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. Trent Stendrick says:

    If these are normal “everyday” jet contrails, then how come some days the sky is littered with them and other days there are none at all? I live in the Denver area and I work outdoors and have been closely watching the sky everyday for the past four years, and there are always the “normal” looking, non persistent contrails visible on clear days, however on average the persistent contrails appear about 3 to 4 times a week with sometimes longer gaps in-between. Today, there were massive amounts of persistent trails that lingered and spread out eventually covering the ENTIRE sky with a milky brownish white vail, and yesterday there were no persistent trails at all, and both days were warm and very dry. I’m not supporting any conspiracy theories here, but I can’t deny what I’ve been seeing with my own eyes everyday for the past four years. Something’s up.

  2. Hi Trent. It’s because the weather varies from day to day. Some days the conditions are right for contrails to persist and spread, and sometime they are not. It’s always been like this, although there are more planes in the sky now than a few decades ago.

  3. Trent Stendrick says:

    Are the weather conditions really that drastically different at flying altitude than they are on the ground? Because the past two days have been identical, weather-wise, in the 70’s and VERY dry, but two very different days contrail-wise.

    Also, is it really a normal thing for contrails alone to spread and COMPLETELY cover the sky leaving no blue sky at all? If it is, I still think it’s a horrible thing to witness. It just doesn’t seem right.

  4. Yes, the weather conditions are very different at flying altitude. In Denver right now at 30,000 feet it’s -46F, and 65mph winds, but on the ground it’s +55F, and 7mph winds. See:


    The weather aloft varies more than the weather on the ground particularly because of those high winds – they move the masses of air around a lot quicker. You also have to consider the Jet Stream, which kind of snakes around from day to day, bringing very radical changes in the weather at altitude.


    And yes, it is normal for contrails to spread out and cover the sky, if the condition are right. I wrote a whole article on just this question:


  5. Trent Stendrick says:

    Thanks for addressing my questions.

  6. Larry Silverstein says:

    I am curious to know who it is you work for, and why you have such a extensive site dedicated solely on dubunking the chemtrail “myth”. People aren’t as stupid as you claim them to be. You are obviously a part of some sort of agenda. Why do you care so much? These anomolous contrails have not been around since the beginning of jet aviation as you so steadfastly claim. There is definately something going on that warrants questions and investigating. You probably believe (or at least say) that there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything going on in the world, huh?, that everything is in its right place and there are no such thing as vaild conpsiracies, and every bit of truth is known to the general public and that our government holds no secrets. You know, it’s not healthy to take everything at face value, its not healthy to never question anything that doesn’t seem right.
    People are starting to wake up to the fact that our government is constantly lying to us, and people like you are determined to perpetuate those lies and cover-ups. What’s in it for you? Why are you doing this? How do you sleep at night?

  7. Hi Larry, did you have a question about any of the “Myths” I listed above? I think the science is correct, but if you have a comment or a question, I’d be happy to address it.

    As for who I work for, I don’t work for anyone in connection with this site, it’s just a hobby. I’m an amateur pilot, and the weather is always interesting to pilots – particularly clouds.

    Again though, is there anything wrong with my science here?

  8. Larry Silverstein says:

    Very strange hobby you have here “Uncinus”. It must be quite fustrating dealing with all these people not buying anything you’re saying here. Ever try golf?

  9. What exactly is it that you don’t buy? For the sake of argument, if I’m working for the New World Order as a disinformation agent, then is there anything I’ve said that is actually incorrect? Do contrails not persist? What’s the problem here?

    You said “These anomolous contrails have not been around since the beginning of jet aviation”, and yet I show newspaper clippings and photos that show that they have (and before, as prop planes also create contrails). So how can you argue otherwise?

  10. Okay, so sorry. I will never again question anything you say. Contrailscience.com will become my new religion and I will blindly believe everything and anything you say here. “Argument” is for suckers anyways. Uncinus, you are my new lord and savoir, a veritable debunking god, and a champion of the people.

  11. I’d welcome questions.

  12. NWO says:

    I think chemtrails are real

    I don’t remember seeing big fat fluffy trails from jet planes when i was a kid in the 80’s

    Only from the late 90’s and onwards

    The trails from planes from the early 80’s were a very thin line that quickly vanished after a few moments.. on any day, any weather. *shrugs*

  13. NWO. Yes, a lot of people think that this failing to remember something means that it was not there. But you are seeming them now because you are looking for them. How much attention did you pay to contrails when you were a kid?

    Don’t trust your memory. Trust photographs. Your memory differs from photographs.

    There’s are lots of photos of contrails from the 80s and before, that look just like current contrails. Sometimes they fade quickly, sometimes they last a long time, and even spread out. See:


    Of if you want multiple sources from a particular time, try:


  14. Johnny Wonny says:

    I don’t believe in Chemtrails either !

    No way … they do NOT exist.

    Only in your mind.

    People are wasting their time with the silly utube videos they post.

    They are senseless meaningless and also useless.

    Jazzroc is correct … no Chemtrails !

    Just lies and disinfo.

  15. Joe B. Patriotic says:

    People, who are you going to believe, the guard who watches over the treasure or are we all going to be so foolish as to believe the accomplice who hopes to divide the spoil with the thief?

    People, wake up! Can anyone who came to this site say DIS-INFORMATION???????

  16. The cry of “disinformation” is a common one amongst those who can’t actually find anything wrong with something. So whenever you see someone say “this site is disinformation”, it really means “I can’t find anything wrong with this site”

    Joe, if there’s anything incorrect here, then point it out.

  17. Johnny Wonny says:

    I wuz just kidding … I bin filming CT’s in Canada since 2001 … wake up folks … you are being sprayed with chemicals by your ‘authorities’.

  18. Matt Hecker says:

    thank you for all the time you put into this.
    I am also a commercial pilot very interested in weather, and especially interested in debunking all kind of conspiracy theories. I have spent years, and made some progress in the Apollo ‘hoax’ community.

    I am fairly experienced in aviation, weather, and ‘bandwagon’ psychology from my flight experience, college, and years of discussions with the Apollo hoax believers.

    If you need any help writing stuff, let me know!

    Matt Hecker

  19. NWO says:

    I think you did a good job at putting together information for people to make there own mind up. I would not call it disinfo as others have, because it is very possible that you really do have an interest in this subject, after all it’s not so hard to believe that a pilot would be interested in this stuff.

    I’m not one of those crazy people who just hears something and then just have a rock solid belief in it without looking at the other side of the argument and making my own mind up.

    However, i can understand how people show such distrust towards the goverment and i do believe the subject should be looked into more.

    Here is a related article which i was reading today

    And as for “global warming” well thats just a whole different subject *pfft*

  20. Thanks for the feedback NWO.

    The Will Thomas article is interesting, and does tangentiall raise some valid concerns of corporate influence in school text books. But it’s a bit of a leap to go from possibly bad science in a passing mention to something in an obscure seventh grade (12 year olds) text book, to some kind of global conspiracy. Circumstantial evidence can be found anywhere if you pick and choose.

    Of course conspiracies do exist. Iran-Contra and Watergate – were both essentially conspiracies. The question here is if there is any evidence that suggest that persistent spreading contrails are part of a government conspiracy. When you actually look at the available evidence it seems fairly clear that these contrails are just the same as they always were, and given that, there’s no reason to suspect anything unusual is going on.

    Of course that does not mean that there isn’t either, but it helps to have at least some evidence (besides a presumed malign intent and propensity for evil acts on the part of the secret government) before you start believing specific things.

    Most people seem to have:

    1) The government is evil.
    2) Those clouds look unlike clouds I remember from 20 years ago.
    3) Chemtrails are an evil government plot.

  21. C says:

    I paid close attention to contrails as a child. I carefully observed every single one I could set my eyeballs on and counted the minutes until they dissapeared. I never saw them behave the way they do today, thick plumes that spread out into a guazy haze that covers the sky. No, not when I was little; they simply did not do that.

  22. A lot of people say similar things, C. I wonder why this might be, when there is overwhelming evidence that contrails have always been able to persist, spread out and cover the sky.

    I think what you are remembering is not a representative sample. Instead, there was perhaps one summer when you spend some time counting contrails, and then, as is very frequent in many places, the weather conditions were not right for persistent contrails to form.

    Could you say, for example, for how many years you did this? And how many days of each year? And in what season? What location? What was the weather like? Did you ever see a contrail spread out?

    Unless you can answer those questions, I’m afraid your recollections are simply childhood anecdotes. I don’t mean to insult your recollection abilities, but memory is a funny thing, and you really should have additional evidence besides “I remember contrails were different when I was young”.

  23. michael says:

    This website is a psyop…oh yeah..everything is okydokey folks. Nothing but harmless mist over us. Mercury in vaccines, a new Department of “Homeland” Security, Patriot Act, presidential directives destroying the Bill of Rights. Read the PNAC document and check out the governments HAARP site. Breathe deep, enjoy the tyranny.

  24. PNAC is an imperialist neocon think-tank. HAARP is very open about their research, which seems pretty harmless. Mercury is no longer used in vaccines, yet autism is still rising. I’m not sure what your point is – just general dislike of the government?

    Contrails are basically a “harmless mist”, just like clouds are. Even if all your fears about the government are true, what does this have to do with contrails? Do you think the government is spraying you just because you can’t think why they are not? You don’t actually have any evidence, do you?

  25. Givemeabreak says:

    So what then should we make of this report, soon the new Morgellons Disease will be found to be connected to chemtrail spraying

    “From the July 2006 Idaho Observer:


  26. Givemeabreak says:

    If you are not a DIS-INFO agent, then why are you hiding behind a domain proxy, come clean and let everyone here know who you are. Those who support conspiracy have nothing to hide, but it appears that you do!

  27. You should make light of it, for it is a truly stupid report.

    I am not a “DIS-INFO agent”. You can verify this by the facts I post, and the absence of inaccurate information. My domain registration has nothing to do with it.

  28. Great work, Uncinus, with this entire website. I have science friends who feel that conspiracy theories should not be addressed in detail, for fear of lending them credence. I’m not certain they’re wrong, but I prefer to think we live in a world where junk thinking can be defeated head-on, the way you do here.

  29. Thanks Allen, I think of it from the perspective of the person who has just had “chemtrails” explained to them. If there is nothing rebutting the theory, then they are more likely to perpetuate it.

    You know the “true believers” can’t change. But not everyone is quite so hard headed.

    Plus, I find the whole topic interesting, from every angle: scientific, psychological and sociological.

  30. Dave says:

    I’d also like to commend your work Uncinus.

    I was introduced to idea of ‘Chemtrails’ a few years ago, and have come across it a number of times since. I’ve always kind of passed it off as yet-another-conspiracy, but it’s nice to have some solid evidence to counter the standard arguments made by believers.

    And, more in response to Allen McBride, I’ve always felt that education was far more powerful than simply ignoring the problem. It seems that those who zealously believe without proof will do so regardless of whether you ‘fight back’ or not; however, if you are lucky, in the course of attempted education you may manage to save a few critical thinkers from a fate of ignorance.

    And lastly, to Givemeabreak; I don’t blame Uncinus for using a proxy. Many zealots, whether right or wrong, go to ridiculous extremes when dealing with their area of interest. I see using a proxy as nothing more than a very wise act of self-protection.

  31. Georg Pétur says:

    You seem to overlook the fact that both German and British governments have admidet to spraying over Great Britain and Germany in the past, but refuse to tell if it still going on, it is not the policy to discuss ongoing researshes as Sue Ellis, spokesman for Porton Down said: “Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.”

    “The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.”

    Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: “It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.”


  32. You describe the tests as “spraying over Great Britain and Germany”, but in reality there was very little spraying. The guardian article mentions a set of airborne releases of zinc cadmium sulphide about 40 years ago, done to test how the wind would scatter such a release. Other tests were done at ground level. The tests continued for 30 years, but were quite infrequent, averaging maybe ten a year.

    All the tests were done to see how chemical and biological weapons might spread. In the tests they used agents that were thought to be totally harmless, sometimes they just used water. The tests were done so that defenses could be created. It was done in secret so the enemy (The Soviet Union) would not be able to circumvent the defenses.

    It’s a huge leap to go from a few tests that nobody noticed 40 years ago, to a massive campaign of daily high altitude spraying. Where is the connection? The entire though process seems to be:

    1) Hey, I don’t remember contrails lasting that long, and there’s lots of them!
    2) 40 years ago, some military tests were performed in secret!
    3) Therefore, persisting contrails are secret military experiments!

    No, you really need a little more than that. For a start, the fact that contrails last a long time has been documented since 1921.

    So what exactly are you arguing, that the military sometimes conducts tests without informing the public? Of would you like to say something about contrails?

  33. You can read details of the UK tests here:

    And the US trials here:

    Note in the UK trials, the Cadmium was released at 300m (1000 feet). None of these tests have any resemblance to persistent contrails.

  34. Georg Pétur says:

    Chemtrails are actually term used to debunk the whole issue, it is better to goggle “Aerosol” and “cloud seeding” for info on the subject, cloud seeding is actually a blooming bissness today…http://www.weathermod.com/seeding_equipment.php



    Ever heard of “Operation Popeye” ? http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html

  35. NWO says:

    Me again, found this link from alex jones website “infowars”


    An article about a german news report which claims that scientists have discovered this is really going on. The link also includes the german news report which has been translated into English.

    “We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.”

  36. NWO says:

    May also be worth your time to watch this


    40 minutes long but goes into a fair amount of detail.

    “You notice a distinct change then from the 1990’s era?”

    “distinct is not the word, dramatic, devastating, you can pick out any adjective that you want”

    I tend to agree, people are noticing the changing our our skys all over the world and i don’t buy into what you have to say about “not trusting our memorys” People i know whom i have not spoken to about this subject have had an instinctive reaction that not all is as it should be in our skies. And have then sought to seek infomation on the subject. People everywhere, everyday are finding something wrong with the way the sky looks. Are all these people just imagining it?

    I do not pretend to know what you’re motives are for this website, as i’ve said before, you very well may be a firm true believer that “chemtrails” are in fact non- existent. But i have looked at both sides of the argument and i am very much swinging towards chemtrails being a very real and potentially hazardous reality.

  37. NWO, regarding the german news report, it’s basically a mistranslation, as the story is about chaff. The same reporter also says very explicitly that they are not “chemtrails”, and that the chemtrail theory holds little water. See:


    Apart from “I’ve heard that people only started noticing this recently”, what would you say the best evidence is?

  38. And regarding Carnicoms video. Just stop. really, stop, and listen to what he says in the first two minutes.

    He says that “normal contrails disappear quickly”

    That’s the entire premise of his video. Yet it’s one that you will not find in any science book, of scientific paper, or any book on the weather, or any encyclopedia. In fact they ALL agree that contrails can persist for a long time, and can spread out and cover the sky with haze.

    They all agree on this, and they always have. Here are a bunch of references:


    Here is a video from 1963 that says the same thing:


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

    That was written before 1963!

    So, all the science books contradict Carnicom. Why then do you give his video credence?

  39. NWO says:

    Apart from “I’ve heard that people only started noticing this recently”, what would you say the best evidence is?

    Well look, I see planes going over my house everyday that seem to have very very large fat plumes of “smoke” comming out behind it. If I didn’t know any better i might think the plane is on fire.. it’s sometimes that bad. Contrails should be thin lines that follow the plane and don’t often persist for long. I know you say over and over again that contrails can persist, but come on.. I am seeing something that is not contrails and so are millions of other people. Why would people suddenly be seeing these things all of a sudden if there was not something to it?

    As for the german news report, i will get a german speaking friend to help me with that. My german is very rusty so forgive me for using that video in this debate. If it turns out that the news report has been misunderstood then by all means discount that from the subject.

    You should not be so trusting of the goverments.

    Also when i see commercial jets flying over taking people on hoilday, i notice they have a normal contrail or non at all.

    It’s the unmarked jets which almost always have the persisting large fluffy trails which hang around for hours and spread out forming a thick white blanket over the entire sky.

    You use science to explain your side of the argument (and rightly so as well) but try to remember this so called science was created by some of the same lousy people who came up with global warming. Sometimes it is nesserary to use your power of observation and to think outside of the little box that has been handed to you.

  40. NWO, can you give me one reference that says that “normal” contrails should not persist for long?

    I’ve looked in the science books, and they all agree that contrails can persists and spread, depending on the weather. Look here:


    And here’s a video of a book from 1963 that says:

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


    I don’t trust the government, nobody should. However, all the old science books, the old text books, the newspaper archives, the old weather books and all the scientists and weather men ALL agree that contrails can persist and spread out. They have not changed their opinion since spreading contrails were first observed in 1921.

  41. NWO says:

    “All the old science books”

    Old science books can be found to be incorrect

    “newspaper archives”

    The media is controlled by the goverment, they should be the last people to find infomation from and use that as truth

    “all the scientists”

    Thats a bold claim and can’t be proved unless all of them came here right now and gave thier own view.

    “weather men ALL agree that contrails can persist and spread out”

    Let me just go ask ALL of them… And even if they did ALL agree then it would only because they all read the same books in college. And gave the same answers to pass the tests so they could be weather men/woman

    One thing i have learned from life is that if you give a different answer or opinion to the status quo, you don’t get very far. Free and new thinking just makes you a crazy tinfoil hat person.

    Oh and i’m glad you don’t trust the goverment. 🙂 At least we can relate on something.

  42. Not just the old science books, the new ones as well. I just said the old books as it’s less likely that the conspiracy would be altering science books from 1963. The point is that every single source of information I’ve looked at has agreed that contrails can persist and spread out.

    Can you point to ONE that says the opposite?

    Why do you think that contrails can’t persist and spread out?

  43. NWO says:

    Lets assume that chemtrails are in fact real just for a moment, then would it not make sense for all the text books and infomation sources that you take as the gospel truth, to be riddled with disinfomation and false science? After all, it would cover there backs when the “spraying project” begins. Call me paranoid or whatever.. But something to think about.

    And the real catch 22 would be that the average joe blogs would find it hard to discount the holy science book, even thou they are seeing something that just does not look right.. it really is that simple.. these things in the sky do not look right.. i know thats not very scientific but observation should not be ignored.

    I do think that under some conditions normal contrails can persist for SLIGHTY longer due to different temperatures, but thats not the point. The point is we are seeing what looks like SMOKE, solid looking particels that seems heavier than air. And were also seeing jets at very similar altitudes doing different things, for example one jet giving a normal looking contrail and the other letting out a big fat old smoke trail that is about 10 times bigger than the contrail.

    And i know it is almost impossible to judge from using nothing but the eye how high a plane is, but knowing that most of the jets are around the same size you can make quite an accruate estimate if the two jets are at a very similar altitude. So with this in mind, why wpuld one trail be a thin normal contrail and one be a fat fluffy aerosol looking trail?

  44. So you think all the science books in the world, though all of recorded history have been changed?

    They are not at the same altitude. A plane at 31,000 feet can leave a trail where a plane at 33,000 feet will not. You can’t tell the difference in altitude from the ground, especially if the planes are different sizes – which they generally are.

    NWO, do you know what contrails are made from? Would you consider tiny ice crystals to be “solid looking particles that seems heavier than air”

  45. The Dude says:

    Feel free to ignore my post as I know next to nothing about the subject! Anyways I think that maybe NWO does believe that contrails happen naturally, the science books describe them correctly as does everyone, including yourself.

    I think the confusion comes from somthing else.. Two trails, “Chemtrails” and “Contrails”. I think maybe NWO considers that these two types of trails are not connected other than coming from aircraft. One trail is printed about in books and talked about by scientists the other is not.

    I don’t know what to believe myself, I don’t know enough about the science of Contrails to know the difference, I am sure others do and if chemicals are being spread by governments for whatever purpose then we should know.

    Long live free speech and places like this to allow us to share views.

  46. NWO says:

    Yep that is pretty much what i was trying to say… thanks

  47. Dude, I think there is some truth in what you say. “Chemtrails” are of course a theoretical possibility, so you can talk about them as if they exist.

    The root problem here is that there is no evidence that “chemtrails” are anything other than contrails. But as you say, for some people the distinction has already been made, so they get annoyed when you talk about contrails, when they are clearly talking about chemtrails.

    Still, the problem remains that there is no evidence that the things that people point to and say “that’s a chemtrail” are anything different from contrails. They look and act exactly alike, so what is the difference?

  48. NWO, that’s not what you were saying. You said the science books described contrails incorrectly.

  49. NWO says:

    “So you think all the science books in the world, though all of recorded history have been changed”?

    Not all, just the topics on the this subject.. and not changed either, originally wrote with that content. And i don’t think thats 100% true, but it is a possibility that infomation could be faked to fool normal people.

  50. So when a book from 1963, written by a Professor of theoretical mechanics, and the director of research at the United State Weather bureau says:

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


    Do you think:

    A) They are correct
    B) They are lying
    C) They are mistaken
    D) They never wrote that, and it was forged later.

  51. The Dude says:

    I think I may have to delve a bit deeper into this subject, but tbh I don’t particularly think all the science books have been faked. If there are chemtrails then maybe they just wernt wrote about, this would make sense of we wern’t meant to know about them..

    I think maybe people get hungup on the use of words, lets ignore contails and so called chemtrails. Lets say that the governments for whatever reason (pacifying, global warming) are spraying the earth with chemicals, we should talk about it and find out if it is true. If it isnt then we can move on, if it is then we should know. I doubt very much if there has been many scientists looking into these trails, lets hope with talk like this we find the truth.

  52. NWO says:

    I go for

    E: The disinfo goes back to the 60’s or even earlier in preparation for the project


  53. The Dude says:

    I would go for A) and C)

    To be honest I don’t know why you guys keep going round in circles, I agree with Uncinus that not enough is known about the differences and I believe that more research is required before the truth is known

  54. You don’t agree with me, as I think there is no evidence that there is any difference.

    Are you saying there is ANY evidence? Of anything at all? Can you point us to this evidence? Or is this all just a hypothetical theory based on nothing?

  55. The Dude says:

    “They look and act exactly alike, so what is the difference?”

    I took that as admiting that there are two seperate trails, just that there is confirmed evidence for one and as yet not for the other.

    Personally I have not yet made up my mind, but one has to be aware that such things can happen bo matter what name you give them.

    Unless you work for MI5/6 or the CIA and have some inside knowledge of secret projects then proof will only come in time.

  56. The Dude says:

    Oh.. maybe we are writing the history books for our grandchildren, what a comforting thought lol

  57. When I say “They look and act exactly alike, so what is the difference?”, I mean that photos of supposed “chemtrails” look just like photos of contrails (from the present, and from 40 years ago).

  58. Ailse says:

    What is the latest news on the scientists that are taking their government to court because of the chemtrail operations?

    I believe unlike you they happen to specialise in the science of the atmosphere and the weather.

    How can qualified scientists be so wrong about all this?

    How can you be so right about it?

    What about declassified government documents from the military showing weather modification operations were experimented with during the 1940’s? (do your own research or FOIA)

    What about science journals that point out contrails normally do not persist for any longer than several minutes?

    I hope you can explain this for us.

    Thank you.

  59. I can explain it.

    The scientist taking the government to court you refer to is a German meterologist, Karsten Brandt, who is concerned they are using too much chaff. He specifically says it is not chemtrails. See:


    Weather modification has been done since the 40s, and is not classified. There are several weather modification companies operating right now. All it is is seeding clouds to make rain or snow. Contrails form at a much higher altitude, and are unrelated.

    Science journals all point out that contrails can persist for hours and spread out to cover the sky. Here are some examples:


    You do not have any science journals that show otherwise, or you would have linked them.

  60. scott says:

    Thank you Unicus for your voice of reason and scientific impartiality.


  61. Ramsey says:

    Let’s assume you were able to convince me that chemtrails are not real because science says it is normal contrail activity and all that. There’s one more thing the science books, and even experts can’t explain away, and that’s the orb phenomenon.

    In case you’re not familiar, many people have witnessed strange orb-shaped objects in the sky in conjunction with these specific contrails. Some people have reported seeing them with the naked eye, moving erratically, but many claiming they saw nothing with the naked eye or on camera but the objects appeared in the photos and videos. The very fact that these spherical UFOs are being reported flying alongside these specific contrails makes these specific contrails suspicious.

    A couple of months ago I was taking a video of a chemtrail by my house. I didn’t see anything odd with my eyes, or on the camera’s viewfinder, but there was an unmistakable object flying around in circles above the chemtrail on the video. Thinking it may possible be a bird or some weird plane, I enhanced the image:

    The left is the untouched screencapture, the right is the version with emphasized edges. The object appears to be some kind of spherical aircraft, with 4 fins visible and a thrust that is consistent with the motion of the object in the video. In comparing the 2 versions, you can see that the object is actually invisible except for the front window of the aircraft. Take a look, it’s clearly not a bird, plane, balloon, or anything else that’s even been seen before.

    So how do you explain that, Professor Contrail?

    And by the way, I won’t believe a damn thing on the site until I know exactly who funds and maintains it. I’m not saying the science is wrong, per se, I’m saying I don’t have any evidence to believe that the science is TRUE. A scientist can say anything to someone who’s not a scientist and they’re obligated to believe it’s true because they’re not a scientist themselves.

  62. Free Speaker says:

    Why exactly is it, Uncinus, that the vast majority of the so-called foundation of your “they’re nothing more than just normal, albeit a slightly less common form of the average, contrails” argument is links that stem directly from your own webpresence, rather than allowing the reader to view the original address(es) from which you gleaned your rock-solid knowledge? It’s been suggested previously that you “think outside the box that’s been handed to you”… how about letting the rest of us LINK outside the box you’re handing us?

  63. This particular post is a summary which links to other posts. If you click on the links in those posts, you will find they all link to original source.

    Try, for example, the links within this post:


    Which are:

    link 1
    link 2
    link 3

    Together with a bunch of scans of newspapers from 1940-1970, which I can’t link to, but are nonetheless original sources.

  64. Not-so Free Speaker says:

    Strange… both times I’ve tried posting a reply to my request for exposure of the links used here, it’s failed to post…

  65. Free Speaker says:

    But I complain about not being able to reply freely, it posts… LMAO

  66. Free Speaker says:

    So let’s try the long one again…

    Congrats, you have successfully sidestepped another one…

    What about the airline mechanic who “came out” a few years back about firsthand experience with certain jetliners inside which he found extra controls, pipe/pumping systems apparently VERY cleverly disguised to blend in or use modified parts of the plane’s OEM structure to disperse who-knows-what?


    The original domain on which his story was featured has been taken down, for whatever reason, but the PrisonPlanet redistro is an unaltered copy thereof. Then there’s a two-page Las Vegas Tribune article:


    Comments made in that article about “globular filaments” and the like lend themselves pefectly to the explanations given an a now 4-year-old Q&A session I found only recently after renewing my research on the subject: http://www.whale.to/b/deep_shield.html

    The “polymer threads” mentioned right from the beginning of the Deep Shield Q&A session would seem to be exactly what is being reported in the Vegas article, unless I’m just another “conspiracy theory wackjob” drawing misinformed conclusions to support my statements. The Deep Shield Q&A replies DIRECTLY ADMIT to the existence of chemically-laced sprays being applied to our atmosphere, for the purpose of creating a “temporary shield” against both UV and IR light. It also directly stated that “….commercial jet airliners are used and not diverted from their flight paths to do so.” The vaildity of the “mechanic story” I linked above is also directly questioned the this session, and cannot be entirely debunked or confirmed, although is quoted as being “very possible”…

    There have been studies done on the “acceptable casualties” as result of the spraying in question, according to the source of the Deep Shield information, and as seems to be the case with most government-sponsored “solutions”, they know what it is they’re doing to the population but the ends justify the means…

  67. Sorry, your post was being marked as spam, as it had more than two links. I un-spammed it, and changed the rule to five links.

    I did not “side-step” your point, I directly addressed it, and even gave links.

    Regarding the “airline mechanic” piece and “Deep Shield”, it’s impossible to address them as they are simply two anonymous stories, with no authority, and no way of verifying them. They look like hoaxes. You’d have to explain why you give them credence.

    And, I’m sorry, but I give you several articles from the American Meteorological Society, and you give me The Las Vegas Tribune, a free local newspaper, which says:

    The difference is that while condensation trails are composed largely of water vapor that dissipates rapidly, “chemtrails” linger much longer and spread out over time to eventually cover the sky with a thin haze.

    WRONG! All of the science books agree that contrails can last a long time, and spread out to eventually cover the sky with a thin haze.


    The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
    Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.

    Also see “A Field Guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day, 1981:

    “Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“ (Page 137)

    Contrails persist and can spread out. Show me any science book that says they do not.

  68. Free (And This Time Longwinded) Speaker says:

    How nice of you to browbeat the semantics in my last post, I chose the word “sidestep” because you’ve repeatedly chosen not to directly address even the possibilty that even a small number of vapor trails left behind by airplanes COULD be something other than a harmless contrail. You offer the AMS and the Field Guide, repeatedly, to prove that contrails spread… we get that. The Britannica definition is quite clearly that of a CONtrail, we get that too. I saw the contrail ID page you have… yes, there’s more than one type, two of which hang in the sky for longer than usual, and one of those two which will spread if the upper-level conditions are right… point taken. The issue isn’t what makes a contrail a contrail, the rest of us are talking about what makes a contrail a CHEMtrail! Try doing some genuine research into the CHEMtrail quandry, instead of repeating the same knowledge over and over again.

    I’m not here to deny the well-documented fact that CONtrails have been known to persist or spread, or both. There’s plenty of photgraphic proof that they do, and those actually researching the subject know it. Myself and some of the rest of us who’ve posted here, from the other side of the fence, are trying to get through to you that SOME of them AREN’T the harmless streaks that we’ve been groomed to think they all are…. a point you’ve consistently chosen to ignore, even with consistencies presented from unrelated (if anonymous) sources.

    In terms of the anonymity of the sources from which the Deep Shield Q&A and “mechanic story” come, if someone with the kind of information that was offered by those sources, knowing the potential backlash they’d face if their identity WAS known, do you honestly believe they’d put it out there for the world, and the world’s agencies (black and otherwise), to see? Would YOU?

    Personally, I doubt it.

    “Anonymous” does not necessarily mean “unreliable”, or law enforcement agencies the world over wouldn’t give anonymous tips any merit, let alone RELY on them at times, would they? Also, you seem to look down your nose at the fact that the article I linked came from the the Las Vegas Tribune originally. Why, because it’s a “free local newspaper”? They’re guilty of one thing it seems, offering the same defining behavior about the difference between con- and chemtrails as has been offered up before. That faux paux was made at the very beginning of the article, so what about the rest of it? Does one mistake, and a fairly common one at that, merit trashing the rest of its content as worthless? I think not.

    Immediately thereafter, the article continues, “…Last year a concerned reader wrote to the Idaho Observer: “Driving across Idaho and Nevada we saw normal condensation trails in the skies above north Idaho and we were habitually looking up as we drove toward Las Vegas. We had noticed that the sparsely populated areas in Nevada had brilliantly clear blue skies and that the occasional airplane left vapor trails that dissipated normally. But as soon as we neared Las Vegas, in the skies directly above the city, we watched what appeared to be a military C-135 Transports spraying something over the populated areas. When the planes were no longer directly over Las Vegas, they continued flying leaving a vapor trail that dissipated normally.” Yet another eyewitness account of tanker-planes giving off trails that actually CHANGED in a controlled fashion… but the source is anonymous and probably non-professional. Does that anonymity discredit the content of the account given because you can’t verify that it actually happened?

    Another anonymous source, “a Washington State man who told award-winning investigative reporter William Thomas that he’d become ill on New Year’s Day 1999 after watching several jets make strange lines in the sky.” Also dismissable, right, because the identity of the “Washington State man” is unknown? What if (key words there) I told you that “Washington State man” was me? I do live in WA, and have seen similar things in the 25+ years I’ve lived here, and am intelligent enough to realize that a “normal” vapor trail can behave erraticly if conditions merit. I’m also intelligent enough NOT to stick my neck out to have my head removed from it by actually offering my identity to either source, but why not offer up the possibilty that it could have been, to get you thinking about something other than your own viewpoint.

    To continue dissecting the Tribune article for you, a quote from the “investigative reporter” the aforementioned Washington State man told his story to, one William Thomas (a name for you to actually research): “Mainstream newspapers have gone out of their way to dismiss these eyewitness accounts, it’s easier to sell UFOs to major media than a phenomena as close in many cities as the nearest window.” Of course they have, and from your behavior here, so are you. The thought of our wonderfully pure and just government chemically altering the atmosphere to try and UNDO what we’ve DONE to it already, and doing it without TELLING US? Hogwash, right?

    Rather than spoonfeed you the rest of the eyewitness accounts in the Tribune’s article, I ask that you actually read it again with an open mind.. and I’ve included the URL to William Thomas’ web presence for you, to cut down on how much “disinformation” and the number of irrelevant search returns you have to wade through:


    By the way, it’s no surprise that the “mechanic story” and the Deep Shield Q&A look like hoaxes to you… they actually deal directly with the subject at hand.

  69. Well, of course the government could be spraying things on the population as part of global warming mitigation program.

    They could be doing a lot of things. They could have faked the moon landings, they could be coving up aliens, they could be spying on you via the internet, they could be suppressing a DNA macroevolution, they could all be lizards.

    However, there is no actual evidence of this spraying (or any of these other things). Just a few unreliable anecdotes. So why believe what you believe? Because you got sick one time?

    The vast majority of chemtrails believers say that ANY persistent contrail is actually a chemtrail. That’s the primary misconception I’ve been addressing here.

    There is avast amount of anecdotal evidence on the Thomas site. I could cherry pick the weakest evidence, and disprove it, but that would be rather pointless. Why don’t you list the three strongest pieces of evidence that you have, and I’ll have a go at them.

  70. The Big Raven says:

    Well I have read your web site from begining to end and I think your veiws are very small in the micro world. You are an agent of the non-confromist ruleing white elite who thinks they can “think” thier way out of all the troubles they have and in most cases still commit to our mother earth. Your aguments are hollow and I would bet anything that your just a closet non-con in sheepskin.
    Anyone who lives in my territory can see the effects of the CEMICAL SPRAYING that happens and the shit that is put out in the stratospere. I do agree on one very small point you make is that some who beleive in the chemtrail reality are being suckered by some of the more savy writers like you into beleiving thingsd that are just not true.
    So sir I say you are a narrow minded whiteman who thinks they can “think” your sad very sad.

  71. What are the effects that you are seeing in your territory?

  72. Free Speaker says:

    I’ve been chuckling at you “response” since I read it, Unci… ” I could cherry pick the weakest….” That’s how the typical predator works, attack the weakest and ignore the rest as though they weren’t there. I notice you didn’t bother even touching on any of the questions I DIRECTLY ASKED YOU in my “long-winded” post, in typical low-end predatory style, ignore that which might actually require some effort on your part. Let’s see how you handle a few more direct questions…

    “There is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence….”, you say. OF COURSE it’s anecdotal evidence, unless the story-teller has stowed away ON one of these unmarked tankers and recorded a spray mission firsthand, it’s bound to be “anecdotal evidence”! What of the lab analyses that some of these “victims” have offered? Printed up on stolen (or accurately forged) letterhead with random values that LOOK menacing, just to prop up the “anecdote”, or could there actually be some MERIT to what’s been reported? Granted, a reporter mistranslated the printed findings in a new piece. That brings me to another direct question, this one about the content of your site itself.

    One of the tactics you’re using to discredit the whole dilemma is that each of four units of measurement are equal at some point.

    Two of those units deal with weight/volume of a sample and its makeup (µg/L, as it was measured in the mistranslated video and mg/L). These two have a point where they’re equal, since enough micrograms will give you a milligram. The other two deal with much smaller amounts, and smaller sample sizes being measured from… PPM and PPB, which also have points where they’re equal since a certain number of millions will give you a billion. Exactly how many million, or billion “parts” for that matter, does it take to create an equal base amount to measure by, in the other units? Any idea?

    Another point to ponder, drawing from your own website: If normal ‘trails are basically ice, CO, CO2, “oxides of nitrogen” and “small amounts of other things” where in that emissions database you link to are the test results for those “other things” being emitted by these engines and what exactly are they? I’ll answer this one for you… They’re not there at all!

    If normal ‘trails are basically smoke and frozen water-vapor, why are people offereing “anecdotes” of the same or very similar substances falling from the sky after these unmarked planes exhibit the same or very similar flight patterns over different areas of the country, and why do all of the tested samples of it contain the same or very similar compounds of the same or very similar elements, which shouldn’t be found in “smoke and water” in the first place? Everyone’s all making up the same or very similar stories, I presume…

    In doing some research on the elements and/or compound being reported, I find that exposure to most compounds of BARIUM can actually be toxic to some degree, the carbonate in particular, and most barium isotopes are HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE(with half-lives ranging from ms to YEARS)… if that won’t make a person sick, what will?

  73. What of the lab analyses that some of these “victims” have offered?

    The lab reports show normal amounts of barium – exactly the same as are found in ground water. The collection methods are rather dubious (leaving a bowl on the hood of a pickup for a month?)

    One of the tactics you’re using to discredit the whole dilemma is that each of four units of measurement are equal at some point.

    Two of those units deal with weight/volume of a sample and its makeup (µg/L, as it was measured in the mistranslated video and mg/L). These two have a point where they’re equal, since enough micrograms will give you a milligram. The other two deal with much smaller amounts, and smaller sample sizes being measured from… PPM and PPB, which also have points where they’re equal since a certain number of millions will give you a billion. Exactly how many million, or billion “parts” for that matter, does it take to create an equal base amount to measure by, in the other units? Any idea?

    68 µg/L is 0.068 mg/L, because 1000 µg is 1 mg, it’s like the difference between meters and kilometers, or milimeters and meters. One is a thousand times as big as the other. So, it takes 1000.

    Another point to ponder, drawing from your own website: If normal ‘trails are basically ice, CO, CO2, “oxides of nitrogen” and “small amounts of other things” where in that emissions database you link to are the test results for those “other things” being emitted by these engines and what exactly are they? I’ll answer this one for you… They’re not there at all!

    See here:


    The other things are unburnt hydrocarbons, soot (carbon), and oxides of sulphur.

    If normal ‘trails are basically smoke and frozen water-vapor, why are people offereing “anecdotes” of the same or very similar substances falling from the sky after these unmarked planes exhibit the same or very similar flight patterns over different areas of the country, and why do all of the tested samples of it contain the same or very similar compounds of the same or very similar elements, which shouldn’t be found in “smoke and water” in the first place? Everyone’s all making up the same or very similar stories, I presume…

    It’s mostly water, not smoke.

    Flight patterns are straight lines. The same flight patterns are used everywhere because they are straight lines.

    Spider webs are found all round the country, as is dirt and pollen. These things get mistaken for fibers, dust, and (in rain) goo. Actual reports are actually quite varied.

    In doing some research on the elements and/or compound being reported, I find that exposure to most compounds of BARIUM can actually be toxic to some degree, the carbonate in particular, and most barium isotopes are HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE(with half-lives ranging from ms to YEARS)… if that won’t make a person sick, what will?

    Water will make you sick if you drink enough of it. The question is if there are dangerous amounts of the substance. Barium salts naturally occurr in the ground, and are found in small quantities in dirt and airborne dust. Isotpes of barium do not generally exist in nature, as they immediately oxidise. Nobody has reported high levels of radiation.

  74. Free Speaker says:

    Impressive, you directly answered most of the questions presented… but still found it necessary to resort to “cherry-picking” and semantics analysis. Just because I used the word “smoke” before the word “water” in a phrase that you chose to copy here doesn’t infer that my belief is that there’s more “smoke” than “water” in a normal contrail.

    Dubious collection methods, you say? Strange, since the easiest way to collect an easily measureable sample of water, and whatever else has been falling the sky, is to leave a collection vat of SOME kind out in Nature, be it on the hood of a pickup truck or as part of the top-of-the-line amateur weather station you spent a month’s pay on. The only thing “dubious” about the method used in the single repoprt you’ve chosen to nitpick at, is that his methods don’t meet your standards. In the article centered around said lab report, it is mentioned that even the analyst who interpreted the result mentioned it strange that barium showed up at all, but again that doesn’t mean anything since it doesn’t suppoprt your “thought” that there’s no evidence to support the case those of us who actually care enough to RAISE QUESTIONS are trying to bring to light.

    Yes, by the way, you’re correct in pointing out that spiderwebs occur naturally country-wide. That might have something to do with the fact that SPIDERS occur naturally country-wide, no? When was the last time you saw NATURAL spidersilk fall from the sky, let alone in amounts large enough to even thinly veil full-sized cars? When was the last time you saw NATURAL spidersilk turn gooey in rain, it doesn’t… water tends to BEAD UP on the strands, at least as far as I’ve ever seen. People aren’t “mistaking” whatever is falling out of the sky as natural spiderweb strands, the phrase was used as a COMPARISON to describe the material they’re finding, to anyone who might actually care. This leads me back to the Deep Shield “anecdote”, in that the content of the answers given seem to MATCH the unrelated descriptions of what you’re trying to convince those reading our little battle of wits, is nothing more than Nature behAving strangely and dropping common spidersilk out of the sky. This doesn’t even take into account that the material you wnat everyone think is just natural spidersilk starts falling and being collected in odd synchronicity with a plane (or several) ‘trailing overhead.

    Flight patterns are straight lines? REALLY? The issue there isn’t that the planes that people are talking about are performing aerial feats not possible for a jetliner sized aircraft, that’s a whole different debate entirely. The claim is that the planes being talked about are, for the most part (according to all the “anecdotal evidence” you seem to have so much disdain for) UNMARKED and flying abnormally frequently (as it judged by those in the area, who would have at least partial knowledge of how often things fly overhead) and/or IN GROUPS, which seems like it would raise a mental “red flag” even with the most hard-headed of skeptics. Of course, skepticism can usually only be “cured” (I can almost see the blood in the water, in regards to my use of that word) by the skeptic having an undeniable firsthand experience.

    In the case of the chemtrail debate, this would mean finding a way onto the plane used for a spray mission, and interviewing those involved from takeoff to landing. Somehow I don’t see that happening anytime soon, since it seems nobody’s suppopsed to have a clue they’re happening. Think “Stealth project”, nobody had a clue that we were working on the U-2, or SR-71, or F-117 or the B-2… until Big Brother decided it was time to tell us! Same principle at work here, but people are talking because they want answers.

  75. The only thing “dubious” about the method used in the single repoprt you’ve chosen to nitpick at, is that his methods don’t meet your standards.

    The collection methods were bad. However, the main problem with the report was the misstatement of units. The amount of Barium actually found in the lab report was well withing normal limits. There was nothing at all unusual about it. Was there?

    When was the last time you saw NATURAL spidersilk fall from the sky, let alone in amounts large enough to even thinly veil full-sized cars?

    I see silk in the air every single day. I don’t see it in huge quantities (except in the huge webs I walk into, usually in the fall), but I have heard about it on the internet, like:


    There have actually been VERY FEW accounts of it be associated with overflying aircraft. Since aircraft fly overhead CONSTANTLY, then it’s inevitable that occasionally someone will look up, see a contrail, and then later see some silk floating in the air. That’s simply a false correlation.

  76. Free Speaker says:

    Again, the method used to collect the barium-positive water sample doesn’t meet your standards, it’s not the way you’d do it, therefore it’s “bad”… Stow yourself away on a spray mission, interview the crew and take samples for yourself using whatever high-tech gadgetry you feel sufficient, because it seems that a firsthand experience will be the only thing you give any credit.

    In researching mg/L to PPM conversion, I found that the typical use for PPM is in extremely LARGE volumes of water (100’s of thousands of gallons), mg/L usually fits better in terms of a smaller sample, which “the bowl on the hood of his truck” would be… however, in converting between the two, it would seem necessary to take into account the tested sample’s actual volume, which nobody knows precisely (save those directly involved in its testing). The problem is that in such a small sample size, why was there ANY barium present, if barium only occurs in natural compounds and then only in trace amounts (probably taken from samples much bigger than a bowl). Once again, in the report centered around the bowl-sized sample, the technician who analyzed the sample itself commented on the oddity of finding barium. Typical predatory tactics still, attack what you feel weakest, and ignore that which you can’t find a way to try and bring down.

    “Floaters”…? How odd that you accredit all that strange material people are finding, to spiders and their silk in one breath (or post, as it were), and then in the very next, you stop mentioning spiders altogether (except in the content of the “floaters” article itself) as the source of whatever it is people are finding and instead try to offer up the wooly aphid as the culprit. Neither material entirely fits the description people have given of what it is they’re dealing with since those “floaters” you refer to above are described as “white, waxy filaments”… key word: WAXY … not stick-gooey as the “mystery material” is being routinely described, by people not connected in any way other than having the same firsthand experience. You’re grasping at straws now, it would seem. As far as “very few accounts” of unknown material falling from the sky, in synch with at least one unmarked plane being spotted overheard, the fact that it’s been reported as having happened at all obviously raises a few eyebrows… except yours.

  77. Dilution is the same regardless of the sample size. It’s a ratio, a percentage.

    PPM means parts per million. 1 PPM is 1 part out of a million.
    mg/L means milligrams per liter. A liter of water weighs 1000g, or 1,000,000g, or 1 Million milligrams. So 1 mg/L is 1 part out of a million.

    PPM and mg/L are exactly the same, no conversion is needed, see example usages here:


  78. Free Speaker says:

    Another curiousity, if “no conversion is needed”, why are there tools online that do exactly that, convert from one to the other? http://ovas.ca/index.php?page=81 hosts one in particular that contains not only a “concentration converter” but a number of others. http://water.me.vccs.edu/ppm1_2.htm isn’t an intereactive conversion tool per se, but contains a concept that seems fairly important: “Note that the strength or purity of the chemicals must be taken into consideration in calculations.”

  79. Excellent little tools. Go to the one labeled “Concentration Converter”, and choose “Milligrams per liter to parts per million”, enter 1, and click calculate. The result is 1.

    They are the same units.

    The note on purity refers to calculations when adding a substance to water. If the substance is 50% purity, then you would need to add twice as much. It does not relate to testing.

    The EPA limit for drinking water is 2000 ppb (2 ppm). Have there ever been “chemtrail” tests that showed a higher number?

  80. Free Speaker says:

    I must be a glutton for punishment, since the discussion about conversion seems to be drawing out into unecessary lengths… I’ve seen for myself the equality of the measures, more than once, and I’ve watched your replies continually include the very same information at times… You seem to cling desperately to points that you know are correct in, almost as if being right about something makes you feel good about yourself. Notice I’m not arguing the equality of certain points in both scales? I GET IT! The point I was trying to make is the difference in the USES of the two, not the inequality of certain points between them.

  81. There are no differences in use. They mean exactly the same thing.

    Bottom line, the KSLA guy said it was 6.8 parts per million, when it was actually 68.8 parts per billion.

    So, he was wrong, the water had very low levels of Barium in it, well below the level deemed safe by the EPA (2000 parts per billion)


  82. Free Speaker says:

    That’s it, block out all possibility that what any part of what I’ve said here might make even a little sense, and fall back on on arguing an old point that’s ladready been talked to death…

  83. I’m sorry, I just don’t understand why you keep going on about units, when it’s clear that the report was wrong. I take it that you admit that the KSLA report found nothing out of the ordinary in the water?

    If you’d like to discuss something else though, feel free to elucidate.

  84. Free Speaker says:

    Ahh, there IS a sense of humor in there somewhere… why I keep going on about units… I brough up a question about how to convert between them, which I got more than one answer to, three on my count, the last of which you laid on me AFTER I told you I got the math lesson. But I’m the one “going on” unecessarily? That’s funny…

    As far as the KSLA report, I’m not admmiting to anything about it other than the report misquoted the unit of measurement. It still seems odd that there’s ANYTHING in the water in ANY amounts that even closely resembles that which has been reported in other areas. especially when essentially untainted rainwater is what was supposed to have been what was being tested.

  85. It’s not odd. Barium is found in all groundwater, it’s in the dirt. It’s almost surprising they did not find more, especially given all the barium mines in that state.

    They did not simply misquote the units. They said it was three times the EPA limit, when it was actually 1/20th the EPA limit. They basically said it was toxic, when it was not. Here is a direct quote:

    “The results: a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm), more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA”

    It’s cut and dried. They claim there were toxic levels. There were not toxic levels.

  86. Say That Again? says:

    Groundwater… Dirt… OK, but RAIN? Rain doesn’t come from the ground, does it? Last I heard, rain falls from clouds, which you’ve said yourself Remember those “dubious collection medthods”? A bowl on the HOOD OF HIS TRUCK? Real tough to collect GROUNDwater, when the container one is using to collect a sample isn’t IN the ground (so the water can filter through the ground into the bowl), or even ON the ground. The whole mixup in the KSLA report just snowballed itself… the unit was misinterpreted, but assumed to be correct. Since that misinterpretation was taken as fact, the level recorded WOULD have be as high as they said it was. The technician who did the analysis commented on the oddity that there was barium in the sample… Why? Because it’s RAINwater, not groundwater.

    Remember that Las Vegas Tribune report you gave so much time to? It has two parts, and in the first of them is a section that seems appropriate to draw your attention to:

    “Before you believe Gibson’s and the government’s “denial,” do an Internet search for the following terms: “Joint Vision for 2020” and “Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″, a whitepaper by MIT’s Bernard Eastlund and H-bomb father Edward Teller. Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter through the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.

    Two scientists working at Wright Patterson Air Force Base confirmed to the Ohio newspaper, Columbus Alive, that they were involved in aerial spraying experiments. One involved aluminum oxide spraying related to global warming and the other involved barium stearate and had to do with high-tech military communications.” Another excerpt from the LV Tribune: “Government officials deny that anything unusual is taking place, yet increasing numbers of concerned observers are seeing 727-like aircraft painted “all-white with a black stripe up the middle of fuselage” laying long and often cries-crossing chemtrail patterns over Southern Nevada and elsewhere. None of the planes carry identifying markings.

    This brings me to another eyewitness account included in the first half of the LV Tribune article: “One source, who spoke to the Tribune under condition of anonymity, working as a civilian archeologist on government land throughout Nevada, began to notice “all white unmarked aircraft” preparing for take-off at Nellis AFB and at the Mancamp Complex near Tonapah in the late-90s. “It was these unmarked planes that were constantly laying down the criss-crossing X patterns of lingering chemical-spray trails over Southern Nevada.” When the archeologist asked the military escort who accompanied the civilian research team into ‘sensitive’ areas around Nellis, about the planes, the reply received was, “You didn’t see anything.”

    Yet another eyewitness “anecdote”, this one with a name attached to it! “Another Las Vegas resident, Sandy Range, grew up within an outdoors field and stream-type family and has been watching the weather and the skies all her life. Holding a degree from Syracuse University, Range moved to Las Vegas in 1989. “I first began to notice the chemtrails in late ’96 – 14 criss-crossed miles-long vapor trails that didn’t evaporate like the norm. I began to see them weekly, then daily,” Range states matter-of-factly. One early morning in ’99 Range was returing from Henderson when a low-flying craft dropped a trail right overhead along Boulder Highway. “It covered my car with a sticky web-like coating and I saved a specimen in a jar. Microscopic fiber-like filaments,” Range reports. Government denials, as usual.”

    Shall I continue with another LV Tribune clip?

    “Where is the mainstream media’s reporting of this mass phenomenon? Indications of a concerted cover-up came in February 2003, when a retired Southern Baptist preacher named Everett Burton finally succeeded in reaching C-span. After voicing his opinion on the Clinton impeachment trial, this former minister told Americans to get a copy of the Constitution and read it to realize what they have lost. Rev. Burton then advised viewers not to take his word for what was happening in the US, “just look up in the skies as the planes regularly spray contrails across the skies, spraying people and making them ill.” At that point, Rev. Burton was cut off. The screen flipped from C-span to the Tennessee state seal, remained silent for several minutes.” Notice that he specifically used the word CONtrail, but still got censored.

    The denials referred to in those clips are typical Big Brother stonewalls: “There’s nothing strange going on because we say there’s nothing strange going on, even though lots of you have seen something strange going on.”

    So what’s going on?

  87. Say That Again? says:

    To finish a sentence early in that last post: “Which you’ve said yourself have been the subject of modification for a number of years.”

    Remember the weather modification debate you had on a different page?

  88. Groundwater… Dirt… OK, but RAIN? Rain doesn’t come from the ground, does it? Last I heard, rain falls from clouds, which you’ve said yourself Remember those “dubious collection medthods”? A bowl on the HOOD OF HIS TRUCK? Real tough to collect GROUNDwater, when the container one is using to collect a sample isn’t IN the ground (so the water can filter through the ground into the bowl), or even ON the ground.

    My response from earlier:

    Pause for a second, and consider if you left a bowl out for the month of August in rural Arkansas, what would you expect to find in it after a month? Some dirty water? Perhaps a little dust? What’s dust made of outdoor? Dirt, dried topsoil. What would you expect to find in the dirt in Arkansas – one of the richest sources of barium in the US? You’d expect a bit of Barium – but did they actually find any more than you’d get in tap water?


    The only substance with a measurable result was Barium. This was present in the samples a concentration that was just 5% of the allowable EPA limits for drinking water. Not a dangerous amount, but should it be found in the air (hence rainfall) at all? The CDC says

    * Barium gets into the air during the mining, refining, and production of barium compounds, and from the burning of coal and oil.
    * The length of time that barium will last in air, land, water, or sediments depends on the form of barium released.

    You see – it’s not pure rainwater, it’s the residue from one month of rainfall, dust, and evaporation. It’s highly concentrated rainwater.

  89. Free Speaker says:

    Funny, in one sentence it’s not rainwater, and the next says it’s highly concentrated rainwater… Can we make up our mind, please? How ODD that you refused to even touch on the eyewitness accounts, or the whole concept of how vehemently Big Brother wants everybody who’s actually seen things, that they haven’t… Been a pleasure butting heads with Big Cousin, but I’m through goin’ rounds with a well-educated ironwood stump.

  90. Eyewitness accounts of the kind you reference are not very useful They are third hand, from dubious sources, with corroborating evidence, no photos, no documentation, and nobody else saw the same thing at the same time.

    People can, and do, misinterpret things, imagine things, and make things up. If you think they are accurate, then fine, go ahead and believe them. But your standard of evidence is very low – these reports are just as consistent as alien abductions, or gang stalking. Consistent does not make it real. Find some actual, physical evidence. Documents, photos, videos.

    “Rainwater” here implies rain collected froma single shower in a clean container. Not the residue left in a bowl after a month.

    Try this:

    1) Take an empty bowl. Leave it in a warm location, in sunlight. Put a 1/4 cup of pure water in it. Ever three days top it up. Do this for over a month.

    2) After the time is up, pour the content of the bowl into a glass. Fill another glass with pure water. Then compare them.

  91. Free Speaker 2 says:

    First and foremost, I absolutely LOVE how you tell people that their eyes and brains are wrong. I would never consider myself an ignorant and unedjucated person. I have a VERY good memory to boot. I grew up in the country and its obvious that I spent just about everyday outside. Kids love to look in the sky and see the airplanes flying overhead, right?
    I have also attended just about every airshow around this area growing up. (my stepdad loves jets and planes) Never in my entire life have I EVER seen what I saw overhead 2 days ago while driving home from work. I had heard about chemtrails and thought, “well, maybe this idea is just a little crazy for me.” Driving home I saw a total of 12 airplanes in a matter of 15-20 minutes, which I also find odd as I have NEVER seen that many airplanes in this area at once, flying directly at each other and crossing paths in matter of seconds. (also odd, no?) It looked like skywritting, NOT contrails, going back and forth making a grid over the entire sky. If anyone told me that commecial flights cross paths like these planes were, I’d probably laugh. As these trails started to settle in the sky, it almost looked like something was dripping from the trails, also something I have never seen in my life comming from a contrail. Intrigued, I grabbed my camcorder and filmed these planes making checkerboard designs in the sky that were “raining and dripping” some kind of subtance. My husband, who is a huge skeptic of just about anything, was also really freaked out by the sight of the strange sky, as was a friend who was visiting. I actually got a good close-up shot of one of these white planes (did NOT look a passenger plane) spraying trails of something thick and white out it. And like I said, I KNOW what contrails look like.
    Is the goverment really going to try and tell ALOT of people that their eyes are “tricking” them? Are they, and you for that matter, going to deny that anything is going on up there? How would you explain Morgellons? How would you explain the FDA and the US Government completely ignoring and denying that Morgellons even exists? Would you call ALOT of sick people liars too? How do explain the explosion in respritory problems? Asthma is up roughly 400-600% in the past decade. Why are babies and elderly people having so many problems from “unknown” respritory ailments. (by the way, I DO work in the medical field and am currently persuing a masters in geology) Why are the barium levels in rain water at 3 times the lethal limit? I suppose your going to say that rain doesn’t come from the sky. Why do “chemical rainbows” appear in the sky after the daily doses of the plane trails? How can you or the government deny these allegations while my child plays in the yard and the planes are flying over spraying something down on my family?
    The people of this country and the world need to spread the message now…WE ARE UNDER ATTACK THROUGH THE AIR WE ARE BREATHING! Its time to put this crap to an END. The people are starting to understand what our “leaders” are REALLY doing to us. It’s going to huge when our wagons start comming over capitol hill. Who cares what these government agencies tell us…use your own brains and see for yourself…Every person is smart enough and strong enough to fight this, without outsiders telling us whats right and wrong. Humans can make these simple observations, just look up at the sky and draw a conclusion. Dont ever let anyone tell us “regular joes” that we aren’t smart enough to do so!

  92. So where’s the video?

    And you say:

    Why are the barium levels in rain water at 3 times the lethal limit?

    They are not. This has been discussed several times. No test result has ever shown unusually elevated levels of Barium. Post the lab report if you think there has been such high levels. 2mg/L is the EPA limit, not a “lethal” limit, but just the limit they would prefer water to be below, even though there’s no evidence that that level does any harm. 2mg/L is actually a safe level. But anyway, post the lab results.

    The CDC is currently investigating Morgellons. How is that “ignoring” it? And how is it linked to contrails?

  93. Irish says:

    Uncinus, very interesting site. I admire your persistence, but I think you’re tilting at windmills — no amount of fact or patient explanation will sway conspiracy theorists from their conspiracies of choice. The most fundamental and frequent mistake I see with CT’s is their propensity to confuse correlation with causation. ANYTHING can be correlated with anything else, but that’s a long way from establishing that one correlated element caused the other. As you probably know, most violent criminals eat bread. This correlation doesn’t establish bread as causative of violent behavior.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I should state up front that I’m a public health official, which, I suppose, would put me solidly in the “cover up camp” according to most CT’s. I can’t imagine a career with a greater opportunity to destroy the health of the public I’m pledged to protect, can you? Except that I’m a member of that public, so it seems a sort of self-defeating exercise. Or, perhaps the CT’s think we’ve secretly equipped our homes, vehicles, and offices with filters to protect us from the dire effects of all of the “substances” with which we’re covering the country.

    I found your site while searching for something completely unrelated to contrails, but related to weather. I’m interested in weather, having flown the occasional aircraft, but mostly because a fairly significant part of my job involves review of medical flights and the choice to fly or not to fly is so often weather-dependent.

    Great stuff here. I’ll look in occasionally. Great work. I admire your patience.

  94. Hi Irish,

    The chemtrail debunking on here is not aimed at true-believers, although their arguments do provide the framework for discussion.

    Rather, I hope to give useful information to those who have just heard about the theory, or have perhaps only recently started to be believe some the claims being made.

    The chemtrail meme is not particularly harmful, but it’s interesting, which is why I like to discuss it.

  95. Irish says:

    Free Speaker 2, can I just throw my two cents in?

    You ask, “Is the goverment really going to try and tell ALOT of people that their eyes are “tricking” them?”

    First, I don’t know that “the government” is telling anyone anything. But, *I*, as a private citizen with flight experience, can tell you it is extraordinarily difficult to accurately estimate the altitude of aircraft from the ground. From the ground, one has no point of reference, so trying to estimate the three-dimensional distribution of the aircraft from a two-deminsional perspective does (more commonly than not) cause one’s eyes to “trick” them. Even experienced pilots have difficulty accurately estimating aircraft altitudes from the ground. The aircraft you saw were separated by thousands of feet. So, in that sense, your eyes were tricking you if you perceived they were “flying directly at each other”. If they were’t separated by generous distances, there would either have been multiple midair collisions, or the pilots would have had to take evasive action — which you say they did not do. The pattern you observed sounds very much like normal flight activity.

    You ask, “How would you explain Morgellons? How would you explain the FDA and the US Government completely ignoring and denying that Morgellons even exists?”

    I don’t explain it because there aren’t yet adequate data to explain it. Neither the FDA nor “the US the government” is ignoring increased reports of dermatological problems. The CDC has funded a study to investigate the possible etiology of those problems and identify the causative agent. When there are adequate data, then it can be explained. Until then, the “chemtrail” explanation is no more valid than the “alien spores” explanation.

    You ask, “Asthma is up roughly 400-600% in the past decade. Why are babies and elderly people having so many problems from “unknown” respritory ailments.”

    Actually, according the CDC surveillance statistics, the overall prevalence of asthma has remained stable or decreased in the past decade. As to “so many problems from unknown respritory [sic] ailments”, could you cite the source for your data? I’m not able to locate any data supporting that assertion.

    You ask, “Why do “chemical rainbows” appear in the sky after the daily doses of the plane trails?”

    What is a “chemical rainbow”, and how is that differentiated from a “regular rainbow”?

    You ask, “How can you or the government deny these allegations while my child plays in the yard and the planes are flying over spraying something down on my family?”

    Because I’ve yet to see any credible data to support these allegations.

  96. Free Speaker says:

    Since the military has been spraying, we very seldom have normal appearing clouds anymore.

    The US Military has conducted “Open Air” biowarfare testing involving dangerous pathogens and carcinogens that resulted in illness and fatalities over hundreds of American cities without the informed consent of residents since 1949. The 1977 Senate Hearing and 1994 Hearing proved that the military has sprayed the population in the past (for sure) and is no doubt doing it today.

  97. Actually the clouds are just the same. We do occasionally have spreading contrails that lead to overcast skies – but that’s been going on since the 60s, and is simply and unfortunate consequence of more jet travel.

    Your claims of military spraying affecting the clouds are ridiculous, and have ZERO evidence. Your statement regarding the military is baseless, there have been no illnesses conclusively linked to the testing, and it stopped in the 50s. It also had nothing to do with high altitude clouds.

  98. The Village Idiot says:

    Stop debunking these conspiracies!

    I need to have some external force to blame for things in my life that are not the way I’d like them to be, and to maintain the illusion that SOMEone is in the driver’s seat of civilization, even if they are drunk or insane. My health, level of personal success, or any other arbitrary measure of my life that could be better or is suffering the ravages of aging or lifestyle choices is easier to take when I can say “They” did it to me. I cannot accept that “excrement occurs” no matter what I intended or that I might have brought things I don’t like on to myself.

    There are indeed secret societies who seek to rule the world (and some that are not so secret), but our best protection is that there’s more than one. That is, the friction created by the conflicts between groups competing for world domination is a self-regulating phenomenon that prevents any one group from succeeding (so far) and probably explains most of human history. It would be in the interests of a wannabe-megalomaniac group to document and expose the reality of chemtrails being sprayed by a competing megalomaniac group (in a scientifically indisputable way, meaning with evidence), but this has not happened. Instead we get sporadic and easily disputed pictures, videos, and anecdotes. Contrast the sporadic talk of chemtrails with the widespread and relentless exposure of the sex-abuse scandal in the catholic church to see what I mean.

    We all make plans for our lives. Sometimes big plans, sometimes little ones. Anyone who has made and attempted to carry out a plan knows that things rarely go as planned, no matter how big or small the plan was. So, how would it be different for a megalomaniac group? I would expect the incidence of Murphy’s Law (or “excrement occuring”) to increase proportionally to the number of people involved and the complexity of the plan. World domination/ secret governments/ etc. are incredibly complex goals that require the collaboration of many individuals, so we can reasonably expect the incidence of mistakes and failure to be rather high. International banking could be said to be an example of a megalomaniac mindset, but remember it took a very long time to develop it into what it is today, and it is not a secret; it works as an instrument of control because most people are not financially astute or educated enough to accurately assess what’s right in front of them.

    We sign adjustable-rate mortgages because we are ignorant of finance. We see chemtrails because we are ignorant of science. We think some shadowy group of “the elite” rules the world because they happen to own a lot of the crap we’re taught to desire, but we are ignorant of the fact that once we cease to desire those things, they no longer rule our world, at least.

    Seems to me the greatest threat to us as individuals (and as a species) is ignorance… Or maybe the rationalization of that ignorance, it’s hard to say…

  99. The Village Idiot says:

    Quoting # 91: “Humans can make these simple observations, just look up at the sky and draw a conclusion. Dont ever let anyone tell us “regular joes” that we aren’t smart enough to do so!”

    I just tried that, and the conclusion I came to from using my own eyes and brain was that the Sun orbits around the Earth, which is flat by the way (go outside and look for yourself!).

  100. Primal80s says:

    Uncinus, thanks for debunking some myths with facts, sources and links to verifiable data. A lot of the ‘chemtrail’ proponents are setting a horrendous double standard for themselves and making themselves look like complete idiots.
    “Oh no, we can’t believe what all this scientifically collected, peer approved data says, but believe us (the people with no evidence at all, just anecdotes, 20 year old memories and history tab full of moon hoax, 9/11 and Icke websites). Yes we definitely know what’s going on because we can see clouds left by planes with our eyes.”

    Personally, I don’t know why you give these people the time of day, as their anarchist ideas have as much scientific basis as creationism and timecube.
    It’s admirable that you’re trying to educate the masses and I’d like to believe that some people sitting on the fence of chemtrails stumbled on this site and got off the bandwagon to crazy before it set off.

Comments are closed.