Home » contrails » How many people believe in chemtrails?

How many people believe in chemtrails?

How many people are interested in chemtrails? Not very many I suspect. But how to measure them? One way is to see how popular they are on the internet. You could measure how many web pages mention “chemtrails”, but that could give a distorted picture, as the people who believe in chemtrails might tend to be much more likely to post their beliefs on the internet. Lots of people knit, for example, but only a tiny fraction of them make knitting web sites.

We could count blog posts, but that has similar problems, as people who believe in conspiracy theories seem quite keen on spreading those theories, and so are more likely to blog about them

The best way that occurred to me was to measure search terms. Simply see how many people were googling for “chemtrails” vs. other words. In this Googlified world, if people are interested in something then they google it.

Here’s my raw data:

Google Google Blogs Google Images Video News Scholar Pages/Posts Groutability 2006
“Global Warming” 67500000 733828 996000 18420 32584 102000 91.98 80
Ufo 36700000 317795 3335000 163722 929 24000 115.48 80
Knitting 20600000 601088 668000 7035 1715 143000 34.27 50
Archery 11900000 95539 296000 3614 1453 12500 124.56 12
Parkour 4510000 35404 83100 39931 49 39 127.39 8
Fread 2600000 3224 8280 32 10 3580 806.45 1.6
Grouting 1600000 6873 17800 193 58 36600 232.79 1
Bboy 1210000 14443 25700 77250 10 49 83.78 3
Chemtrail(s) 791000 4828 9180 2123 5 38 163.84 1
“fox hunting” 707000 7923 15900 106 64 2380 89.23 1.2
“Killer Bees” 434000 7090 10400 195 197 568 61.21 0.8
Morgellons 236000 3756 2970 143 4 26 62.83 1
Vexillology 112000 1037 1610 0 4 34 108 0
Reborning 47000 397 1070 0 0 0 118.39 0

The columns are fairly self explanatory. They are the number of results returned by google for web, blogs, images, videos, news and scholar. The pages/posts column is the ratio of total web pages to blog posts. The “groutability” column is the ratio search volume for that word to the search volume of “grouting”. I chose grouting as it seemed like a thing people would be searching for at a fairly constant volume, but not too much.

I chose search terms that had a similar result to chemtrails. I also added some outliers, that were very popular, or very unpopular, mostly activities practiced only by a few (like reborning). I included “morgellons”, as it seems like the most similar thing I could find with a distinct name.

You can look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Chemtrails has more results than “killer bees”, but less than “bboy” ( a type of athletic break-dancing). It has vastly less than knitting and archery. But a lot more than “reborning” (making realistic baby dolls).

But how many people are interested in chemtrails? Well, there are about 30,000,000 knitters in the country, and 600,000 blog results. So given the 4828 blogs results for chemtrails, that would indicate 241,000 people have some interest in chemtrails. But, like I said, it’s not easy to accurately extrapolate. If you could extrapolate from blogs, you could say there are three times as many chemtrailers as there are vexillologists (flag enthusiasts).

Or you could say: a lot more people are interested in Parkour than are interested in chemtrails.

[Update] Chemtrails on Usenet (archived on Google Groups), were only mentioned in 1999.  Here are the year-to-year search results for the word “chemtrails”.  There are NO results prior to 1999

1999 – 1070
2000 – 2050
2001 – 2810
2002 – 2250
2003 – 2060
2004 – 2100
2005 – 1570
2006 – 2450
2007 – 2230

331 thoughts on “How many people believe in chemtrails?

  1. D. says:

    If there are such a small amount of people interested in “Chemtrails”, why such an effort to create this website debunking the whole idea??

  2. 241,000 people is not “a small amount”. Even 4828 people is quite a few, but this misses the point. *I* am interested in contrails, so I write about them.

  3. Ultima says:

    I would estimate that several millions under 5 millions believe and are aware of the possible multi uses of such old technologies that have long been deployed by communist countries. Weather modification is an old technology that seems to be interconnected to chemtraisl in some way or another or very many possibleuses again – more so than the government say chemtrail aerosols are used for. The sad thing is that it was the USAF and USNAVY that coined the word chemtrails and not any conspiracists. There are no theories my friends, unless you include all science and all scientific laws that were all founded on theories! Use some science and you will see we do use science to out perform and control nature in attempts to control and outdo it. Always have, always will? At our own perils.

  4. Ultima says:

    It is our freedom to defend our belief just as insane Christians do that rule America?! We have so much more logic than false religion. Truth in science and science to find the truth based onlyon government and independent sources – including declassified data freely available – you lazy asses – do some research!

  5. Black Mamba says:

    straight up, u suck contrail science

  6. ZODWTF says:

    How do you get this raw data anyways? how can you find out how many people search something? >;D

  7. Most of the numbers in the table are the number of search results found by google. Like where is says “Results 1 – 10 of about 1,380,000 for Chemtrails“.

    The only column that reflects how much people searched for it is the “Groutability” column, which was calculated with Google Trends, being the relative height of two graphs:


    That’s about 1:1


    is about 12:1

  8. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    The Physics of Chem-Trails.

    Aluminum and Barium is being sprayed into the air via the jet exhaust and these poison trails last from 1/2 hour to 1/2 a day.

    It is physically impossible for an ordinary Con -trail to last between 1/2 hour to 1/2 a day.

    If your car exhaust was to last more than 1/2 minute it would be because there was a problem and particulates were in the exhaust gas. Jet Turbines are far more efficient at burning hydrocarbon fuel therefore any trail which lasts more than 1/2 hour on a sunny day is a Chemtrail and could physically be nothing other.

    [Physical Systems, Lancaster England.]

  9. Car exhaust vapor evaporates almost instantly because of the high temperature.

    Jet plane exhaust vapor exists at 30,000 feet at -40 degrees. So it lasts a lot longer. It’s a totally different thing. Try running your car at -40 degrees and see what happens.

    Contrails are essentially clouds. If contrails could not last longer that 1/2 a minute, then clouds could not last longer that 1/2 a minute. Clearly clouds often last for several hours, and hence so can contrails.

    The more efficient a jet engine is, the more water vapor it produces, and hence the larger the trail is, and the longer it lasts.

  10. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Thank you Uncinus for that insight.

    So why are we seeing Contrails at 13,000 feet in Summer if it required 30,000 feet and -40 degrees?

    Is it colder in England? LOL

    And why if these are perfectly normal Contrails do many of them Start and stop and are in perfect rows?

  11. It does not require 30,000 feet. It requires -40 degrees for persistent contrails. Normally that is around 30,000 feet, but contrails can form a sea level in the arctic regions.

    In England in the summer however, It seems very unlikely you are seeing contrails at 13,000 feet. If you think you have, then I’d ask you: how did you measure the altitude?

    Contrails start and stop at the same point because they are entering or leaving a region of moist air. They are in “prefect rows” (usually not quite prefect, but still), because they are planes that are flying the same route. Since the wind at that altitude is often around 80 mph or higher, then the trails are blown to the side by the time the next plane comes along.

    That’s illustrated quite well if you look at satellite photos, such as these:


  12. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Check this out – what do you think of that?


  13. I think it is a mistranslation of the word “dupple” (as well as a general misleading translation), this is fully explained here:


    Karsten Brand quite explicitly does NOT believe in chemtrails. He’s talking about something totally different in your video.

  14. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    To measure altitude try this method


    or if you like – just hack the radio traffic.

    How do you explain this evidence:-

    Chemtrails – Lab Report On
    Air Grab Thru HEPA Filter


    Is this lab making it up?


  15. That method is for rockets, where you know where they took off from, and assumes they go straight up. So it is not applicable to jet planes.

    Listening to radio traffic is only useful if you know exactly which plane you are observing.

    But again, how did YOU measure the height of the plane as 13,000 feet?

    That lab report is explained here:


    Basically they are not measuring what they think they are measuring, neglecting to mention that they filtered 1 TONNE of air to get their sample, but then measured the concentration relative to 1 gram of particulates. Hence being off by a factor of a million.

    It might be useful to you if you have a quick look at the other articles here. They are listed at the top of the left column.

  16. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    And the Aluminum and Barium are not Chaff?

    So, let me see if I have this correct – firstly every trail is a perfect Contrail and not a Chemtrail, then it turns out the German Military admit to spraying crap into the air from jets but these are not Chemtrails.

    Well that solves that then, everything is as it should be.

    What about the UK government admitting it too spreyed crap to see how it dispersed after it was caught red handed – was that just a normal Contrail too?

    Aluminum is not TOXIC yes, its perfectly safe right – it does not dumb down the population and makes them ill.

    So everything is just fine.

  17. Chaff is an anti-radar counter measure – small particles of plastic coated with aluminum used to disrupt radar. Chaff does not include barium.

    The video you posted was about spraying chaff. Chaff is not a contrail. Chaff is invisible from the ground, so cannot be what you are seeing that you think are “chemtrails”.

    Aluminum is NOT especially toxic (for example, soda cans are made of aluminum, and food is often cooked in aluminum foil.), but that’s beside the point, as there has been no evidence of aluminum in contrails.

    “the UK government admitting it too spreyed crap to see how it dispersed” is not contails either, they were low altitude tests, and would have not have been visible. That was also several decades ago.

    Perhaps everything is not fine in the world, but there is simply no evidence that contrails are anything more than vapor trails from jet aircraft.

  18. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Thanks for that Uncinus.

    Here is my hypothesis:

    Depleted Uranium has been used in large quantities since 1990s in three wars. It has now poisoned large areas in Europe and the middle east.

    The Criminal US company, Haliburton, is now paid by the UK government to monitor the troposphere radiation levels since 1990, prior to that it was measured by the MOD.

    see here:


    To help reduce this high radioactive level —- cloud seeding is done to wash the radioactive crap out of the air.

    see here:




    Flooding is better than Nuked up kids, hence the Chemtrails.

    Hence this is why the UK had the flooding for the first time in history in Summer last year.

    And if you think this is not a worthy hypothesis, get yourself a copy of the radiation levels in Europe before and after 1990.



  19. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Check this out:


    If you want to reduce the Radioactivity in the air you cloud seed to cause rain to wash the particulates out.

    Now you know why they are Chemtrailing.

    Now you know why they keep it hush hush.

  20. The problems with that argument are:

    1) No increase in radioactive has recorded in the US.
    2) No increase in rainfall has been recorded in the US beyond normal year-to-year variations.

    If your theory were true, then at least one of the above would be true.

    Besides, contrails form at too high an altitude to create rain.

  21. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    In the UK, Rain fall swamped the midlands in summer last year, the highest rainfall ever in history. Chemtrails were recorded constantly.

    In 2003 The average Radiation levels in the UK had never been higher, since then it has reduced, but occasionally after dust storms in the middle east it peaks again.

    check this out and ask for the original data:-


    In the US:-

    How can one account for jet trails over the Arizona desert, is that air full of water in the Desert areas? NO.

    So why the many 100 mile trails across the desert if the air there is so dry?

  22. Were there more “chemtrails” in 2007 than in any other year? Where are the records of these chemtrails? Why no flooding in 2003-2006?

    If you want to establish a correlation, you’ll need some actual figures, or at least some source for your assertions of “Chemtrails were recorded constantly”

    How could contrails be connected to increased rainfall? Contrails form at too high an altitude to affect rainfall.

    Persistent contrails (which you call “chemtrails”) have been recorded all over the world. How do you explain those?

    The air ABOVE the desert areas is sometimes “full of water”, yes. Because the weather on the ground has little connection to the weather six miles up.

  23. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Contrails are not connected to rainfall.

    Heavy overcast & rainfall follows Chemtrailing.

    Hardly Surprising if the Chemtrails are rain seeding?

    And if you claim there is no such thing as Chemtrailing or Chemtrailing to rain seed then tell this to these guys:-






    So no one is flying about putting crap into the air (Chem trailing) OK

    Its just normal combustion products.

  24. J A Blacker Msc IMI says:

    Many thanks for that Uncinus,

    I have personally witnessed the worst Chem trailing in my area Summertime 2007. This is the Lancaster/ Morcambe bay area in England. This year has not been as bad as summer 2007 but I do have logs of Photos taken on my digital camera (time date logged) from earlier this year if you send your Email I will compile them in pdf format and post them for you to see and indeed publish.

    The striking thing is how low the altitude and the very fine detail on some of these images.

    In 2003 – 2006 I was not making efforts to observe and quite frankly had no concerns about aircraft trails at that time, I however would have had no option but to take notice had there been trails as blatantly obvious as those in my time logged photo collection.

    I would have expected jet trails to be far more prevalent in Winter months rather than summer months due to seasonal temperature differentials.

    Also some trails stop for about 2-3 Km then start again as though one tank ran out and they have switched tank or something.

    Flooding 2007 – check this out:



    Have you figured out how to get the altitude yet?

    I assume you are familiar with trigonometry?

    Also, if you know the make of jet you know its real size.

    Has the penny dropped yet?

  25. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Thanks for that Uncinus,

    I reside in Lancaster England.

    Prior to summer 2007 I was unaware of persistent trails from aircraft.

    In summer of 2007 the trailing was so profuse no one could fail to notice.

    Summer 2007 was by far worse than this summer 2008, but I do have a photo record of trails accumulated from February 2008 with date/time stamps.

    From these photos you can clearly see they are not high altitude.

    Regarding flooding in 2007, check this out:-


  26. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Prior to 2007 I had not had reason to notice anything unusual in my area.

    Summer of 2007 was exceptionally bad compared to this year 2008.

    In 2007 we had very bad flooding in some areas.

  27. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Persistent Contrails (which could only be Chemtrails in warm Summer months) have been recorded all over the world.

    I would say there is a whole raft of possible reasons.

    Here is my second Hypothesis.

    You show old images of trails behind bombers and fighters. Remember this, at the time they were spraying water into the inlets to act as both fuel extenders and octain improves.

    The water works in 4 ways.

    Firstly it helps cools the supercharger and incoming air.

    Secondly it slows down the flame front allowing for a much cleaner burn. (Octain improver and fuel extender)

    Thirdly as it converts to steam in the cuylinder it increases the gas compression therefore increasing power output.

    Thirdly it cools the Exhaust valves hence you can now run the engine at higher revs fro longer without burning out the motor.

    I wonder if they are now spraying water into jet engines to have similar effects and that is one reason we are seeing so many persistent trails?

    Of course they would not want the public to know this as the same technology could be used on cars etc.

    To answer your question.

    To be honest, seeing how I know for an absolute fact 911 and 7/7 were inside jobs – I am very sure the US and UK governments would not think twice about bumping off population by air poisons.

    We are currently being lied to on every front.

  28. JB, I think you miss an important point here.

    Engine exhaust is basically two things, steam and carbon dioxide. There is no need to ADD water to a jet engine to produce persistent contrails, it produces more than enough by itself.

    Consider this, written in 1921:


    The end products of complete combustion of gasoline are water vapor
    and carbon dioxide, and it is found that if the water vapor were condensed,
    there would result a little more than 1 gallon of water per
    gallon of gasoline consumed. It was found by Wells and Thuras, in
    studying the fog off the Newfoundland coast (see U. S. Coast Guard ,
    Bull. 5, 1916) that there were 1,200 water droplets of diameter 0.01 mm.
    in a cubic centimeter of air in a dense fog. If we assume that an airplane
    travels 3 miles on a gallon of gasoline (approximately the figure
    given by the Aerial Mail Service) it is possible to show that if only a
    small part – a fourth or fifth – of the water vapor were condensed,
    there would be abundant cloud to produce the effect observed at the
    Argonne Battle. It should be stated, however, that this water vapor
    would have to be discharged into air which was very cold and nearly
    saturated. This seems to be the correct explanation, and is substantiated
    by scientists at the Bureau of Standards, who say that they have
    actually observed this cloud behind airplanes and automobiles.

    A modern Boeing 777 carries 45,000 gallons of fuel, creating 50,000 gallons of water over a full range flight – 2 or 3 gallons PER SECOND. So you can see there is no need for additional water to be sprayed into the engine (and nor was there in 1921). I also doubt that spraying water on the inlets would help cool air that was already at -40 degrees.

    No, all that was needed for a cloud to form was that the conditions be right, as they said in 1921, when the science was the same:

    this water vapor would have to be discharged into air which was very cold and nearly saturated.

  29. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Redox reaction of Hydrocarbons using Air to provide the Oxidizing agent have many byproducts.

    The more efficient the system the more water exhausted.

    Are there any recorded instances of -40 degrees during UK Summertime at any altitudes up to and including 40,000 ft?

    Whilst the sun is shining?

    If not then we can eliminate that possibility entirely.

    In outer space were there is a vacuum, in sunlight the temperature is scorching hot.

    Which layer of atmosphere do you suggest can have the sun shining on to it in British summertime and be -40 degrees, what gas can actually do that?

    Does that not defy the laws of thermodynamics?

    How do you explain horizon to horizon condensation trails at below 20,000 ft in England, during the day, in summer?

    It must be said, we do live near the sea and are subjected t othe warm gulf stream too.

  30. J A Blacker MSc IMI says:

    Thank you for that Uncinus,

    Which gas can be in bright sunlight and actually be at –40 degrees?

    At what altitude in summer time with the sun shining in the UK does it ever reach temperatures as low as –40 degrees?

    The trails I have a problem with are Summer time trails in bright sunshine, very low, well under your 40 thousand feet and are often in the sky for between 1 hour and ½ a day.

    Often there are jets flying well above these trails but by the time those jets have reached out of sight, the trail is almost faded or totally faded – do they put out less water vapor, do they travel through warmer air even at much higher altitudes?

    And are you seriously trying to claim that from the comfort of your office you are 100% sure all the reported trails ARE ordinary? Do you see a problem with that scientific method Huston?

  31. JB, surely you have noticed that it is a lot colder at the top of a mountain, than it is at the bottom.

    Consider Mt. Everest for example. It’s about 30,000 feet high, and is very cold at the top. Of course it’s a bit warmer in summer, but lots of climbers still lose fingers and toes every year, because it’s extremely cold up there (-100F on a bad day). On the warmest day, it’s -15F (-26C).

    As a rough rule of thumb, you can calculate the temperature at any altitude by subtracting 3.5F (or 2C) for every 1000 feet of altitude above sea level. (This is known as the lapse rate). So in general, the temperature at 30,000 feet is 105F of 60C below the ground temperature. So if it’s 65F degrees on the ground (a fairly normal temperature for a UK summer morning), it’s about -40F at 30,000 feet. The actual temperature will vary with the atmospheric conditions, upper air winds, and frontal systems. But this gives you a reasonably accurate estimate.

    I’m not sure where to get UK forecasts, but this link gives the temperatures above San Diego California (a much hotter place than the UK). Today it’s -40F at about 32,000 feet.


    Jet’s trails will fade when the leave a region of moist air. This is quite apparent in satellite photos, see these for example:


    If you think you’ve seen contrails formed at very low levels, then I ask you how you measured the height of those planes.

    Regarding things in bright sunlight being at -40 degrees. Cirrus clouds are a very good example. Since they exist in air that is -40 degrees, and they are white (reflecting rather than absorbing the sun), then the sun does not heat them enough to overcome the cooling effect of the air. Contrails are a form of cirrus cloud – being made of ice crystals

  32. J A Blacker says:


    Sure, it is colder up top and who would disagree with the tops of mountains being colder.

    But were is it ever -40 in bright sunshine EVER below 20,000 feet over England in Summertime?

    And what about the key issue here:

    Quote JB

    “And are you seriously trying to claim that from the comfort of your office you are 100% sure all the reported trails ARE ordinary? Do you see a problem with that scientific method Huston?”

    Well ARE YOU 100% SURE none of these reports have some credibility?

    Check out this news report from Science & Technology News:

    L.A. to resume controversial cloud-seeding project 2008-06-17 05:03:06


    Are you still 100% sure they are ALL ordinary contrails or could some of these trails be more exotic Chemtrails?

  33. JB,

    No it is generally not -40 at 20,000 feet on a warm summer day in England. So if you’ve observed contrails being formed that low, then that’s very suspicious.

    How did you measure the altitude of the contrails you saw?

    I’m not 100% sure of anything. No scientist ever should be. I’m 99.9% sure that the reports of “chemtrails” are contrails, or other benign phenomena (like sky-writing). I base this high degree of certainty on the evidence that has been presented, and has been analyzed on this site and elsewhere. I’m open to the possibility that there is something behind the “chemtrail” theory, but I’ve not seen any evidence to back it up.

    Local water boards have been doing cloud seeding for decades. This is nothing new. It does not create anything that looks like a contrail. It’s controversial because it’s not clear how well it works, or even if it sometimes works too well, creating localized flooding.


  34. Lynette says:

    I am emailing you to inform you of a strike that is being organized on July 4th 2008 against the New World Order and the spraying of chemicals in our skies. I am hoping to reach as far as I can with the message that there are good people out there who really want to change things. We all need to support each other and create a the kind of world it should be. Please spread the word of change and promote this website after all this affects us all. Please visit http://www.freewebs.com/changetheworldforever for more info. We need to change what is happening to our world and to our skies, for the sake of ourselves and for generations to come.

  35. Nik says:

    Brilliant exchange between Uncinus and Blacker – why did it have to stop, you both seemed to be having so much fun?

    As I suggested in a post yesterday, if we could convince the required people (e.g. air traffic control) to provide details of suspected chemtrail spraying planes’ altitudes and local weather stations in the affected area we could scientifically say “it is not physically possible for a contrail to form in those conditions” ergo it must be something else – perhaps a chemtrail.

    J A Blacker – did you manage to determine if those planes were at 20,000 feet or lower?

  36. Surely ATC would have to be in on the conspiracy?

    You can measure the altitude of a plane with a digital camera, providing the lens is long enough for you to be able to identify the make of aircraft. See here:


    You might also want to look at this, and see if you think it’s good evidence:


    I’d be interested to see what you think of that.

  37. Nik says:

    Thanks for links. Very interesting – as you probably know from my YouTube video I have a 300mm lens on a 35 mm digital SLR so I may well attempt a few calculations of nearby contrails that “could” be something else. Must get on with some real work soon!!

    As for the other article I have not had a chance to review in any detail – obviously I have read the summary (the bottom up approach as we like to call it over here). The summary appears to suggest that “unidentified” aircraft air creating more persistent contrails when “normal” planes are not (I assume this is the point he is trying to make). Clearly this fits with a chemtrailers viewpoint. What are your views on this report, do you think it is good evidence?

    As for Air Traffic Control being “in on the conspiracy” – I doubt all of them are as it is impossible to control everyone, plus we are not 100% sure there is a conspiracy are we? I noticed from above that there is a 0.1% chance that you think chemtrails may exist. If that small chance remains then I hope you would be keen to prove/disprove chemtrail existence once and for all too.

    Would like to hear your views.

  38. I try to be scientific, so I don’t rule anything out. Instead I judge the evidence, and see what the most likely theory is.

    For example, right now I have a headache. There could be several causes of my headache. For example, it could be because I drank too much wine last night, or because I spend too long looking at a computer screen.

    But it could also be because I was abducted by aliens, who implanted a chip in my brain through my nose.

    Now, stay with for a second, what’s so improbable about that? Thousands of people have reported being abducted by aliens. Many have implants. Some have even had them removed by surgery. This theory would explain my headache very well, and given the huge implications if it is true, then should I not be keen of prove/disprove it once and for all? Should I not go get my head x-rayed?

    No, clearly not. Because there is NO EVIDENCE of alien abduction and implants. Not of of me, and other than the reports of people who though they were abducted in their sleep, not of anyone. without any evidence, why would I investigate?

    So, while I’ll always give a very very small chance that something might have happened (aliens, chemtrails) – I feel no need to act upon this small chance, no more than I feel the need to constantly worry about being hit by a meteorite, or winning the lottery.

    And where I say 99.9%, it’s really more like 99.999999% The 99.9 was just a figure of speech.

  39. Nik says:

    Ok – so back to earth and its surrounding atmosphere. I don’t think your 0.000001% belief is enough for you to seriously consider being involved in an experiment to prove/disprove such an (in your opinion) unbelievable theory. That is your choice and I respect it.

    So realistically we should probably cease our conversation until there is some evidence that we can see/touch/analyse – if this never transpires then you win (if this is indeed a game). In a way I actually hope you do win because then there is nothing to worry about regarding the hundreds of theories about what chemtrails are!!

    With regards to evidence, alien or chemtrail related, there may well be loads of it out there but it is just not available to me, you or joe public in general. Hence conspiracy theories. So to say there is NO EVIDENCE is actually quite narrow minded of you (maybe a side effect of the mind control chemtrails out there LOL).

    I personally think that conspiracy theories are healthy because they allow humans to question the world they live in. In the majority of cases of life (well in my opinion anyway) there is no smoke without fire. In a way this particular theory has definitely given you a lot of interesting things to think about and I dare say, without the theory your contrail website may not have been created and DEFINITELY would not have so much interest!!

    Anyway – you never answered my question “What are your views on this report, do you think it is good evidence?”

    Good luck with the headache

  40. Science allows humans to question the world they live in. In fact, science actively encourages it. Conspiracy theories, for the most part, do not. Conspiracy theories only encourage you to believe the conspiracy theory – they are generally not open to questioning, specifically not to scientific questioning, which prefers real evidence.

    I’d be happy to discuss some real evidence, evidence we can “see/touch/analyse”, but until then, I’ll keep putting forth my evidence (old photos and papers about contrails that show that “chemtrails” look and act like contrails), and I’ll keep pointing out that the “chemtrail” theory has no actual evidence.

    As for the report – he claims that he observed air traffic for 105 days, and his most interesting finding was that identified flights produced contrails that lasted up to 2 minutes, while unidentified flights (at unknown altitudes) lasted for several hours.

    There are a number of problems with the study. For one, the very neat division into short identified trails, and long unidentified trails is just too neat to be credible.

    Really, it’s kind of hard to know what to make of the report. For one thing, we KNOW that commercial airliners can produce highly persistent contrails – this has been observed and documented for decades.

    And the report is from 2000. Eight years ago. If it were evidence of anything, then why has it not been verified? Seems like anyone could do it.

    Here’s the real result of the report: Over 105 days in winter 2000-2001, over Houston, TX, only six days were suitable for the formation of persistent contrails, and eight such trails were observed, but the planes making them were not identified.

  41. trax319 says:

    Like many others I believe that there is organized activity going on in our skies, and I believe it is done with a purpose. But unlike others, I believe this purpose is NOT to poison the people or reduce the population. I can’t even speculate as to what the purpose may be, but the wealth and power of the world was built on the backs of its people, and trying to destroy it would be a stretch. Also, I read here that it is going on in Iraq, our government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars “spreading democracy” over there, I doubt they would want to kill everyone. Also, if there was indeed spraying general populations with the intent to sicken, I am guessing there are people in very high places with a great deal of power that may just “leak” that information for obvious reasons.
    Interesting observation in reading all the threads, you consistently dismiss people’s memory or visual observations and and label certain sources as not credible. And you rely heavily on science and facts to support your position. But whenever something doesn’t smell right regarding world events (9/11 stuff, financial collapse, intelligence reports of WMD) the government and media are in lock step with one another endlessly quoting unnamed sources and relying on eyewitness accounts. seems a bit odd, agree?

  42. What seems odd? That I rely heavily on science and facts to support my position?

    Given that science, and those facts, what exactly has convinced you that “there is organized activity going on in our skies”?

  43. trax 319 says:

    I have my degree in Biology, so I’m a big science and facts guy, and I dont dispute a thing you’ve said regarding contrails. What has me convinced is that I am outside alot and stumbled on this chemtrail thing a couple months ago. My natural instinct was to start “looking up” alot more. Now, I live in the midwest and nothing too exciting happens here, and 95% of time I haven’t seen anything out of the ordinary. But now on 2 or 3 different occassion for stretches of 3 days at a time I see planes every-frickin-where leaving long white trails (call them what you will), and by the end of the day its cloudy. Now that in conjuntion with the fact that I watch the news alot and I see these live shots with reporters, and son of a gun if there are long white lingering trails in the sky in the background. For me, its been far too common of an occurance (with info in the internet, tv shots, my own observations) for it to be coincidence.

    what is odd to me is that when authorities don’t know exactly what happened (pick any subject) the information that is disseminated to the public relies on sources and eyewitness accounts, which are unreliable, but they are presented as fact. You do quite the opposite, which I would almost always tend to agree with, but the fact that you discount anyone’s personal observations based on the sheer volume of people who are questioning whats going on goes against logic, for lack of a better word. Do you even entertain the possibility that the long white lines in the sky may not be contrails and possibility something done with a purpose? I know you will probably say there is no evidence to contradict, and I agree. But could it be possible?

  44. Sure it could be possible, and yes, I entertain the possibility that some of what people see might not be contrails.

    But the bottom line is that there’s not been any evidence presented to suggest that what people are seeing are not contrails. There’s lots of evidence that they ARE contrails though, primerily:

    1) Photos of what people say are “chemtrails” look exactly like photos of what scientist have been saying are “contrails”. And they’ve been saying it for decades.

    2) Eyewitness accounts of what they describe as “chemtrails” match what science tells us contrails should look and act like.

    That’s really the majority of what I’ve been writing about here. Of course, in addition to that you get things like “I saw contrails form at 8,000 feet”, or “I saw goo falling from a chemtrail and I got sick”. Now those would be evidence of something odd – but when pressed for details, they really can’t provide anything to back up what they saw, and so I have to assume they were mistaken in the altitude of the plane, and the “goo” was tree sap, and their illness was just an illness. I have to assume those things because that’s the simplest explanation, and there is no evidence to suggest a more complex explanation is needed.

    You made an interesting observation in that: “My natural instinct was to start “looking up” alot more.” – you paid no attention to persistent spreading contrails until you heard about the chemtrail theory, and they you started to see them.

    So what happened? Were there no chemtrails until you started looking for them two months ago?

    Or were there always chemtrails?

    Back to 1921?

    Or were there always, as the science seems to indicate, contrails – and you just did not pay them much attention? Could this also have happened to other people?

  45. trax 319 says:

    Ahhh yes, we meet in the middle. I grant you that it is even PROBABLE that there were always contrails, and I hadn’t paid much attention. But the fact that you admit that it is POSSIBLE that what people are seeing are not contrails leads me to believe that you are person that has the ability to think independantly. The only reason I even say that is because some of the posts on a different topic state that they think you are a disinformation source, govt agent, whatever the hell they were saying.
    Lastly I will add, it appears you have been to handling school, even when people got personal in their posts, you maintainted a non-emotional, factual response. A lost art.

  46. I just don’t see much sense with being anything other than polite, especially with people I don’t know. You never get a constructive discussion between strangers if one side is tossing insults.

    What do you think though, about my suggestion that you perhaps only started noticing contrails after you heard about the chemtrail theory?

  47. trax 319 says:

    I think its definately plausible that nothing has changed, but I also think that statistical probability that nothing has changed is slim because the general population has started increasingly observing more trails, odd patterns etc….I would be interested to see the number of internet searches on the subject from 1995 to present.

  48. What if they started observing more trails simply because they were looking for them? There are actually at least twice as many trails as there were a decade ago, as there are far more flights now – but some people claim there were NO trails.

    Consider this story: People though they were seeing something new, but in reality were just seeing something they had never looked for before.


  49. trax 319 says:

    I think that theory is thin. The sky is something everyone looks at most everyday, and if people were simply observing things they’ve seen everyday, there would be no reason to talk about it. What makes the topic interesting is that people started seeing things they had not seen before, to the point it made them scratch their head and wonder what’s going on? What do you think about it would be interesting to see the # of searches on the internet for the past decade regarding the subject. If you saw a significant spike in the last 5 years, that would be interesting, but could be easily disregarded because more people than ever have internet now.

  50. Did you read the article? People can see tings without noticing them. People look at their windshields every day, but only when there was a scare story did they notice there were a bunch of dings in it.

    Lots of people HAVE NOT NOTICED anything odd about the sky. So why is it so odd that people did not notice anything before a particular date, when they first noticed it.

    Think about it. Take the 99.99%of the population who have NOT noticed – if any of them were to suddenly notice something, then did that mean it was not happening before?

    Obviously not. So why assume it was not happening before for the 0.001% who HAVE noticed.

    And people did notice before 1999, see these newspaper reports:


  51. Nik says:

    Your theory regarding people not noticing these chemtrails/persistent contrails may not be completely wrong but here is a different spin on things…

    This is only a “theory” – perhaps the sky HAS dramatically changed due to manipulation and people are genuinely noticing this, whether it is because they are reading/seeing it on the web, or (less so) they are noticing it themselves without any “help”. These people may be more open minded than the majority of people, or just more observant. However, what also might be happening is that subconsciously thousands/millions of other people are noticing it BUT because they are so closed-minded and/or it would be such a huge leap for them to accept that the government (and other groups) would do something secretly without their knowledge they do not “develop” the subconscious thoughts into their consciousness. Also, it is taken for granted that the sky and clouds are totally natural, therefore it is the last place people would expect strange things to be going on, so it would take longer for the development from subconsciousness to consciousness.

    More likely though, they just don’t care or notice it because it is not mentioned on Big Brother, OK magazine (and other crappy pointless programmes that talk about “celebrities” or people wanting to be celebrities).

    So to say that just because only a small percentage has noticed is NOT justification to say it does not exist. There is always a wave effect, where a small amount are ahead of the game, before the majority catch up.

    My thoughts anyway.

  52. Nik, that’s an interesting theory – but if open minded people are the only ones that are noticing the sky has changed so dramatically, then why dot they ALL leap to “government level conspiracy” as an explanation?

    Why do they skip over other possible explanations:
    – There are twice as many planes as there were ten years ago
    – Engine design has changed over the last 20 years, with engines that produce more contrails
    – They moved towns, and contrail formation varies with local climate
    – Contrail formation conditions are random, and we just had more over the last few years
    – Global warming produces more vapor in the air
    – Pollution from China and locally creates more condensation nuculi, making contrails bigger
    – Their perception of contrails is heightened because they worry about “chemtrails”.

    You see, you don’t have to accept that the government is messing with you in order to notice the sky has changed. Plus, what percentage of people actually trust the government? Sure, quite a few people do – but hardly the 99% that you imply. Heck, 37% of the population think that aliens have contacted the American government, and 80% of Americans think that the US government is hiding the fact that it knows of the existence of aliens.


    A very large percentage of the population seems VERY “open minded”, in the sense of tending to believe ideas that contradict science. If 24% of the popluation believes in witches, then why did they not notice the sky change?

  53. trax 319 says:

    What I think is at issue is this: we have the facts, but do we have ALL the facts? I can’t answer that, and the average american doesn’t have access to the individuals that would have all the facts. You’re obviously a smart guy, and its no secret that there operations and projects that both corporations and governments engage in that are not public information, correct? A healthy bit of skepticism is a responsible approach to anything. The list of subjects is endless. Ultimately I think the bottom line is this, many that have posted on this site have their reasons for raising flags, you rely on existing scientific research, and there is disagreement among us on existing scientific research and what they believe they are observing.

  54. Sure, there are secret projects, both for commercial and national security reasons. See, for example:


    So we know there are thousands of secret projects – but how do you choose which possible secret project you want to believe in? You’ve got to have some evidence. It’s that supposed evidence that I’m focusing on here.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “there is disagreement among us on existing scientific research” – what existing scientific research do you disagree with?

  55. TonyB says:

    I would like to point out a few things I noticed in the first 40 or so posts.

    One of your repeating comments is that contrails don’t form at low altitudes in moderate climates. Someone counters with I see them at 20,000 and you again say contrails shouldn’t form in the summer at that altitude. You completely miss the point of the opposing argument; that they are forming at low altitudes and warmer temps is a high indication that they are not typical contrails. Albeit, the altitude measure proposed is based on solid trig functions, it is based on knowing 2 things from which you can solve for anything else. That is your exact horizontal distance from the object and the angle between you and the object. It would be very difficult to know the exact distance to an object in the sky unless you were between the tropics with the sun overhead and a visible shadow.

    From a scientific standpoint you both lose on the respective issues and win on the other. I’d also like to address your 99.99999% certainty that what appears to be a contrail is never anything else. I suppose this depends on you school of thought, but IMO anyone who is that certain something does not exist is in no way thinking logically or scientifically. On a quick side note, how did you come upon the mass of 1 tonne of air and a 1g sample? (I really just want to know) I think a logical conclusion by a scientist considering all factors and not wanting to believe that experiments are being conducted could lead to no more than a 90% certainty of non-existence.

    Granted, there seems to be a lack of rock-solid evidence but you must consider a number of factors. If some kind of spraying is going on, it can be assumed that those who conduct whatever it is do not want anyone to find hard evidence. Various governments throughout the modern era have been attempting to control the weather and modify climates. The militaries of several currently existing countries have expressed the desire to use weather modification as a weapon and/or as a domestic utility. Moreover, the desire, technology, funding, and theoretical research regarding geoengineering is very likely at a worldwide high. The status of global warming is also likely at a very high degree of acceptance. Accordingly, there is an increased desire to slow the warming trend while energy consumption continues to rise. Currently global warming theory doesn’t provide any clean fuel or energy reduction model that will have a substantial effect in the next 25-50 years if not more. One of the more prominent geoengineering ideas is the solar shield placed between the earth and the sun in a steady orbit. The current cost estimates are in the low trillions of USD (to clarify for europeans that is on the order of $x10^12 or $1,000,000,000,000 if I’m not mistaken the US trillion is the UK billion?) That is based on the Discovery Channel mini series on geoengineering. In 1992 a cost estimate study was done showing that enhanced cloud seeding with sulfur compounds above the ocean, distribution of particulates matter in the atmosphere, propagating phytoplankton to act as CO2 sinks, and population control were some of the most cost effective methods. It also noted that the current data was inconclusive as to the effectiveness of all but population control and that research and development should begin as soon as possible. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309043867

    That source is a bit dated. These are more recent.

    David Adam and Liz Minchin. “US urges scientists to block out sun”. Sydney Morning Herald. 29 Jan. 2007 – THE US wants the world’s scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

    It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be “important insurance” against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

    …The US response [to a 2007 IPCC report] says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: “Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.”

    Catherine Brahic. “Solar shield could be quick fix for global warming”. New Scientist. 5 June 2007 – A solar shield that reflects some of the Sun’s radiation back into space would cool the climate within a decade and could be a quick-fix solution to climate change, researchers say.

    Solar shield reverses global warming; emissions reductions do not Robert Roy Britt. “No Stopping it Now: Seas to Rise 4 Inches or More this Century”. LiveScience. 17 Mar. 2005 – “Even if all industrial pollution and auto emissions suddenly ceased today, Earth’s climate will warm at least 1 degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters), according to a new study…The warming is likely to continue through 2400, another study forecasts…The worst-case scenario projects the global average temperature rising 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit within this century and the sea level climbing a foot or more…”Many people don’t realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere,” said Gerald Meehl, who led the study out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).”


    Considering the above, and the cost estimates of frequent low level particle deposition vs high level, and particularly the frequent ideas of cloud seeding, is it not more than 0.00000001% likely that some money, research, and development would go into a program such as increasing the likelihood of creating a persistent contrail, extending it’s lifespan, and improving overall distribution? To that end, one can easily reason that they would test numerous substances for effect, monetary cost, and potential risk factors. Thus, a seemingly logical conclusion is that there is a very likely (<86%) chance that at least some of the theories of chemtrails are true.

    Oh, and you misquote J A Blacker with 1/2 minute duration when he says 1/2 hour to 1/2 day. And he also failed to show an adequate method of determining plane or trail height.

  56. The air/sample figures are explained here:


    I do know what the point is, exhaust contrails at 20,000 feet in summer would be very odd – if not impossible. So I ask people to provide evidence that there are contrails at 20,000 feet. I get no evidence, so I assume they were mistaken.

    Blacker says 1/2 an hour. But the point is the same. He claims contrails cannot last longer than 1/2 an hour. However, they clearly can – and have been reported doing so in vast amounts of scientific literature. The 1/2 a minute was in relation to car exhaust – but that can also last for hours if it is cold enough, like in Alaska.

    I agree with you when you say “there seems to be a lack of rock-solid evidence”. I understand what you are saying about how you think the government has an incentive to perform secret experiments for national security. Sure that’s quite possible. But that’s really not what I’m arguing against here.

    The chemtrail theory says that there is a massive operation being conducted daily with thousands of planes, and hundreds of thousands of people, and an enormous yet stunningly perfect cover-up. Now that is where you need evidence. Are the trails any different from contrails? No. Is there any evidence of a huge cover-up? No. Have any of the thousands of people involved produced credible evidence? No.

    Thats the bottom line – there is no evidence that chemtrails are actually ocurring.

  57. TonyB says:

    In that respect I have to agree. I’ve only really been into chemtrails for less than a year, and the initial rhetoric is provocative. (no offense to anyone, by rhetoric I just mean argument or debate) And I still would not say I agree that there are no chemtrails whatsoever at this point. I also would not say I believe strongly in the more eccentric(?) ideas of mass mind control or poison as a primary objective. At least not with Ba and Al compounds ;-p Mass mind control or at least manipulation is done through the media and is effective enough.

  58. Tombo says:

    I was introduced to the chemtrail controversy last year. I started watching the skies with avid interest in early June 2007 in South East Ohio, USA.

    In “my” experience, trying to make sense of it, it seemed that mid-summer storm clouds had lots of trails formed above them and that most often (once my theory was formed), the storm clouds came to nothing. Much of the US has been experiencing drought in the past decade or so – so it dovetails neatly with chemtrail theory – wherein the metals involved are supposed to be “water hungry” and condensation forms around them. Thus, they’d be pulling the water from the cloud and preventing rain.

    So, in summer of 2007, I watched the skies a lot. On an afternoon of particularly noteworthy activity, I took some photos. One photo (and I really hope I can find it), was of a cirrus-looking cloud, complete with chromatic rainbow effect, passing in front of a cumulus cloud. From what I’m finding on ye olde Internet, cumulus clouds live below 6500 feet and cirrus clouds are above 23000 feet.

    Assuming I’m not a crackpot who’s making this up, what on earth would make something that looks like a cirrus cloud form BELOW a cumulus cloud? The temperature is supposed to be too high at those low altitudes, correct?

    Now, the other thing I’ve noticed about “heavy chemtrail days,” is that the planes appear to be at multiple different altitudes but the trails look the same. One trail is formed by a small dot of a thing that barely looks like a plane at all. Another will be formed by a plane close enough to the ground that the engines are clearly visible. The trails from the “closer” plane look the same as the ones from the “farther” plane, just bigger. I have no true documentation of this and will make no claims as far as my ability to identify aircraft or estimate altitude. So I’ll let that hang there for now. Just a subjective observation that has fueled my chemtrail belief.

    At this point, I’m coming back to the idea of them being contrails – or – at the very least, MOST of them are contrails. But I’ve still seen stuff that doesn’t fit so neatly into the contrail explanation.

    Thanks for your patience,


  59. Assuming I’m not a crackpot who’s making this up, what on earth would make something that looks like a cirrus cloud form BELOW a cumulus cloud? The temperature is supposed to be too high at those low altitudes, correct?

    I’d have to see a photo, but clouds don’t always fit into neat pigeonholes regarding appearance and altitude. Cirrocumulus clouds can look very like cumulus clouds, and yet form at the same altitude as (or higher than) cumulus clouds.

  60. Tombo says:

    I found the photos I was looking for. Where shall I send them?

  61. pushka says:

    I normaly would have thought this whole subject was bulshit. However ive seen huge trails in the sky. And every time they succeed in making clouds form then it gets wavey line formations which eminate from the so called death tower on the farm near here. Every time they spray thewhole family get ill. When they dont everyones fine CONSISTENTLY every time. I moved from a no chemtrail area to a chemtrail area. In the new area all my plants died and theres a fungus taking over the garden (and all of the obvious health issues like coughs colds breathing difficulties etc).

    I was so pissed off I called the MOD and the local environmental health. Both who laughed at my “gullability”. Ive become so pissed off about it i decided anything was worth a go at stopping it so I spent over £100 building a don croft type chembuster with orgonite. Guess what? the next day the sky completly changed. The spraying broke up. then black helecopters kept circling. Ive never seen any before so it was one hell of a coincidence. The next night a super loud low stealth bomber circled the small usualy quiet villiage. All of this fuss for some crazy device that is aleged to clear things that aparently dont exist???? that prooved to me there and then chemtrails are real.

    If youd like to know if chemtrails are real and harming you or if you are crazy or gulable i would suggest making one of these things and putting it out in your garden. If you do youll see the mask slip and youl never be able to go back to sleep with all the other zombies again. just search chembuster on youtube for instructions. theres a war on for your mind, start reclaiming it.

  62. shilltastic says:

    I purchased my boyhood home from my parents several years ago and the trails that were there when I was a small boy, are just as prevalent now. Aside from an occasional cold, I’ve been as healthy as a horse my entire life. Also, none of my neighbors have ever been sick and a majority of the folks, including my parents, have lived healthy lives into their 80’s. Sorry, persistent contrails do not make people sick.

  63. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    a super loud low stealth bomber


    You make it sound like they’re specifically out to get you. Load of self important bollocks!!!!

  64. Suntour says:


    At first I had suspected your post was a parody of a typical chemtrailer post. I mean you had everything: wild speculation, misspellings, accusations that skeptics are the ones who are crazy. then when you mentioned “chembuster with orgonite” I knew that it was an over the top parody. Good work.

  65. Ross says:


    Hmmm. Chemtrails… black helicopters….

    Do you know where your keys are? Is anything missing from your fridge?

  66. anon says:

    here come the agents. so obvious.

    how do i know chemtraks are real. the RAF told me…

  67. Shilltastic says:

    “how do i know chemtraks are real. the RAF told me…”

    Great, now they even have a NEW made up name! And did the RAF tell you that there are “spray programs”, OR that the lines in the sky are evidence of a “spray program”. HUGE difference between the two things. Also, I don’t believe for a second that the RAF told you any such thing. I would appreciate some details.

    Also, what is an “agent” and what is so obvious? I find it quite amusing that people who believe differently are automatically referred to as “agents”. Seems AWFULLY paranoid. I also find it funny that you guys call those of us educated in these subjects “agents” but whine about it when we call those UN-educated in these subjects, chemtards.

  68. Benjamin says:

    I certainly believe in chemtrails.Despite the fact that government and military officials and the mainstream media dismisses the phenomenon,uses disinformation propaganda,and even attempts to poke fun at believers;its clear that it IS for real.It even has an official term.Its called “aerial obscuration”,and it involves dispersing micro-fine metallic particles in the upper atmosphere,via the exhaust or outfitted nozzles on airplanes.The most commonly used materials are aluminum oxide and barium stearate.The most commonly stated reasons from those in the know,are for global warming mitigation,weather modification or use with the HAARP system.There is no reason to haggle over whether it exists or not,because it DOES.The only thing people can do,since the program will likely continue for many more years,is to reduce particulate exposure when outdoors.I currently use a mask.

  69. SR1419 says:

    “it involves dispersing micro-fine metallic particles in the upper atmosphere,via the exhaust ”

    How on earth would these metallic particles survive being cumbusted thru a jet engine??

    How do you know these material are to be found in the trails in the sky? Have there been any actual samples from a contrail? …not a ground based “sample” but an actual IN SITU sample…right from the plume?

  70. If “aerial obscuration” is an official term, then why does it not show up on any official sites?


    or any scientific papers?


  71. Benjamin says:

    This is a covert program,and there has been considerable effort to avoid referring to it by any name.But the U.S. air force has used the term aerial obscuration.Clifford Carnicom provides the most compelling evidence of chemtrails,as far as measurable particulate evidence is concerned.SR1419,there have been in-air vacuum captures of chemtrail particles from lingering trails obtained by flying a sample-collecting plane through a heavy chemtrail zone(these samples may not necessarily come from exhaust,but fitted spray nozzles instead)The composition reveals predominantly aluminum and barium,but also lower amounts of other metals,like thorium.Some of these are luminescent or reflective,hence the reason for the visibility of chemtrails at night.So this is the sort of crap raining down on us;powder fine metallic particles,some of which are radioactive.Who knows what the long-term effects will be,not only on humans,but other organisms as well.It is known,for example,that aluminum in soil slows the growth of certain food crops and trees.

  72. But the U.S. air force has used the term aerial obscuration

    Really? Where?

    Clifford Carnicom provides the most compelling evidence of chemtrails,as far as measurable particulate evidence is concerned.SR1419,there have been in-air vacuum captures of chemtrail particles from lingering trails obtained by flying a sample-collecting plane through a heavy chemtrail zone(these samples may not necessarily come from exhaust,but fitted spray nozzles instead)The composition reveals predominantly aluminum and barium,but also lower amounts of other metals,like thorium.

    Really? And where is this evidence from the in-air vacuum captures? I can’t see it on his site. Can you give a link?

  73. Anonymous says:


    It is known,for example,that aluminum in soil slows the growth of certain food crops and trees.

    Is it?

    WIKI “aluminum” and you’ll find:
    Aluminium or “aluminum” is a silvery white and ductile member of the boron group of chemical elements. It has the symbol Al; its atomic number is 13. It is not soluble in water under normal circumstances. Aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust, and the third most abundant element therein, after oxygen and silicon. It makes up about 8% by weight of the Earth’s solid surface. Aluminium is too reactive chemically to occur in nature as a free metal. Instead, it is found combined in over 270 different minerals. The chief source of aluminium is bauxite ore.

    WIKI “clay minerals” and you’ll find:
    Clay minerals are hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates, sometimes with variable amounts of iron, magnesium, alkali metals, alkaline earths and other cations. Clays have structures similar to the micas and therefore form flat hexagonal sheets. Clay minerals are common weathering products (including weathering of feldspar) and low temperature hydrothermal alteration products. Clay minerals are very common in fine grained sedimentary rocks such as shale, mudstone and siltstone and in fine grained metamorphic slate and phyllite.

  74. JazzRoc says:

    Ian Bryant:

    Haha, you contrail people crack me up.

    Yes, we’re a funny lot, aren’t we?

    We get our inspiration from people who are ignorant and confused, yet confident enough to go on a science website with not a question, but an answer. But no evidence.

    Then we discover wonderful things, such as “the trails remain, therefore they’re spraying” and “no, it’s not the engines that are “spraying”, but spray nozzles” (while showing engines that are “spraying” and NO spray nozzles)! And then the “dust in air” thing, where dust is supposed to have sorted itself out (ground dust as opposed to “trail dust”) so that just “trail dust” has popped into collection trays.

    We enjoy the disappointment which must fall to brave chemtrailers when they discover the majority of ALL dust is naturally aluminum, for the reasons given in the post by Anonymous (which was in fact myself, having also failed to notice my cookies were scrubbed).

    Anyway, didn’t you say you had been persuaded? Are you in two minds?

  75. Benjamin says:

    Chemtrails are real.Aerosols are real.The material is being dispersed via nozzles,not jet exhaust.All the evidence and independent analysis points to the use of specifically chosen tiny particles of various metallic elements.These elements seem to have one thing in common.They can be ionized,or charged,either by artificial means or exposure to the sun`s rays.Look at the bernard eastlund patent and the HAARP program,and you will see the likely reason they are “spraying” the atmosphere with these particles.The applications are many and varied and seemingly beneficial,but one has to wonder what side effects altering the atmosphere will have on us and the planet.I`m beyond skepticism.I know they are doing this,I just worry about the long term consequences.

  76. If there’s all this evidence, then why can’t you link to some? Preferably the best, and something that’s not already been addressed on this site, like:


  77. Suntour says:

    “The material is being dispersed via nozzles,not jet exhaust”

    “All the evidence and independent analysis…”

    Indeed, evidence please.

  78. Benjamin says:

    I have to take back the part about not being in jet exhaust.According to a hughes aircraft patent,it IS possible to disperse metallic particles via jet fuel.This means some commercial jets could be(or already have been)equipped to deliver particles along with their military chemtrailing counterparts.It is also apparent,according to independent research and analysis,that biological disease-causing materials and even polymers,are being dispersed.Not just metallic particles.All aircraft may not be dispersing all types of materials at the same time,but all of these materials have been found over the past decade or more.So our atmosphere is being applied with a variety of materials that are hazardous to humans.And it IS making its way to the ground where we breathe.

  79. JazzRoc says:


    According to a hughes aircraft patent, it IS possible to disperse metallic particles via jet fuel.
    According to patents, it is possible to do anything. Does this mean the “everything” happens?
    What would happen is that the turbines and casing would become eroded by the metal ions and oxides passing through the exhaust at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit in unpredictable ways, and the engine would go out of balance and out of commission.

    This means some commercial jets could be (or already have been) equipped to deliver particles along with their military chemtrailing counterparts.
    No it doesn’t. Not without the evidence that Boenoid presents.
    Particulate matter of any sort cannot pass through aircraft fuel systems without causing them to fail. The fuel could contain a mixture of organic metal liquids which would pass through, but then produce a BRIGHT GREEN or BRIGHT WHITE exhaust.

    It is also apparent,according to independent research and analysis, that biological disease-causing materials and even polymers, are being dispersed.
    All of these would BURN in air at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.
    A FLAME is known as being a GOOD method of STERILIZATION.

    all of these materials have been found over the past decade or more.
    All of these materials have been discovered, their origin unknown.

    So our atmosphere is being applied with a variety of materials that are hazardous to humans. And it IS making its way to the ground where we breathe.
    Well, NO, it isn’t.
    If it were, it would turn up in air-samplers all over the world.
    Thousands of climate scientists, the majority independent and in foreign countries, are also sampling the atmosphere. These guys have something to prove, and reputations to make. Yet NONE OF THEM haved picked up your ball and run with it. Could it be there’s nothing to discover?

  80. Benjamin says:

    Well,it doesnt really matter anyway.The fact remains,that even if jet fuel isnt being used,aerosol operations are.And these operations have caused a dramatic increase in particulate matter in our air.This increase is NOT explained away by ordinary pollutants from industry.In fact,it repeatedly shows up in communities that have no industry and are located many miles away from those that do.I appreciate healthy skepticism,but obstinance is another matter.It should be clear to even most laypeople of average intelligence that goverment and military are involved in dispersing metallic particles in our atmosphere in order to transform it into some crude plasmatic medium that will allow them to do everything from blocking communications to altering weather and even inducing natural disasters.It may sound like science fiction,but the technology is there folks,and so is the evidence.Regarding air sampling,if these scientists havent picked up the ball and run with it,I would say its likely that they`re afraid to,or at least reluctant to reveal their results or draw any conclusions that might make waves.This is a big and covert operation,and no one involved wants the public in on it.Everyone,including politicians and media,have repeatedly denied these activities and downplayed the potential dangers.

  81. JazzRoc says:


    even if jet fuel isn’t being used, aerosol operations are
    Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any evidence for this. Trails aren’t the evidence, are they, for they are now the jet fuel “not being used”.

    these operations have caused a dramatic increase in particulate matter in our air
    This is borne out neither by the ubiquitous air samplers of private industry nor by the ubiquitous air samplers of hospitals nor by the ubiquitous thousands of atmospheric air researchers worldwide. There has been a slow WORLD increase in airborne aerosols (over fifty years) which matches the industrial growth of the East. The highest aerosol pollution in the world is found travelling southwestwards from the Indian subcontinent, passing over Northern Africa. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US.
    Particulate matter is REPEATEDLY removed from air by the movement of WATER in the atmosphere.
    The most massive of volcanic eruptions has ALL TRACE of its particulate matter removed within a year or two, and that may hundreds of millions of tons of fine metallic (mostly Aluminum) ash. There are 1500 active 24/7 volcanoes on the surface of the earth.
    Airborne dust gets washed to earth, or the sea, quite naturally.

    NOT explained away by ordinary pollutants from industry
    All the “chemtrailer” tests fall so short of scientific standards that any scientist knows them to be worthless. No conclusions are valid using such tests.

    In fact, it repeatedly shows up in communities that have no industry
    If you are testing for aluminum or barium, you’ll find them if you are merely yards from exposed soil. The KSLA test was conducted right in the centre of a barium mining area. Even so, the test water was well below limits and acceptably drinkable.

    I appreciate healthy skepticism, but obstinance
    Obstinacy. You should forgo yours.

    It should be clear to even most laypeople of average intelligence
    As was the Earth being flat, and the Sun going round it. The point of Science is to make visible that which cannot be seen. And NOT to come to easy and plausible (and wrong) conclusions.

    goverment and military are involved in dispersing metallic particles
    There’s no evidence of any sort. There never has been. The only evidence I see is of a great ignorance of science coupled to paranoia.

    to transform it into some crude plasmatic medium/blocking communications/altering weather/inducing natural disasters
    Here you fail to understand the SCALE of what you are talking about. Blocking comms HAARP can do, but the rest of it would require powers which would VAPORIZE such an establishment. Just because you’ve seen a “planet-smasher” on Star Trek doesn’t actually MEAN that one day it will be possible, (and that day’s today).

    It may sound like science fiction
    That’s because it IS.

    the technology is there folks, and so is the evidence
    You don’t even understand this “technology”. Your misunderstanding of it isn’t evidence either. You have simply repeated two unsubstantiated assertions.

    Regarding air sampling, if these scientists haven’t picked up the ball and run with it, I would say it’s likely that they’re afraid/reluctant to reveal their results/draw any conclusions that might make waves
    Some of these will be private and unaffiliated to anyone. If they found something unusual, why would they keep quiet?

    This is a big and covert operation, and no one involved wants the public in on it. Everyone, including politicians and media, have repeatedly denied these activities and downplayed the potential dangers
    That’s a great paranoia, my little chicken.

  82. Benjamin says:

    Hey,if you want to be a denier,thats fine.Frankly,I would love to dismiss the whole subject too.But I cant.There are too many things that dont add up.Just remember,you dont have to be paranoid or a believer in conspiracy theories to see the truth about chemtrails.But you do have to open your eyes.The evidence is there for those skeptics with the courage and open mind to actually look at it.

  83. Suntour says:

    By Benjamin:
    “The evidence is there for those skeptics with the courage and open mind to actually look at it.”

    Evidence? You keep talking about this evidence you say it’s out there…well..where is it?

    If it’s so clear, you should be able to link to SOMETHING that proves persisting contrails are, in reality, harmful “chemtrails.”

  84. chockie says:

    Chemtrails ARE real.And they are NOT water vapor or ice crystals or whatever the officials or skeptics say they are.They are composed of a man-made solid particulate conglomeration of some sort,the exact contents or ratios of which are not known(metallic elements are strongly linked to chemtrail fallout)But they are having a dramatic effect on our cloud cover and weather.Most days you can look up and not see one cloud in the sky that isnt artificial.What concerns me,is the effect on human health,water and soil quality that these chemtrail particulates have when they settle to the ground or are carried down by rainfall.

  85. JazzRoc says:


    man-made solid particulate conglomeration of some sort

    Chokie, why do you suppose that such materials have not been discovered by these machines? (They are used everywhere in factories, towns, and cities.)

  86. chockie says:

    Who knows? Perhaps these air samplers have captured those materials,but they havent been reported or studied.Remember,these are covert activities that have been repeatedly denied and kept quiet by officials,including state and federal politicians,EPA and military.The only air sampling evidence likely to be revealed would come from independent researchers,not government organizations,who are probably the biggest users of these machines.Such independent evidence has been revealed,but not officially recognized.The samples continue to show metallic salts,polymers,fibers and even biological materials like molds.

  87. You mean that airborne mold spores were found …… in the air?

    Dust, which is also commonly found in the air, contains dirt, which contains metallic salts. It’s also quite likely to contain tiny fibers, many of which are polymers (like polyester).

    And if if something odd was being found, how do you know it’s coming from contrails? Why not car exhaust? Or power station exhaust? Where is the connection to contrails?

    Where has this “independent evidence” been revealed?

  88. Gerry Conway says:

    Most people,unfortunately,are not even aware of chemtrails.They are completely oblivious.Even when they are pointed out,people seem unconcerned.But chemtrails are real,and the more intelligent people I know are very concerned about them.They have accepted the plausible,and now,largely confirmed hypothesis,that the military has been dispersing disturbingly large amounts of aerosols into the upper atmosphere with the purpose of modifying it into an electrified gas state.As one man put it,they have basically attempted to create another ionosphere within the lower atmosphere for various electromagnetic applications.And I firmly agree with this based on the strange “electric” clouds and other atmospheric phenomena I`ve observed.I`m also convinced that the military is able to remotely manipulate these ionized materials in the atmosphere.

  89. Well, that should be very easy to scientifically demonstrate then.

    So where is the evidence of any of that?

  90. captfitch says:

    Gerry- I think your right about the electrified clouds. I was flying through some clouds the other night and the whole nose of the plane started to glow with amazing bue-green dentrite strings of electricity. I could reach up to the windscreen and the electricity was drawn to my fingers. It was on the wing tips as well. And then just when we exited the cloud they went away!

    Oh wait- nevermind. It was St.Elmo’s fire.
    Boy it’s a good thing I figured that out or I might have freaked out.
    Sorry- couldn’t resist.

  91. anonymous says:

    Are you people ready to stop this contrail and water vapor nonsense? I walked out today and counted about 7 aerosol trails.The skies were messier and hazier than I`ve seen in a while.You people can go on trying to ridicule believers in the aerosol program,but we know it is happening.Water vapor trails do not expand for hours or produce strings at the trail edges from the wind currents.You know,I dont think you people realize how serious this is.If these aerosol fallouts keep increasing the alkalinity and conductivity of our soils,we may not be able to grow good crops in some areas.The fallout has already been linked to the death of certain tree species,including the pinon pine in the southwest U.S.In some places,even heavy rain wont improve the growth of certain vegetation because of the high alkalinity of rainwater.All of this has been conclusively linked to aerosol trail fallout.

  92. Faithinscience says:

    “Are you people ready to stop this contrail and water vapor nonsense?”

    Not a chance…

    Please provide a single bit of evidence to show that there is any such thing as “aerosol fallouts” coming from these trails. I have yet to see any such thing and would immediately change my position if anyone were to provide some evidence.

    Also, provide me with verifiable proof that “aerosol fallout” has ANYTHING to do with the death of any trees.

  93. Water vapor trails do not expand for hours or produce strings at the trail edges from the wind currents

    Actually, yes they do. Just look in any book on clouds and you will see this described. Even look at old books, like this one from 1970:


    So, you might want to check your information before making bold claims.

  94. anonymous says:

    The only evidence required is that obtained from using your own two eyes.Just watching the sky and watching these trails completely contradicts the claim that its only water vapor.Occasionally,I`ll even see a water vapor contrail and an aerosol/chemtrail in the same airspace where I can make a comparison.The contrails evaporate almost immediately,the aerosol trails expand and persist and have a denser and smokier appearance.And this frequently occurs in very low humidity,so we know we arent watching ice crystals in supersaturated air.I mean,come on.Who are you people trying to fool? We know what we are seeing.

  95. Did you read the 1970 book? It directly contradicts what you are saying. Are you saying the book is a forgery? What about all the other books on clouds? Are they all fake too?

    Why don’t you find a quote in a science book that says that contrails always evaporate almost immediately, and never persist.

    Let me toss out a quote from the Encyclopedia.


    When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume 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.

    Again, this directly contradicts what you are saying. So what’s going on here? Are you denying all the science of meteorology?

  96. anonymous says:

    I didnt say that normal contrails always evaporate immediately.But they usually require colder temperatures and much higher humidity to persist.So when we see persisting “contrails” in vary arid climates unsuitable to normal contrails,we must conclude that man-made sub-micron particulates are involved,such as those delivered by aerosols(chemtrails)”Ice crystal plumes” would not be possible under such conditions.

  97. Actually, you said:

    The only evidence required is that obtained from using your own two eyes.

    Implying that the “chemtrails” are somehow visually different from normal persistent contrails

    Are you then saying that “chemtrails” are actually IDENTICAL to persistent contrails, just that they persist when the humidity is too low?

    If so, how are you measuring the humidity at 30,000-40,000 feet? Can you give an example of when you did this, and what were the figures and visual observations?

  98. Suntour says:

    By anonymous
    “The only evidence required is that obtained from using your own two eyes.”

    Really? There is ZERO scientific proof for “CHEMTRAILS” and 100% scientific proof for CONTRAILS.

    But, instead you’re ignoring every single shred of scientific evidence and believing your eyes instead?

    Since you use your eyes to determine the “truth…
    Do you believe that the Earth is flat?
    Do you believe the Earth is the center of the Solar System?
    Do you believe the Sun lives underground and shoots out of the Earth every morning?

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

    Your eyes can’t tell the chemical composition of a contrail.
    Your eyes can’t determine the altitude of a contrail.
    Your eyes can’t tell temperature or humidity at 30,000 feet.

    Science keeps us out of the Dark Ages, it keeps us from falling back into Witch Trials and ignorance. Please do a little investigation behind the SCIENCE of contrails before you jump feet first into conspiracy theories.

  99. Faithinscience says:

    Well written Suntour. Witch trials are already underway as you see on youtube. These people have already made up their minds and have already concluded that anyone that doesn’t think as they do, are the enemy. I have seen comments about “shooting pilots” and “blowing airplanes out of the sky” because of the trails, and it’s just so sad.

    These people live in another world. A world where suspicion and assumption matter more than evidence and fact.

Comments are closed.