Are chemtrails REALLY something 'relatively' new?

I was watching "The Hills Have Eyes" again tonight, and felt inspired to look up some stuff regarding A-Bombs. After a long read, and watching a few videos on the detonation of these bombs, something caught my eye at around 2:28 into this video. It looks like our modern day so called chemtrails, in a much earlier video. Bear with me here I'm not sure on how to embed a video yet, as I haven't had to do so yet. But I will try my best!

a reply to: ThisIsMyRifle

Ok, so it wasn't from as early as I was thinking (1930s).

Contrails (short for aircraft condensation trails) persist when they are formed at a sufficiently low temperature for them to become frozen before they evaporate. Then because of different winds at different levels, they may be spread over the sky to form a layer of artificial cirrus. Sometimes the air is sufficiently dry for the ice cloud to evaporate in ten minutes or so; but often it may last for several hours.

"A Color Guide to Clouds" (1963) Page 44
Found image here.

Some cool old pics: Contrails Through History

Contrails have been around as long as airplanes have. I don't believe in the chem trail theories so if they are true I couldn't say how far back they go.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Well, if you count meteors in the atmosphere… a long time.

Not many have been captured on film or video. Theres the Russian one, obviously.

Heres a near miss from the past, sorry about the quality:

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming, reflecting the suns' rays back to space and all. And from what I've seen, the worry about global warming has only been around since the mid 1970's. But this video is from somewhere in the 1940-50s.

Chemtrails are said to be chemicals, Chromium and such dispersed in the air, not natural condensation. Norm planes, the big ones, 737s and up do leave a trail behind them, but when I witness those myself, the contrail doesn't last very long. Who's to say what these really are? Not me. I'm just saying I found these so called 'chemtrails' in a much earlier video than when they supposedly came on the scene and caused such a controversy.

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails.

How do you tell the difference?

What makes you say what's in the video you posted is a chemtrail, and not a contrail?

a reply to: ThisIsMyRifle

if one is going to make a distinction between aledged " chemtrail " and contrails of variable persistence

one first has to explain the mechanism of identification - ie - how does an observer determine if a given trail is a contrail or aledged " chemtrail "

and FFS please don't say " persistence " - as contrail persistence ia function of air temp , absolute humidity , dewpoint , airpressure .

and obviously contrail persistence will vary in response to local conditions

side-note - to stymie chemtrail proponents who bring up " persisance argument " - ask them one simple two part question :

what factors determine cloud formation and persistence ?

but I digress

the pertinent question for this thread is :

how does an observer determine if a given trail is a conytrail or alledged " chemtrail "

over to the chemtrail proponents

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming

They were supposedly to kill us all when the hoax first surfaced. The geoengineering association has been tagged on in recent years to give the hoax some veneer of authenticity

The lines filling our skies are not contrails. The lines are dispersed and may linger for hours, slowly filtering down to unsuspecting pests, and I guess we’re the PESTS.

goodsky.homestead.com...

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming, reflecting the suns' rays back to space and all. And from what I've seen, the worry about global warming has only been around since the mid 1970's. But this video is from somewhere in the 1940-50s.

Chemtrails are said to be chemicals, Chromium and such dispersed in the air, not natural condensation. Norm planes, the big ones, 737s and up do leave a trail behind them, but when I witness those myself, the contrail doesn't last very long. Who's to say what these really are? Not me. I'm just saying I found these so called 'chemtrails' in a much earlier video than when they supposedly came on the scene and caused such a controversy.

It's quite simple: chemtrails don't exist, and every single line in the sky that has been labelled a "chemtrail" is actually a contrail. Sometimes they last a few seconds, sometimes they last a few hours. Why? Why do clouds sometimes last for hours and sometimes don't form at all? Same reason: humidity.

Contrails have been around ever since planes have been flying at high altitude.

There's a whole thread full of old photos of them here.

All you have to do is look at old movies and you'll see loads of contrails.



Something of a problem when the films are meant to be set in ancient times, as in Spartacus (1960: I believe this actual scene was filmed in 1959, in Spain)...




Of course, this is something of a thorn in the side of chemtrail believers, who claim that persistent contrails are a new thing. So, of course, they do what chemtrail believers always do: lie, and say that such trails have been digitally inserted into every single copy of these old movies in existence.

Of course.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming, reflecting the suns' rays back to space and all. And from what I've seen, the worry about global warming has only been around since the mid 1970's. But this video is from somewhere in the 1940-50s.

Chemtrails are said to be chemicals, Chromium and such dispersed in the air, not natural condensation. Norm planes, the big ones, 737s and up do leave a trail behind them, but when I witness those myself, the contrail doesn't last very long. Who's to say what these really are? Not me. I'm just saying I found these so called 'chemtrails' in a much earlier video than when they supposedly came on the scene and caused such a controversy.

Of course, this is something of a thorn in the side of chemtrail believers, who claim that persistent contrails are a new thing. So, of course, they do what chemtrail believers always do: lie, and say that such trails have been digitally inserted into every single copy of these old movies in existence.

Of course.

Or they change the claim to match reality and say that chemtrails have been around for that long actually. Which I presume must mean that all those people who have sworn blind that they never saw these trails growing up have unreliable memories as the debunkers have been saying all along

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming, reflecting the suns' rays back to space and all. And from what I've seen, the worry about global warming has only been around since the mid 1970's. But this video is from somewhere in the 1940-50s.

Chemtrails are said to be chemicals, Chromium and such dispersed in the air, not natural condensation. Norm planes, the big ones, 737s and up do leave a trail behind them, but when I witness those myself, the contrail doesn't last very long. Who's to say what these really are? Not me. I'm just saying I found these so called 'chemtrails' in a much earlier video than when they supposedly came on the scene and caused such a controversy.

Of course, this is something of a thorn in the side of chemtrail believers, who claim that persistent contrails are a new thing. So, of course, they do what chemtrail believers always do: lie, and say that such trails have been digitally inserted into every single copy of these old movies in existence.

Of course.

Or they change the claim to match reality and say that chemtrails have been around for that long actually. Which I presume must mean that all those people who have sworn blind that they never saw these trails growing up have unreliable memories as the debunkers have been saying all along

I don't have a dog in the fight but how long back are we talking that people said they never saw them when growing up?

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

But I was talking Chemtrails not contrails. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but I thought chemtrails were a supposed 'cure' for global warming, reflecting the suns' rays back to space and all. And from what I've seen, the worry about global warming has only been around since the mid 1970's. But this video is from somewhere in the 1940-50s.

Chemtrails are said to be chemicals, Chromium and such dispersed in the air, not natural condensation. Norm planes, the big ones, 737s and up do leave a trail behind them, but when I witness those myself, the contrail doesn't last very long. Who's to say what these really are? Not me. I'm just saying I found these so called 'chemtrails' in a much earlier video than when they supposedly came on the scene and caused such a controversy.

Of course, this is something of a thorn in the side of chemtrail believers, who claim that persistent contrails are a new thing. So, of course, they do what chemtrail believers always do: lie, and say that such trails have been digitally inserted into every single copy of these old movies in existence.

Of course.

Or they change the claim to match reality and say that chemtrails have been around for that long actually. Which I presume must mean that all those people who have sworn blind that they never saw these trails growing up have unreliable memories as the debunkers have been saying all along

I don't have a dog in the fight but how long back are we talking that people said they never saw them when growing up?

Usually before the 90's but as with so many things connected with the chemtrail hoax, it varies

a reply to: ignorant_ape

how does an observer determine if a given trail is a contrail or alledged " chemtrail "

We're not supposed to. The chemtrail Internet blather is a distraction from the real problem regards pollution generated by burning all that jet fuel, at altitude or around airports.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ignorant_ape

how does an observer determine if a given trail is a contrail or alledged " chemtrail "

We're not supposed to. The chemtrail Internet blather is a distraction from the real problem regards pollution generated by burning all that jet fuel, at altitude or around airports.

To which my response is always: why planes? Why aren't chemtrail activists camping at petrol stations protesting against vehicles?

Modern jet engines are incredibly efficient and clean-burning compared to the smokey old wrecks I see driving around on the roads.

And why do they always take photos of contrails, when there is just as much pollution coming from planes leaving no trail, like this:



In fact more, because this one is climbing rather than cruising!

a reply to: Rob48

To which my response is always: why planes? Why aren't chemtrail activists camping at petrol stations protesting against vehicles?

Well, this is a thread about "Chemtrails", but I don't own a car.

Modern jet engines are incredibly efficient and clean-burning…

Clean Exhaust?

files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Rob48

Clean Exhaust?

20 grams of soot per tonne of fuel burnt? That's 0.002%.

In fact even if you add up ALL those emissions, using the highest of those figures, you get less than 25kg of "other" emissions, compared to almost four and a half tonnes of water and CO₂.

So out of all the emissions from an aircraft:

71.4% is CO₂
28.1% is water
0.5% is other substances, chiefly NOx.


Compare that to a car exhaust.

Note that for a plane, you get only about 0.1-0.7kg (100 - 700 grams) of hydrocarbon (CxHy) emissions PER TONNE of fuel.

For a car, the typical amount is 2.8 grams per MILE, or about 100 grams per GALLON assuming 35mpg.

A gallon of petrol weighs about 2.8 kg, so that's 0.1 kg x (1000 / 2.8) = 35 kg per tonne!

Even assuming the worst-case scenario for jet engines of 0.7 kg per tonne, a car engine produces FIFTY TIMES MORE unburnt hydrocarbon pollution from the same volume of fuel.

Yeah I'd say that's pretty clean exhaust!

a reply to: intrptr

while your counter-point is superficially correct - yes pollution from air-transport is a problem

lets have the reality check - UK transport stats - petrochemical consumption 2013 - / thousand tons

aviation - < 13000

road transport - 35000

source DUKES

I will caveat those fighres with the suspicion that " road transport " includes rail use and further "aviation " only counts consumption that is freueled on the ground in the UK - ie a flight from NY to berlin via heathrow [ that received no refuelling @ heathrow ] would not have its fuel use added to the UK figure

a reply to: ignorant_ape
And besides, the pollution issue has nothing to do with chemtrails. The chemtrail theory is that chemicals — nothing to do with jet exhaust — are being deliberately sprayed from special nozzles and that it is these that create the trails in the sky.

How this nonsense ever became a widespread theory is one of the great mysteries of our time!

originally posted by: Rob48
How this nonsense ever became a widespread theory is one of the great mysteries of our time!

Actually, this one has something concrete to point at, whereas the reptilians from inner Earth.......not so much.

Gullible folks needing desperately to have a boogyman to blame for things is my theory.

It's the most inefficient conspiracy ever though. Been around for 25 years, still has not affected global warming, population, blocking the sun. But it has done a smashing job of hiding Niburu. So it's not all wasted effort.

a reply to: Rob48

Even assuming the worst-case scenario for jet engines of 0.7 kg per tonne, a car engine produces FIFTY TIMES MORE unburnt hydrocarbon pollution from the same volume of fuel.

Yeah I'd say that's pretty clean exhaust!

you did say "clean" in your earlier post. Do your "sorta clean" emission figures factor in runway taxing and takeoff?

Or the refining and drilling process as well as the transport of that fuel to the airport?

One last thing: car emissions block less sunlight than planes emissions do over a wider area.

I'm not breathing in this stuff anymore… done here.

a reply to: Rob48

How this nonsense ever became a widespread theory is one of the great mysteries of our time!

Thats why I said "mystery spraying" is designed to distract us from the real issue of pollution.

Kind of like 911.

Talk of how the buildings fell eclipses whom was behind it and why.

Future generations will be overwhelmed trying to get at the truth for the nano demo thermite foot print crap.