Home » contrails » How to Debunk Chemtrails

How to Debunk Chemtrails

The chemtrail conspiracy theory seems to frequently misidentify ordinary contrails as “chemtrails” – some kind of secret spraying program. This theory comes in many flavors, and there’s a large number of things people bring up as “evidence” to support this theory. I’ve tried to gather all the debunks of this evidence in one place here, for easy reference..

While the title of this post is “How to Debunk Chemtrails”, the actual debunking depends on what version of the theory needs debunking.

The most common version is simply that “normal” contrails should not persist, so the persistent trails must be “chemtrails”. The simplest way to debunk this is to note that all known books on clouds and weather say that contrails sometimes persist. As seen in this video:

With discussion and reference here:

After that, there’s a variety of common claims, and variations on those themes. The best approach is to debunk the individual claim (such as: contrails only last a few seconds), rather than trying to debunk the entire theory.

I’ve tried to arrange each section in the order of most useful links first.

Contrails Through History

Theorists claim:  Contrails used to dissipate in a few seconds, minutes at most.

But they didn’t. There’s a huge amount of evidence (in addition to lots of people remembering persistent contrails). It dates back to 1918, and continues up to the present day.

Contrail photos through history – Fifty photos of persisting and spreading contrails from 1950 to 1995. Taken from people’s old photo albums, and old books. Also links to other similar collections.
Life Magazine Contrail Photos – Eleven photos that appeared in Life Magazine from 1940 to 1998 show persisting and spreading contrails.
WWII Contrails – A large collection of photos showing persisting and spreading contrails from WWII in the 1940s.
Pre WWII Contrails – The History of contrails dating back to 1918, with the first persistent spreading contrail observed in 1921
Some more WWII Contrails – A WWII contrail photo I found in an old photo album uploaded to Flickr.
Thirty Contrails, Forty Years Ago – An impressive photo of a sky full of contrails from before 1967.
Clouds before Planes – Cloud Studies 1905 – A 100 year old book showing photos of clouds that some chemtrail enthusiasts think must be man-made.
Memphis Belle WWII Bomber Contrails – 1944 – A 1940s film that shows planes leaving contrails, including with gaps in them.
Fighter and Bomber Contails, 1940s – Video and photos of wartime contrails over London and the English countryside
Twilight Zone Contrails – Contrails show up in a 1959 episode of The Twilight Zone
Chemtrails were Contrails – A video of some old newspaper accounts of contrails.
Contrail Confusion is Nothing New – Accounts from the 1950s of people being confused by contrails – taking them to be something else.

Chemical Tests, Aluminum, Barium, Etc.

Theorist claim: Chemical tests reveal aluminum and barium have been sprayed

In reality the tests all show normal levels of chemicals. They were often very badly performed (testing soil instead of water, and confusing the level, or using the wrong units of measurements).

What In The World Are They Spraying? – An explanation of the mistakes in the popular chemtrail video.
Barium Chemtrails on KSLA – A very popular “chemtrail” news story where the reporter gets his figures entirely wrong.
Chemtrail Non-science Air analysis from Phoenix that shows levels so high we’d all be dead. They did it wrong.
Chemical Analysis of Contrails – Clifford Carnicom claims high levels of some chemicals, but they actually show lower than normal levels.

Photos and Video used by chemtrail theorists

Theorists claim: Photos and videos show spray planes.

Reality: all the planes have been identified. Most have non-controversial uses, and the rest are demonstrable fakes.

“Chemtrail” Aircraft Photos – The inside and outside of various supposed “Chemtrail” planes. Explained.
Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos – Some of the more obvious hoax videos.
Germans Admit They Used Düppel!
– A German news story about chaff interfering with weather radar is deliberately mistranslated.
History Channel, That’s Impossible, Weather Warfare & Chemtrails – a look as some of the claims on the Discover channel show on chemtrails.
Contrails In the Movies – A look at a couple of contrails in some animated movies.

About the Chemtrail theory

Theorist claim: Lots of people believe in chemtrails, and it’s mentioned in a government bill, so it must be true.

Reality: Not really. Lots of people believe in all kinds of things, and the mention in the bill was inserted by some UFO enthusiasts.

A brief history of “Chemtrails” – How it got started in 1997, who started it, and how it developed.
Chemtrail Myths – Five common myths about “chemtrails”
How many people believe in chemtrails? – just how popular is the theory? Not very.
Kucinich, Chemtrails and HR 2977 – The supposed outlawing of chemtrails. What really happened.

General Discussion of Chemtrails

Theorist claim: People don’t remember lots of contrails like this, so it must be new.

Reality: Many people DO remember. But most people still don’t pay any attention to contrails. You see things more when you are interested in them.

Hazy Memories of Blue Skies – What do people remember about contrails? It varies.
Where are all the Chemtrail Photos?
Chemtrails: The Best Evidence
People Don’t Notice Contrails

The amount of air traffic, grids, and contrail patterns

Theorist claim: grids and X patterns prove they can’t be contrails

Reality: grids and X’s are inevitable results of air traffic, and winds and weather conditions.

Britain From Above – Air Traffic
30 Years of Airline Travel
Contrail Grids are not Chemtrail Grids
There are a lot of jets in the air

Contrail Information

Theorists claim: “chemtrails” are not contrails, because contrails don’t act like that

Reality: Contrails sometimes persist and spread, it depends on the weather at 30,000 feet (and not on the ground)

Persisting and Spreading Contrails
Contrail Forecast
The opposite of contrails
Measuring the height of contrails
How Long do Contrails Last?
Contrail to Distrail
Contrail Simulations
Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t?
Chemtrail Plausibility Study
Why Planes Make Vapor Trails


Unusual contrails explained

Theorists claim: odd looking contrails prove they are not contrails.

Reality: all can be explained if you do a bit of research.

Hole Punch Clouds in Los Angeles
Contrail Gaps and other Questions
Broken Contrails
Contrails, Dark Lines, & “Chemtrails”
Contrail of the Day
Very Unusual Short Tapered Contrails
Early Contrails
Voodoo Contrails over Los Angeles
Contrails Above and Below
Racetrack Contrails
Short Sunlit Contrails Look Like UFOs
Aerodynamic and Rainbow Contrails
Identifying a Curved Contrail
Contrail Season in Los Angeles
Ground Level Contrails

The Los Angeles Mystery Missile Contrail, and similar

New Mystery Missile, Padre Island Texas. Debunked
Did Chemtrails Cause the Beebe Blackbird Deaths
Manu Ginobili’s Santa Monica Silver Surfer
Los Angeles Missile Contrail Explained in Pictures
Contrails are Usually Horizontal
A Problem of Perspective – New Year’s Eve Contrail

Other random stuff

Procrustean Science
Contrails and Chemtrails: The IFAQ
Volcano Clears the Skies of Contrails
AC-130 Flares and Chaff
A Very Unusual Contrail
Modern Contrail Confusion
Cirrus Uncinus and Contrails
Things are not as they seem


669 thoughts on “How to Debunk Chemtrails

  1. James says:

    Thanks for the reply, Mick.

    And thanks for the links also.

    I have to say, though, that what started me off looking into this is about a fortnight ago, I was out walking through my village and I saw a huge trail in the sky. The thing that made me stop and look at it was because it had a huge plume in the middle of it. Anyway, I noticed it was heading my way, and I kept watching. The thing flew right over my head. Now, I’m no expert on distances, so I can’t say for sure how far away it was. But I would put money on it being way less than 6 miles away and that’s because I could see some of the detail of the plane so well. It actually looked more like one of the old Challenger space shuttle than a plane – very big fuselage and very chunky wings. The sound was odd as well – more like a spraying sound than a thrusting sound. Another thing that makes me think it was as close as it appeared is that there seemed to be no discernible delay for the sound from the plane to reach my ears (if you know what I mean – indicating that the plane was pretty close to me).

    It’s that experience that’s got me looking into all this. And because of that experience, I can dismiss the http://contrailscience.com/how-far-away-is-that-contrail/ page – cos that plane was close!

    Thanks for your two points though. I would have actually thought that planes without contrails would be easier to spot as we’d generally expect these to be nearer. (Remember, this isn’t me ‘noticing’ planes – this is me actually trying to find them.)

    Anyway, I’m going to keep a log whenever I get chance and see what gives. Because http://www.flightradar24.com also gives altitude information (and I can work out the distance easily enough), I should also be able to get fairly good at estimating the distance of the unidentified planes. And if I can get one to fly right over my head again, then I will have a very good idea of the height. I’ll try and support each record with a couple of photos as well and report back.

    Keep an open mind, guys. I’ll be back!… 🙂

  2. What might be useful to you to get perspective is to stand six miles away from the end of an airport runway, and see how big the planes look as they take off.

    Notice also the different types of plane. An A380 is a lot bigger than a 737, yet both just look like planes. An a380 at 30,000 feet can look like a 737 at 12,000 feet. Check the a380, it’s pretty chunky:

    Anyway, I look forward to seeing your photos.

  3. James says:

    Thanks, Mick. That’s a good idea. Rather than going to an airport, though, I think it will be easier for me to use http://www.flightradar24.com to get my range as that site gives you the plane details and I can easily work out the total distance from the other info it gives.

    I see what you mean about the size of the plane vs perceived distance. Without using any expensive radar equipment, would the only way of determining the actual distance of the plane from me be to count how many seconds elapse between me seeing the plane at it’s nearest and hearing the plane at it’s loudest? Or is there a better way? (The alternative is just to assume that the unidentified planes are the largest planes in existence. This way, it would not be possible to under-estimate the total distance of the plane.)

  4. The reasons I suggest an airport is that you can park yourself six miles away and then you’ll see a large number of different planes all at the same distance, so it eliminates on variable.

    Here’s another approach you might try:

  5. James says:

    Cheers but the problem going to the airport is that I won’t know what planes I’m looking at – e.g., it could be argued that they were all smaller planes or they were all larger planes.

    Why is being 6 miles away important anyway?

  6. 6 miles is about the vertical distance to an average plane flying directly overhead (6 miles = 31,680 feet).

    So a plane taking off from an airport six miles away will look the same size as a plane that flying directly overhead at 31,680 feet.

    I’ve heard many people say a plane (or even a contrail) 6 miles away would be so small that it would be invisible.

  7. James says:

    Mike (or anyone else),

    If the following are observed – that…
    1. All plane types – i.e., ADS-B planes with trails, ADS-B planes without trails, non-ADS-B planes with trails and non-ADS-B planes without trails – are each observed at a range of distances and altitudes, and
    2. Non-ADS-B planes are far more likely to leave a visible, persistent trail than ADS-B planes,

    …would there be any rational explanation for the anomaly?

  8. I think the most likely explanation is user error, as I explained earlier, contrails are further away than you think, and it’s hard to see planes that don’t leave contrail. Hence when you look up a plane on FlightRadar24, you are most likely going to assume the planes are close, and hence much more frequently correctly identify the non-contrail planes that fly within 10 miles of you, but 99% of contrails are MORE than 10 miles away (consider the area of a 10 mile diameter circle is 1/100th the area of a 100 mile diameter circle.)

    There might be other factors, like military planes or private jets. But I strongly suspect this misjudging distance has a huge part to play.

  9. James says:

    If you photograph the plane (with or without a contrail), then you can calculate its distance – using http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/digital.html right? – so there is no guessing required and no user error. (And even if we’re not sure how big the plane is, we can use a minimum and maximum wingspan to determine a range for the distance of the plane.)

    I’ll also bear in mind what you’ve said and ensure that I zoom right out on FlightRadar24, so I give each planes every chance of being identified.

    So, with those measures in place, would the only rational explanation of the aforementioned observations be that the trails are being left by private or military planes? And, if so, would that be considered odd?

    PS – Just to clarify, 99% of contrails are more than 10 miles away from what? (Maybe it’s an exception, but the one that flew straight over my head the other day was not more than 10 miles away from me. I doubt it was even a mile away.)

  10. Alexey says:


    The example from http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/digital.html is re-examined here:


    They clearly have misidentified the plane, it was a 747.

  11. 99% of visible contrails (i.e. contrail visible to you) are over 10 miles away from you.

    The photography method will work. However it’s only ideal when the plane is DIRECTLY overhead. Otherwise the plane will be at an angle to you.

    If it’s not going directly overhead, then the next best thing is to measure the length when it is at it’s closest to you (i.e. at right angles to you). That will give you the line-of-sight distance, and you can calculate rough altitude using the elevation angle and/or the angle of the wings. Bit of math (and a theodolite) required.

    How far away is the farthest plan you have identified on FR24?

  12. Correction, that should be 99% of planes are more that 5 miles way, not 10. I was thinking of a 10 mile diameter, which of course is 5 mile radius.

    And the percentage actually varies based on the length of the contrail. From a minumum 90% with infinitely long contrails, approaching 99% with very short contrails. So 95% is probably reasonable. Getting a bit too mathematical there though, suffice to say MOST contrails you see are over five miles away, and most of them are over 10 miles away.

  13. MikeC says:

    James to reiterate what Mick said earlier – IMO unless you are taking “proper” statistics, then any observation as to whether ADSB or non-ADSB planes are leaving trails is likely to be faulty.

    also there is a small but possibly significant bias in such data if you are using something like Flight Radar – most military a/c apaprently do not have ADSB yet. some do – here in New Zealand the RNZAF operates Kingairs for training and they can be seen with registration “KNG****” – if you jsut type “kng” into the FR24 search you wil find them.

    But they will be required to the same as civilian a/c since they operate in the same airspace, and I have read somewhere that those that do in the US are visible to ATC, but apaprently are not recorded or reported on public sites. Not sure about the system that would allow this, but the reasons are pretty obvious IMO.

  14. James says:


    I’m getting a bit confused. On one hand you’re saying 99% of contrails are over 5 miles away (can you let me know your source for that?), but you also seem to be saying that they are so far away that they cannot be seen. So what is the implication here for the trails I am seeing from the unidentified planes – are you saying they are near or far?

  15. James says:

    Hiya MikeC,

    Can you clarify what you mean by ‘taking “proper” statistics’?

    For my experiment, I’m not concerned about whether the non-ADS-B plane are military or private or whatever. The data I’m aiming to produce will present the correlations between:
    1. Presence of ADS-B
    2. Altitude
    3. Distance
    4. Visibility of trails

  16. My source was a back of the envelope calculation. Try this illustration. Draw a circle 10mm in diameter, then another around it 100mm in diameter. Then randomly draw lines over the general area

    You should be able to see that 90% of the lines will be outside the inner circle (representing 10 mile diameter, or things within 5 miles of you.

    If you do it again, but this time only draw little dots (representing planes, or short trails) then 99% of them will be more than 5 miles away.

    A contrail is not hard to see, even 50 miles away. What is hard to see more than 5-10 miles away are individual planes.

    The implication is that you are seeing trails that are (usually) far away and planes that are (usually) close.

    If you have some time, a way to verify this would be to take photos of every plane you see, at the same camera zoom, and see on average if the contrail leaving planes are smaller than the non-contrail leaving planes.

    Sorry if my explanation is weak, hard to explain in text, or in two dimensions.

  17. And just to confuse things a bit: The 90% figure is for infinitely long contrails. However 90% would ALSO apply to just the planes, if you were to be looking for them constantly. The figure approaches 99% the longer you spend between scans of the sky, and is only at 99% if you look at the sky once (i.e. take a snapshot of the sky).

    You may safely ignore this distinction and just go with 90% for simplicity.

  18. James says:

    You’ve just said that 99% of planes are more than 5 miles away and are hard to see, but the planes I see are usually close.

    Are you saying then, that I’m only seeing a fraction of the planes and am attributing the wrong trails to them?

    What I can be sure of, though, regardless of distance, is that if I see a plane flying into some blue sky which the planes flies through leaving a white line, then that plane has left a trail.

    Also, if I see a plane, at any distance, but can’t see it’s trail, that means it hasn’t left a trail (as planes are more visible than trails).

    I’m not sure what that leaves me to get wrong?

    Lastly, my observations so far are that trail-leaving planes are generally closer than trail-free planes.

  19. Catherine says:

    Hm, yes people do like to spread fear. Correction; it isn’t “always” about spreading fear. Certainly isn’t with me. I believe that love is the answer, actually.

  20. What it means is that you will miss the majority of trail-free planes, and you will overestimate the closeness of planes leaving contrails.

    You say “the planes I see are usually close.” Now, what if you just stop looking at the sky for an hour, and JUST look at FR24. Count the planes that pass within 50 miles of you, and the planes that pass within 5 miles of you. See what the ratio is. I suspect it will be about 90% in the 5-50 mile range, and only 10% within 5 miles.

    Then repeat this just visually. Estimating distance. I suspect that you’ll see mostly planes that you think are close to you.

    However, if a plane leaves a contrail, then there’s no reason you can’t see it up to 50 miles away (or more), as a contrail is hundreds of times the size of the plane. So what you are seeing is:

    A) planes with no trails that are close to you
    B) planes with contrails that are both close and far away.

    You are NOT seeing

    C) planes with no trails that are far away.

    So you think that A is farther way, because they are hard to see, and B is closer because they are easy to see, and that part of A is actually C, when you are not actually seeing C at all.

    Since the planes with no trails are all close to you, then you have no problem seeing them on FR24
    But since the planes with trails are mostly far away, they are much harder to locate on FR24, so you end up not finding a lot of them.

    Hence you (incorrectly) conclude that planes with contrails are less likely to have ADS-B transponders.

    What’s your location? I have a tool that can figure out the flights at altitude within a certain radius.

  21. MikeC says:

    James what I mean is making a serious scientific study – not jsut looking up occasionally and comparing it with FR24 – eg goign to ATC and getting info from them about what a/c are in the sky, clearly identifying military, civil, ADSB/non-ADSB, etc – ie actually studying the phenomena rather than being anecdotal.

  22. James says:

    I don’t agree that I’d think planes without contrails are further away – how large the plane is would make it fairly obvious how far away it is.
    I think you may have a valid point though about it being harder to spot planes without trails and maybe that could skew the results. MikeC’s suggestion about ATC is also good.
    With those points in mind, what if my focus was to record only planes that left persistent trails, then check these planes out with FR24 and/or ATC. Would that make for a fair, reliable test in order to determine what types of planes (i.e., passenger, cargo, military, private or unidentified) are leaving the persistent trails?
    It sounds much simpler, too. Do you know of anyone else that has done this?

  23. James says:

    Mick, to answer your question, I’m in the north of England. Thanks for your help.

  24. Recording only planes that left trails would probably give you a much better sampling,yes.

    Could you name a town nearby? That way I do an accurate chart.

    (I’m from the north myself, Bingley, Yorkshire).

  25. Thanks Leland, that’s a study about possibly doing geoengineering in the future.

  26. Jay Reynolds says:

    I think that gven time, James will begin to be able to identify some planes which will give him a good idea of their general altitude. He will most likely begin to note that planes leaving contrails are fairly high, over 20,000 and closer to 30,000+. He will then begin to find that even planes whch he may not be able to identify will be leaving contrails at about the same altitude as planes whichare identifiable. I wish him luck, he is developing a knowledge base far beyond that of the ordinary person.

    James, you might benefit by watching a good example of fligh tracking at lasvegasskywatch on you tube.
    While I disagree with Ken Bradley’s conclusions, his ID of flights was exceptionally good and well documented.

  27. Stu Pidaso says:

    You guys must think we are stupid. I graduated from College and in 7th grade we learned what CONDENSATION is. These are NOT CONTRAILS. Contrails dissipate approx. 1000 yards after the cold air overwhelms the hot air of the exhaust. Chemtrails are acual chemicals being sprayed by the Air Force under the guise of Geo-Engineering, to off set “Global Warming” or whatever you guys call it today….

    [Admin: edited for politeness]

  28. Stu Pidaso says:

    Hey. Stop worrying about distances and all the diversionary tactics. The government wants you to keep saying to yourselves, “Stop believing your own eyes”. Well, don’t. The fact is that these are not CONTRAILS, These are chemicals being sprayed out the ass end of Air Force cargo planes. They say their doing it to stop “Global Warming”, which is a complete fallicy, but the real reason is for de-population.

    [Admin: Edited for politeness]

  29. captfitch says:

    I don’t think you mean de-population. I’m still alive. Epic de-population fail. Maybe you mean population control.

  30. James says:

    Mick, I’m in Honley (near Huddersfield). Thanks again.

  31. James says:


    Thanks for that. I will definitely check out the YouTube vid.

    Regarding your first comment, though, I don’t know of you read my earlier posts but the the whole thing that got me looking into this is because a plane flew right over my head a couple of weeks ago and left a persistent trail. There’s no way the plane was 6 miles away (directly above me). I’m 90% sure it was less than a mile away. 100% sure less than two miles away. It looked more like a space shuttle than a plane. And I could hear the noise it made – more of a spraying sound than a trusting sound – but of significance here is that there was no discernible difference in timing between the plane at it’s closest and the noise of the plane at it’s loudest – i.e., it really was as close as it seemed.

    Sods law that was one of the few occasions I didn’t have my phone with me to take a photo or video…

    Anyway, I’ll make sure all my observations are supported by at least photo so no-one can dismiss any findings as inexperience or user error, etc.

  32. James says:

    Jay, I watched one vid but it didn’t say how he was identifying the planes or the flights. Have you got a link to a specific vid?

    I also watched this 5 minute vid – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS4mZfcPxao – saying how certain alleged persistent contrails were impossible. Just wondering what you guys thought of it??

  33. Alexey says:


    the only chemical that can persist in the Earth’s atmosphere in solid or liquid state is water. Its droplets or tiny ice crystals form clouds, in which they are at equilibrium with gaseous water vapour. That is, water or ice evaporates at the same rate as vapour condenses back. Contrails are clouds made of ice crystals and therefore they can persist. No other chemical can form long-lasting visible clouds. If such a chemical is sprayed in the form of aerosol, it will not hang around for long. Instead, it will diffuse and dissipate like smoke.

  34. Okay, Honley is at 53.6018,–1.7945

    I have a data set of the ADS-B planes for 24 hours on 29/Sept/2012 (a typical day), I filtered it by distance from Honley, and ONLY those flights which are above 28,000 feet at some point within the distance (so it generally excludes Manchester and Leeds-Bradford flights, as being too low)

    Flights within 5 miles = 37
    Flights within 10 miles = 67
    Flights within 50 miles = 387
    Flights within 100 miles = 647

    Of the 387 flights within 50 miles above 28,000 feet, only 56 of them are LHR traffic

    Here’s the list of flights within 5 miles (i.e. a 10 miles diameter circle centered on Honley)
    Flight BY1683 from PMI to NCL came to 0.6654702 miles, at 30325 feet, at 29/09/2012 06:48:59
    Flight from to came to 4.2436213 miles, at 36475 feet, at 29/09/2012 09:27:03
    Flight RJ264 from ORD to AMM came to 2.7009423 miles, at 39000 feet, at 30/09/2012 02:37:59
    Flight DL211 from PRG to JFK came to 2.2695956 miles, at 32000 feet, at 30/09/2012 06:50:35
    Flight U2805 from LGW to EDI came to 2.7700307 miles, at 34000 feet, at 30/09/2012 08:52:53
    Flight UAL5 from LHR to MSY came to 4.116168 miles, at 34225 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:22:31
    Flight BAW287 from LHR to SFO came to 3.4239223 miles, at 32000 feet, at 30/09/2012 09:30:49
    Flight UA900 from SFO to FRA came to 0.17173783 miles, at 37000 feet, at 29/09/2012 11:27:55
    Flight FR1979 from LCJ to DUB came to 2.4751728 miles, at 39000 feet, at 29/09/2012 03:13:57
    Flight FR2972 from KUN to DUB came to 0.019407572 miles, at 38000 feet, at 29/09/2012 11:01:54
    Flight VS95 from LHR to YVR came to 3.0526276 miles, at 33900 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:35:57
    Flight FR5578 from ALC to EDI came to 0.59652245 miles, at 38000 feet, at 30/09/2012 10:10:34
    Flight LS190 from PMI to GLA came to 2.373929 miles, at 36000 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:35:22
    Flight U2217 from STN to GLA came to 2.9228482 miles, at 34025 feet, at 30/09/2012 10:34:03
    Flight U2235 from STN to EDI came to 2.8601804 miles, at 33850 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:23:16
    Flight SK2537 from CPH to DUB came to 0.64164054 miles, at 34000 feet, at 30/09/2012 09:42:13
    Flight U2803 from LGW to EDI came to 3.9133308 miles, at 33675 feet, at 30/09/2012 02:25:17
    Flight FR4452 from CCF to PIK came to 2.8882174 miles, at 37000 feet, at 30/09/2012 03:50:19
    Flight LH457 from LAX to FRA came to 3.1018555 miles, at 39000 feet, at 30/09/2012 12:51:53
    Flight BA1498 from LHR to GLA came to 3.1151953 miles, at 36000 feet, at 29/09/2012 01:50:36
    Flight BA1486 from LHR to GLA came to 3.9290369 miles, at 33950 feet, at 29/09/2012 12:00:00
    Flight U227 from LTN to EDI came to 3.3528144 miles, at 33975 feet, at 30/09/2012 01:46:02
    Flight BAW49 from LHR to SEA came to 0.9606409 miles, at 32000 feet, at 30/09/2012 08:06:35
    Flight BAW87 from LHR to YVR came to 2.6730866 miles, at 32125 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:46:50
    Flight MT3217 from NBE to GLA came to 2.5762954 miles, at 36000 feet, at 30/09/2012 06:14:25
    Flight LH447 from DEN to FRA came to 2.1366372 miles, at 39000 feet, at 30/09/2012 01:09:55
    Flight U267 from LTN to GLA came to 2.103311 miles, at 34050 feet, at 30/09/2012 12:03:53
    Flight BA1460 from LHR to EDI came to 1.1768125 miles, at 38000 feet, at 29/09/2012 02:40:00
    Flight FR7343 from CIA to PIK came to 2.112253 miles, at 38000 feet, at 29/09/2012 04:09:54
    Flight U229 from LTN to EDI came to 1.0725398 miles, at 31975 feet, at 30/09/2012 07:49:04
    Flight BA1448 from LHR to EDI came to 4.4127088 miles, at 34800 feet, at 30/09/2012 08:38:42
    Flight ACA851 from LHR to YYC came to 2.3898404 miles, at 34000 feet, at 30/09/2012 07:28:24
    Flight LS718 from PMI to EDI came to 4.557228 miles, at 34000 feet, at 30/09/2012 06:37:49
    Flight FR7824 from BCN to PIK came to 2.1224742 miles, at 38000 feet, at 30/09/2012 08:07:10
    Flight U2211 from STN to GLA came to 4.2126613 miles, at 32975 feet, at 30/09/2012 03:35:30
    Flight FI451 from LHR to KEF came to 2.0274317 miles, at 34650 feet, at 30/09/2012 05:57:11
    Flight FR1909 from GDN to DUB came to 3.0679436 miles, at 36000 feet, at 29/09/2012 12:43:53

    Times are in PST

    Here some HD images of the flights, showing most of the origin/dest airports in europe
    Within 5 miles:

    Within 50 miles:

    Here’s a close-up of the 50 miles

    A thin blue line is one flight, so the thicker blue lines are multiple flights along the same route

  35. Alexey says:


    you can also look at the UK MILITARY AIRSPACE GUIDE, which you can download from

    Your place is in a narrow corridor between two Avoidance Areas (Liverpool-Manchester and Leeds-Bradford), so you may expect to see some low flying military aircraft on a regular basis.

  36. Indeed, looks like the military flights will be funneled through that region a bit. There’s a similar effect over Las Vegas in the US.

  37. Jay Reynolds says:

    James, this is a set (1 of 4) of contrail spotting videos by Lasvegasskywatch.
    Part 1:

  38. James2 says:

    I only had to read one paragraph… Combustable enginesfrom back in the day produced different contrails than jet engines used today. Anoverwhemingly ammount of evidence in the movie “why in the world are they spraying”!

  39. Alexey says:


    how do the condensation trails produced by the different types of combustable engines differ from each other. They all produce water vapour that condenses in a linear cloud in appropriate conditions regardless whether it is a jet engine or a turboprop one. See for example the present day C-130 Hercules contrails:


    or Airbus A400M contrails:


  40. Different how so? They both burned a hydrocarbon fuel, they both produced water. They both left contrails that sometimes persisted and spread. It’s all very well documented and understood.

    Where do you get your info about the “different contrails”?

  41. Alexey says:


    was it a different James (not the one from Honley, I mean)?

  42. Yes, different James (from the US.) I’ve added a 2 to his name for distinction

  43. N de Arellano says:

    WOOOW! is this real??? yeah, contrail prior to 95 NEVER EVER EVER extended the emitting airplane by more than a mile, Chem trails emit for tens of miles, and remain for hours. Then, a new chemical dispersant was added, and the chem trails, though still extremely long, would dissipate more rapidly. Secondly, the chemical intent also makes a difference in dispersal patterns. If the applicator is being cleaned, you see the weird twisty, broken, and tightly gathered trails. they dont spread. Its just water, and soap, and will eventually evaporate. If the intent is cloud seeding, the trails dont vanish at all, but sit for a while and literally become clouds, (as salt and polarized dust attract water, that make…. clouds), and if the intent is warming, then its aluminum and barium.

    no significant tests done to prove the soil aluminum theory? nice. that is a blatant lie. I can think of several colleges that did the tests in different parts of the world (coincidentally) only the countries that signed the clean air act in 95 have the elevated levels of aluminum in their soil. The elevation in aluminum is not natural. Not natural in that it does NOT come from the ground. as it once did. Now its a fine top layer, that has been elevating since late 1996. As an organic chemistry major in my college years, I was in one of the schools that participated in this event. (the soil readings) and was on one of the many teams that found the same results. In countries that sighed the clean air/air quality act the barium (rare) and Aluminum has more than quadrupled in soil testing. Those countried that did NOT sign the act… there is no significant change, save some border areas.

    Those countries that signed the act have planes dumping a barium (rare) aluminum cloudy cocktail in their skies. those that did not… do not have this strange phenomenon where planes leave a plume for 80 miles and a mile wide in their skies….

    What does Barium do? good question. makes a great carrier, or inert ingredient to carry the toxic metal through the air, with about a 700ppm limit. Other than that, it is a key element in holographic technology. (that I can think of out of me head)

    What does Aluminum do? well, its an extremely toxic metal, kills plant life, and enough will kill mamals/fish/birds as well as people. Cancer, suppressed immune systems, and all the other fun stuff that comes with oxidised metals. Other than that, it is a thermal capacitor. has the ability to store heat, or cold.

    Look at your winters. Days you see chem trails in the cold winter days, you can almost bet you will see the temperature gradually rise.
    Why is that? the sun beats down and is still nice and warm. The aluminum magnifies that heat making it seem hotter than it is supposed to be. (because it IS hotter than it is supposed to be… but not from global warming, but from intended release of aluminum.)

  44. N de Arellano says:

    I guess, the appropriate question is this: when these magical ‘contrails’ are being laid out over a city, in a perfect grid… why is all other normal contrail airplane activity diverted?

    or, for the other idiots that try to denounce the existence… why is it, the planes that release the chemical trail fly without any markings on them? Grab a telescope, you’ll see.

    oh, the difference between jet engines prior to 1995, and jet engines today… nothing. They arent even more fuel efficient. they are the same engines with one minor change. A secondary insert serp. that releases pressurized vapor into the plane engine.

  45. Perhaps you could post some evidence to back up your claims? Science and history say contrails sometime persist. Aluminum is on average 7% of soil (10% in the Western US). There are no photos of these “unmarked” planes leaving contrails, and plenty of photos of regular commercial jets leaving contrails.

    The planes leaving a “grid” ARE the normal planes. It’s just the weather is different.

    Why don’t you pick one of your assertions, and attempt demonstrate it is true, with evidence. Maybe Aluminum?

  46. Eric says:

    Mick, I am in an ongoing debate with some chemtrail believers and they gave me a link to this site here. I believe that it just talks about how different weather modification companies have to pull a permit with the state to do the small scale weather modifications. here is the site, I don’t know if you have ever seen it before.

    Also, have you ever heard of military planes spraying chaff or anything outside of Nellis AFB (by Las Vegas)? I talked to a lady that lives there and she said that some days the skies are clear and some days it full of “chemtrails”/contrails. I tried to tell her that the moisture in the atmosphere varies, even in the desert. But she didn;t believe me lol.

  47. Eric,

    Yes, cloud seeding has been regulated at the stated level for 50+ years, and several states have requirements to put ads in the paper, see:

    I would not be surprised if chaff spraying was practiced somewhere in Nevada, however chaff is basically invisible. So what they are seeing is most likely contrails. The key thing to note here is the speed of the wind at that altitude. If it’s 80MPH, which is frequently is, then imagine how much the weather has moved in 24 hours (80*24 miles). See:


    Look at the wind speeds at 30,000 feet and above (actually 123 mph right now).

  48. Jon says:

    I can’t believe the patience you’ve displayed on this site, Mick. Kudos.

    I pose this open question to all the chemtrail believers: Hypothetically speaking, what proof would you actually accept before you’ll admit you’re wrong? (Rephrased at the end)

    No level of proof exists, as any evidence that disputes their claim(s) will be immediately written off as “government-propagated lies.” The same people who keep using the phrase “open your eyes” fail to understand the concept of “open your mind.” You’re human. You’re capable of being wrong. So are scientists… but the difference is that scientists will ALWAYS admit that their minds can be changed, and they’ll lay out exactly how: through well-documented, repeatable tests, all leading to a conclusion that contradicts their original belief.

    Allow me to rephrase my original question and precede it with another very important one:
    Are you capable of being wrong?; and
    What level of proof could POSSIBLY* exist that would make you accept that you’re wrong?

    * I’m not asking why you think you’re right. I’m asking what it would take before you’d admit you’re wrong. Totally hypothetical — your imagination has free reign on this one. (I predict I will get youtube links instead of actual responses to the question)

  49. Jon says:

    By the way, if it takes more than a minute or two to think of an answer to the second question, you might want to revisit the first one.

  50. Eric says:

    Jon, you’re exactly right. I think many people in conspiracy circles find it hard to admit they are wrong about something. Especially when the whole theory was propagated by the very people that they thought they could trust to tell them the WHOLE TRUTH. I don’t need to name any names, but I think we all know several prominent people in the alternative media that are spreading fear and lies about this chemtrail thing. It’s all just a giant fear campaign to allow a few individuals to profit and benefit from the fear and anxiety of others. Ironically, that is exactly how many conspiracy theorists describe the “global elite” and the “international bankers”, and how they manipulate people. So basicly, they are falling into the same trap they thought they were getting out of when they “took the red pill” and started learning about conspiracies. It’s true that there are some conspiracies in high places, but chemtrails is just not one of them.

  51. Eric says:

    @ N de Arellano. If you claim that jet engines of today are not any different than engines in 1995, then I suggest you do some research on GE’s new Genx engine and Pratt&Whitneys new Pure Power engines. They are getting considerably better fuel economy and they produce less noise as well. Also, if you are claiming that the chemical is injected into the engine somehow, then you would need to provide some proof that the chemical is injected into the engine and how it could possible escape not being burnt in the combustion process. Even though Jetliners use turbofan engines, and have a low pressure bypass around the compressor and turbine stages, which could possibly give the “chemtrailers” a way to inject the chemical without being burned, then I still do not see how the aircraft would have enough capacity to hold all this chemical and the fuel as well.

  52. MikeC says:

    N de Arellano wrote:
    “I guess, the appropriate question is this: when these magical ‘contrails’ are being laid out over a city, in a perfect grid… why is all other normal contrail airplane activity diverted? ”

    your “appropriate question” begs the question as to what evidence do you have that aircraft are diverted when contrailing takes place in the first place?

    this is a new claim to me.

  53. Thatswhack says:

    I have had not time to see if this has been mentioned on this site or in the comments, but there should be sections pointing out the following: how much does it cost to fuel a jet? It can’t be cheap to fuel up a jet and seed numerous cities daily just to poison people. If they are, then who is paying for it and what purpose. I have a facebook “friend” who is convinced it has happened on numerous occasions in her moderate sized mid-western town and sometimes 5 TIMES A DAY.(I am being vague because this person scours these blogs looking to educate people to the “truth” and frankly, she scares me). Why there? What I am getting at is that if people are trying to poison us, this sounds like the most expensive and ineffectual form of poisoning I have ever heard. This “friend” claims she is having respiratory problems. If this was the case, why aren’t hospitals being deluged with people complaining of the same thing?

  54. Anonymous says:


    there is an article that touches some of the implausibilities with regard to the chemtrail theory:


  55. JFDee says:


    there is an article here that touches some of the implausibilities with regard to the chemtrail theory:


  56. Thatswhack says:

    Thanks for the link. There is so much information on this site that sometimes it’s hard to find. Even with all this information, there is still no convincing people that chemtrails aren’t real. My facebook “friend” had another friend who is an airline mechanic comment on one of her pictures of chemtrails basically telling her that there are no such things on airplanes and it still will not convince her. I think there is no convincing any of these people.

  57. Noble1965 says:

    ” I think there is no convincing any of these people”

    That’s a fact.

    The best anyone can do is post the truth alongside the myth and understand that people are going to believe what they want to believe.

    You could sample several trails, giving the chemmies the choice of which trails are sampled, take them along through the sampling process, allow them to keep the samples under their watchful eyes while the samples are brought to he lab, allow the chemmies watch the lab people do their thing…and the chemmies will invent ways to dismiss the results when they come back negative for aluminum and barium. They will claim that someone is lying, or someone switched the samples or that the lab is in on it.

    There is NO WAY to convince these people that they are wrong.

    Sure, there is one in a million who is open to the idea that he/she is wrong. But the vast majority is convinced that anyone trying to tell them that “chemtrails” are a misunderstanding, is in on it.

    I’m known as a “shill” in that community for posting the truth about some VERY basic science.

    They aren’t interested in truth, they want to believe they are “victims” and they enjoy crying about it.

  58. Steve Funk says:

    Except for the fact that it is deposited in the upper atmosphere. All the other stuff needs to be lifted up by air currents

    If the issue is the human health hazard of these aerosols, it doesn’t matter too much whether they are immediately injected into our breathing space or come to earth later. If the issue is climate impacts, it really is a moot point, since the warming impact of greenhouse gases CO2 and water vapor emitted by normal aircraft flights outweighs the impact from SO2, other particulates and contrail cirrus clouds. Aircraft flights, in the absence of deliberate geoengineering, are a warming influence.

  59. humblist says:

    The Marxists want you to distrust your government,revolution,and loss of freedom.Wise up RT tv,fstv are criminal enterprises funded by russian psyops,same as before,1950’s SCI FI KIDS.ALL cinspiracies have one goal,distract,instill fear,ecpose vulnerable,useful idiots.What about street crime???.Where are the small businessmen,that provide you with local goods,services,jobs.Who wants to spend time on bullshit when life is draining away,wake the fuk up,it is ALL LIES,get an education and behave yourself

  60. David says:

    i do not believe in chemtrails either. but my 19 year old brother does and gets very angry if i say do some research and you will see its bs. unfortunately he believes all sorts of rubbish like this. i find the best and easiest thing to do is walk away. it is very hard to even explain why its bs to anyone who believes this conspiracy. i just give up.

  61. Jay Reynolds says:

    Most of the people who believe in this stuff have relatives just like you. We sometimes call it “going down the rabbit hole”, because in doing so they hide away in an imaginary world of their own making, and hide they do because once error is admitted in the stories they have come to believe in this threatens all the other beliefs. Yes, it might be easy to walk away, but if you can break down the wall he has put up you might be doing your brother a big favor. I wish you luck and maybe because he is young he will be able to escape before he walls himself in too deep.

    You might consider what benefit he might be obtaining by holding these beliefs. Some use these as an escape from confronting some reality in their lives. For instance, a person facing a personal, business, or family failure might seek to blame it on unseen forces over which they can claim no control, thus relieving them of responsibility. Others might use these ideas to build themselves up by claiming ‘special knowedge’, they feel this shows them to be better people. It might simply be that by long and repititious listening to propaganda by many sources they have simply come to accept untruths as facts. There are many out there who do this for money or ego, and sadly they do it very well.

    I urge you to not give up on your brother but to rather try to understand and do your best. I know for a fact that some major figures in the chemtrail world have brothers, sisters, parents and frends who are going through exactly what you have with your own brother. Some of them have contacted me saying exactly as you have. Its almost like there is a need for a 12-step deprogramming or at least a support group for families who have this same problem.

    Good luck.

  62. Whisper says:

    From middle ground, with a common sense mind set.
    This website seems an awful lot of work to discredit and/or disprove a theory you hold as false.
    Especially one you claim is not very well known.
    I mean why bother let a few million’ conspirators ‘
    believe in it?
    Waste of time in my eyes, though your complete and extremely thorough
    investigations are odd.
    Usually people who want to conceal truth go to such planning and extremes, just saying.

  63. Yeah, it’s a problem for us debunkers. If we debunk to well, then some people find that suspicious.

    Do you think if I try less hard I would be more or less effective in exposing and eradicating bunk?

  64. Steve Funk says:

    Why debunk this?
    1. There are people with real medical problems that they are not treating properly because they attribute it to chemtrails.
    2. There are people with psychosomatic problems they attribute to chemtrails that bother them just as much as if they were real.
    3. There are charlatans selling bogus products to #1 and #2, including products containing aluminum.
    4. Nearly every day on the internet, somebody threatens to shoot these planes down. How long before some nut with a military background and connections acts on this and shoots down a passenger plane, murdering hundreds of innocent people?
    5. All the energy devoted to worrying about this hoax could be devoted instead to solving real environmental problems.

  65. bryansail says:

    Here’s a link regarding the sources of exposure to barium. Jet fuel is indicated. I made sure that the link is very easily declunkable (oops bedunkable)


    I believe that contrails are definitely an environmental concern that requires action and public awareness and that contrails are effecting our atmosphere. Most likely the geo engineering is incidental and based upon profits first and health second. There likely are on going experiments for defense applications and other nefarious experiments but these are not the majority of persistent contrails.

    I’ll be posting more about ba and aluminum over at metabunk with links such as the above as I know that Mick and Jay and the gang like a good challenge to their current paradigms.

    Behold, You desire truth in the inner being; make me therefore to know wisdom in my inmost heart. Psalm 51: 6


  66. bryansail says:

    re; Steve’s comments. I agree with u on all you points except that last one. While contrails are not our biggest environmental problem, they do warrant attention.

    “I am enthusiastic over humanity’s extraordinary and sometimes very timely ingenuity. If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat that comes along makes a fortuitous life preserver. But this is not to say that the best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting yesterday’s fortuitous contrivings as constituting the only means for solving a given problem.”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    “Dear reader, traditional human power structures and their reign of darkness are about to be rendered obsolete.”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  67. But contrails do get quite a bit of attention. Why do you think it’s not enough?

  68. bryansail says:

    Jet fuel is problem A ( or A-1 or JP-8 100 ). If barium has an effect on rainfall or contributes to the aerosol problem, it has to be addressed. The idea that if it is being used (ba or al nano composites) it must be o.k. is problem A. I will be posting about metal based fuel improvers over at your other site soon.

    “Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we’ve been ignorant of their value.”

    -R.B. Fuller

  69. MikeC says:

    Bryansail wrote:
    If barium has an effect on rainfall or contributes to the aerosol problem, it has to be addressed.

    Sure – but how about establishing whether it has an effect or makes a contribution in the first place?? There’s no use seeking an answer to a problem if you can’t even establish that the problem exists!

  70. MikeC says:

    Bryansaail wrote:
    “Jet fuel is indicated. I made sure that the link is very easily declunkable (oops bedunkable)


    The reference to jet fuel is:

    “Barium and compounds are used in oil and gas drilling muds, automotive paints, stabilizers for plastics, case hardening steels, bricks, tiles, lubricating oils, and jet fuel as well as in various types of pesticides”

    I’d be interested in what these additives are, because I can’t actually find any reference to any such additives except the ubiquitous “barium salts in Stadis450” chemtrail rants – and according to the MSDS composition of that compound (see http://www.tanker-enemy.com/PDF/Stadis_450_sds_eng.pdf – and yes, it is interesting that TE hosts this!) it does not actually contain any barium at all.

  71. Jay Reynolds says:

    Barium is not only part of the oil drilling process, it is part of the earth itself from whence the oil comes.
    It won’t surprise me to find barium in any fuel at about the same range as you would find in water or soils. I doubt that you found any significant levels of barium in your jet fuel sampling, did you, Bryansail?

    Considering that this claim about barium has been bandied about for over a decade, I would have expected someone would be waving a flag about it with a real analysis, if it were true.

  72. Jay Reynolds says:

    In my work as an engineer, we have lube oil samples analyzed at least once a month. Fuel sample analysis is no big deal at all, there are hundreds of places ationwide and thousands worldwide that can do this. Speculation is fun as a diversion, references are nice but if you want to find real support for a specific claim, you had better get hard data to prove your point.

  73. Captfitch says:

    Yeah- I’ve brought this up before but when anyone mentions jet fuel it points to their overall lack of aviation knowledge. First, there are sooooo many audits and tests independently done at the distribution level on a daily basis. Secondly, with today’s engines being all computer controlled the engines themselves would immediately recognize bad fuel and annunciate that fact. Plus the filters, the heat exchangers, the fuel flow and quantity sensors. How would anything designed to make any atmospheric impact survive the high heat combustion process? Why are the turbine blades not showing deposits?

  74. bryansail says:

    Jet fuel constituent list; http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA396143

    So my question is why the higher concentrations in ba al and titanium (especially) between Jp-5 and Jp-8?
    Titanium level is much higher in JP-8?

    Just curious to get your opinions on metals via contrails and their changing concentrations.

    Truth shall spring up from the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven. Psalm 85: 11

  75. JFDee says:


    I assume you are aware that “ppb” means “parts per billion”. That’s what “trace elements” means. Could also be called “slight impurity”.

  76. bryansail says:

    Hi JFDee,

    Thanks, I am aware of the concentrations being very small. My interest is in the differences between samples. This report is from August 2001 so I think some newer information will be helpful. There are some down stream issues that also need to be considered as well as the unique characteristics of nano scale materials.


  77. MikeC says:

    Bryan – so get some jet fuel and get it tested.

    Those quantities are miniscule – and the number of samples is also miniscule – 1 each of JetA & JP8 and 2 of JP5 – local atmospheric conditions at the 3 locations listed might be enough to account for the differences, or the transport they fuels had undergone to get there, or where the original crude was sourced from, or wear and tear on pipes and hoses, or possibly any one of any number of factors.

    The study also does not link these materials to fuel additives at all – was this your source for that claim?

  78. Captfitch says:

    I remember getting a complete jet A shower one night because of a stupid fueler. I must have smelled for at least a week. Probably got cancer from it. That stuff is just awful.

  79. Captfitch says:

    Oh and I rubbed titanium all over myself several times this last summer. Most people do. Is that bad? Maybe the titanium in jet fuel isn’t as bad as you think.

  80. Jay Reynolds says:

    Your questions andspeculations should go to metabunk where a much better discussion can be continued. This format isn’t good enough to address what you want to know, and what you need to know.

    Bottom line:
    -no matter the trace elements found in a fuel, only the element hydrogen is necessary for the formation of a contrail, even pure hydrogen will make a contrail, when oxygen and hydrogen combines to form water
    -once formed, the atmospheric concentraton of only one molecule determines if a contrail persists or not, water.

    There are simply not enough metals in any jet fuels to do anything else of significance. Do the math for us and show us if you believe otherwise.

    Fuels are not synthetic high purity substances, they are derived from the earth, and will contain more or less trace elements depending on the source stock, the refining, the blending, and the specificatons the buyer requires. Take coal for example, even coal from West Virginia will contain more or less trace elements from batch to batch, this analysis of up to 800 samples shows the variations:

    You say you want newer information, yet ths will never be truly new until you take your own samples.
    Until you show real-life effort to personally produce such samples, documenting their collection and getting an actual lab analysis, you are just uselessly speculating. That is a waste of my time. Come back when you have something in your hand.

  81. bryansail says:


    I have more documentation and will be posting over at metabunk.
    Topics will include SPEC AID 82462 thermal stability ingredients, the ozone, known atmospheric research and applications of, Raytheon/NOAA/naval/Air Force and other issues.

    I do have more documentation re; the tunability of ‘trace’ metals and the nature of these incidental metals and their unique characteristics. I will be looking at both research and experiments. Documentation is definitely preferrable over speculation.

    Due to the politically charged nature of some of the R and D (the D is documented), this information will require lateral thinking. If you are married to a paradigm and take the vow seriously, it will of course be a ‘waste of time’

    I would rather slather on or roll around in titanium than partake in a jet fuel shower.


    “Humans beings always do the most intelligent thing…after they’ve tried every stupid alternative and none of them have worked”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    “If you want to teach people a new way of thinking, don’t bother trying to teach them. Instead, give them a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking.”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” – Col 3:16-17

  82. MikeC says:

    I would not like to take a jet fuel shower either – I well recall a friend of mine sitting on a 44-gal drum that he did not notice had a bit of a puddle roughly where he planted his family jewels……he was scratching for a few days ‘cos of that.

    that would havebeen in 1976 or 1977

    doesn’t make chemtrails true tho.

  83. lucyfair says:

    who do you work for and pays for your lies?

  84. Strawman says:

    That’s something you should probably ask people like Michael J. Murphy, Russ Tanner or Cliff Carnicon.

    Mostly, they are paid for by the people they fool, e.g. chemtrail believers.

  85. JFDee says:


    it’s not clear why you are posting a search link that points back to this site.

    Anyway, as long as there are people misguided by all the ‘chemtrail’ bunk floating around, debunking will be necessary.

  86. I suspect he was trying to post a link to “Case Orange”, as they use the term “contrail science”. It crops up every few weeks.


  87. Dean says:

    Go to my Website and watch the Videos http://chemtrailawareness.com/videos.htm..Then when you are awake go join my private network and start uploading photos and use you Voice Its here http://thechemtrailawarenessgroup.ning.com/ or watch the rubbish i wake upto in the Uk every day this was 10 days ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTcVhjMKKiU

  88. Rodney says:

    I think a big problem is with conspiracy theory arguments is neither side ever wants to accept that they could possibly be wrong. There is a lot of talk here that the people that believe the “chemtrail theory” will not accept that they may be wrong. Most of the people that say they are only contrails are also so sure they are right that no one could change their minds even with hard proof.

    To say that they are spraying without hard evidence is not going to get anyone anywhere. If you saw something that makes you think that something is not right, have a good discussion about that. Show any evidence you have. Listen to the people trying to debunk. Think objectively and come to an honest conclusion.

    Many of the people saying that chemtrails are fake are so hard set on them being fake that they are not open to there being any truth to it. Listen to those saying they are real, and be open to the fact that it could be real.

    People in power have talked about using this type of technology in the future if needed. I don’t think anyone can deny that the governments would do something like this without telling the public, so I don’t think them doing this is out of the realm of possibilities.

    If you think the govt would not do anything that could hurt people you need to look at history. Just a few things in the history of the United States. Forced Removal of the Native Americans, Slavery, The civil war, testing on humans
    Forced Sterilization; Continued until 1981 in the United States
    Radiation testing on humans;

    The use of agent orange, knowing the long term effects on our soldiers and the people of Vietnam, all to win a war….Our troops were told that it was perfectly safe…

    Weapons of mass destruction.

    This is just a very small list there are hundreds of other things many in recent history. I think with this, to trust those in power without question is not a very wise move.

    For me, chemtrails, I have my questions and concerns, but do not know the answer.

  89. Do you have any evidence that “chemtrails” look different to persistent contrails?

    If not, I don’t think there’s really any good reason to suspect they are not persistent contrails. In fact, science-wise, that’s pretty much all they could be.

  90. [email protected] says:


    Contrail theorists dismiss weather modification beyond cloud seeding. Based upon military documentation this is folly (wrong).

    Chemtrail enthusiasts don’t get the science of contrails right and waste time looking for evidence that isn’t even required to modify the atmosphere.

    Both sides don’t seem to understand that aerosols (some of which come from airplane exhaust) are exploitable for moderating pockets of air. Contrails are heatable, aerosols can be charged. Atmospheric moderation is proven. The scientific documentation for this exists, it does not require spokes people of questionable character or dismissable crededentials. The scientific literature has been in place for a very long time. Both sides debunk theories while looking right past or through technology that is staring them in the face.

    It is a situation that is ripe for clouded understanding. Confusion, obfuscation, misdirection and chaos in this World are nothing new.

    I still haven’t had time to post the links that show beyond a shadow of doubt that contrails are tuneable, but I shouldn’t have to. The research is available to all. From NOAA, Naval documents, AF documents, NASA, Raytheon, BAE. Through researching atmospheric heaters beginning in the 1950’s until the present day where these arrays are floating on platforms in the ocean.

    “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” ~ James 1:17

  91. JFDee says:


    nobody “dismisses” weather modification beyond cloud seeding. There is just no evidence that it is being done. Documents, proposals and patents are just paper (or bits). The odd test here and there may have been conducted, but there is no actual indication of an ongoing operation.

    Also, ionosphere experiments are not weather modification.

    First, the ionosphere is way above the area where the weather is happening (the troposphere).
    Second, every night the natural aurora (particles from the sun redirected by the earth’s magnetic field) does much more to heat up the ionosphere than all human ionosphere experiments combined in a whole year. Their energy is minuscule in comparison.

  92. MikeC says:

    Bryansail33 what is this “moderation” of the atmosphere of which you speak??

Comments are closed.