Home » contrails » How To Debunk Chemtrails

How To Debunk Chemtrails

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

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

With discussion and reference here:

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

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

Contrails Through History

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

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

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

Chemical Tests, Aluminum, Barium, Etc.

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

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

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

Photos and Video used by chemtrail theorists

Theorists claim: Photos and videos show spray planes.

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

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

About the Chemtrail theory

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

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

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

General Discussion of Chemtrails

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

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

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

The amount of air traffic, grids, and contrail patterns

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

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

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

Contrail Information

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

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

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


Unusual contrails explained

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

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

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

The Los Angeles Mystery Missile Contrail, and similar

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

Other random stuff

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


669 thoughts on “How To Debunk Chemtrails

  1. Chemtrails says:

    Ok uncinus I’ve took everything you said into consideration and now that has all went out of the window. I’m kinda pissed off right now. These guys are definitely spraying something. I know what I saw.

    Today I decided to use the spare time I had today to look at these contrails.
    Clear skies, even the forecast said clear skies. I see a few jets and airplanes from time to time. Everything is pretty normal, until 11AM… The planes start spraying all at the same time. I saw at least 5 in the air at the same time crossing their trails over and over. Most of these trails were over a nearby high school. The spraying continued for hours. Each “contrail” just looked like it was dripping this stuff… 12:30 comes and they’re still spraying! I even see an aircraft making a normal contrail while they’re spraying! The “contrails” are now starting to become fake clouds??! All of the planes making these “contrails” were normal UNMARKED airplanes you find at an airport. 1PM comes and sky is full of these fake clouds it’s crazy. I then checked the weather and it’s saying partly clouded skies??!! LOL! Clear skies tomorrow but lets see how long that lasts.. Took into consideration that these might be just ice crystals. 2:30 comes, they’re still going obviously crossing paths and I see a plane flying lower than the usuall planes actually pushing the stuff out. I could see that crap being shot out of the plane! This is when I knew everything you’re telling me is BS. They’re spraying something in the air they shouldn’t be. You might say well it’s that cloud seeding stuff. Well it rained last week we’re good on rain. I’ll post photos of some of the stuff I’m seeing. Im also close to believing you’re being paid for debunking everything people say.

  2. Okay, one thing at a time – what exactly in your description indicates anything other than contrails?

    Contrails do sometimes persist and spread over the skies. And planes at different altitudes leave different contrails.

  3. Strawman says:

    Chemtrails, Jay Reynolds has provided a guide on how to spot planes and get more information on them. Chances are, if you saw them up there, you will find them on flightradar pages online. This will help you deal with the “unmarked plane” part.

    And please don’t jump to conclusions. As far as I can see, everything you describe points to atmospheric features rather than chemtrails. If you really want to prove chemtrails, you need to know the science of clouds and contrails. This is a must, because without this knowledge you fall back on assumptions; such as “contrails only last a minute”. Once again: any serious proponent of the Chemtrails theory needs to know this stuff, if s/he wants to argue their case convincingly. I have to say, thus far I’m not convinced – neither by the Chemtrailers attempts at science, nor by their general theory. It’s just stuck halfway somewhere.

  4. Strawman says:

    I can’t find Jay’s posts on airline research right now. Can you help me out, Mick?

  5. Probably the fourth post in this thread (although the whole thread is related)


  6. Strawman says:

    That’s the one. Thanks a million!

  7. Jay Reynolds says:

    Chemtrails, I’m guesing you are in the Tampa area.
    The water vapor loop shows some pretty good moisture headed across that area during the day, with some clearing late.
    The visible loop shows clouds moving in from offshore over Miami Bay.
    It would help if you gave your location.
    Don’t expect much help if you aren’t specific.

    Am I close? North, south, or east coast instead?
    Just let me know the nearest city of 10,000 or more. I suggest using flightaware to track flights. This fellow did a pretty good job of tracking flights:

    Hey, if we are paid, just make us a better offer and maybe we can send the sprayplanes elsewhere,
    LOL, 😉

  8. Chemtrails says:

    These are NOT flights. These unmarked planes fly all directions spraying while other airplanes make no trail at all…. They sometimes fly behind each other CLOSER than usuall airplanes do coming from the airport. I’ve never seen a trail coming from the plane when flying to a different state

  9. Chemtrails says:

    I live in southeast US

  10. Chemtrails says:

    I guess it’s normal for airplanes to turn around and fly over an area they already flew in right? It’s also normal when the “contrails” just happen to start up when over schools and highly populated areas. Yeah thats all normal. I don’t know about you guys but I don’t recall flying in an white unmarked airplane before. It’s always the usual airline companies ya know?

  11. You’ll have to provide some examples of what you are talking about. Perhaps a photo of an unmarked plane? If you can see it’s unmarked, then you can take a photo of it.

  12. Chemtrails says:

    Alright this isn’t going anywhere. What can we do to see if chemtrails are real instead of talking about it on this?

  13. Chemtrails says:

    Alright I’ll try to get one but I need a better camera.

  14. Jay Reynolds says:

    Hey, just search around and show us a photo that someone else has taken which is as close as possible to what you see.

    Don’t be scared to tell us the nearest town to you. The nearest town to me is Houma, Louisiana, for example. This can help us greatly to understand what you may be seeing air traffic-wise and weather-wise. I rather think you haven’t much experience in evaluating what you are seeing, and I’ll tell you why.

    When I see you claiming that contrails start and stop over schools, it makes me wonder, because from 30,000 feet where these planes are making contrails, a school appears like a tiny dot, just like the plane does from the ground. Does anyone actually think an airplane “turns on” something six miles over a small dot on the ground, then releases something that remains in the air, (and yes, the air at that altitude is almost always moving very quickly)?
    What use would that be?
    I think that you maybe need to stop and think about that for a while.
    Have you ever flown in a jet at 30,000 feet+?
    Think about what things look like from up there.
    Here is a picture of New York City, 1990’s, from 30,000 feet:
    See what I mean?

  15. MikeC says:

    Since you are at least in the USA you can use this site to see what is flying around – http://flightaware.com

    It’s a bit better than flighradar as it includes all IFR (Instrument flight rules) flights even if they are not equipped with ADSB (as I understand it).

  16. SR1419 says:

    CT said:

    “I guess it’s normal for airplanes to turn around and fly over an area they already flew in right?”

    I have heard this claim before…but in over 7yrs of of looking at this topic- I have personally never seen this happen NOR seen anyone actually show this to be the case through video of a plane turning around…in all the 1000s of supposed “chemtrail” videos, I have never seen one of a ‘spray” planing turning around….just sayin…

    I don’t want to doubt your observations- but can you tell for sure the plane turned around? do you see it make a U-turn? or do you just see a plane flying in the opposite direction and assume- from at least 6 miles away- that it is the same plane?

    You also said this:

    “I’ve never seen a trail coming from the plane when flying to a different state”

    Do you mean when YOU are in a plane flying? It is hard to see your “own” contrail as its behind the plane you are in…but there are PLENTY of close-up videos from the cockpits of other planes that show irrefutably that commercial planes can and often do leave long, persistent contrails- such as these:




  17. Danny55 says:

    Someone seems to be thinking a bit more logically, found on FB

    Pierre A. Rivard-Documentary Filmmaker

    Film makers interested in making a chemtrail documentary. But we need access to a plane that flies 20 000+ feet in order to fly through a chemtrail & collect samples through a filter device. Can anyone help? http://www.upinfront.org

    UP IN FRONT | A Multi-Media Company
    UP IN FRONT is a Multi-Media company, specializing in all aspects of Film & Video Production, Editing, Photography, Graphic Design, Training & Curriculum Development…

    Like · · Share · 1 December 2011 at 19:57 · .

    Scotty Fusion likes this..”

  18. Coos says:

    I just stubbled apon this site that is a little scary site. . They are actually asking people to send them money. In return they give you a set of sample jars for you to take soil or water samples. They will then analyze these samples and post the results on the map, suppossed proof of the “spraying”.

    I had a look at the results and the data is very suspect. I work as an environmental scientist, taking and analyzing soil and water samples is my life. Here are the problems with this data.

    1) Half of the results posted contain no units of measure. They just say “Al: 12000”. 12000 what? This tells me nothing.

    2) Most of the results that do have units are within perfectly safe and natural limits. This has been covered on other parts of this site.

    3) No actually lab reports are available. Lab reports are crucial as they give proof that the lab is accredited and also gives QA/QC information. Was the result reproducable or was it a problem with the equipment.

    4) What are the sampling methodologies? None are given. Untrained people taking samples is a recipe for sample contamination. Also, if the samples are not sampled identically, then comparing them is invalid

    Just thought I would bring this site up as it appears someone may actually be making moneyby tricking people to beleive in “chemtrails”.

  19. Logical says:

    Chemtrails, I read your comments and they defy any critical thinking or logic. First of all, you don’t understand micrometeorology. Have you noticed clouds form more later in the day than they do in the morning? There’s a thing called “dew point”. Look it up and study what it means. It will explain why an aircraft at a lower altitude will produce no contrail or a shorter contrail than planes at a higher altitude. What none of these conspiracy nuts can explain is why would these evil people dispense toxins at 30-40k feet where concentrations will be diluted by the time they reach the ground and mostly be scattered in unpopulated areas? Why not emit these out of cars’ exhaust pipes right in people’s faces in populated areas?!? How do these evil people protect themselves from the toxins they’re putting in their own air? How come nobody involved in such a conspiracy that would involve literally thousands of people has blown the whistle and shown us an actual dispensing unit on an aircraft and shown us the poisons? Who are these unnamed evil people behind the conspiracy? Maybe those are the questions you should be asking yourself. In the meantime, I expect an actual live, captured Bigfoot to appear first.

  20. [Admin note: this was posted as if it were an advert for WMI, however the poster’s internet address comes from Leeds, in the UK, so it appears to be a hoax]

    We have been spraying clouds since 1961 to provide precipitation to much needed crops. We now provide a man-made cloud condensation nucleation service that can form water droplets or ice crystals to provide clouds where there would be none.

  21. Coos says:

    Here is a funny site I came across. The Chemtrails Project They actually are trying to accumulate enough water and soil sample data to prove chemtrails are poisoning the environment. The shady thing is that they ask people to give them money so that they can send you sample jars, then they make you pay the lab for the analysis.

    I work as an environmental scientist. Lab jars cost nothing, it is the analysis that usually costs a couple hundred dollars a sample. So these poor people are giving these jerks money to send them jars.

    The best part is that if you look at the data, it all falls under normal natural conditions. Aluminum levels at roughly 8000 to 10000 ppm in soil and 0-1000 ug/L in rain water. Barium is a similar story. Even worse, none of the lab reports are available to actually verify if any of this is true, and half of the entries don’t even show the units of measure. They just mention that aluminum is 10000. 10000 what?

    This is classic pseudo science. Present something unscientific is a scientific way and a good number a people will beleive it is true.

  22. JFDee says:

    Yes, we had a look at this site before. A furniture salesman (Paul Bourgeois, CEO, Black Swan Furniture, Palm Harbor, FL) with a mission – to make money.

    The information on the site is unclear; the price for the kit includes at least the jars and “all postage and handling”.
    So the actual lab test is not included? How did you find that out? I don’t suppose you bought one yourself, right?

    Anyway, I don’t think this guy is convinced about the existence of chemtrails. He links WITWATS and the trailer for “Great Culling” right underneath, regardless of the conflicting messages of these productions.

    A real scam, in my opinion.

    BTW, on his map there are four test locations showing the name “Dane W.” – all in the area of Redding, CA. Go figure!

  23. Coos says:

    No I would not fall for this crap.

    I’m just assuming that people have to pay for the lab. I know for certain that $50 will not cover sample handling and analysis costs. I work in the industry and know that a typical metals scan in water or soil will run more than $50 with sample handling and disposal. Also, you would have to send the samples to a local lab, sending them cross country makes no sense. They also fail to mention that all lab costs are covered. They just say all shipping and handling is covered.

    Either way I do like how the Chemtrails Project site debunks the premise of chemtrails increasing aluminum and barium levels on its own. The data there proves it.

  24. JFDee says:

    So, the term “handling included” will probably trick customers into assuming that the lab costs are covered.

    I suspect not many of them follow through once they discover that catch. That’s why Paul Bourgeois has obviously included readings from all kinds of sources into his map. I don’t think Dane Wigington has ever purchased one of those “test kits”.

    O.K. – to all visitors of http://chemtrailsproject.com/ : ask them about the lab costs before you buy the kit !!!!

  25. Danny55 says:

    They have also got a FB page, Chemtrails Project. Of course, I am banned from it for asking questions.

  26. Coos says:

    I discovered Chemtrails Project on facebook after my wife watched that WITWATS video.

    I asked a couple innocent questions about sampling methodologies and how they should post the lab reports so that the results could be verified. I wasn’t even saying chemtrails didn’t exist, I was just trying to help them improve their scientific methods and make the data more transparent.

    Of course I ended up getting banned. Haha.

  27. Danny55 says:

    The latest result from Chemtrails Project
    “New Rainwater Results – from St. George, Utah:

    Aluminum = ND
    Barium = 7 ug/l
    Strontium = 21 ug/l

    *Notes: Once again we find a sample with no aluminum but strontium is present. Out of the last 5-6 samples we have tested the case has been the same, heavy strontium (sometimes over 700 ug/l). Keep this heavy metal name on your mind: Strontium…..a pattern is building here.”

    Anyone know if there’s strontium mining near there?

  28. Alexey says:

    “Anyone know if there’s strontium mining near there?”

    There are some collectible minerals on eBay from Strontium King Mine-Emery County-Utah, which is more than 200 miles northeast from St George.

  29. JFDee says:

    The EPA limit for strontium in drinking water is 4000 ug/l according to this page:


    I see a pattern of fear-mongering building here …

  30. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    “…a pattern is building here.”

    Yeah, I see the pattern quite a lot where someone’s trod in some dog muck on the street and tried to get it off their shoe.

  31. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    I have to remember the conspiracy theorists skill at coming up with excuses. Which makes me wonder how long it will be until the fact that none of this stuff supposedly being sprayed is actually turning up anywhere in any tests will be excused by the explanation that they are now spraying stuff to remove all the stuff they’ve sprayed because they’ve been found out :D. I wouldn’t put it past them.

  32. Danny55 says:

    Earlier on Chemtrails project they had a load of results with Aluminium and Barium. Then they got some with Barium and Strontium, but virtually no Al
    “Seems our friends may have flipped from aluminum to strontium which is more reflective, and much more expensive. Your tax dollars, hard at work.”

  33. Coos says:

    Wow, totally normal levels of strontium. Why don’t they just do a full metals scan. It costs the same. Then they can say they are spraying every metal in the periodic table on us

  34. I think the chemtrail theorists would like to use strontium in the theory as it is scarier, due to the reputation of strontium-90 (which is not what they are finding, but the public is unclear on the distinction).


    Foods containing strontium range from very low e.g. in corn (0.4 ppm and oranged (0.5 ppm) to high, e.g. in cabbage (45 ppm), onions (50 ppm) and lettuce (74 ppm).

    Strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. Strontium compounds can move through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble.
    Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Strontium concentrations in air are increased by human activities, such as coal and oil combustion. Dust particles that contain strontium will settle to surface water, soils or plant surfaces at some point. When the particles do not settle they will fall back onto earth when rain or snow falls. All strontium will eventually end up in soils or bottoms of surface waters, where they mix with strontium that is already present.
    Strontium can end up in water through soils and through weathering of rocks. Only a small part of the strontium in water comes from dust particles from the air. Most of the strontium in water is dissolved, but some of it is suspended, causing muddy water at some locations. Not much strontium ends up in drinking water.


    The human body contains approximately 4.6 ppm strontium. It has no specific function, but it is absorbed because of its similarity to calcium. Consequently, the larger part of absorbed strontium is inserted in bones.
    Strontium is non-toxic and a daily intake of about 0.8-5 mg through food is harmless

  35. Jay Reynolds says:

    Utah would be an excellent place to find strontium in the environment. Utah is smack dab in the “Great Basin”, a part of the North American Desert which is a basin which collects rainfall and has no outflow.
    Within the basin you have the example of the Great Salt Lake, which has collected over eons salts washed out of the soil. Stontium oxide is one such salt.

    You can also expect that areas near coastlines which ordinarily receive marine salt aerosols will have relatively higher levels of strontium in the air because strontium is quite abundant in the sea, and in sea salt, and in marine organisms :

  36. Jay Reynolds says:

    The inception of the idea that strontium is being introduced to the atmosphere coincides with the claim that barium is being introduced. That claim first came up in 2000 as described here:

    Specifically, Clifford Carnicom claimed to receive a smaple of dust removed from the surface of a car, which he describes:
    “The results would be less ambiguous if more materials
    were available for testing, but as it was, the amount available
    for each test resided on the sharp end of a needle.”

    He has never presented an actual elemental lab analysis of it, but claims to have one which he will not show. If one asks him for an actual lab analysis, he ends the communication:
    “He claimed to have performed a scientific analysis on the contents of his air filter, supposedly had the dust evaluated at a reputable lab, and of course the results were alarming. Oh, and bogus, of course. I asked him to post the actual test results online, politely at first, because of course I thought publishing something like that would help the cause. He was evasive at first, and then he just got belligerent and cut me from one of his pages. Of course I started to wonder after that exchange, so thanks Clifford C., you rotten fella.”

    So, here is the rundown, an anonymous source said barium was being sprayed, carnicom collects a pin-prick and guesses it might be barium, or maybe strontium, but never shows any real evidence. Ten years later, people are claiming that barium and strontium are in a patent for geoengineering (except they are not), and people find ordinary trace levels of barium and strontium in the air.

    This is the sum of all its parts, the conspiracy theory in a nutshell. Anyone who wants to point out where I went wrong, bring it on.

  37. Coos says:

    I find that these Chemtrail videos and reports rarely mention their sampling methods. Read any scientific paper and sampling methodology is always there. If you don’t mention methods than you are not practicing science. Anyways, I know first hand that mistakes in sampling can have incredible effects on analysis results. I know as a junior environmental field tech, I botched a couple ground water samples. However when we got these weird results, we did what any scientist would do, we retested the water to see if these results were reproducible. This is another thing that is always lacking with these chemtrail papers. Here are a few mistakes I have noticed.

    Generally when doing air tests for particulates you state your results in ug/cubic meter of air. If you just let dust settle on a surface and then analyze it, all you are testing are the elemental components of that dust (ug/g). A proper air test will have a filter and vacuum which can accurately determine the volume of air being sampled. The filter is analyzed for metals and then you can calculate the concentrations of that metal.

    For dissolved metals analysis in water, you are required filter your sample (usually in the field as you collect it) to eliminate small particulates. Usually when testing water we are concerned with dissolved metals. That way during lab analysis, you don’t get inflated metals results like we saw on Mt. Shasta.

  38. Jay Reynolds says:

    Coos, exactly right. Here is the chemtrail believer water test protocol:

    Note, no filtration to eliminate particles, and to get the “freaky” results,
    they test “surface water” by scooping up DIRT at the bottom of ponds, etc.

    This protocol is from the webpage link which supposedly holds all the tests displayed by the
    Coalition Against Geoengineering, G. Edward Griffin, Chairman, and Michael J. Murphy, President.

    I requested that that group post more complete information, including lab test reports they claimed to have taken, but which have never been shown before.

    They refused.

  39. Coos says:

    Collecting sludge and then calling it “surface water” is really bad science. In Ontario we have sediment (sludge) guidelines which essentially mirror soil guidelines (http://maxxam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Maxxam-Reg-153-Comparison-Charts-2004-vs-2011.pdf) see the far right side of document. So again they are comparing soil results to water standards. Apples to oranges.

    Also note from the above link that Aluminum and Strontium do not even show up as a contaminant of concern in my Province’s environmental guidelines. Barium is expected to have a background limit of 220 ug/g (soil) and 610 ug/L (water). 1000 ug/L is the potable groundwater limit.

    Yet on the Chemtrail Projects facebook site they say 47 ug/L is the highest reading they have had. Wow, more than 10 times less than what you would get in pristine groundwater. Totally out to lunch these people are.

  40. JFDee says:

    I say, all this is calling for a new article about proper air / water / soil sampling and analysis methods, as opposed to mistakes made by concerned but untrained individuals.
    This would include a description of how soil is broken up into its elements for measurement, and that metal levels are not indicating “free” metal atoms. There seem to float a lot of misconceptions around.

    I also imagine a concise table containing the secure level assessments of EPA (or the United Nations) for all those “suspicious” metals in soil and water, stressing that analyzing dust does not allow to draw conclusions about air levels, just for soil.

    I am aware that some intersecting issues are discussed in other articles (WITWATS, Chemical Analysis of Contrails) but I feel that a dedicated piece would be helpful.

    Not that I feel up to that task. Some chemical lab pro perhaps?

  41. Des O (Coos) says:

    Pretty big task to do this. I can point someone in the right direction for articles. However I am most familiar with my provinces standards (Ontario). I have lots of links and such to proper sampling techniques. However a wife, a few large soil cleanup jobs, and soon to be here baby are keeping me a little busy at the moment.

    The only reason I got into this is my wife’s friend sent her to the WITWATS video. She asked what I thought and of course I saw through it right away. However I saw how many of our friends were falling for it and I felt I had to speak up about this. Pseudo Science can be a dangerous thing!

  42. Sorry.. but there is no debunking chemtrail/contrail orbs. which leads me to believe chemtrails ARE real.. otherwise what would these objects want with “condensation” trails ???

    time to spill the beans guys

  43. JFDee says:

    Out-of-focus insects (there are many) or birds. You don’t notice them until you watch with binoculars or zoom in with a camera.

    They are in the videos by accident. Much closer to the camera (that’s why they are out of focus) than the trails. Anything will seem to be a round object when captured like that.

  44. MikeC says:

    You are begging the question – the first thing you need to establish is whether or not the orbs ARE actually “interested” in the contrails. Just appearing in the same video hardly seems like evidence of intent.

    So what makes you think they are interested in the contrails?

  45. Marcel says:


    What interests me is why the guttering would be interested in the trail. You can see quite clearly that the guttering comes in from the left and “sniffs” the chemtrail.

    Don’t say that it doesn’t………. “video evidence doesn’t lie”.

  46. ctorbs says:

    “. You can see quite clearly that the guttering comes in from the left and “sniffs” the chemtrail.”

    In from the left? .. not sure about that.. at 0:40 it clearly flies out of the “con” trail

    “ARE actually “interested” in the contrails.”

    I have plenty more video evidence if you are willing to have an open mind and NOT INSTANTLY label the objects as mere birds/insects as any CONtard “debunker” would…

  47. Alexey says:

    ChemtrailOrbs said:

    “You say they aren’t orbs? why? video evidence does not lie.. ”

    Well, the same video evidence suggests the presence of a cloaked flying saucer that launched the orb. There is a darker oval spot in the upper right corner that shakes off its position at 0:39, just before the “orb” appears. Or, perhaps, your camera needs a good dusting from inside and outside…

  48. ctorbs says:

    Well, the same video evidence suggests the presence of a cloaked flying saucer that launched the orb. There is a darker oval spot in the upper right corner that shakes off its position at 0:39, just before the “orb” appears. Or, perhaps, your camera needs a good dusting from inside and outside…

    LOL… nice one. not buying it

    check out all the other camera dust/defects..

    Keep it.. i hope it’s worth it…

    “There is a darker oval spot in the upper right corner that shakes off its position at 0:39,”

    Didn’t see anything of the type…


    Just another bird/insect? LOL.. Game over

    [Admin: Edited for politeness]

  49. Alexey says:

    ctorbs said:

    “Didn’t see anything of the type…”

    Watch the video on full screen at the top resolution (480p).

  50. What is there about the “orbs” shape or movement that makes it impossible for them to be some object much closer to the camera – like birds, bugs, balloons, or seeds.

    Be specific. With numbers if possible.

    If it IS next to the contrail, how big does that make it, and how fast is it going.

  51. GregOrca says:

    It is quite easy to generate similar footage just by aiming a camera towards or close to the sun.

    Here is footage of some “orbs” appearing to form arabic words:

  52. MikeC says:

    ctorbs wrote:
    “I have plenty more video evidence if you are willing to have an open mind …”

    does any of it actually identify the intentions of the orbs at all?

  53. Doc Logic says:

    After seeing all the posts on this blog


    I would like you to address some of the video evidence presented.

  54. Pick the best one, and I’ll give it a go. But at first glance they look like videos of normal skies, some with contrails.

  55. Hi Joe,

    Those patent were for a variety of normal things.

    HR2977 is addressed here:

  56. Heh says:

    I think it’s safe to say chemtrail are real.. And that some of these debunkers maybe getting payed for their activeness on this site.. They’ll call you a conspiracy theorist and point you to air traffic records or something someone wrote or someone tied into the government wrote. The proof is all in the sky. Normal air planes arent making these trails. The planes are always white or white and red. There’s are others. I am convinced that the sky is being tampered with.. Story time! This morning (7am)the sky was clear not a single cloud in the sky.. Forecast.. Clear skies.. Heading to work I spot 5 or 6 lines in the sky already. They usually start in the afternoon. The lines are starting to form clouds by now. 12pm the lines are everywhere. Check boards are was a layer of chemtrail all spread out above the lines. The lines were completely blocking the sun. Now the planes have stopped the sun is struggling to break through this crap in the sky. Now the forecast is partly cloudly.. These are NOT clouds at all NONE OF THEM. These are all man made. The planes have created a blanket of white chemicals/ice in the sky litterally HUNDREDS of miles long, but of course this is normal activity..It’s came to the point where the wether is a pattern… Rain on the weekend, one day of clear skies, partly cloudy every other day..I don think they’re dropping chemicals on us. I believe they’re purposely blocking the sun. Why?I have no idea.. Call me crazy but they’re doing something.

  57. Heh says:

    This junk looks nothing like a normal cloud it’s all fake. Debunkers point me to some real evidence they’re fake not some video someone made, or something some scientist wrote. I’ll keep an open mind

  58. captfitch says:

    I think if you’d rather not see something some scientist wrote then you have yet to achieve an open mind. It’s hard to keep something you don’t have.

    And I see you referenced forecasts as a sort of baseline for weather conditions. You are aware that the government makes those forecasts and that the local weather man uses those forecasts as well as other government supplied data to create his forcast right?

    So with this in mind shouldn’t the government be predicting partly cloudy to mostly cloudy skies BEFORE the event occurs and not after? It’s almost as if they didn’t factor in the effect air traffic had on sky condition isn’t it? As if they didn’t even know it was going to happen.

  59. Heh says:

    I dont want to see anything a scientist is saying because theres no telling if theyre arent apart it. I want proof. Im not going to just believe someone bc theyre a scientist.Why does the government factor in contrails/chemtrails into the forecast? Contrails aren’t clouds are they? 2pm and the sky is completely covered every where I look.

  60. Heh says:

    sorry I forgot. The government does create the forecast. So I guess all they have to do I send the planes out and set the forecast as cloudy. Sneaky stuff

  61. Heh says:

    The sick thing about this is they make these clouds in the sky, don’t say they didn’t make em I’ve been watching it, theyre man made. Then where do all these chemicals go??? To the ground,on food, people, ect as rain…Crazy shady stuff Im telling you.

    But ofcourse its normal activity. It is they’ve been doing for so long it’s definitely normal now. No one even notices it

  62. They don’t include contrails because they are high cirrus clouds, which still get classified as “clear skies”. They are also highly localized, and random, so any weather forecast that included them could indicated their probability, and it would generally be quite low (on average).

    Heh, could you point out something on this site that is wrong? I’ll fix it if you point it out.

  63. How did you notice it?

    What’s the difference between a chemtrail and a persistent contrail?

  64. Heh says:

    I doubt there’s really any other explanation. If there is PLEASE tell me.. Why are they making these clouds an tampering with the weather? Why are they continuously blocking the sun? This is not normal plane activity at all. Oh and please reply to my other posts.

  65. Heh says:

    Uncinus these are cirrus clouds man.. The lines have spread out into a blanket miles long blocking the sun as I mentioned earlier. They WERE cirrus clouds when spreading

  66. Heh says:

    Uncinus the forcast say partly cloudy skies, but what I’m seeing is not clouds it’s man made. It isn’t party cloudy either. They’re including them

  67. Heh says:

    Uncinus I notice the lines everyday except Mondays or Tuesday’s remember I said one day clear skies in an earlier post. The lines spread into blankets and the forecast always includes them

  68. Heh says:

    Uncinus you there?Anyone? Please reply to my other posts not just my most recent. I’m sure there’s some type of scientific explanation for what I’m talking about right? Lol

  69. I’m not clear what your question is here. Could you maybe state it more explicitly as a single question?. Also, what is the difference between a chemtrail and a persistent contrail?

  70. Heh says:

    Its not that hard Uncinus.. Answer them one by one. I don’t believe persistent contrails are real. I have yet to change my mind.

  71. Heh says:

    Start at my first post today and make your way down. I’ve asked many questions. They’re all on the one page of comments shouldn’t be that hard to understand what I’m asking

  72. Sorry, really I can’t figure out what you are asking. Just cut and paste the first thing you want answering.

  73. heh says:

    Debunk this first

    I think it’s safe to say chemtrail are real.. And that some of these debunkers maybe getting payed for their activeness on this site.. They’ll call you a conspiracy theorist and point you to air traffic records or something someone wrote or someone tied into the government wrote. The proof is all in the sky. Normal air planes arent making these trails. The planes are always white or white and red. There’s are others. I am convinced that the sky is being tampered with.. Story time! This morning (7am)the sky was clear not a single cloud in the sky.. Forecast.. Clear skies.. Heading to work I spot 5 or 6 lines in the sky already. They usually start in the afternoon. The lines are starting to form clouds by now. 12pm the lines are everywhere. Check boards are was a layer of chemtrail all spread out above the lines. The lines were completely blocking the sun. Now the planes have stopped the sun is struggling to break through this crap in the sky. Now the forecast is partly cloudly.. These are NOT clouds at all NONE OF THEM. These are all man made. The planes have created a blanket of white chemicals/ice in the sky litterally HUNDREDS of miles long, but of course this is normal activity..It’s came to the point where the wether is a pattern… Rain on the weekend, one day of clear skies, partly cloudy every other day..I don think they’re dropping chemicals on us. I believe they’re purposely blocking the sun. Why?I have no idea.. Call me crazy but they’re doing something.

  74. I’m not at all sure what you are asking, as what you describe sounds like normal behavior to me.

    Is that that the planes were all white, or white and red? Maybe you could get a photo?

    Contrails do sometimes persist and spread out to cover the sky. This is normal. What about what you saw makes you think it is abnormal?

  75. Stupid says:

    Heh said…
    “sorry I forgot. The government does create the forecast. So I guess all they have to do I send the planes out and set the forecast as cloudy. Sneaky stuff.”

    Can I ask you a genuine question ?
    Who do you think should report the weather forecast ? Does anybody create the forecast anyways ?….or do they just report it ?
    Who do you think the forecast benefits, mostly ? Certainly not us contrail/chemtrail debaters…we’re just a small lot.
    >>it benefits the industries of aviation, boating, farming, events (like the local and state-wide athletic events)….etc….
    Did you know there are independent weather advisers ? ….

    Please contact them….their links (above) and phone # are given too.
    If you don’t trust us, then ask around to the people that have been studying this stuff since high-school.

  76. Stupid says:

    HEH said….
    “.I don think they’re dropping chemicals on us. I believe they’re purposely blocking the sun. Why?I have no idea.. Call me crazy but they’re doing something.”

    They are doing something. You are correct. Those “lines” are man’made, because they come from the plane’s engines……….and are totally man made.
    But what did they just make ? ….they made a formation of fine ice. What does a formation of fine Ice make (at around 30 thousand feet ?…….it makes a wispy cloud.
    It makes a cloud because nearly all persistent ice particles at around 30k feet will make a cirrus cloud, because that’s what cirrus clouds are made of, regardless if there is a plane there or not.
    They are creating hazy skies, the same way a natural cirrus cloud would do so, without any planes, and hence block the sun depending on the thickness and amount of ice-cover (cirrus cloud).

  77. Stupid says:

    I should stipulate, that a plane’s engine water vapor emissions will not “always” make ice last (or persist) long enough to be visible, or last to “persistence”. This not a cop-out. Persistence needs certain requirements, no matter how cold it is. It needs three things….just like fire…..”cold, humidity, and particles”
    Here is proof…..

  78. Stupid says:

    fire = “heat, oxygen, fuel”

  79. Heh says:

    Uncinus ok then let’s say it’s normal. WHY IS IT BEING INCLUDED IN FORECASTS??! It is, I know as a fact. They spread these lines throughout the sky and tell us it’s cloudy outside. Someone told me they include them and you tell me they don’t. Hmm. You can call me wrong but I know these are man made clouds

    Uncinus you always say its normal but is it right??! You know deep inside it isn’t.. These fake clouds turn grey within a few hours to 1+ day. You know what happens next.

    That’s only two questions uncinus.. Please answer

  80. If clouds were forecast, then I imagine it would have turned cloudy with or without the contrails.

    Is it right? Well that’s a different question. Cloudiness has increased over the last 60 years because of contrails. But it happened gradually, and very few people really seem to mind. It has very little actual physical effect – it’s more like visual pollution. People are use to to it.

    I can totally understand why some people don’t like it.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “what happens next”? Contrails don’t cause anything to happen beyond the formation of some cirrus couds.

  81. Heh says:

    Stupid I’m not sure who should do it but I’m losing my trust in the government. I know the forecast help with many things but it’s also being used to keep people from whats going on in their skies..Thanks for the link I’ll take a look

  82. Heh says:

    What happens next is it turns into rain..People don’t mind? Or they don’t know about it or never thought about what was up in the sky or coming behind planes because of their trust in the government…Don’t cause anything to happen past cirrus? Then what happens DURING cirrus? or am I reading that wrong? If you mean nothing happens after cirrus. Not true bc I’m looking a blanket of con/chemtrails right now… There are still a few cirrus ones off to the side.

  83. Heh says:

    This visual pollution is blocking the sun and creating man made clouds that later turn Into rain. I want to know what in this rain

  84. Contrails do not turn to rain, they are too high. Contrails are made of ice crystals.

    You see contrails ahead of rain sometimes because of the shape of a warm front. The contrails simply indicate that rain is coming, they don’t cause it. If anything it’s the approaching rain (moisture in the air) that is causing the contrails.

  85. Heh says:

    They dont cause it….., but they turn gray and eventually drop it(rain). Uncinus this doesn’t change the fact that they’re being included in forecasts

  86. If it’s in the forecast, then it’s not caused by contrails. It would have happened anyway. The contrails are just a side effect of the weather.

  87. Andy Odell says:

    I was an astronomy student at U of Iowa in the ’60s; I remember my professor studying contrails and how they could get so thick as to hamper our observations. So, they definitely aren’t new. But the number of flights now is orders of magnitude higher than it was then. I remember a time when we could take time exposures of the sky and not have airplanes crossing them – that is no longer the case.

  88. maxwell says:

    LOL, if no one is “spraying anything”, why does this company (www.weathermodification.com) promote it’s geoengineering contracts with governments around the world openly… watch now folks, as the debunkers quietly switch from it’s “not happening” to “that parts happening, but its not nefarious, it’s just geoengineering”, all while continuing to pace around their habitat of DENIAL… yeah, if these geongineering companies “are ok”, then why has everyone been denying they EVEN EXIST to this point?… right, cause people love not taking public credit for good “deeds” for humanity… GIVE ME A BREAK… use your eyes people, i’ve shown you a company that SAYS THEY DO IT, you look up and YOU SEE THEY DO IT, don’t become a gullible mind who trusts the source more than the information, THINK FOR YOURSELVES

  89. Of course people are spraying things. But “chemtrails” does not include cloud seeding, crop dusting, or skywriting.

    WMI has been doing cloud seeding for 50 years. Nobody is denying that. That’s not geoengineering though, just them trying to make it rain a little more in limited locations. It doe not change the planet’s climate.

  90. maxwell says:

    “That’s not geoengineering though, just them trying to make it rain a little more in limited locations.”

    ok, thanks, i thought geoengineering was manipulating the weather, turns out making it rain does not fall under manipulating the weather…

    sheeple: “ok, we’ll sacrifice personal and environmental health for the safety of the material things we’ve acquired”

    ps: chemtrails don’t exists, it’s a conspiracy theory…

  91. maxwell says:


    ” watch now folks, as the debunkers quietly switch from it’s “not happening” to “that parts happening, but its not nefarious, it’s just geoengineering”, all while continuing to pace around their habitat of DENIAL…”

  92. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    then why has everyone been denying they EVEN EXIST to this point?

    No one has denied that cloud seeding using silver iodide exists.

    If you look into cloud seeding using silver iodide you will find it looks nothing like what people refer to as chemtrails. For one, it is done at a totally different altitude (not much use trying to get rain out of a cirrus cloud). For another, it doesn’t leave a visible trail.

    Confusing the two doesn’t help.

  93. captfitch says:

    So is your beef with WMI and thier current limited programs or do you suggest they are the ones responsible for all the trails?

  94. maxwell says:

    North American Weather Modification Council (NAWMC)
    “Weather modification (also known as cloud seeding) is an environmentally friendly way to generate more precipitation from clouds in the form of rain or snow. It works through the introcuction of tiny particles (“seeds”) that create additional droplets or ice, thereby accelerating the precipitation process and improving the cloud’s efficiency. Cloud seeding is also used to reduce hail damage and eliminate fog. This well-established technology has been in use since the 1940s in dozens of countries around the world.”

    Weather Modification Inc.
    “The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services leads our veteran pilots, experienced meteorologists and radar engineers around the world. Our valued clients include private and public insurance companies, water resource management organizations, as well as federal and state government research organizations.”

    North American Weather Consultants, Inc.
    “The World’s Longest Standing Private Weather Modification Company”
    “What are the most commonly used seeding materials?”The materials used in cloud seeding include two primary categories, tied to the type of precipitation process involved. One category includes those which act as glaciogenic (ice-forming) agents, such as silver iodide, dry ice and compressed liquid propane or carbon dioxide, which are appropriate in cloud systems where the precipitation process is primarily cold (colder than freezing). Of the ice-forming materials, the most commonly used is silver iodide. The second major category is focused on cloud systems where the warm (coalescence) process predominates. In those environments, hygroscopic (water attracting) materials such as salt, urea and ammonium nitrate can be utilized. Of the hygroscopic materials, the most commonly used are salts.”

    Silver Iodide Safety
    “Chronic inhalation, ingestion or skin contact with silver compounds may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes.”

    Ammonium Nitrate Health Hazards
    “Short-term exposure to ammonium nitrate can cause symptoms ranging from minor irritation to nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, headaches, dizziness and hypertension,,, The toxicity of nitrates when ingested is due to in vivo conversion to nitrites. The Material Safety Data Sheet considers chronic ingestion of more than 5 mg/kg/day unacceptable. The primary overdose effects of chronic exposure are orthostatic hypotension and Methemoglobinemia. Other common effects include: faintness, fatigue, weakness, depression, mental impairment, dizziness, shortness of breath, and reflex tachycardia; headache, nausea, vomiting, and nephritis may also occur.”

    http://www.nawmc.org, http://www.weathermodification.com, http://www.nawcinc.com

  95. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    If you check google news, Maxwell, and look at articles for cloud seeding between 1940 and 1950 you will find numerous articles talking about it. It has NEVER been a secret.

    But cloud seeding is not chemtrailing. Making up your own definitions for terms just so that you can say they exist is clutching at straws.

  96. captfitch says:

    So what’s your answer? Limited programs or involvment in a bigger plan? We’re not at materials used yet.

  97. Nobody has EVER denied that weather modification exists.

    What people are denying is that there’s any evidence that deliberate global climate modification (i.e. geoengineering) exists (except in theory).

  98. SR1419 says:


    Cloud seeding attempts to manipulate the weather…

    Geo-engineer would be intended to manipulate the climate…

    There is a big difference…

    Cloud seeding as practiced by WMI, NAWC and indeed the rest of the world for the last 50 years….Is not secret, doesn’t involve persistent trails at high altitude, doesn’t involve “spraying” anything…they shoot ice flares of silver iodide- often from the ground via rockets- into already existing rain clouds to try and enhance precipitation. They do not make clouds that do not already exist…

    Cloud seeding has nothing to do with what people Believe are supposed “chemtrails”…

  99. Doc Logic says:

    Hi Uncinus, How about paying a visit to San Diego on April 22 when the San Diego Chemtrail group plans to have a booth at the earth day fair. I think it would be important to have someone with a solid grasp of the subject to debunk the shilling they will be doing for their sponsor “What in the Wold Are They Spraying”.

Comments are closed.