Useful Chemtrail Debunking Images and Infographics

Last edited:
I was looking for pictures of aerodynamic contrails from gliders and found these pictures; however, I'm wondering if perhaps these are smoke generated for show?
I was hoping to find a picture of an aerodynamic trail that persisted and spread from an engine-less aircraft, but I don't know if these would exist as gliders fly too low and slow to make that sort of persisting contrail?
8532852833_ffcdb3f433_z.jpg
glider-aerobatics-david-gehman.jpg
Contrails-and-Smoke.jpg
flat,550x550,075,f.jpg
 
The third one is rather informative, and shows clearly that when an artificial chemical is deliberately released from an aircraft such as the wingtip smoke flare on the glider, there is no clear air gap between the point of exit , ie, the nozzle and the trail. In contrast the contrail from the jet has a clear gap of almost half a fuselage length from the engine to the start of the trail because of the time it takes for the hot invisible water vapour from the exhaust to condense and freeze into ice crystals.
 
The third one is rather informative, and shows clearly that when an artificial chemical is deliberately released from an aircraft such as the wingtip smoke flare on the glider, there is no clear air gap between the point of exit , ie, the nozzle and the trail. In contrast the contrail from the jet has a clear gap of almost half a fuselage length from the engine to the start of the trail because of the time it takes for the hot invisible water vapour from the exhaust to condense and freeze into ice crystals.

These are definitely smoke, here's the actual smoke generator from the third photo:

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=275818


But "no gap" also happens with aerodynamic contrails. You can tell these are not aerodynamic contrails because they persist for too long.

Aerodynamic contrail from an engineless aircraft (at least one with the engines switched off):



Technically you probably could get an aerodynamic contrail from a glider. It's just rather unlikely. The high humidity required would probably be a factor, as gliders tend to fly only in nice weather, for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Can an aerodynamic contrail persist and spread? That was what I was looking for. Any photos of experimental high-altitude gliders in action?
 
Can an aerodynamic contrail persist and spread? That was what I was looking for. Any photos of experimental high-altitude gliders in action?

Only if it forms in an ice-supersaturate region. Most aerodynamic contrails form at relatively low altitudes, relative humidity with respect to water is below 100% so the trails are short-lived.

The lift on a glider's wing might be too low to make much of a contrail, if at all.
 
A sequence in this glossy documentary (" ... From Above" type) introduces a 'hail buster'.
Good shots of the flare-like silver iodide dispenser. Narration in German.

A stupid rule in Germany limits the availability of the online video to seven days (from yesterday). If someone should find it useful, creating a local copy may be advised.

The sequence in question starts at 24:27

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beit...n-oben-3-Land---in-HD%21?bc=sts;suc&flash=off
 
A sequence in this glossy documentary (" ... From Above" type) introduces a 'hail buster'.
Good shots of the flare-like silver iodide dispenser. Narration in German.

A stupid rule in Germany limits the availability of the online video to seven days (from yesterday). If someone should find it useful, creating a local copy may be advised.

The sequence in question starts at 24:27

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beit...n-oben-3-Land---in-HD%21?bc=sts;suc&flash=off

You should able to download it directly from: http://nrodl.zdf.de/none/zdf/13/05/130522_dvo3_landhd_tex_1596k_p13v9.mp4 518 MB though.

Here's a 3 minute 30MB clip of the cloud seeding sequence:

https://www.metabunk.org/files/Deutschland von oben 3 - Cloud Seeding clip.mov

It shows nicely what cloud seeding looks like ... small plane in a cloud with no visible trails.

 
Last edited:
Vädersolstavlan

(Swedish for "The Sun Dog Painting")

Artist Urban Målare, Jacob Elbfas
Year 1535, 1636
Type Oil-on-panel
Dimensions 163 cm × 110 cm (64 in × 43 in)
Location Storkyrkan, Stockholm


Maybe the earliest depiction of an Atmospheric Halo, 22deg. halo, parhelic circle, with sun dogs.

...interesting quote from the top link:
Sun dogs were apparently well-known during the Middle Ages, as they are mentioned in the Old Farmer's Almanac (Bondepraktikan) which states that the phenomenon forecasts strong winds, and also rain if the sun dogs are more pale than red.
According to the passage in the Vasa Chronicle, however, both Petri and the master of the mint Anders Hansson were sincerely troubled by the appearance of these sun dogs. Petri interpreted the signs over Stockholm as a warning from God and had the Vädersolstavlan painting produced and hung in front of his congregation.
Notwithstanding this devotion, he was far from certain on how to interpret these signs and in a sermon delivered in late summer 1535, he explained there are two kinds of omens: one produced by the Devil to allure mankind away from God, and another produced by God to attract mankind away from the Devil — one being hopelessly difficult to tell from the other. He therefore saw it as his duty to warn both his congregation, mostly composed of German burghers united by their conspiracy against the king, and the king himself.
Content from External Source

Credit: User: Ben-Zin on german wikipedia, there NOAA, original "Bild:Halo.jpg" in german wikipedia uploaded by (9. Okt 2002), reuploaded by de:Benutzer:Karl Bednarik (15. Feb 2004) after filename conflict
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know where to put this, and maybe it's old news for people here, but just look at this:

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/index.html#.Ue8PdtK1GSp

Look at the organization and work which has gone into this. I'm just amazed. It's mostly based on the notion that normal contrails are so rare that most people have never seen one, but it is greatly fleshed-out, with page after page of details and conspiracy stuff. No wonder people believe this stuff. Anybody ever deal directly with this guy? Move this post or just delete it, if it's not of interest.
 
I don't know where to put this, and maybe it's old news for people here, but just look at this:

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/index.html#.Ue8PdtK1GSp

Look at the organization and work which has gone into this. I'm just amazed. It's mostly based on the notion that normal contrails are so rare that most people have never seen one, but it is greatly fleshed-out, with page after page of details and conspiracy stuff. No wonder people believe this stuff. Anybody ever deal directly with this guy? Move this post or just delete it, if it's not of interest.

Yeah, try a search here for Russ Tanner, he's come up before.
 
Yes, I see. I assume his story about professional airline pilots contacting him to thank him and stating that they have never seen a contrail come from a jet engine is just a flat-out lie.
 
Could just be people pulling the wool over his eyes, knowing he is gullible enough to accept anything which might confirm his previous beliefs.
 
Could just be people pulling the wool over his eyes, knowing he is gullible enough to accept anything which might confirm his previous beliefs.
(I'm assuming you are referring to Hamma Neggs' comment about Russ Tanner and his airline pilots story.)
He talks about disinfo agents, pretending to be supporters of the fight who saying outrageous things to discredit him and his followers (such as his example of the caller asking for funding to shoot down, Dane's response to that, etc).
These "airline pilots" could well be disinfo agents, actually supporters of the fight and possibly his own followers, phoning him pretending to be airline pilots. I suppose that is what you mean by "people pulling the wool over his eyes". I'm suggesting it's his own people, or at least chemtrail believers from the wider field.
 
this image is oddly very beautiful in its own way. Like the recent Hubble photographs of the celestial bodies. What a great way to see information!
~TEU



Smaller:
[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original is probably on this page: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2393.html

Portrait of Global Aerosols
High-resolution global atmospheric modeling run on the Discover supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., provides a unique tool to study the role of weather in Earth's climate system. The Goddard Earth Observing System Model, Version 5 (GEOS-5) is capable of simulating worldwide weather at resolutions of 10 to 3.5 kilometers (km).

This portrait of global aerosols was produced by a GEOS-5 simulation at a 10-kilometer resolution. Dust (red) is lifted from the surface, sea salt (blue) swirls inside cyclones, smoke (green) rises from fires, and sulfate particles (white) stream from volcanoes and fossil fuel emissions.

Image credit: William Putman, NASA/Goddard
Content from External Source
 
Stumbled on these 2 stories on contrails from the daily mail. For those of you not from the UK, this is the tabloid that routinely prints sensationalist populist nonsense, blames everything on immigrants and the eu, thinks global warming is a hoax and gets outraged about porn but yet is creepily obsessed with women's bodies.

Anyway, the 2 stories actually put across the basic science reasonably well, and contain some good pictures, although the second does whip up a little hysteria about the contrails blocking the sun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...pture-commercial-jet-engine-trails-space.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ttack-vapours--jet-trails-block-sunshine.html

The best thing though is this diagram in the second article.


Oh, and the comments, which are hilarious. Of course it is all a part of the big disinformation campaign...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I understand the contrail formation process, there are some problems with that diagram.
It does not mention condensation.
It points to small blue balls in two places and labels them as "water vapour" in one place and "water droplets" in another.
Sulphates, Nitrates and soot (combustion products) play more of a role in the formation, especially the freezing, than the hydrocarbons (from incomplete combustion).
It shows no gap at all between trails and the engine. The red shading, I suppose, is meant to represent high gas temperature; so what does the white represent?

I suppose the problem is how to illustrate that the trail becomes visible (condensation) where the mixture of exhaust + environment reaches water saturation. Freezing of all the condensed vapour then follows aided by the sulphates, nitrates and soot, and possibly ice that froze just earlier, but I think the latter is a small player (I could be wrong). The resulting ice particles grow by the deposition of surplus vapour in the ice-supersaturated air of the environment to form the cirrus we eventually see. There are some schematics sketches that do show this in the literature.
 
Yeah, it's a rather confused diagram. Better than nothing I suppose. At least the end result is essentially correct. Jet engines make water, which makes clouds. It's a start.
 
it mentions condensation in item 3 - "These crystals act as nuclei around which more water condenses...."
 
it mentions condensation in item 3 - "These crystals act as nuclei around which more water condenses...."

Which is wrong. As it accretes (turns from gas to solid). It condenses in step 2, where they say it freezes. Backwards.
 
Yes, it has the process all wrong. "condensation" is there in completely the wrong place which is why I missed it!
 
This isn't a graphic, but I don't know where to post it. It's Rosalind Peterson admitting to having no proof of chemtrails. Enjoy. If this is old news, just delete it.

QUOTE ROSALIND PETERSON: "In 10 years of research..... I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions."
 
Last edited:
Which is wrong. As it accretes (turns from gas to solid). It condenses in step 2, where they say it freezes. Backwards.
I think accretion is the process of super cooled water freezing on contact with an existing ice crystal, deposition is the phase change from gas to solid.

I think the issue with the diagram is there are many processes going on in cloud physics, condense and freeze are the 2 that are probably best understood by the general public.

From what I remember for persistent contrails, we essentially need an environment in which (after the addition of water vapor from the exhaust) the vapor pressure is greater than that for saturation with respect to water (i think if it is greater than that with respect to ice, but not water then a contrail will form, but will not be persistent).
Then, there are quite a few physical processes going on...

Water vapor condensing onto cloud condensation nuclei (of which there are many) to form super cooled water droplets.
If the air is cooler than around -40c, super cooled water freezing spontaneously to form ice crystals (think this is where the -40 rule of thumb comes from).
Ice crystals forming (and growing) through deposition of water vapor onto ice nuclei (much less common than regular condensation nuclei from what I remember)
Ice crystals growing through accretion with liquid water.
Ice crystals growing through aggregation (bumping into each other and sticking together)

So I guess you could sum it up as..
Water vapor condenses into water droplets
Water droplets freeze to make ice crystals
Ice crystals grow through deposition, accretion and aggregation.
Ice crystals = clouds

Water's a tricky substance... I remember when being taught met our lecturer commenting on how lucky we are that water can exist in all 3 phases at the temperatures found in the troposphere, and if it weren't for this we'd have no clouds or rain
 
I think accretion is the process of super cooled water freezing on contact with an existing ice crystal, deposition is the phase change from gas to solid.

Ah, I've been using accretion exchangeably with deposition. Darn, I've got a bit of editing to do.
 
I have a chart that I have screenshot in 3 different poses.

Here they are:
The axes are temperature (horizontal) and water vapour partial pressure (vertical).
The static parts show the saturation vapour pressure with respect to ice, and the saturation vapour pressure with respect to water.
The area below the ice line is unsaturated, and cloud won't form there; any cloud in this region will eventually dissipate.

The area between the ice line and the water line is where the air is supersaturated with respect to ice, but unsaturated with respect to water.
In the presence of ice, there is a surplus of water vapour and it will deposit on any ice present until the water vapour partial pressure decreases below the saturation pressure for ice. If there is supercooled liquid water in this region it will evaporate because this region is unsaturated with respect to water.

Above the water line is saturated with respect to water, and will be in cloud - either of ice crystals or supercooled water droplets.

For condensation or freezing to occur, there must be cloud condensation nuclei (CCN, for condensation) or freezing nuclei (FN, for freezing).
There is an abundance of CCN in the atmosphere, so moist air brought above the blue line (by any process; cooling, mixing) will immediately and spontaneously condense to form a visible cloud.
In the atmosphere there are very few FN, so air brought into the region between the ice and water line will not form an ice cloud unless some freezing nuclei turn up.

The variable part of the charts is a line that represents the mixing of exhaust gasses (from way up to the top right, "off the chart"), and the environment (bottom, labelled).
The Relative Humidity with respect to ice (RHw) and with respect to ice (RHi) is shown as a percentage.
These are formed by the ratio between the water vapour pressure (WVP) of the environment and the saturation WVP with respect to water (blue), and the saturation WVP with respect to ice (cyan), respectively (vertical lines in red, blue and cyan).

This first pose of this chart represents the jet exhaust gasses mixing with the environment and NOT forming a contrail.
Even though the mixture is ice saturated for a while, it is never water saturated - it never crosses the water saturation line.
TvVP_noContrail.png


The second pose represents the jet exhaust gasses mixing with the environment and forming an ephemeral contrail.
The mixture condenses where the temperature is about -38°C (in this case). The droplets of supercooled water freeze by various processes, spontaneously if the temperature is below about -42°C, or seeded by soot, or sulphur dioxide in solution (H2SO4), nitrate, etc.
Mixing continues out of the water saturation zone with no change since there is no water - it's all ice particles/crystals.
Mixing continues (towards the environment condition) through the ice saturated zone, and out. Now the ice is in the unsaturated zone, and starts to evaporate, and so the contrail dissipates.
TvVP_EphemeralContrail.png

The third pose of this chart represents the jet exhaust gasses mixing with the environment and forming an persistent contrail.
The mixture condenses where the temperature is about -36°C (in this case). The droplets of supercooled water freeze by various processes, as in the pose above.
Mixing continues out of the water saturation zone with no change since it's all ice particles/crystals.
Mixing continues towards the environment condition which is in this case is in side the ice-supersaturated zone.
Now the ice cannot evaporate - the air is already ice saturated. So the contrail persists, and the individual ice crystals grow in size by the deposition of the surplus water vapour directly onto the ice.
TvVP_PersistentContrail.png
 
Thanks Ross. NASA has less technical version of the same charts that they have been using for years as part of the contrail education program.
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/co...s/Contrail_ID_Chart_English_2013_v18_copy.pdf


It's a difficult concept to convey to the unscientific.

Yes, aside from slip up with using "condense" in the wrong place I think the diagram from the mail does a really good job. It gives a basic description of what is going on in language that makes logical sense to people not familiar with contrails.

Engines produce water, which is what clouds are made of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then there's this classic explanation from 1943, essentially the same:
From 1943! That's brilliant!

Incidentally, does anyone know where "normal contrails don't persist" idea originated?

It is the bedrock of the Chemtrails theory and yet unlike almost all their other claims they never cite any "evidence" to support it.

E.g. The Govt. is geo engineering because we found a patent.
Contrails don't persist because..... ???

At least with their other ideas there is some flawed logic behind them, but with the key one that underpins the whole theory and is often the first thing mentioned to people new to the conspiracy to get them to believe it, there is no logic behind it at all, no supporting argument whatsoever! (Well, aside from "I don't remember them doing that when I was younger").

Unfortunately, it seems that when you point this out to people they are so far indoctrinated that they essentially believe all the scientific research that contradicts their theory has been fabricated by the government.

If the govt was clever enough to create fake science saying contrails persist and destroy science saying they didn't, how come they forgot to cover up the patents on geo engineering and research into cloud seeding etc.??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep asking them that question. They don't ever have an answer. The most common thing is "your breath does not persist on a cold day"
 
Thanks.
The charts I posted there have scaled axes, and the saturation vapor pressure lines have been calculated and are drawn correctly.
In addition, I hope I have explained the difference between RHw and RHi, and how they are calculated.
 
But, actually, on a cold enough and humid enough day, it totally does!

Indeed it does. I discussed this with Dane, and he asked why (in Alaska) it does not leave a long trail behind you like a jet engine. I explained this is because people are a lot smaller than a jet engine, and a lot closer to the trail than a viewer 6 miles below. He seemed unconvinced.
 
The other (obvious) thing is that it doesn't happen every day, but on certain (ice fog) days, it does happen. It is most noticeable with vehicle exhausts.
 
Back
Top