Home » contrails » Chemtrails: The Best Evidence

Chemtrails: The Best Evidence

The Chemtrail theory proposes that some of the persistent white trails we see in the sky behind airplanes are not actually normal contrails, but are either modified contrails, or some kind of different trail entirely. The theory states that the trails contain chemicals that do something, and that there is a huge secret operation to create these trails that has been going on since at least 1999.

I personally don’t believe in this theory. I’m an avid cloud watcher, and a private pilot (only single engine VFR), and the photos and videos of supposed “chemtrails” all look like contrails to me. So I’ve been discussing this on this site, and quite often proponents of the theory come on to join the discussion.

Unfortunately this frequently devolved into me (or other commenters) saying “show me the evidence”, and the chemtrail theorists saying “there’s lots of evidence”. Then no evidence gets presented, or if it does it’s something I addressed months ago.

The problem here for the theorists is that there seems to be no one place that simply lists all this evidence that they claim is out there. Without this central evidence repository, they just bring up the random bits of supposed evidence in a haphazard and counterproductive manner.

So I’ve decided to help, and on this page to arrange as well presented, organized and honest a representation of the best evidence for “chemtrails” that I can muster.

What I’ll do is take each claim, such as “the government has admitted it”, or “persistent trails have been observed in conditions that should not support them”, and I’ll find the five (or so) best examples of evidence for that particular claim. I’ll leave it up as a work in progress – anyone can challenge a particular piece of evidence, and anyone can suggest a new piece in the comments section.

If the evidence is something I’ve looked at before, then I’ll just add a link to the relevant article. If not, then I might add a comment, or maybe write a new article.

I’ll start out with less than five pieces of evidence, to allow suggestions to be quickly added. Also feel free to suggest new categories. My hope is that eventually this will grow to be a definitive collection of the best evidence for the chemtrail theory.

I apologize for the incomplete nature of this list. I hope to refine it as time goes by. Please feel very free to speak up with any suggestions, which should make it into the list within a few hours.

Persistent Trails were not observed before 1998 (date varies)
(Note:  not all theorists agree with this, some simply state things are different)

1. California Skywatch / Rosaline Peterson – Notes on Discovery Show Transcript, page 8, claims a review of outdoor photos says contrails changed in the late 1980s.

2. Many individual accounts of recollecting contrails not persisting.  Details vary.

3. Ideally I’d like a science book or pre 1990 book that says how long contrails last.  Lots of books say they last for hours.  Any counter evidence?



Persistent trails have been observed in conditions that would not support persistent contrails (Specifically RH <70% and/or temperature >-40F)

1. Chemtrail Central’s Trail Research Report

2. WatchTheSky.org Chemtrails captured on NWS Doppler Weather Data

3. Holmestead – How to detect unusual trails



Trails appear in grid patterns

1. William Thomas

2. Educate-Yourself




Unidentified Spray Planes have been photographed

1. I await candidates. First check here and here.





People Get sick after Chemtrail Spraying

1. William Thomas “Emergency Rooms Jammed

2. I think there’s a KTLA video about this, some mountain community?




Chemical Analysis has shown the presence of unexpected chemicals in rain water.

1. KSLA Barium contrails.

2. Arizona Skywatch – Phoenix Air Particulates.

3. Clifford Carnicom – Barium, etc. Confirmed in rainwater.

4. What in the World are they Spraying


The government has admitted spraying/bioweapon testing/geoengineering/weather modification.

1. Welsbach patent

2. British bioweapon tests

3. Owning the Weather in 2025

4. AP: Obama looks at climate engineering (Alex Jones likes this story)

5. Kucinich and HR 2977.

People don’t remember persistent contrails

1. There’s several individual claims of this, but also several claims to the contrary. Awaiting some kind of study, or even a poll. But I’ll post pretty much any link you think is good evidence of this.





The sky is a different color now

1. See above.





There are open plans to spray aerosols into the atmosphere to mitigate global warming.






The government are doing similar things, and have done before, so why not this?


2. I’m a little reluctant to include this category, but since it’s brought up, I might as well.

3. Fake Moon Landings (yeah yeah, it belittles your cause, I’ll remove it if you think so, speak up, either way).



I am very willing to add, remove, reorder, or edit the above, based on any suggestions in the comments section below.

843 thoughts on “Chemtrails: The Best Evidence

  1. Will says:

    You’re not automatically crazy or illogical if you believe the government could be allowing chemicals to be released from airplane exhaust despite the fact that you continually perpetuate that notion on here.

    Yes, contrails are normal and can persist for long periods of time, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that chemicals are being released in the air. The government could be spraying or allowing chemtrails to be sprayed or they could be adding things like metals to already-occurring contrails, like this patent filing suggests: http://tinyurl.com/es2ef (The filing I linked to is hosted on a .gov site, so you should have no problem believing it’s real and legitimate.)

    The patent proposes reducing global warming by “seeding of the atmosphere with metallic particles. One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude.” Whether or not the patent proves that the government is actually doing this is debatable, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.

  2. Sure, there COULD be a secret spraying program that leaves no evidence.

    But the point is that there’s no evidence, and people claim there is evidence, so that’s what I’m debunking.

    Patents don’t mean something is being done. There’s patents for moon bases.

  3. Dingo says:

    Good find Will!

    Shouldn’t the best evidence be discussed on a thread so entitled?

    I guess not. Instead people with any evidence that something might be sprayed, someone planned on it, someone IS spraying, patents, interesting facts to the contrary are attacked.

    For instance, some of you guys (JAY) will flat out say “geo engineering is not happening” which is a LIE. It does not matter the scale! ITS HAPPENING.

    THEN when plenty of examples are given YOU choose to conflate the meaning of the examples, insinuating that someone has implied that everything one sees in the the sky is automatically assumed to be a “chemtrail” caused by geo engineering because the subject has been discussed. Therefore creating some false dichotomy to manipulate an argument. Mind games and word games.
    You complicate the issue by spouting out numerous half truths about geo-engineering as to confuse people.

    That’s not very scientific or an open discussion.

    I starting think this site is ran by sock puppets, and the messages are from the same person or person(s).

  4. Dingo says:

    With all of the examples people have provided,
    why would this be blank and/or including things like “fake moon landing”.

    Your just trying to make people feel like they are crazy for considering the idea of chem-trails.

    “The government are doing similar things, and have done before, so why not this?”

  5. Jay Reynolds says:

    Dingo wrote:
    “Shouldn’t the best evidence be discussed on a thread so entitled?

    For instance, some of you guys (JAY) will flat out say “geo engineering is not happening” which is a LIE. It does not matter the scale! ITS HAPPENING.”

    Sure, Dingo. There is a thread so entitled. Let’s have that discussion you seek. This thread has been out for well over a year.

  6. JFDee says:

    Dingo said:

    “I starting think this site is ran by sock puppets, and the messages are from the same person or person(s).”

    Is this just a gut feeling or do you have evidence? Shouldn’t we discuss this openly, in a scientific way?

    If you would like to append the list that you criticized, I’m sure that any substantial contribution is welcome.

  7. Will says:

    Do you want some tangible evidence that the government has studied releasing chemicals in the air? Well, here you go.

    This is a program plan by the U.S. government called the Tropospheric Aerosol Program and I would like to see it added to the list of evidence supporting chemtrails: http://monkeypuppet.net/truth/usgovernment/TAPPgPln.pdf

    I’ve only glanced at the study and it is not available online through the government anymore, but I’m going to request a hard copy of the program soon (if they’re still sending them out to the public). I can’t wait to see how you try to refute this, Uncinus (Mick), and I expect the program name (maybe not the actual file) to be listed as a piece of evidence supporting chemtrails on your site.

  8. Strawman says:

    How is that supporting chemtrails, e.g. the notion that persistent contrails in the sky are part of a governmental programme?

    Also: Noone is denying that there is research. There is just no evidence it’s being implemented.* Once again: that means the evidence people put forth for chemtrails is lacking. That is the claim being made. Please address this claim, not some strawman.

    * Even more, geoengineering researchers have come forth AGAINST the implementation.

  9. Will says:

    Perhaps I should have been more precise with the wording of my last post, but what I linked to was a “plan,” not just a “study.” From the Tropospheric Aerosol Program Plan:

    “The DOE Atmospheric Chemistry Program is planning several large-scale field studies
    including a major study of atmospheric oxidants in the Northeastern states in summer
    2003. TAP will benefit from the meteorological support and chemical characterization efforts
    available in these studies.”

    The idea of putting metals into the atmosphere is obviously something that appeals to the government, otherwise they wouldn’t have put effort into laying their plan for doing it out and definitely wouldn’t have planned large-scale studies of it. With as much backlash as chemtrails would receive from the public, it seems highly unlikely that the government or anyone else is going to openly admit that they’re releasing them in the air, and there is no real way for the average person to go up in the air and conduct tests on various contrails themselves, so it doesn’t surprise me that there isn’t much scientific evidence supporting them.

    Regardless, I am convinced from patents, the Tropospheric Aerosol Program Plan, the government’s complete disregard for the populace, and the many different pieces of convincing evidence online (such as increased levels of aluminum in rainwater, unusual patterns of contrails in the sky, etc.) that they do exist, but I realize that neither I nor anyone else is going to convince some people that they do. So, with that, I have chimed in for the last time on here. For those of you that believe in chemtrails, I wish you all the best, and for those of you that don’t, I hope you find fulfillment in your desire to prove all of us wrong.

  10. Uncinus says:

    TAP is for measuring aerosols, not spraying. The plan you refer to is to take lots of samples.

    There are various proposed methods of geoengineering involving spraying, but generally not in the troposphere.

    There’s no evidence any are being used, or are planned to be used.

  11. Jay Reynolds says:

    Most chemtrail believers seem to not understand that aerosols are a natural part of our atmosphere.
    The major sources of aerosols from greater to lesser are sea salt from breaking waves, soil and volcanic dust, and soot from things that burn like grass and forest fires. Manmade aerosols come from dusty roads and plowshares and from polluting industries, powerplants and vehicles.

    You can learn more about aerosols from this video I put together:

  12. Human says:

    Interesting site. I can assure you that I DON’T want to believe in the chemtrail storyline. Unfortunately, any logical person who sees the sun blocked out of their sky EVERYDAY as a result of aircraft dispersions will want to know why it has gotten so bad.

    Simple fact. Everyday the sky is hazed out as a result of aircraft dispersions. Do I need to state it again?

    This is not something that was evident a few years ago. That is another fact.
    This is something that is now so prolific, that I look up to see the air traffic pattern rather than watch the news or weather station for the forecasted sky.

    At this point, I am less concerned with what planes are spraying – if anything – than I am of the simple fact that they block the sun from the sky day after day.

    BarryTroubled expressed some basic human concerns that I echo here. There are no explanations for the sheer proliferation of con/chem trails (I don’t give a damn what you call them) that are in the sky. I appreciate all the factual representation here on this site. However, none of this addresses the obvious issue that air traffic dispersions have become so prolific that they are impacting our weather. Perhaps this has been the case throughout aviation history. I will not pretend to know that history. I do know that I have never observed this kind of air pollution before in years past. I have never seen so many trails across a sky stay for so long and disperse into such dense cloud formations. Never. Simple fact.

    These simple facts are being noted by people all over the world. Why are contrails suddenly so long lasting, prolific, dispersing, varied?? Why is air traffic so erratic? Commercial airliners do NOT fly in erratic patters. I have been a business traveler long enough to know that there are specific routes flown, and while they may vary according to weather patterns, there are none that match the erratic patters of trails flown in our skies daily.

    Explain. I am anxious to believe that commercial airliners have reason to fly erratic patterns across the sky – day and night (well after midnight when there is hardly any commercial traffic in our area) and leave harmless trails of vapor that spread across the sky and linger for hours and hours, blocking out the sun.

  13. Uncinus says:

    Human, maybe you just noticed it, but it has happened for decades. The “chemtrails” thing has been around 15 years, and there are plenty of people who remember it from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, plus lots of other evidence.

    It does vary quite a bit, and has increased with traffic.

  14. Mick says:

    Great work! It really drives me nuts when having to argue with the chemtrailers who seem to have the conspiracy mode of google available in their area, lol

  15. bryansail says:

    Hi Mick,

    I see these best existing evidence claims as being not accurate or complete;

    You listed,
    The government has admitted spraying/bioweapon testing/geoengineering/weather modification.
    – Your list here does not have any of the best examples (none)

    There are open plans to spray aerosols into the atmosphere to mitigate global warming.
    -Where are the documents for this category? I have seen your debunkings on these plans repeatedly yet not a single document? Help me to understand? You must be aware of the multitude of projects and technologies that are a reality today that have scientists who were involved in their Genesis that state they are not in favor of them or always had very serious reservations about them or actually see it as a mistake in hindsight.

    The government are doing similar things, and have done before, so why not this?
    -HAARP and faked moon landing claims do not belong in the same list. HAARP could be in this list but it is as you know a rabbit hole of disagreement. The moon landings being faked must be removed obviously.

    This is not the best evidence for chemtrail activity. It is disingenuous at best and fans the flames of those who state that You are not interested in truth or question your motives.

    I will have all these categories I have mentioned overflowing with links to actual best evidence over at metabunk soon, but the omissions by you are puzzling.

    Evergreen certainly should be on this list. I am not claiming that evergreen is evidence, but certainly a chemtrail believer would look at them as suspicious, right? That You have them no where on this list is peculiar.

    Wishing you Peace and Joy even when the particulates are high in your neck of the woods.


  16. MikeC says:

    But is Evergren considered the BEST evidence by chemtrail believers??

    I look forward to your posting of evidence on Metabunk…….it has been a few days since yuo said you would start doing so (on anotehr page) so I am sure it will be most interesting when it arrives.

  17. Ultimation says:

    This must be the longest-running comment thread on contrails vs. chemtrails ever. lol, way to go webmaster!

    Has anyone ever produced any scientific evidence of an actual trail? Like one that’s in the sky, measured with instruments, or taken a plane themselves to collect a sample and analyze it? Class ‘G’ airspace is pretty wide open, you know!

  18. Captfitch says:

    Not class G until you hit FL600. Air from the interior of aircraft flying at the flight levels has been tested many many times and since that’s just outside air you can say its been tested. IIRC the last big scandal was the fact that something from the engine seals was making it into the cabin and people were breathing it.

  19. cloudspotter says:

    Can you pick a piece of that article that hasn’t already been covered on Contrail Science or Metabunk?

  20. MikeC says:

    Graham that article includes no evidence whatsoever!!

  21. Graham says:

    Here is the former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson saying Chemtrail Death Dumps must be stopped

  22. Strawman says:

    Yeah, but he just repeated the usual chemtrail creed, with no evidence whatsoever. He is not better informed than other persons, obviously, so this amounts to some sort of argument from authority.

  23. cloudspotter says:

    He wasn’t exactly an FBI chief either, that’s a little misleading.

  24. Strawman says:

    Accuracy and truth secondary to conspiracists, you know.

  25. MAllen, can you explain why you posted that video?

  26. I thought this was a debate about chemtrails

  27. So debate. Don’t just post videos. What bit of the video do you think has not been debunked?

  28. If you scroll 13 postings above this post you will see were you posted many links I wanted to do the same before I go to work so when I get back I can reply to anyone who wants to debate my YouTube links.I had no idea your links go to topics on this site,so If I broke any rules then feel free to modify or delete my links. I will come back tonight to debate this issue if I haven’t been banned.

  29. I recommend you go to the chemtrail forum on my other site, as it’s much better set up for debate:

  30. Captain sky says:

    Ive taken pics of both a normal “contrail” and a “chemtrail” ocurring at the same time!!!

  31. Captain sky says:

    If you think these streaks tic tac toed across our skies in grid patterns is normal, then why did they only just start showing up in the mid to late 80’s? Its documented in hollywood movies for crying out loud!!! (My esteemed documentary collegue can attest)!

  32. There are plenty of persistent contrail from before 1980. And how do you mean “it’s documented”, can you give some examples?

  33. Jay Reynolds says:

    Your video is a familiar subject to me, as I am one of the persons spoken about by John Massaria and Russ Tanner. I do invite you over to the metabunk forum at the link in the upper left hand corner of this page. http://metabunk.org/forums/9-Chemtrails

    Let’s debate any of what was said in the video. If indeed it is the most important thing of the year for you, it should have offered you some very sound evidence which can be discussed.

    I’ve found that such a debate is most easily kept on-topic if you choose what you consider to be the “best evidence” beginning with the single-most irrefutable piece. Once that topic is thoroughly exhausted, move on to the second-best and so on down the line.

  34. Jay Reynolds says:

    One other suggestion. Before entering into debate, please study the linked articles along the left margin of contrailscience. If you enter into debate without a full understanding of what is contained in those aricles, you will be at a distinct dis-advantage. If you thoroughly understand everything to be found there, you will likely not have anything left to debate. Good luck.

  35. bryansail says:


    The best evidence is hidden in plain or plane sight. Contrails are geo modifying according to many reports and studies. Incidental engineering doesn’t quite sound right. The degree to which contrails are effecting climate and weather is a continuing saga.

    The focus is typically not on target here and amongst the conspiracists.

    The intentional weather modification is electrical. Over at metabunk I will post as electrojet and give evidence that this has been studied and tested and is ongoing. There is the public domain stuff and then there is the classified information. The public domain info. is more than enough to provide ample proof of concept. The HAARP discussions recently have stopped right where things get interesting.



  36. lucid says:

    what was the conclusion of NASA’s study of the sky during 9/11? You know, the 3 days that all planes in America were grounded, I mean, all planes except for Osama bin Laden’s family’s private jets.

    Hmmm.. to derive truth evidence must be presented, thats the creed of lazy people who love to debunk and apologize for govt. So, I’m wondering, since there is no evidence to satisfy people of this sort, what type of evidence would be great confirmation?

    How does one distinguish between a benign contrail and a sun-occluding moisture-sapping chemtrail?

    Direct chemical analysis: fly into a suspected ‘chemtrail’ collect air samples somehow.
    Consumer/Military/Scientific flightplan comparision: crossreference suspected chemtrails with civilian flights
    Analyze jetfuel companies’ fuel additives: *but the additive may be put in during flight
    Use a telescope with camera to photograph anything odd (spraytanks, unknown markings, military) I saw a peculiar 707-style jet with black area of paint underneath the fuselage, the rest of it was white
    Test a tub full of distilled water left in an isolated area on a day/week/month of suspected spraydates.
    Test snowfall for anomalous levels of suspected chemtrail elements.
    Use a weatherballon for testing on suspected spraydates

    What we do know is geoengineering through chemical aerosols is possible, and through it, control of weather is increase power over others. Is it possible to destroy rainfall though chemtrails? Would it be desirable for men of power to induce drought? Sure, especially against a population that is sheepish. I only ask that debunkers seek truth as much as hypothesizers, go ahead an scoff with replies of “that wouldn’t be much would it” ha.

    On a side note: It’s feels like arguing with atheists who strive to debunk god… well keep up your belief that your govt is benevolent.

  37. Strawman says:

    Still no evidence, huh. So sorry.

  38. Ross Marsden says:

    Could you link to the post or topic that advances the hypothesis that the government is benevolent? Thanks.

    Another way to test is to observe the behavior of sunlight through the cloud/haze/whatever produced by the so-called chemtrails, and note what optical effects are produced. This will give some pointers as to the shapes of the particulates, and hence the possible constituents.

  39. MikeC says:

    Lucid asks: what was the conclusion of NASA’s study of the sky during 9/11?

    NASA did not do the study – you can read it here – http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf

    The effect was that the difference betwen eth hottest part of the day and het coldest part of eth night increased by a degree or 2 – but there was no actual change in average temperature (as I understand it)

Comments are closed.