Home » contrails » Chemtrail Myths

Chemtrail Myths

Some people believe that the government is spraying something into the air, and this creates unsual looking contrails. They call these “chemtrails”. Now, there is no real evidence that “chemtrails” are real, but there are several myths on the internet about “chemtrails”. All these myths can very easily be shown to be false, and I’ve gathered the most popular myths here as a little time-saver for the person who has encountered “chemtrails” for the first time.

Myth #1Normal contrails don’t last very long, but “chemtrails” last for hours and sometimes spread out.

False – Contrails fade away, or persist, or even spread out to cover the sky, depending on the weather conditions. you can confirm this by looking in an encyclopedia. such as the Encyclopædia Britannica

[Contrails] may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

For more info on this myth, read “Persisting and Spreading contrails

Myth #2 Contrails have been observed to persist and spread when the humidity was too low, so they must be “chemtrails”

2004chambersgraph.gifFalse – Nobody has ever measured low humidity within a persisting contrail. The fact is it is very difficult to measure humidity in a specific region at a specific altitude, at a given time, the best you can do is make a rough prediction. Measurements are made by weather balloons at just a few stations that average 235 miles apart, at 12 hour intervals, and then local predictions are extrapolated from this. The weather balloons can drift as much as 100 miles in their ascent, so you never know where the measurements are coming from. Humidity can vary by as much as 80% in a 12 hour period, and vary by similar amount over just a few miles. The fact that the contrail is spreading is actually a far more accurate indicator of high humidity than the available humidity predictions. NASAs own experiments (right) show persisting contrails over a large range of calculated humidities, even down to 10%.

Myth #3 – Long lasting contrails have appeared in “parallel lines”, “grid” and “X” formations, which are not normal, so must be “chemtrails.

False. Well, the last bit is false. Yes, contrails make all kinds of patterns in the sky, simply because there are a lot of planes flying overhead, and they fly in all directions. This is pretty much a function of where you live, and the prevailing winds. For example, if you live the Willamette Valley, Oregon, the overflying planes are nearly all North/South, so you’ll get parallel lines. If you live live in more central place, like North Texas, you’ll get planes flying overhead in every direction, so you will get “X” patterns (and “H” and “grids”). If there’s enough wind, and the trails last long enough, then the grid might spread out to cover the sky.

Myth #4 – A bill to ban chemtrails was introduced into congress by Dennis Kucinich, but quickly had chemtrails edited out.

False – HR 2977 was written by a bunch of UFO enthusiasts intent on exposing a conspiracy to suppress alien technology. Dennis Kucinich did not write the bill, he not know what chemtrails were, and when he found out, he distanced himself from that language. The bill was re-written in order that it might pass. See the full article: Kucinich, Chemtrails and HR 2977.

Myth #5 – Public Law 105-85 gives the military permission to experiment with chemical and biological weapons on humans, without their consent

False – 105-85, Sec. 1078, actually prevents experiments except for peaceful purposes, and those can only be performed if informed consent is obtained from each test subject. It’s basically the same procedure as for human drug trials.


Those myths are really the basis of the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory. There is more, of course, like the halos and sun-dogs that you sometimes see (normal atmospheric optical effects), the dark lines (shadows of varying types), the stuff on the ground (unconnected). But these things really get to the heart of 99% of the chemtrail argument. After they are dispensed with, the theory holds about as much water as alien mind-control implants.

Let me know if you’ve got something else you’d like investigating, and I might add it here.
Just leave a comment below.

1,275 thoughts on “Chemtrail Myths

  1. Stupid says:

    Nate, It’s great that you allow yourself to follow the truth and your logical mind on this issue.
    I can’t tell you what to believe in the 911 or NWO secret plots. Use the same deductive reasoning you used with these other “conspiracies”.
    However, I think (and this is only a suspicion), if you use the same trepidations toward those other ideas and issues, as you did with the “chemtrails” issue….you might find inherent similarities.
    No one can tell you what to think…..but there’s a lot that can tell you what to know.

  2. Stupid says:

    (yes, I know, that saying can go either way)
    …here’s the other way…

    “No one can tell you what to know…..but there’s a lot that can tell you can think.”.

  3. Smoke says:

    Just wondering, from an undecided but skeptical point of view, why hasn’t one of these well funded CT believers chartered a Lear or Citation or something to fly up when this activity is going on in order to gauge the reaction of the offending aircraft. Perhaps some sampling media can be devised to attach to the pursuing aircraft in order to sample the chemtrail.
    It seems that this would be a once and for all determining project. This is especially true for an area that sees frequent activity.
    Go up and get us a nice high-res video of the craft, pilots and contrails.
    Also, has the Live Flight Tracker site ever been used to determine the ID of said CT aircraft? I once noticed a lot of persistent CT’s and observed Flight Tracker to find that these were normal commercial a/c, but I’m sure a more controlled, in depth study could be made in order to end all dispute on the matter. There is even a flight box radar tracker that can be purchased to track live radar targets in real time. This may help to end debate.
    Just some tools for y’all CT’ers to try, in order to be proven absolutely right with no dispute.

  4. captfitch says:

    Nice ideas and all but the chemtrail believer is more in love with the ideas and concepts of chemtrails than actually getting to the truth.

  5. TheFactsMatter says:

    Captfitch, I couldn’t agree more. That’s why it’s a waste of time to post facts and figures. They have already decided that they are going to “believe” in chemtrails no matter what anyone says. IMO, If they really cared about the truth, those behind the “what in the world are they spraying” farce would spent the budget hiring a company to sample the trails instead of making a propaganda video.

  6. That’s why it’s a waste of time to post facts and figures.

    Well, speaking as one who does post facts and figures (as do you all), I’d say it’s only a waste of time in that it’s not going to convert the true believer. But it is interesting and useful information for many other people.

    And occasionally people who you might thing of as true-believers do actually see reason. Janet being a good example (although she saw the light more through her own research, I think).

    And another thing to consider is the the media, like the CBS Atlanta story. Having facts and figures for them is very useful, if your goal is to decrease the amount of pseudoscience in the world.

  7. Janet Detwiler says:

    I found the “facts and figures” very educational, and one of the only places I could find those facts and figures was on contrail science. The problem is getting people to actually read the material. Most CT’s that stumble onto this site have an instant reaction, mostly emotional and angry, and instead of reading much of the info available, they run back to their favorite CT sites and gather YouTubes to post here. More often than not what they offer has been covered already, and when they’re told, “yeah…seen that already, and here’s why that happens” they often get more emotional. Or just leave.

    Unfortunately, I have noticed that people involved in “We Are Change” or spend time reading or listening to Alex Jones are probably not going to read much here. I mean, where would they find the time? CT sites are a dime a dozen, and they are very skilled at getting hits to their web sites with outlandish BS to generate more revenue. Alex Jones is still selling the vaccine hoax, even after all the recent research has come out, but no one who reads or listens to him (or any of the countless others) will probably ever know it’s been completely and 100% debunked.

    I’m very grateful for this site. I suspect a lot of people do read the information on here, especially the facts and figures, and think about things differently.

  8. Janet Detwiler says:

    TheFactsMatter; The people trying to sell chemtrail theory are most likely doing it for profit. I don’t believe for a second any of these people actually believe what they’re saying, so of course they have no interest in conducting any scientific research. Why should they? They’re making a good living selling “chembusters” and survival supplies.

  9. TheFactsMatter says:

    I’m just saying that anyone who has accepted the chemtrail hoax as FACT sees this site as nothing more than propaganda. They “believe” this site only exists to “fool” people into believing that their “government loves them” (of course, it’s nothing of the sort and has nothing to do with government…just science). I’ll admit it…I’m through being a “debunker” (not that I was ever very good at it). I have written the same things over and over and over again and it hasn’t benefited anyone. Your facts and figures are spot on Uncinus. You and I, and some of the others who frequent this site, know it…the “true believers” see it as nothing more than a place where disinformation agents go to brush up on their lies about atmospheric science.

    I agree Janet, these people are disgusting snake-oil salesmen and nothing more. They live off the gullibility of a small section of the population who doesn’t understand the value of actual evidence. I take so much crap from these people about my DEMAND for evidence. Why?! Shouldn’t EVERYONE require evidence to form their conclusions?! Apparently not.

    The information on this site is the same information that is found in any book on the subjects. If they don’t accept the books as anything more than lies from “disinfoagents”, why would they accept the truth as it’s written here?! They won’t. I understand that Uncinus is hoping to help the occasional fence sitter by presenting the information in a very friendly way…great, but he’s making very few friends! if I were him, I’d think twice about posting his real name here!

    That’s why I’d rather just ask those who make accusatory statements to back up their disgusting accusations with some evidence (really, is that so wrong of me?!). Maybe one or two of them will realize just how little evidence they have to support their own beliefs.

  10. JFDee says:

    Maybe one or two of them will realize just how little evidence they have to support their own beliefs”

    Well, they certainly won’t be prepared to realize anything after you enjoyed “pushing their buttons”.
    Somehow I think we have had that argument before, so no more of it.

  11. TheFactsMatter says:

    JFDee, fo.

  12. TheFactsMatter says:

    Again, if Uncinus wants me to stop pushing the buttons of a-hole liars who accuse the people I love and respect of wrongdoing, without evidence, I encourage him to ban me altogether. I honestly won’t mind in the least. I’ll just go elsewhere. I’m just here because I’m not limited by character count as I was on youtube. I have no allegiance to this site or the people who frequent it. In fact, I think you people are way too soft!

    I admit it…I’m a jerk! And I like me that way! These people deserve my wrath! Accusing others of wrongdoing based on pure ignorance is disgusting behavior!

    Trust me, acting all nice-nice is perceived as an act…manipulation…by these people. They are so paranoid that they believe that the words on this site are only placed here to “fool” them into believing that there is nothing wrong with the trails in the sky. If you don’t agree, you (whoever bothers to read this) are just as deluded as the average chemtrail hoax acceptor. No matter how the information is presented to these people, it’s “disinformation”. Yeah, a few who are approached by the chemtrail hoax acceptors will google “chemtrails” and find this site and then realize that it’s a hoax (and their “friends” are stupid), but that type of person would probably come to that conclusion without this site anyway. Anyone who REALLY cares about the truth won’t be as suspicious and paranoid about educational sites (NASA and such) that the chemtrail hoax acceptors have convinced themselves are “in on it”.

    Vilify me all you want…I’m still one of the good guys…and always will be.

    These people don’t need others to coddle them, they need a good slap of reality…right in the kisser!

  13. SR1419 says:


    I guess I have to ask – what is your point?

    Why do you even bother responding to Believers if your bias and belligerence only serves to make them defensive and drive them further from the truth?

    You think they are all “a-hole liars”. That is simply not true. You are as “deluded” as they are if you think this. Some are a-holes for sure- but so are you as you admitted (or at least a jerk)- but most are simply misinformed, lacking critical thinking skills, research skills etc…but genuinely concerned and truly believe what they say…being wrong doesn’t make them “liars”.

    Simply having the “facts” on your side doesn’t make you a “good” guy…its what you do with that knowledge that will determine your worth.

  14. TheFactsMatter says:

    Great…another hypocrite.

    Go ahead and continue to post the same things over and over again for people who won’t believe you in a million years.

    PERSONALLY, I like to ask people to back up their accusatory statements of fact with evidence. If you want to act as a broken record…go for it! But, unless you can show evidence that I’m somehow “driving them further from the truth”, I will ask you to mind your own business and worry about your own interactions with these people.

    And the “liars” I’m referring to are William Thomas, Clifford Carnicom, Rosalind Peterson and the like..and those who accuse us of being “government agents” and “shills” and such. Those ARE lies! If you can’t understand that, you are deluded.

    By the way, get off your high horse! You’re not all that much better.

    Why don’t you guys just go whine to Uncinus and have me banned. Until then, I’ll continue to post what’s on my mind when I want. You can suck it!

  15. SR1419 says:

    I could care less whether you post here or not…its mildly amusing to see you crash and burn in a bluster of insults and ego…

    But Carnicom, et al are not posting here…the “liars” whose buttons you are pushing are the posters here…again, being wrong doesn’t make them liars…

    The evidence for your effect on posters is well documented in the comments on this blog. If you choose to post on a forum then it is anyone’s business…

    I simply wondered why you posted…is it to effect change on people’s thinking? or is it just to insult people as an outlet for your anger?

    How does that make me a hypocrite?

  16. TheFactsMatter says:

    Hey, didn’t I tell you to suck it?!

    And I don’t have to explain my reasons for posting anything to you.

    You can ask me all you want about my reasons for posting here…and why I choose to take the route I have chosen. But, there is nothing that says I have to answer to you.

    But, in the name of goodwill, I’ll try…

    The lies that Carnicom et al are posted here by those who have taken in their lies…and are spreading them. Are you saying you haven’t been accused of being a government agent or a shill? Then again, maybe you are. And can you PLEASE show me where I’ve been anything more than just a bit snooty with my replies?! Where is the “belligerence” and button pushing you are referring to?! What have I written that’s so bad…not including the replies to those on their high horses over the last few days.

    Go ahead, show me what’s so bad!

  17. MikeC says:

    TFM wrote:
    “Great…another hypocrite.
    Go ahead and continue to post the same things over and over again for people who won’t believe you in a million years. ”

    A hypocrite says something or otherwise pretends to have some values that they don’t actually believe in. Continually banging your head against a conspitational brick wall does not make you a hypocrite – it makes you optimistic 🙂

  18. TheFactsMatter says:

    I wasn’t referring to the habit of everyone here behaving like broken records with the hypocrite remark.

    He’s a hypocrite (because he ALSO exhibits some rudeness)


    He posts things over and over for people who won’t believe him in a million years.

    Two separate things.

    Honestly, who is to say I’m responsible for chasing away the hoax believers who would have otherwise accepted everything on this site if it wasn’t for my “belligerence”. What a bunch of hogwash.

    It’s amazing how many perfect people I’m going to have to disassociate myself with just because I’m so rude and have to leave this site because of my “bad” behavior! LOL

    Yup, everyone else but me is perfectly engaging and has done a 100% perfect job in each of their interactions with the hoax believers. I love it! Thanks for the laughs!

  19. SR1419 says:

    ..no, you don’t have to tell me your reason for posting…nor do I have to “suck it” just because you tell me too…

    Calling someone an “A-hole” isn’t belligerent?? You know you have been belligerent many times- didn’t you threaten to stop posting when Uncinus asked you to clean it up…perhaps that was in your previous incarnation…”faithinscience” ?? was that it? “button pushing” were YOUR words that YOU used to describe your interactions.

    However, again I will repeat it…just because someone is misinformed and truly believes what they say- does not make them liars…as in purposefully deceitful…have you ever been wrong? Were you lying?

    You didn’t really answer the question…but the truth is I really don’t care why you post…how you choose to interact with others and present yourself is telling enough.

  20. Again, if Uncinus wants me to stop pushing the buttons of a-hole liars who accuse the people I love and respect of wrongdoing, without evidence, I encourage him to ban me altogether. I honestly won’t mind in the least. I’ll just go elsewhere.

    Okay. I’m going to ban you then. This is not helpful. Thanks for your valuable contributions along the way. I sincerely hope you don’t mind in the least.

  21. Janet Detwiler says:

    GEEZ. I hope I didn’t help start that one off. I was simply trying to say that I appreciate this site, I suspect a lot of people come here and never post anything, but many probably learn something before they go. I’ve also noticed that CT’s are often very angry and emotional when posting, and one of the things I really appreciate about this site is that most people keep it civil. Overly emotional rhetoric is seldom helpful, IMNSHO. Regarding real names ~ The reason I have MY real name posted here is because many people in the CT community’s already know who I am. I don’t believe CT’s are any more dangerous than anyone else, but I do acknowledge there is a risk, albeit a very minor one.

  22. JFDee says:

    Janet, no one is to blame here, I think. There were similar exchanges before which led to nothing or to very little.

    My observation is that staying unmoved in the face of quips or even attacks gives the ‘opponent’ less room for dodging the relevant questions about the facts. Responding likewise will only result in distraction from the issues.

    I find it quite interesting that you bring an ‘insiders’ perspective to the discussion. I would like to know if there was a moment of (or continued) fascination when you started to gather your first informations about CTs. A kind of creepy WOW effect maybe.

    Or was it rather a serious concern from your side?

  23. Janet Detwiler says:

    To JFDee: That’s something I’m trying to get down on paper, so to speak. I can tell you that the sky over the Pacific Northwest was so full of lingering contrails in 2007, it really was something to see. I was trying to figure out what was going on, and of course there were plenty of people wanting to help me.

    My “AHA” moment came when Cliff Carnicom wouldn’t post his research, even though he claimed to have independent lab results for a whole host of toxins in his air filter and drinking water. If I had info like that, every news media outlet would have it too. I’d be giving it away for free.

  24. Artyom says:

    The same people who believe in Chemtrails are the ones posting videos on youtube of the 4th Horseman in the Egyptian riots. They just don’t understand what they see. In that video it is obvious that the fire in video caused lens flare. The so called horseman is really just a piece of the fire reflected and it only moves as the camera pans out to the right. Above in the video, even the street lights have reflections that move off too. Educational system of the world is failing to raise people with good thinking skills. It is really sad.
    The whole contrail/chemtrail controversy should NEVER even exist with just basic knowledge of the atmosphere. A little conventional science and effort would go a long way in making those little gray cells properly fire up and work.

  25. JFDee says:

    Artyom, thats a good example for people craving for a conspiracy. This is not just lack of education IMHO – it’s an active search for “signs”!

    My question for Janet went into the same direction: is there an attraction of the CT theory that is self-feeding, sort of ? Does it probably work as a vehicle for some to make life exciting ?

  26. The same people who believe in Chemtrails are the ones posting videos on youtube of the 4th Horseman in the Egyptian riots.

    Vice versa perhaps, but you can’t make broad statements like that with any accuracy. There’s a huge spectrum of people who have some kind of opinion about the lines in the sky, and not all of them are also crazy pareidolial apocalypse fans. I suspect actually that very few are – just the “true believers”

    Such a characterization is not helpful when trying to engage people in dialog.

  27. Janet Detwiler says:

    JFDee; I think I’ve already posted a great deal of my personal views on the CT phenomenon re: chemtrails, and think the questions above have already been answered. But I do think there is a psychological state-of-mind that hatches such things. Just like anything else scientific, it is complicated. I believe this info is already on the internet, but apparently CT believers have lives that are often not going the way they wish, they are often loners, they sometimes possess highly suggestible personalities, they may or may not have drug and alcohol problems, a few have a “Peter Pan” complex, and yes, it’s a mixed bag.

    The reason I am on this site is not to argue about how smart anyone is or is not. My sincere wish is to help other people who have been led astray by for-profit web sites look at the phenomenon of lingering contrails a little differently.

  28. Janet Detwiler says:

    I can say I wasn’t looking for any more excitement in my life in 2007, if that is the question. But yes, the psychological evidence I’ve read indicates that might be a factor for many people.

  29. investigative mind says:

    Hi Uncinus,
    Thanks for this website. I appreciate hearing other views on a topic before making up my mind. … After viewing “What in the world are they spraying on us” my big question is — why is our soil so high in aluminum? That seems to be the most measurable science and the USDA employee was the most convincing expert. The Ph is recorded science. What is doing the changing to the soil, and to that pond if it isnt something raining down from the air? .. Can you shed light on this?

  30. MikeC says:

    Why do you think the soil has been changed?

    The earth’s crust is about 8% aluminium – it is the most common metal and the 3rd most common element in the crust.

    You should EXPECT soil to have a lot of aluminium in it.

    Soil acidification is another thing – acid soils CAUSE aluminium poisoning – not the other way around.

    Much of the aluminium in soils is in fairly complex molecules – hte simplest is Aluminium oxide – Al2O3 – this is what metallic aluminium forms instantly on contact with oxygen.

    But in acid soils the aluminium can be leached out of its molecules to form Al ions – Al 3+.

    This is a well known phenomena hat has been noted in soil science journals at least as far back as 1921 – Uncinus has a quote about it on one of his pages here. There’s even a wiki page on it – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_soil – note the world map & the mid-west of the USA & Canada…….

    So _if_ there is an increase in aluminium poisoning somewhere I would start looking at the causes of acidification of soil – acid rain was a big thing in the 80’s that seems to have died away as a cause celebe now, but according to that wiki page large amounts of decomposing vegetation are a prime cause of acidification of soil!

    There’s also a corresponding page on alkaline soils – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali_soils

    Monsanto making aluminium resistant crops is often touted as proof that aluminium is being sprayed at hteir behest to make htem vast amounts of money.

    However it seems infinitely more likely that aluminium resistance is something that farmers have been after for a very long time, and genetic engineering now allows it to be grafted into crops that do not have it.

    so yes there’s a lot of money to be made – just look at that map of the world again! To be fair obviously not all the “acidic” soil is so acidic that it would require aluminium resistant crops – but apparently up to 20% of it could be – and that is a massive amount of crop land, and a huge amount of money.

    I see no reason to invent a conspiracy that requires the co-operation and silence of millions worldwide, and the laws of phsyics and chemistry to be bent, when there’s an obvious motive for profit that has been around for almost 100 years!

  31. investigative mind says:

    Ok, read the article but… We were able to grow crops without making aluminum resistant seeds in the past. What has changed? Is this just a failure of crop-rotation, giving the land time to restore and replenish its balance?

    The movie recorded an interview with a retired USDA employee who was horrified and alarmed by changing pH levels. His testimony was the only one that impressed me as having the gravitas of expertise. What he noticed seemed out of the norm to him, and without an easy “erosion” explanation.

  32. We can still grow crops without making aluminum resistant seeds. Just that if they are aluminum resistant then yields will be higher and some areas that were not suitable for crops (for hundreds of years prior) will now be suitable. More money for agribusiness. No conspiracy needed.

    The retired gentleman’s observations may well be correct, but it’s pretty meaningless unless you can put it in a larger picture. Was this just localized? What’s the graph of pH levels in that spot for the last 30 years? What’s the history of lime fertilizer usage in that spot in the same timeframe? What’s the local geology and topography? What about other areas in the same region? What about other regions?

    There’s a vast amount of people studying the quality of their soil. Why has nobody noticed what is claimed to be such a dramatic shift?

  33. investigative mind says:

    Yes, Uncinus, I wonder about all those questions. Part of why I think the “documentary” was questionable was the lack of specifics. Most of the words were emotional babble about fears and very little was data or hard evidence… Thanks for your thoughts on the matter Uncinus and Mike.

  34. Ross Marsden says:

    “emotional babble about fears” – a good, succinct summary of that “film”.

  35. Judy says:

    Does anyone ever wonder about Chicken Little when they read these posts? I mean the purpose of the fables of old was meant to help us understand something about ourselves (or human nature). I am very much interested in the study of the capacity of humans for paranoid thinking. These are stressful times we are living in and I think it does bring out a lot of hysterical thinking. When I picture people looking up at the sky and pointing fearful fingers at the contrails it makes me think of when the hysterical villagers used to point fingers at the witches (ie. spinsters, midwives , etc.) and blame them for crop failures.

  36. Janet Detwiler says:

    To Judy; That subject fascinates me too.

  37. Judy says:

    Is the propensity for paranoid thought related to brain chemistry, prior negative experiences, or something as simple as what kind of thoughts do we choose to dwell on? I remember a time in my life when I read something about alien abduction and repressed memories and got all spooked that I had probably been a victim. After that I decided to put those kinds of thoughts out of my head because it really didn’t have anything to do with the here and now anyway. In the build up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq I had some friends who expressed fears that the U.S. was motivated by greed and not at all about finding weapons of mass destruction. I didn’t want to believe that about my government but now in hindsight I see I was being naïve. Some people trust authority figures (ie. governments), others don’t. Some people think the world is full of germs or poisons that are lurking everywhere; others don’t worry so much about getting sick. I came to this site at first because I had been hearing a lot of talk about chemtrails and I googled it to see if it was something I needed to be worried about. If I remember correctly I ended up on one site that made it all sound kind of scary and then found this one and read a lot of the posts and the concerns that were methodically addressed and I felt much better. Did I gravitate to this site because I wanted to be reassured or because it appeared to be more science/evidence based? I’d like to say it was because it is science based, but really who knows? Now I like to read here because I have a morbid sense of curiosity about the workings of the mind and mental illness. I’ll tell you one thing though, when someone gets fixated on “them” spraying us it is very hard to steer them over to this site; it’s like they don’t want to trust the voice of reason. And let’s not forget that critical thinking skills are not universal and the availability of masses of nonsensical or confusing information on the internet is probably what is behind a lot of this phenomenon.

  38. Janet Detwiler says:

    @ Judy; Oh Judy, we’ve got to talk. I hear your questions. I have the same questions! It’s a fascinating subject. I’ve got to run tonight, but I would very much like to address some of your points, hopefully very soon.

    Janet Detwiler

    [email protected]

  39. Janet Detwiler says:

    Well now, Judy, I was rather hoping you would pick this thread up again.

    I thought your contribution was cogent. I would very much like to communicate with other people who have shared this experience. But at this point, I can only assume that the experience we share is not a big part of your life? If so, I almost envy you for that, but not quite, since all cogent people should perhaps be trying to save this planet.

    To Judy, and/or to anyone who might want to discuss just about anything any of you can possibly think of, my primary email addy is [email protected] . I would like to establish a dialogue with, for lack of better terminology at this time, “ex-CT’s who have learned from science.”

    I’m feeling pretty damn alone here, people…AM I the anomaly to the CT belief system?

  40. Janet Detwiler says:

    In answer to my own question, “apparently.” Ha ha ha…

    Ted Gunderson is at it again, and here’s a newer video from him ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqIlxkFkLx8 ~ I’m not sure what he’s up to, unless it has something to do with promoting the “aircrap.org” web site. Aircrap is trying to stir this topic up, that’s for sure. It is amazing the sort of junk they’re posting. Pretty depressing!

  41. That has to be the biggest “argument from authority” fallacy I’ve seen for a while. Just keep posting his credentials on the screen, and that makes everything he says golden, apparently.

    They fall over at the first hurdle. Again claiming that contrails will always quickly dissipate, because they are “moisture”.

    Sure, they are moisture, just like clouds are. So they last as long as clouds do.

  42. Janet Detwiler says:

    Yup, and it’s got the CT’s all excited. They’ve also got a “former IRS agent” talking about this subject on “aircrap.org”. YOU know…anybody but a scientist!

    And let me try this again. I’ve checked my notes, and I “believed in chemtrails” from late 2006 through most of 2007. I didn’t just dabble in this conspiracy theory, but it is one of the only ones I subscribed to. That said, I subscribed to it heavily. If you believe in “chemtrails” and would like to have a rational non-emotional talk about this phenomenon, please contact me @ [email protected] . My name is Janet Detwiler, and I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to take me up on this.

  43. Bubba Shocks says:

    Remember kids;

    Incomplete bits of random information are like McNuggets for hungry prejudices.

    Would you like honey mustard or BBQ with your belief system today?

    Enjoyed this page. Peace to all yall.

  44. Alex Wilson says:

    I know for sure that chemtrails exist..yes sir-ee Bob.
    When that yellow Stearman came down over my cotton crop, he put out the prettiest
    white chemtrail you could ever imagine.
    Those boweivels can tell you all about the horrors of the chemicals in them there trails.

    Now, I am not so sure that their growing cotton at 30,000 feet, but I do enjoy the sight of many CONTRAILS..
    Jannet, you and Uncinus keep after these conspiracy nuts.
    They are probably great listeners of Kook to Kook AM.

  45. captfitch says:

    Ahhh coast to coast….

    When I used to fly night cargo all over the country I would tune in old george on the ADF.

  46. Too dumbed down says:

    There are no such things as chemtrails! The criss cross patterns you see in the sky are OBVIOUSLY contrails! As if the government would be involved in such a thing as to poison the people with these dangerous chemicals that they are spraying the sky with. Just like the governments wouldn’t allow vaccines to be laced with toxic chemicals.

    Why do people think that 9/11 had something to do with governments? It was muslims!

    Did you know that fluoride is good for your teeth and there’s no harm done by adding it to our water supply or even toothpaste? It tastes yummy! Although, you can’t get tastier than a McDonalds meal, the MSG’s in your food and the aspartame in your ‘sugar free’ coke.

    Did you know that the word ‘conspiracy’ changes when you add the word ‘theory’ to the end of it?

    Have a lovely day! Don’t forget to slap the suncream on if you’re going in the sunshine, it protects you from cancer!!!

  47. James Vamm says:

    No matter how much science, or common sense, you use to disprove any of these “Conspiracy Theories”, you will never convince a “Conspiracy” believer. They have some unusual receptors in their brains which force them to believe BULLSh–! And, they will defend that theory ’til the end of time.

  48. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    I haven’t posted in years, and I am so surprised Uncinus is still at this, don’t you get bored with repeating yourself?

    Anyway, when I was out running the other day I watched this plane make “S” curves across the whole sky. One continuous trail of “S” curves. The sky was covered with trails and X’s that day, but I watched that plane fly a very unusual flight pattern?

  49. Well, thank you for a new question 🙂

    S-Turns are something you do in flight training. It’s a a type of “ground reference” maneuver, where you have to keep doing S turings over something like a road, while correcting for crosswinds.

    I don’t know if they would be doing them at contrail altitude though. Possible I suppose.

  50. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    they were because there was a huge “s” curve contrail across the entire sky…

  51. John says:

    Citizen –

    What difference does the ‘shape’ of the contrail make?

    If it makes an ‘s’, a grid, or if it spells “THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS CHEMTRAILS”

    None of the above makes a single bit of difference to what you think the plane is ‘spraying’ does it?

    Thre could be marsmallows coming out of the back of the plane, but the ‘S’ shape would remain equally irrelevant…

  52. Interesting nonetheless. I’ve never seen an s-shaped contrail with more than on “S” shape in it (which you get when a plane needs to “move over” a bit, but keep going in the same general direction. Pity no photos.

    This is probably the closes I’ve seen:


    But even on the radar track I’d hesitate to describe it as an S.

    Citizen, coud you draw a sketch of what it looked like?

  53. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    The plane was going south and made a wide arc and then headed east, but while it went east it made continuing “s” turns until I couldn’t watch it anymore. There were about 3 giant “s” shapes that were all connected and hung in the sky until they formed clouds..

  54. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    i looked at the link you showed and it wasn’t like that. it is more like the picture you have above that you said was flight training. i think it was obvious that the plane i saw was flying in a deliberate pattern..

  55. captfitch says:

    Like I’ve said before- the sky, for the most part, is one big giant playground where we (airplanes/pilots) can do WHATEVER we want. S-turns at altitude would be as easy as asking for a ten to twenty mile corridor along an airway or something. Maybe he was checking instrumentation for deviation or something. Or just bored. Or had to burn off fuel for some reason. Or S-turns for spacing in lieu of holding or slowing down.

    The bottom line is this- if it was something devious why make large, easily identifiable turns that anyone can see? If I was doing something sinister I would blend in as much as possible.

  56. Alexey says:

    Citizen of The Cosmos said:

    “There were about 3 giant “s” shapes that were all connected and hung in the sky until they formed clouds..”

    I think that the plane flying ‘figure eight’ holding pattern would produce such a contrail at an appropriate side wind.

  57. Hmm, sounds like a job for ContrailSimulatorMan!

    I don’t think you’ve get S’s though? There would still be loops, no matter how fast the wind.

  58. Ross Marsden says:

    Depending on the direction of the figure 8 relative to the wind, there would be a twin row of closed loops (looking like a fancy sewing machine stitch), or a large amplitude sine-wave sort of shape. Draw them; both look like a row of S. One is side-by-side and the other is top-to-bottom “down the page”.

  59. Indeed, you are correct. I was only thinking of the figure 8 with the direction with the wind, not against it.

    I’ve updated the simulator with a quick hack to approximate figure 8’s (not at all accurately)


    Click the “Fig8” checkbox at the bottom. You need to set the wind speed fairly high, but not at all unreasonably. If you toggle the “Clockwise” box, you see the “S” shapes, and then the loops.

    I doubt this is what Citizen was seeing, but it sure would make some pretty contrails if it ever happens.

  60. Alexey says:

    Thank you for updating the simulator.

    I do not know what exactly Citizen was seeing, but the contrails resulted from the ‘figure eight pattern’

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen shot 2011-06-07 at 21.04.58.png[/img]

    from the ground may look like this:


  61. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    They weren’t figure eights like that. I watched the plane arc one way and then the other. The only way I can describe it is “s” turns. It looked exactly like the image you attached to 1049.

  62. Yeah, I think one of captfitch’s suggestions is most likely

  63. Alexey says:

    Like “s” turns, figure eight pattern also is “arc one way and then the other”. The main difference is how the plane trajectory looks relative the ground. The plane trail does not coincide with the trajectory, it is blown away by wind. Distorted by wind and perspective contrail from “s” turns probably would look not “exactly like the image attached to 1049”.

  64. Alexey says:

    Here is an example of “S-turn” contrail:


    Citizen, does it look similar to what you have seen?

  65. Citizen of The Cosmos says:

    That is pretty close.. I have seen many curves in contrails like that since I began watching them a few years ago, what intrigues me about this case is that I watched the plane change directions and weave back and forth into the horizon. Seems like an odd flight path for what I assume to be a passenger plane..

  66. I see curves like that here in Los Angeles. I attribute it to two things:

    1) LA is a navigation point. So planes fly here, heading to the LAX VOR, or the Catalina VOR (VOR = radar beacon), then they adjust their heading to another VOR, resulting in curves, and sometimes S-turns.

    2) LA airspace is busy, so ATC might tell a plane to adjust it’s position to allow adequate spacing.

    I think #1 probably is the bigger factor here.

  67. Mike says:

    Unincus, you have the patience of a zen master.

    but can you explain the hundreds of purple elephants that just flew past my house? Can you show me any government documents or “scientific” papers proving otherwise?


  68. Steve says:

    Unincus, do you believe there is a God?

  69. If you mean a supreme being who created the universe, then I don’t see any evidence of that happening. Of course it’s possibly that once created the universe and did not leave any evidence, but you can say that about anything.

    What’s the relevance to contrails and chemtrails here?

  70. C'mon... For Reals? says:

    The chemtrail thing has always baffled me. I have an acquaintance who claims never to have seen anything come from a jet, contrail or otherwise, until the past 10 years or so. When I told him that I used to lie in a large field outside Ottawa Canada as a kid in the ’70’s and watch them criss-cross the sky horizon to horizon and spread out for hours he basically accused me of lying or at least misremembering. Why would I lie about a fond childhood memory?

  71. captfitch says:

    because you, like us, are in on it- that’s why

  72. Shiela says:

    Haha good one. Your pure evil for helping hide the truth about this. Anyone with eyes & half a brain can see that this has increased and what’s being sprayed is falling to the ground. We all (including you) breathe it in evryday. Not to mention it’s been tested.. The Chemicals found: barium, nano aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide, and polymer fibers. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic.(4) Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying.

  73. You should look around the site. See if there’s anything wrong. Let me know, and I’ll fix it.

  74. tryblinking says:

    “Anyone with eyes & half a brain can see that this has increased and what’s being sprayed is falling to the ground.”

    I totally agree. Imagine what people could do with a whole brain.

  75. JFDee says:

    Shiela said:
    “Anyone … can see that this has increased and what’s being sprayed is falling to the ground.”

    Did you actually see barium, thorium and cadmium falling to the ground?

    If you are being honest with yourself, you didn’t. You read about that on chemtrail promoting sites, or you saw videos made by chemtrail believers/promoters.

    Are you refusing to consider the information in the articles here ?
    If so, can you say why you rather accepted what you have read and viewed elsewhere ?

    I’m really interested in your answer.

    If you decide to look at a few of the articles, start with the one discussing “chaff”:

  76. Jay Reynolds says:

    Shiela, if you believe that aluminum is being found in “off the scale levels”, you have been lied to. Check here for historical levels of aluminum, and compare that to what is being found.

    The folks that lied to you, namely Michael J. Murphy, Dane Wigington, Rose Taylor, and Francs Mangels are aware that they have misinformed you, I told them about this months ago, yet they continue to repeat the lies.

    So much for their ability to correct themselves when proven wrong. Does it make you feel sort of like asking them why they won’t admit they never checked to find out what “normal” was before declaring something, “off the scale”.

    So, who is being “pure evil for helping hide the truth about this”?

    And where did you find out that they misinformed you?

    Oh, if aluminum oxide is so poisonous as some have said, why are they recommending you eat some daily, eh?

    When you come to a web page that says it will discuss “Chemtrail Myths”, don’t be surprised if that is what you find!!

  77. Iman Azol says:

    In reality, it’s the “chemtrail” sites that are the disinfo and government propaganda. Don’t blindly believe it just because it’s on the internet. Ask any of them to prove these “Chemtrails” exist by capturing some of the mist for analysis, and showing a picture of the chemicals being put aboard a plane.

    As to why this is happening, it’s to discredit the opposition and sow distrust. They have you.

  78. John Hurt says:

    Here you go…

    I am 54 years old, and back in the 70’s I NEVER SAW ANY CHEMTRAILS!!!!!

    Chemtrails started in the 1990’s

    Now I see them all the time.

    Now you tell me, what the difference is in what I can see and what I cannot see!

    By the way, I am a computer programmer, and I manage 28 people who program computer programs.

    I am not your “average Joe”, and I know what is going on.

    It is Aluminum Oxidie and Barium that they are are putting into these Chemtrails.

    See this video on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA – What in the world are the Spraying?

    If you won’t believe this video, look at these links on Wikipedia and see if there is a basis for Chemtrails..



    If they can try to defoliate Vietnam, they can use the same technique to try to de-populate America.

    They have a de-population agenda called “Agenda 21”.

    Read these articles on Wikipedia, and tell me that the US Government would NEVER drop chemicals on our people.

    My bet is that you work for the CIA, and know exactly what is going on.


  79. JFDee says:

    John Hurt said:
    “Now you tell me, what the difference is in what I can see and what I cannot see!”

    How do you distinguish chemtrails from contrails if you see them?

  80. Super-secret quadruple CIA-NSA agent! says:

    [Admin: deleted for lack of politeness]

  81. Jay Reynolds says:

    Being as smart as you are, I am certain you will be able to quickly identify the unique aircraft which are making the “chemtrails” you are seeing. Please get back to us and let us all learn more. This is something that even Michael J. Murphy has been unable to accomplish, but considering your fantastic computer skills and leadership abilities, I am sure your team of 28 computer programmers will be able to complete this within a matter of days.

    Here is how you can accomplish this:

  82. GoldPacific says:

    Replying to John’s “Agenda 21” or something theory … Pls. pls. someone, inform the Indian govt. about this novel idea of Spraying potions on our folks there …We need to control our population very very badly … Same to many other nations that are bursting on there seams 🙂

  83. Guest says:

    http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/geoengineering-current-actions Perhaps this might have something to do with persistent contrails.

  84. SR1419 says:

    Well…at least as far the KSLA report on “barium”- that was debunked long ago:


    And yet no mention of the grave error rendering the “report” ridiculous…the herd will just eat it up as tho its the “truth”

  85. MikeC says:

    Guest asked: BTW, what is this geo-engineering that they all talk about? http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364

    not sure what you mean by the question – but het point of that conference was to note that there were, then, no rules governing geo-engineering – if anyone wanted to do something they were entitled to simply do it. And that was seen as most undesireable – something so important should not be unregulated and uncontrolled.

    Since then there has been the UN’s conference on biodiversity that has issued a moratorium on any geo-eng that might affect biodiversity (which is not actually everything – eg I doubt it affects carbon sequestration underground), and probably other regulations too that I’m nto aware of.

  86. Jay Reynolds says:

    Guest, your link to the “Agricultural Defense Coalition” is a chemtrails believer site run by Rosalind Peterson.
    She actually believes that no photos of persistent contrails have been taken during the past 50 years.
    This video discusses that belief in more detail:

  87. tryblinking says:

    Good video- doesn’t oversell it or rub it in, just presents the evidence clearly against her claims. And the comments are wonderful! Apparently persistent contrails, and water vapour physics, come from the devil…

  88. marcel says:

    Just looking at some of the chem FB pages, I get the impression that the only type of cloud that the CTs think is real, is cumulus. And more specifically cumulus which looks like the symbols at the top left of this page
    All other types of cloud have “HAARP!!” ” DEATH DUMP!!” etc as a description. I really think that they just do not know how many different types of cloud there are.

  89. It’s a patent. There is no evidence it has been used.

  90. Strawman says:

    What’s there to “debunk”? It’s a patent.

  91. Jay Reynolds says:

    Yes, its a patent. One interesting facet of the ploy used by Michael J. Murphy and the Mt. Shasta Group is to falsely claim that this patent describes a “signature” for elemental analysis which can be confirmed by testing rainwater or atmospheric deposition and finding aluminum, barium, and strontium, because those are elements mentioned in the patent.

    That is false. aluminum oxide is the only one of those three elements mentioned in the patent.

    The patent does, SEPARATELY FROM Al203, mention Welsbach materials, which MIGHT have the characteristics of reflecting both visible and far IR wavelengths, yet allowing near IR wavelengths of pass back into space. The only reference in the patent for welsbach materials is thorium oxide, which is radioactive and was used in gas light mantles. I don’t see any of the chemtrail believers finding thorium in their samples.

    Michael J. Murphy and the Mt. Shasta group have also falsely attributed the 1990 patent to a “mr. Welsbach”, however, he was an Austrian gas mantle developer who died in 1929. The so-called “Welsbach signature”, which is said to include barium and strontium, became part of chemtrails lore through the efforts of false conclusions and a self aggrandizing hoax by Carnicom and A.C Griffith as described here:


  92. Skirtz says:


  93. Skirtz says:

    I posted a rather long list of issues and questions yesterday, including 2 photos that I was hoping to have addressed. Is there any reason why it hasn’t shown up? Are comments on this message board screened before they appear?

  94. Skirtz, I’m afraid posts with lots of links tend to get automatically marked as spam. I found a post of yours with two photos, and un-spammed it, but unfortunately there was no text.

    This blog software is not the best for discussion threads. I’d suggest you go to the chemtrails forums on metabunk.org, register there, and start a new thread. I’m Mick on there.


  95. GregOrca says:

    Skirtz, you posted photos of contrails that are no different to those photographed in the 1940s.
    Is there a point to posting those images?
    I have some photos of the rain gutter on my roof. They are the same as 1930s rain gutters.
    If I posted them here it would be just as informative as your images.
    Simply showing things that are observable now-days that are the same as those from many decades ago.

  96. Skirtz says:

    Don’t start off on a bad foot with me. I posted a lengthy write-up, as I clearly stated in my most recent post. You know nothing of the contents of what I wrote, so don’t make assumptions on my stance on ANY issue. You are a little too eager to make me feel bad/stupid for having questions. You have erased any and all credibility you may have had. Don’t try to be a smart-ass – you’re not good at it.
    I’m no fool, and I would appreciate an apology for stepping out of line.

    Thank you for the link. I appreciate your help.

Comments are closed.