Home » contrails » Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

Update: If you are looking for a debunking of Why In The World Are They Spraying, first check out this post, as the second film really depends on the first being true, then have a look at the various errors in Why In The World Are They Spraying, detailed here:



The documentary film “What in the World are They Spraying“, by Michael J. Murphy, attempts to promote the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory (which states that long lasting contrails are actually the result of secret government spray operations), and proposes a possible explanation: that the trails are part of a geoengineering project involving injecting large amounts of aluminum into the atmosphere to block the suns rays.

Multiple parallel trails over Mt Shasta, California. Taken in 1989, ten years before the chemtrail operations were supposed to have begun.

The basic premise of the film is:

  • Normal Contrails fade away quickly
  • Scientists have talked about geoengineering using aluminum sprayed from planes
  • Since 1999, trails have been observed to persist for a long time
  • Tests in various locations at ground level have found different levels of aluminum
  • Monsanto has genetically engineered aluminum resistant crops
  • The government denies any spraying or geoengineering is going on
  • THEREFORE:  The trails are aluminum being sprayed as part of a secret government geoengineering project.

Normal contrails can persist and spread

That reasoning is somewhat suspect even if you accept all the points. But where it really falls down is that it’s based on a false assumption – that “normal” contrails quickly fade away.   In reality, normal contrails can persist for hours and spread out to cover the sky.  Whether they do this or not is entirely dependent on the atmospheric conditions that the plane is flying through, so it depends on the weather, and on the altitude of the plane. This is something that has been observed since 1921. Just look at any book on the weather, like this one from 1981:

They tested sludge, not water

So the film is based on a  false premise and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion.  But what about the aluminum tests? You can find the tests referenced in the film here:


And this is the one shown in the film, which they claim should be pure water:

Pond with low aluminum in the sediment. The film mistakenly claims the level are high by comparing them to water levels.  Note the rocks (8% aluminum) that line the edges, and the bottom.

The bottom line here is that they are testing sludge rather than water. Sludge is water mixed with dirt. Dirt is naturally 7% aluminum. That’s all they are finding.

The first aluminum result is from the pond, discussed at the start of part 3, and it’s 375,000 ug/l.  What they don’t mention is that it’s from pond sediment, sludge.  So essentially it’s not testing water, but is instead testing the amount of aluminum in soil. So that’s  375 mg/kg for sediment that has settled in a pond over several years. That’s actually quite low. Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%, but is typically 7.1%, or 71,000 mg/kg.  The amount of aluminum found in the sludge is quite easily explained by windblown dust. It’s low, probably because it’s a new pond, so a lot of the sediment is vegetable matter.

Then there are the rain readings.  33, 262, 650, 188, 525, 881, 84, 815, 3450, 2190 ug/L. Wildly different values, some high sounding, some low.  But no details are provided that correlate these different numbers of contrail activity.  If this variation were due to aerial spraying, then surely a match would be found.  These numbers simply tell us that different tests produced different results.  It does not tell us why.   No details of the sampling procedure are given, or the weather conditions preceding the test.   Nor are we told what are the expected levels of aluminum to be found under these conditions.

Rain gauge used for the aluminum test. Note the mounting bracket appears to be made from aluminum.

Rain water contains particulates from airborne dust.  The amount of particulates will vary greatly based on the weather.  A sample from a brief intense storm after a dry period would give you more particulates than a sample taken in the middle of several days of rain. The amount of particulates in the sample would also vary with how long the container is left out in the open.  Dust will settle on the container if it’s left out for a while, increasing the amount of aluminum found.  All these tests are really telling us is how much dust the sample was contaminated with.

How much aluminum is there in the dust? Let’s say it’s about the same as the amount of aluminum in soil (although it’s probably higher). How much dust is there in rain? According to Edward Elway Free of the the United State Bureau of Soils, in his book “The Movement of Soil Material by the Wind“, in tests performed by Tissandier, rain water contained 25,000 to 172,000 ug/L of particulates.  But he notes “As the amounts of rain and snow which fell in the various cases are not given, the figures are of little value.  The first drops of a rain storm will of course contain the largest percentage of dust, and as the storm continues the air is gradually wasted clean.”.  Still if only 1% of the lowest figures there were aluminum, then that’s still 250 ug/L.  And at a quite plausible 10% of the upper range, that’s 17,200 ug/L.  A range that easily covers the observed test results.

See also the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, VOl 4, 1967, which shows Aluminum found in rain in the range 520 ug/L to 1,120 ug/L, over 13 different tests. This shows that the results in 1967 (when presumably there were no chemtrails) are pretty much the same as the results the WITWATS is getting. Nothing unusual.

Tens of thousands of time the “maximum limit” for water. Sure. But you were not testing water, you were testing dirt

The soil tests are where a typical mistake is made – conflating the percentage of the metal in one substance (soil) with the typical percentages in others.  As noted, soil aluminum naturally ranges from 0.07% to 10%, and is typically around 7.1%, which is 71,000 mg/kg.  The tests from Oregon (see sheet 16 in the pdf) list quite ordinary results for soil of 18,600 to 38,000.  But then they note the results are “Tens of thousands of times the maximun limit for water“, which is true, but they are not testing water, they are testing soil, and it less than half the normal value for soil.

They continue this on the next page, with a low soil aluminum value of 10,500 mg/kg (just 1% aluminum), and yet note: “Near playground Sisson Elementary 300‘ away”.  As if this is somehow dangerous to children.   It’s just normal soil, as found in any playground, anywhere, ever.

Aluminum is everywhere, in various quantities

  • Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust, about 8% of the ground is aluminum. In some places, like the Hawaiian islands, it’s 30-60%!
  • Aluminum is everywhere, in the food we eat, and the air we breath (as dust)
  • Aluminum is in daily contact with us, in soda cans, cookware, aluminum cooking foil, construction, transportation, baseball bats, etc.
  • The amount of aluminum in any location varies naturally. In some places there is a lot, in others there is very little.
  • Contamination of samples with aluminum is very common due to it’s abundance and common usage.  Unless careful control samples are taken, then the results are often wildly inaccurate.
  • One of the tests in the film was water collected by a schoolgirl in a mason jar.  Mason jars occasionally have aluminum lids
  • Another was taken from a ski area snow pack in early summer.  Skis, ski grooming equipment, and ski towers use aluminum. (Update: it is not an active ski area, so more likely it’s just dirt contamination, as the sample was taken in July)
  • Aluminum is a common ingredient in antiperspirants and antacids such as Mylanta.

Aluminum resistent crops have been a goal for 100 years

And knowing that aluminum is very common will also answer why Monsanto would want to develop  aluminum resistent crops.  It will increase yields in areas with acidic soil.   Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminum in the ground, and the fact that aluminum ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been a known problem for a hundred years , it’s hardly surprising that someone would try to make crops have a higher resistance to it.  Here’s the Botanical Gazette of the University of Chicago, Volume 71, page 159, from 1921.

Note the reference at the bottom: “Aluminum as a factor in soil fertility”.  Note also they are discussing how to “reduce the toxicity of aluminum salts” in the ground.  So if scientists were doing it 90 years ago, then why exactly is it somehow suspicious that they are doing it now? For more discussion, see:


Discussing ≠ Doing

Finally, what of the government discussions of geoengineering, and their denials that anything is going on? Exactly.  What of it? They discuss geoengineering because it’s something that people might actually want to do in the future, so we’d better talk about it now, so we can figure out what problems might occur.  The concerns about health effects and effects on the environment are perfectly valid concerns, but they are not evidence that a spraying program is currently underway.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has no idea what you are talking about, because there is no government geoengineering project, just a few scientists talking about it.

And the most reasonable explanation for why they deny they are doing it because they are not actually doing it.  The congressmen interviewed in the film claim they they are not familiar with it because they are not familiar with it.  They don’t want to talk about it because they don’t know anything about it.  There’s nothing sinister going on there.  The congressmen are simply not familiar with this one particular theoretical geoengineering method (or probably any theoretical geoengineering method), so when they are buttonholed by someone who rather intensely asks them if they approve of it, then it’s quite understandable they don’t want to talk to him.

The film presents the conferences on geoengineering as if they are somehow secret and clandestine operations that need to be revealed to the public.  In reality, geoengineering of this type has been discussed for at least sixty years. It’s hardly covered up, as the discussion has been constantly in the news, often front page news, since 2006, and has been making occasional mainstream news stories since the 1980s, with thousands of publicly accessible research papers over the last sixty years.   There’s no evidence anyone was doing it sixty years ago, there’s no evidence anyone was doing it in 2006, and as far as anyone can tell, nobody is doing it now. Denials are not admissions, and discussing something is not the same as doing it.

I don’t want to make this article too long, but I’ve noticed a few more problems with the documentary, see the comment section for more info.

1,142 thoughts on “Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

  1. captfitch says:

    Except that the relationship between CO2 and heat is not controversial. It’s whether the increase in CO2 that man has created is contributing to atmospheric change.

  2. MikeC says:

    You probably create such a thread over at Metabunk rather than on here – this site is about contrails, nto about debunking in general.

  3. It’s been a while since I popped by this site, mainly because I’ve not encountered any ‘true believers’ in a while. I’d hoped this whole chemtrail hoax had faded or vanished. Apparently not. The latest is that it’s down to Agenda 21! The crackpot that brought it up today also claimed to have read everything in this thread, to have read all 700 pages of Agenda 21, and to have collected (and tested) soil samples with too high levels of barium and aluminum. After an unproductive back and forth I finally admitted that I believed none of her claims, and came here to read some reasonable rebuttals of other lunatic claims.

  4. JenJen says:

    Nice try debunking it. I don’t believe a word on your site. And more and more people are waking up to the truth. CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL! Just listen to how many ambulances you hear during the day or night after a heavy spraying. That will tell you all you need to know. Here’s part of my testimony on when I found out about chemtrails… It was last week sometime when I really began to notice the heavy spraying coming out of these jets in the sky. There were multiple lines and planes…I thought that very strange. They seemed to be lasting quite a long time and they formed plumes that appeared as if they were dripping something from them. I had never seen anything like this before in my life. Usually a contrail dissipates after a few seconds. These lines stayed for hours and spread into clouds and turned the whole sky milky white/silver. While I was outside observing these chemtrails, both my eyes and sinuses started burning. I quickly went inside and started to do my own research on what these funny lines in the sky were. It was true, they were spraying us and had been for a long time, and I just didn’t see it. One of the main reasons I believe in chemtrails is not because of what I’ve read or watched on youtube, but because of what I experienced for myself and what I witnessed happened later that same night. For one, my neighbor went into the hospital for a severe asthma attack. The same night, my husband woke up with severe chest pain and thought he was having a heart attack. (he never had problems with his heart before)…and earlier that night I drove to Von’s to pick up a few things, and noticed an ambulance and fire truck outside. Went inside and actually witessed the lady who had passsed out on the floor, telling the EMT person that she didn’t know what happened to her, she got really dizzy and then had a hard time breathing and passed out. Well, if that wasn’t enough to convince me, the next morning I looked outside and noticed bees that looked like they had been burned to death with some chemical all over my patio. If you don’t believe that they are spraying us with chemicals, just look around at your neighbors and friends and see all the uprisings in breathing problems, respiratory problems, heart problems, and immunity problems, etc….There are people who have tested the rain water after a chemtrial spraying and have found high levels of barium, (which cause the breathing problems) mercury, and aluminum…among other many toxins. This is a blatant attack on the people of America…Everyone should know about this and have the right to know what is being sprayed on them and what the side effects are. One last thing, I know a pastor who just lost his little girl (5 years old) this week to a severe asthma attack..coincidence? I highly doubt it…there are others who have actually had heart attacks and died. This isn’t a game…and we the people have a right to know so we can protect ourselves and our loved ones.

  5. captfitch says:

    I feel fine. Why?

  6. Jay Reynolds says:

    I feel great too! And I’m fifty seven!

  7. Don Gisselbeck says:

    I’m also 57 and can breath well enough to put the hurt on 20somethings skiing. Why are’t the chemtrails affecting me?

  8. Strawman says:

    So chemtrails have supposedly been around for 17 to 60 years, depending on who you ask. Strange enough: people keep living longer, keep getting healthier, etc.

    Ah, and by the way, did you actually call hospitals to ask what kind of emergencies they had during that time? Did you check whether there is anything to actually tie ambulances and emergenies to supposed spraying? Because, you know, that’s what a good researcher, a real critical mind would do.

  9. JenJen says:

    So you can take off parts and pieces of people’s words that they post? I mean a had two or three other posts here and some words in the post that is above that are not not there. Is this site for real? I mean can you just pick and choose what you want the public to see? And if it doesn’t say what you think it should, you just take off or delete it??? WOW!!!!

  10. cloudspotter says:

    The software that this site runs on doesn’t handle lengthy discussions very well, you’d be better off going to metabunk.org (Forum link at the top of the page) and posting on there. Better if you register first though.

  11. Please see:

    I also recommend moving any involved discussion to Metabunk.org

  12. JenJen says:

    Thanks cloudspotter and Mick, I need to apologize, I was on another page earlier and that was when I saw a comment that was removed. I accidentally clicked on this page instead of the other one. So please forgive me.

  13. D says:

    Just one question. When you see a plane flying overhead laying a lets just say “trail” from horizon to horizon which persists for hours. Why does the next plane that flies over minutes after have a “trail” that disappears as quickly as the plane is moving?

    Judging by the type of plane (4 engine jet) and the altitude of the both which are the same. Why does one “trail” persist yet the next disappears.

    Also, Some days there are “trails” criss crossing the sky yet the very next day there are none and there continues to be none for several days. Does this mean that the world stops using planes for days on end?
    Lastly..before Im bombarded with the atmospheric conditions argument. Do atmospheric conditions fluctuate to extremes that much. Say here in South Australia we have lately had several days of 30+ degs yet some days there are “trails” and some not but the planes are still flying.

    There are more holes in this site just in the first paragraph..

    This is a government site supported by government shills. Anyone with half a brain can see this.

    Hahahahaha! Classic mind control

  14. cloudspotter says:

    Atmospheric conditions fluctuate enough for there to be clouds in some parts of the sky and not in others, weather changes from day to day and conditions at ground level have nothing to do with conditions higher than the top of Everest. Anyone with half a brain can see this.

  15. Jay Reynolds says:

    The answers to almost all of your questions may be found by studying the articles listed along the left margin of all pages at contrailscience.com.

    You wil find a complete answer to your question above in this article:

    You might ask yourself why, out of hundreds of thousands of environmenal scientists worldwide, none of them are accepting the conspiracy theories put forth in “What In The World Are They Spraying?”

    The answer is that they ealize that movie is seriously flawed and seriusly deceptive.

  16. Toni Smith says:

    In all accounts what plane flys back and forth and then does a 90 degree turn and returns to spray further aerosol into the atmosphere?They have been manipulating the weather since 1961 in the Vietnam War over the enemy supply lines. This is not new and technology and is far more advanced now. How do you explain the constant tic tac toe in the sky. I have all this on video. The world needs to wake the hell up!

  17. Toni Smith says:

    And just to confirm that while you think that your job is done here to deceive the citizens of the planet many are waking up and the wealthy elite who want to control this planet should be running for the hills…oh perhaps the ones in North America where Agenda 21 wants to return the land to its natural environment…without humans. Have a read of this…Agenda 21 (21 meaning the 21st century) about sustainable development and it does not include us. Signed in Rio in 1992 by at least 100 head of state. Don’t take my word for it. What do you think the Bilderburg Group discuss once a year? They run the planet you see because they have the money. The government are their puppets and are used by these elite to orchestrate some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity. Check out the RFID microchip they want to implant into everyone. And what are the FEMA Camps about? Don’t be fooled people…the chemtrails are real and they cause drought flooding hurricanes…HAARP…a programe that needs to be accountable. Check out Bill Cooper, Ted Gunderson and Al Griffith…2 out of 3 were murdered for telling the truth because they had credibility.

  18. cloudspotter says:

    Toni, there are over 87000 flights per day in the US alone. Do you think they all travel between just two airports? Because that’s the only way there wouldn’t be trails crossing.

  19. Toni Smith says:

    Well in the remote part of our world there are 2 airports. Why is the SAME plane continuously going back and forth on the same flightpath? I have Flightradar 24 so can track them. Why does the plane turn off its spray nozzle during the 90 degree turn? And then turns it back on again on the return journey? No one has answered this question. By the way you may want to check out Northland, Whangarei New Zealand to see how many airports there are. NO international flights from here. Or are these pilots drunk. Is that your answer because thats all it could be. What is the govt paying you debunkers to fill this page with lies? There are Stratospheric Aerosol Engineering programes all around the world…there is NO doubt. You can fool some people only some of the time. The rest of us are awake. Check out this site to explain the timeline of weather modification to prove they have been tinkering with our weather for a long long time. http://www.terraforminginc.com/weather-control/

  20. It planes to and from Aukland. It’s not the same plane, just different planes flying the same route.

    You likely see the contrail start and stop to the south of you as the plane nearer AKL are lower, but the planes just fly in and out of the distance to the north.

  21. Captfitch says:

    If they turn off the nozzles during turns how can you prove it’s the same plane? And surely you meant 180 degree turns.

  22. Lookingup says:

    What about the lone plane that starts in the South here in Portland, OR and flies back and forth across the sky leaving these trails. Sometimes on a sunny day there are two planes, but it is always the same, they travel back and forth until there are what I call fake clouds all over the sky. The pattern made by the one or two jets looks deliberate.

  23. Lookingup says:

    Also, I am pissed if my tax dollars are paying for this without a proper explanation of why this is going on, because it is going on, I can see it with my own two eyes. And to say the scientific community does not recognize it does not satisfy my interest. I can say anything about the scientific community I want, doesn’t mean you are going to believe me. I see the 180 degree turns too. Anyone, with 1/2 a brain and open eyes can see that the same one or two planes are makes all the trails or fake clouds in one spray session. Think how much money Dupont, Monsanto and the other chem companies are making by manufacturing the substances they are spraying. Of course all the governments of the world deny it, if they ever knew about it, they wouldn’t tell because people would be pissed if they heard. There is a lot of things your government docent tell you so that you don’t flip.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Bill Cooper was a friend of mine. You shouldn’t be making false claims about him. He personally asked me to debunk chemtrails because he knew this was a hoax. We did several interviews on the subject.
    Here is one of them:

  25. Tom says:

    Any theories on the massive, globe-wide bird and fish deaths, and their speculated connection to chemtrails?

  26. They are not actually unusual events, they always happened, it was more a media thing. See:


  27. nancy b says:

    I haven’t watched the film in about a year…but I recall that they tested snow melt off of mt Shasta….I believe my eyes and my gut. Not your smoke and mirrors. What if you are mistaken… What if you are an employee for a university or benefit from geoengineering -somehow?…. What do you have to gain from your ‘debunking’ (which reads like buckshot?) Most importantly – what if you are wrong? and we are all poisoned because of secrecy and lack of oversight? Dah. baby

  28. Captfitch says:

    If you were on a ship at sea and someone told you that everyone must abandon the ship because it is sinking would you jump into the lifeboat without at least questioning why? Maybe the water in the mail room is a broken pipe. Maybe the water isn’t there but a few people heard it was and didn’t question it? Maybe there’s always a little water in the bottom of all boats and its totally natural and normal. Maybe those on the boat who know quite a bit about sea-going vessels are the one’s you should listen to and not the cooks who only know about the kitchen.

  29. Strawman says:

    Funny thing, nancy, people here have looked at the test in the film. Guess what, the tests were done wrong. So, what if you’re wrong? What if you’re wrong? What if you’re wrong?

    Follow up question: do repetitions somehow make the argument more valid?

  30. JFDee says:

    nancy b,

    you said you believe your eyes and your gut. However, keep in mind that eyes and gut can be fooled easily.

    A striking example:

    Also, without critical questioning, there can be no progress. By all means, talk to both sides and let them make their argument!

  31. Jay Reynolds says:

    Those tests have been looked at more closely. It was found that they also misinterpreted the results they got because the tests cold not distinguish elements found in ordinary soil dust from anything else.
    When further tests were taken, it was found that the dust in the samples was:
    a. No different from levels found over the past forty years
    b. Contained the elemental ‘signature’ of ordinary soil dust
    see the further test results:

  32. Jay Reynolds says:

    The people at Mt. Shasta also thought that only 3-4 ordinary commercial flights flew over their area, and so they attributed the contrails they saw to unidentifable jets. Further checking found that Mt. Shasta is under a highly traveled route that gets well over 100 flights/day of passenger jet travel.
    see the research:

  33. JT says:

    Interesting…I’m a researcher and I like to look at both sides of the conversation. Curiously enough when they chemtrail in my area people start breaking out in rashes and I mean a lot of people. I would urge those researching for themselves to not take the word of ONE site as there are many out there that just don’t do their homework. I suggest you all view many perspectives on the subject as there is much disinformation on the internet . Remember we were not there everything we are coming across is 2nd hand information unless you were there conducting the first hand research. When you see all sides of the subject you may be able to see some of the truth as well as a bigger picture… From my research on other subjects one thing is quite clear the powers that be are not doing this for anyone’s best interest…Remember common sense can go a very long way.

  34. JT, why do you think nobody else has noticed these rashes? Is it just your town?

  35. Captfitch says:

    Super big day for contrails over dallas today. No news about rashes. Common sense tells me contrails don’t cause rashes. Rain for the next few days here though. Might be a connection there?

  36. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    one thing is quite clear the powers that be are not doing this

    You were so close.

  37. JB says:

    According to contrailscience: Discussing ≠ Doing
    There are many academic articles that aren’t discussing it anymore, but rather talking about their findings. If you’re interested, check out my website.

  38. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Your website is not very easy to navigate.

    I clicked the articles link. I saw under 2009 that you have the KSLA news report. I rolled around the floor and laughed my ass off for a while. I’m afraid I don’t need to see any more of your website after that.

  39. Spreadlove says:

    Nothing anyone says makes much sense on here when you see the trails and see them wipe out the blue sky. They are undoubtedly spraying with an intention and this site is obviously a reaction the the truth designed to put doubt in already conditioned minds to stop them waking up.
    You sad individuals

  40. MikeC says:

    Speradlove how does the science of persistent contrails not make sense when you see persistent contrails?

Comments are closed.