this sky change gives me confidence that my eyes, memory, and judgement are not going bad.

Can you perhaps share some of your own experiences with contrails? When is the first time you observed sky white out? Did you find it surprising, since it is a new phenomenon? Did it bother you at all, since most people find clear blue skies to be pleasant and enjoyable? Are you concerned about your health, knowing, if it is jet exhaust which is causing white out, you are breathing exhaust vapors into your lungs? What makes you believe sky white out is a contrail, since it is a recent phenomenon? (scanned/internet cloud photos cannot be used as evidence due to the possibility of manipulation)


Indeed. others have been observing the sky for decades. I remember seeing long, persistent trails from planes in the 1970s as a kid in MN.

Keep in mind the jet exhaust is the same whether you see a contrail or not. The visible portion of the trail is simply ice and its formation and persistence (or not) are dependent on the weather the plane is flying through. The exhaust is 6 miles overhead and will not fall directly on you (if ever reaching the ground)

Contrails are clouds. Sometimes there are no clouds, sometimes the sky is covered with clouds, sometimes there are only clouds in some spots but not others, sometimes there are multiple types of clouds in the same sky.

The fundamental facts are the science regarding the formation of contrails and their persistence or dissipation. If its cold enough a contrail will form. If its humid enough it will persist. Its that simple.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
Something you might want to keep in mind is that once we become sensitized to noticing something we may not have noticed previously, we become more mindful of it and take notice of it. An example that comes to mind is that:

Once I was aware of that, I had begun to actually notice it regularly when I watch a movie, that generally speaking, women with speaking parts in movies were outnumbered almost 3 to 1 by men that had speaking parts in a film. While this has been the case for a long time, it had not really registered until I started looking for it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
As to what they are called, I could care less
you obviously do care since if they are called Contrails (which they are) they aren't spraying anything on you. Being from Chicago you know about car exhaust in the winter. This is the same thing, plane exhaust way up high when it's cold.

I was in Chicago in 2001 and definitely saw contrails. Of course I was looking up since it was my first time in the city. I probably only oticed them though as the geometry of it (angles) against the buildings was "mod".

As a photographer may I suggest you don't use the photos from this site and 1. go to the library and look up cloud books/plane books.

2. do your own internet search for old contrail pics. old plane pics. I wouldn't try old landscape pics as I imagine most photographers would purposefully not take the shot with a contrail in it, I never do. (Half the time I don't even like the regular clouds in the shot!)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Being a landscape photographer for 18 years (1991-2009), I did a lot of visual study of sky/clouds. <skip> My knowledge of clouds relates simply to visual memory, which I would like to believe is mostly accurate.

Just the first bit that I noticed (and I know you've been shown a lot of evidence proving contrails are perfectly normal), but...

...when I read the first sentence, I infer that the "visual study" refers to photos? If so, then you have documentation, and do not need to rely on your "visual memory", correct?
 
Thanks for all of the replies.

I can see from the photos of Chicago that contrail clouds could be seen prior to 2011, I just don't recall it from my own experience.

I do take into consideration that once one becomes aware of something it becomes more noticeable in future encounters, which is why I constantly question my memories of contrails, and am glad to have the physical evidence of the negs. I try not to cross the fine line between observation and obsession.

I have no negs past 2009, so cannot check for accidental inclusion of contrail clouds beyond that date.

I read the post about the person in Malaysia seeing no contrail clouds, but in Singapore seeing many. I was in Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Burma, and Bali. Took many digital photos, none of which show obvious contrail clouds. It rained 3 times in the 4 months I was there - clear with bright blue skies most days.

True about not wanting to photograph contrail clouds, which could account for lack of pictures of them. However, I have no memory of an incident where I said to myself "dammit, would be a great shot if not for the airplane clouds!" It was not a consideration because I never saw them.

As to not accepting the veracity of posted pics here, it has nothing to do with doubting Mick's intentions, just seems gullible to trust pics on the internet when trying to discover the truth of something important. I plan to go to the library soon and look for cloud picture books.

About mass resignations and whistle-blowers - easy to think about, but hard to do! How many whistle-blowers for the NSA spy program? One that we know of, and look where he ended up. Am sure you know of the vid of the ex military woman giving a speech on chemtrails, she considers herself a whistle-blower and she said it ruined her military career.

Will continue to think, research, wander, and observe. However it turns out, I'm still going to enjoy each day and hope for the best.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
As to not accepting the veracity of posted pics here, it has nothing to do with doubting Mick's intentions, just seems gullible to trust pics on the internet when trying to discover the truth of something important. I plan to go to the library soon and look for cloud picture books.

If the photos are legitimate, would that prove the case against chemtrails for you? Is that why it's so important to verify for yourself?

You could also check for yourself by ordering copies of the books cited off amazon or ebay if you really suspect they have been altered. But would you then think the book itself was intercepted and altered when it gets to you if it does match the posted scans? I mean, *if* there's a vast conspiracy to poison/alter the atmosphere involving legions of powerful dark forces they could pretty much do anything right? Why trust books, but not scans of them?

I do support the principle of verifying things for yourself though, it's very laudable, I'm just wondering how deep your mistrust runs or if you're coming from a neutral position.
I would suggest that you apply the same standard of verifiable evidence to chemtrail claims as well.
I think it will become clear who is faking data.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I have no negs past 2009, so cannot check for accidental inclusion of contrail clouds beyond that date.

That is indeed, a shame. So then, as stated earlier, it seems you will tend to rely upon "visual memory"? Fortunately, there are others, besides yourself, you did take and document many, many photos during that timeframe. (Pre-2009)

Also, there is science.

And, much more to consider.

Keep in mind, though....another alternative (albeit perhaps impractical personally) is to learn to fly. I don't mean that 'flippantly'....because, not ALL people who understand contrails must be pilots, but....it DOES help (a bit).

Part of the experience involved in getting a pilot's license includes education in the science of meteorology....if only the basics, but it is sufficient.

Those who continue to advance in their aviation knowledge and experience keep learning, and it doesn't take long to realize the fact that the "Urban Legend" of so-called "chemtrails" is, indeed....just a myth. A myth borne on mis-information, often deliberate, and also (in some cases) an overt attempt to 'prey' upon the ignorance, and gullibility, of those who are less informed of the science.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
1) You give examples of photographs prior to 1990 which show clouds resembling modern day jet trails. While these look convincing enough, I remind myself that I am looking at photos on the internet, which means each of these pictures has the potential to be manipulated (adding trail lines, etc). The scanned photos of pages from old cloud books could also be manipulated. I am not saying they have been, but the potential is there, and it could easily be done. Therefore, any pictures you show cannot be used as evidence, due to the possibility of manipulation. The only visual photo evidence which would be acceptable would be actual books which I hold in my hand. I have looked at some of these cloud books, and have not found any pictures with long vapor trails. I also have my own collection of 20,000 landscape film negatives which show no instances of long vapor trails.

If all of the photos you show on your site have the potential of being manipulated, why do you include/exhibit them as proof of long vapor trails existing prior to 1990? These photos would not be allowed as evidence in a courtroom, so why are you using them as one of your proofs?

I'll be frank, there are many, many logical issues I have with your lengthy post. But for brevity, I'll just address the one which strikes me as most odd.
Since this discussion is occurring entirely over the internet, and your position is that every single digital picture has the "potential of being manipulated"
are you arguing that images should not be taken seriously on-line re. proving or debunking "chemtrails" ?

More importantly, like Pete I'm an Occam's razor guy and a bit intrigued that you would casually suggest that Mick may have "manipulated" scanned
photos of old cloud books. This strikes me as beyond fanciful. But in the video you see Mick opening the books and turning pages, showing copy & contrail pictures.
Wouldn't he then have had to fake the books--not just static scanned images?

Even more importantly, you must be aware that the debunking of "chemtrails" on this site is quite a thorn in the side of many who either perpetuate
the hoax for money, attention, or because they are true believers. All of these people have huge incentive to discredit Mick and this site...
and all they'd have to do is buy a couple of used copies of these old books, and demonstrate that the text or pictures in those books were not consistent
with Mick's representation. Easy!! Instant win! Why do you suppose they have not done that? What is the most likely, logical answer?
I wholeheartedly encourage you to try.


p.s. I'd also encourage you to go through your 20,000 negatives. My iPhoto library is about 59,000 pictures, and I found accidental contrails in the first batch I looked in.
 
Last edited:

Balance

Senior Member.
About mass resignations and whistle-blowers - easy to think about, but hard to do! How many whistle-blowers for the NSA spy program? One that we know of, and look where he ended up. Am sure you know of the vid of the ex military woman giving a speech on chemtrails, she considers herself a whistle-blower and she said it ruined her military career.

You would effectively be asking pilots and crew to breathe far, far higher concentrations of these alleged poisons, hence I'm confident there would be mass resignations. Though now I think about the whistle-blowing argument in the case of Snowden, I guess it only takes one.

As for the ex-military woman, I assume you mean Kristen Meghan? There is a large thread here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kristen-meghan-former-us-air-force-whistle-blower.1066/ where she joined in the conversation, initially to answer questions raised within it https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kristen-meghan-former-us-air-force-whistle-blower.1066/#post-24759

She reveals a lot of interesting information about herself and her activities if you care to read them, though the most interesting one imo, is here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kr...r-force-whistle-blower.1066/page-2#post-24804 where she states "My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails..."

ETA: Assuming you won't read every post and link, she did not blow the whistle (in the strictest sense) on anything as she has not publibly revealed any checkable whistle-blowing evidence and what ended her military career (as far as I can tell) was after watching an Alex Jones video (can't recall it's name right now) and becoming a "loud mouthed libertarian" (her own words which she proudly boasts at every opportunity).
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Though now I think about the whistle-blowing argument in the case of Snowden, I guess it only takes one.

Keeping in mind that the "Snowden" case of so-called "chemtrail whistleblowing" was a farce, right?

Here is the original "source" of the Snowden "story":
http://www.chronicle.su/news/snowden-uncovers-shocking-truth-behind-chemtrails

Sounds like the proverbial "smoking gun" ... erm, if a smoking gun made a sound....but anyways....sounds like a "Slam Dunk"! right?

Except....the SOURCE, once again....here is the SAME source, but it's their info, or "About" page:
http://www.chronicle.su/about

(AND, it goes on....)

In Other Words......SATIRE!!!

Not as good as The Onion....but learning to steal (or copy the style) from one of the best!!
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Then go and get those. Then go and get some books which positively identify "chemtrails" from photographic evidence, because anything you've seen on the internet may have been manipulated.
And for those who think that either the old books (or films, or magazines) or scans of their images have been altered, all they have to do is find an old un-altered copy to demonstrate that. I mean, even if TPTB got to all the library copies, surely there's one on ebay or in a used book store somewhere.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
True about not wanting to photograph contrail clouds, which could account for lack of pictures of them. However, I have no memory of an incident where I said to myself "dammit, would be a great shot if not for the airplane clouds!" It was not a consideration because I never saw them.
would love to see a sampling of some of your landscapes, kinda curious what "city landscapes" look like. I will concur with you though, having spent ALOT of time in NYC I cant recall ever seeing contrails either. not that I ever looked or took pics in NY that included the sky really...well at few at Central Park would have sky (will have to dig them out and look for contrails ; )

The only reason to look up in NY really is to see if an air conditioner is about to fall on your head o_O
 
If the photos are legitimate, would that prove the case against chemtrails for you? Is that why it's so important to verify for yourself?

I made the point about photo veracity because if this is a science site, then digital photos should not be used as conclusive evidence. For the sake of convenience, I have no problem accepting the premise that all photos shown here are legitimate. This does not, for me, prove the case against chemtrails, but it does give a historical visual context of the evolution of contrail clouds. The reason I am here discussing and learning about this subject is because of this evolution. The photos of contrails pre-1990 do prove they existed since the birth of aviation, but in the past few years they have become more numerous and their forms have evolved into something new (frequent white outs). The expansion could be explained by increased air traffic, but is this enough to cause frequent white outs? I don't know.

--


That is indeed, a shame. So then, as stated earlier, it seems you will tend to rely upon "visual memory"? Fortunately, there are others, besides yourself, you did take and document many, many photos during that timeframe. (Pre-2009)

To clarify, my film negs cover the time period 1991-2009.

--


I'll be frank, there are many, many logical issues I have with your lengthy post.

Don't blame you, my logic is never perfect, but if I keep working at the subject I eventually arrive at the desired destination.

But for brevity, I'll just address the one which strikes me as most odd.
Since this discussion is occurring entirely over the internet, and your position is that every single digital picture has the "potential of being manipulated"
are you arguing that images should not be taken seriously on-line re. proving or debunking "chemtrails" ?


See above - For the sake of convenience, I have no problem accepting the premise that all photos shown here are legitimate.

--


As for the ex-military woman, I assume you mean Kristen Meghan? There is a large thread here

Thanks for the link - I've read the first few pages, very interesting!

--

Then go and get those. Then go and get some books which positively identify "chemtrails" from photographic evidence, because anything you've seen on the internet may have been manipulated.

Just returned from the library, which had only 3 cloud books on the shelf (and none on chemtrails). I looked through them, all were fairly new, with publishing dates of 2006, 2008, and 2011. One of the books had an absorbing chapter on contrails, with the author giving historical info on cloud seeding, and even mentions the infamous 1996 paper “Weather as a Force Multiplier”. Studied the pictures in all 3 books, really enjoyable to see, brought back memories of photo shoots when I recognized cloud types. All 3 books listed contrails as a type of cloud, with one calling it the “bastard son of clouds”.

--


would love to see a sampling of some of your landscapes

Here are a few scans of prints made in early 2000's I found on my hard drive. (not sure if this will work or not, first time trying to insert images here)









 
Last edited by a moderator:

Balance

Senior Member.
This does not, for me, prove the case against chemtrails
Despite your initial post this infers you have already decided to believe the chemtrail conspiracy theory. I suspect you will object but imo, you should have stated why you believe it and then take it from there. I say this becaise if your OP was honest, you would have stated your need for proof against this (deceptive) case, you would be questioning the case(s) you believe.

Just returned from the library, which had only 3 cloud books on the shelf (and none on chemtrails)
Yet you still believe there is a case to answer. See my point?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
but in the past few years they have become more numerous and their forms have evolved into something new (frequent white outs). The expansion could be explained by increased air traffic, but is this enough to cause frequent white outs? I don't know.
This is usually due to a sort of 'seeding' ahead of a front that may prematurely extend it - the front is pushing wet air in front of it, which the contrails spread out into.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
If the photos are legitimate, would that prove the case against chemtrails for you? Is that why it's so important to verify for yourself?

I made the point about photo veracity because if this is a science site, then digital photos should not be used as conclusive evidence. For the sake of convenience, I have no problem accepting the premise that all photos shown here are legitimate. This does not, for me, prove the case against chemtrails, but it does give a historical visual context of the evolution of contrail clouds. The reason I am here discussing and learning about this subject is because of this evolution. The photos of contrails pre-1990 do prove they existed since the birth of aviation, but in the past few years they have become more numerous and their forms have evolved into something new (frequent white outs). The expansion could be explained by increased air traffic, but is this enough to cause frequent white outs? I don't know.

The "white outs" created by persisting, spreading contrails have also been observed since the birth of aviation. Here is a study done in 1969 studying just that - complete with pictures:

Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
Peter M. Kuhn
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970) pp. 937–942

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1970)027<0937:AOOCEO>2.0.CO;2

Also- keep in mind that air traffic has increased ~50% since 2000 alone.

RPK.JPG
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I'll be frank, there are many, many logical issues I have with your lengthy post.

Don't blame you, my logic is never perfect, but if I keep working at the subject I eventually arrive at the desired destination.

But for brevity, I'll just address the one which strikes me as most odd.
Since this discussion is occurring entirely over the internet, and your position is that every single digital picture has the "potential of being manipulated" are you arguing that images should not be taken seriously on-line re. proving or debunking "chemtrails" ?


See above - For the sake of convenience, I have no problem accepting the premise that all photos shown here are legitimate.

I'm glad to see you take a fact-finding trip to the library…more knowledge is always good, and happy to see you
give a pleasant response to my post (above). I am a bit puzzled though, that you didn't address the two points I identified
as the most important:

A) Since in the video you see Mick opening the books and turning pages, showing not just old contrail pictures but also
old text about contrail formation, doesn't it follow that Mick would have had to fake the books--not just static scanned images?

B) What is the most likely reason that those who attack Mick and his "chemtrail" debunking don't take the absurdly
easy step of getting used copies of these books arguing that he is misrepresenting the copy or pictures in them
(which make absolutely clear that there's nothing new about this phenomenon, entirely disproving their claim)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Here are a few scans of prints made in early 2000's I found on my hard drive. (not sure if this will work or not, first time trying to insert images here
love them! you're like me, gloomy pics.

I thought you meant city Chicago. (didn't know there was country Chicago to tell the truth) which may explain flight paths also. I don't get many contrails where I am compared to most 'chemtrail' posters who live in grided flight path areas.

surprised the library only had 3 books. books.google.com sometimes has full books you can browse.unfortunately they are not all complete, this 1980 book mentions contrails and pics, but the pics aren't shown ; (
I googled books, contrail and this was the first pre 1990 I stumbled on. I'm sure there are a ton of others!

ps ive seen early stuff call them vapor trails. or vapour trails
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
would love to see a sampling of some of your landscapes, kinda curious what "city landscapes" look like. I will concur with you though, having spent ALOT of time in NYC I cant recall ever seeing contrails either. not that I ever looked or took pics in NY that included the sky really...well at few at Central Park would have sky (will have to dig them out and look for contrails ; )

The only reason to look up in NY really is to see if an air conditioner is about to fall on your head o_O

Heck, even today, when I am quite aware of what all these folks are calling "chemtrails", I STILL rarely see a contrail. Sometimes I don't notice a plane leaving a trail unless I LOOK for one. Otherwise it doesn't register. I just see the blue sky!

By the way, great photos! Love the farmhouse!
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I made the point about photo veracity because if this is a science site, then digital photos should not be used as conclusive evidence.

I don't believe they are being used as conclusive evidence. The pre 1990 contrail digital images are just one piece of evidence one among many many other pieces of evidence.


1) Prior to 2011, I observed no long vapor trails left in the sky from airplanes. For visual proof, in case I want to question the validity of my memory, I have over 20,000 landscape film negatives (exposed from 1991-2009) which show not a single instance of long vapor trails in the sky.

William Thomas is an investigative journalists who is widely regarded as the originator of the 'chemtrail' conspiracy. He claims that long lasting ("sky obscuring") trails started in the mid to late 90's. He's published his findings in an ebook that can be found on his website.

I find it odd that the man responsible for discovering long lasting trails, the godfather of the chemtrail conspiracy, has been observing persistent spreading trails for a dozen years prior to you having discovered them. In fact, many of the most vocal leaders of the movement claim that lasting trails started much earlier than 2011.

Have you contacted any of them to help you decipher what you once saw, and what you are seeing now?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
heres a Chicago shot early 1960s the Marina TOwers construction. Not sure whats happening with these contrails here.

ch60marinatowers.jpg
 
Despite your initial post this infers you have already decided to believe the chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Interesting point, but it is not so simple due to the entanglement of ideas, memories, beliefs, emotions, etc. It comes down to : 1) past sky appears in memory and personal photos to be a certain way. 2) Present sky appears to have changed in quality and form due to aircraft contrails. 3) If aircraft contrails have existed as long as planes have, why the change?

I have no belief in chemtrails at the moment. What I do believe is that there has been a change in present sky conditions. Chemtrail believers are asserting the change is caused by sprayed aerosols. Contrail science claims there has been little to no sky change, or the change is caused by an increase in aircraft.

--

Do you remember what that book was called?

It was The Cloudspotter's Guide. I found this review on Amazon describing the chapter on contrails - "The twelfth chapter is ostensibly about contrails (which the author rails against), but is really an enviro-alarmist bit about how high flying jets can be contributing to global warming (right)."

--

The "white outs" created by persisting, spreading contrails have also been observed since the birth of aviation. Here is a study done in 1969 studying just that - complete with pictures:

Thank you for the link to excellent article, along with pictures. I am coming to realize that while my experience in observing the sky had little to do with contrails, contrails were numerous, and white outs occurred. If I could simply recall memories of white outs, I could put this whole thing to rest, but the fact is I don't have recollections of them until somewhat recently (past few years).

--

I am a bit puzzled though, that you didn't address the two points I identified as the most important

Mick's video definitely shows the authenticity of the book. I had not seen it until you mentioned it.

(which make absolutely clear that there's nothing new about this phenomenon, entirely disproving their claim)

If people are claiming contrails did not exist prior to a certain date, and an old book shows pictures of contrails, yes, case closed on that one.

My observation is as follows - 1) contrails and white-outs existed in the past 2) present day contrails and white-outs are more numerous than in past. 3) What is cause of change?

It may be as simple as increased air traffic. It may be chemtrails. It may be something else.

--

I thought you meant city Chicago

Great pic of the Marina Towers being constructed, and quite the odd contrail.

I lived downtown from 1991-1996. Have apprx 10,000 negs of the city. I moved downstate in 1997. I could not find many pics of the city on my hard drive, but here is one near the Marina Towers, which are just out of sight on the right bank, foggy morning.




--

I find it odd that the man responsible for discovering long lasting trails, the godfather of the chemtrail conspiracy, has been observing persistent spreading trails for a dozen years prior to you having discovered them. In fact, many of the most vocal leaders of the movement claim that lasting trails started much earlier than 2011.

Have you contacted any of them to help you decipher what you once saw, and what you are seeing now?

Have not contacted anyone, as I am just beginning to research this subject.

Yes, it is odd that I did not notice or photograph contrails in the late 90's and the first decade of 2000, while others did. I don't have an explanation for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Great pic of the Marina Towers being constructed, and quite the odd contrail.

I lived downtown from 1991-1996. Have apprx 10,000 negs of the city. I moved downstate in 1997. I could not find many pics of the city on my hard drive, but here is one near the Marina Towers, which are just out of sight on the right bank, foggy morning.

[Broken External Image]:
.......

Have not contacted anyone, as I am just beginning to research this subject.

Yes, it is odd that I did not notice or photograph contrails in the late 90's and the first decade of 2000, while others did. I don't have an explanation for it.
BEAUTIFUL pic! I found it here http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2hi2p9u&s=8#.U0mDJPmCcc0 that sky looks pretty 'white out' ; )


perhaps you can look at flight path data for your area to see the increase in flight traffic. (others can help with links for that)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
It may be as simple as increased air traffic. It may be chemtrails. It may be something else.

Firstly, with a (personal knowledge and experience, from a long history in aviation): No, there simply are no such things as "chem"trails. (**)

The 'something else' that you referred to? Just contrails. A contrail is merely a type of cirrus cloud. Nothing 'odd' about it, except that it is of course man-made (in the sense that it is a factor of our use of technology, in our environment). But, that's it.

(**)P.S.: In a pedantic use of the term, one could refer to crop-dusting as a "chem"trail. But, such activities are accomplished VERY near to the ground, to source them, and provide maximal effect.

(**)P.P.S.: Anecdotal -- some Flight Attendants that I used to work with (when I was a pilot for a major U.S.-based airline) would jokingly refer to the term "crop dusting" when they happened to walk down the aisle between seats, in the cabin, and let out a fart. So, that could also, in a very loose sense (pun), be considered a "chem"trail too. ;)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Efftup I might be wrong on this......... for once. General Discussion 10
Related Articles

Related Articles

Top