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. Hugh says:

    Unless you have all the info you can’t state that Mach 1 is xxxMPH.

    And then…

    No- Google is not mistaken. Thier calculation is based on sea level, standard temp, standard pressure.

    But now it’s…

    If you base your conclusions on false assumptions and false calculations then your conclusion is automatically false.

    False assumptions? You said unless I have all of the info…blah blah? Open your mind instead of thinking thinking that you’re some kind of expert on conjecture. Who are you? Ask me why I don’t care.

  2. captfitch says:

    No- I’m no expert on conjecture or anything like that. It’s just that my chosen career (aviation) requires me to make very specific, critical calculations like the airspeed to Mach conversion all the time. Now I’ll admit that many of the calculations are done for me thanks to the avionics in my plane but because of years of formal education in the subject I know how and why the calculations are done.

    So- without being an expert on logic or whatever I have used my knowledge (scientifically based assumptions and proffesional experience), utilized the required and correct calculations and arrived at an informed opinion.

    I’ve done nothing more than what a lawyer, doctor or baker would do in the course of his or her job. It’s just that there aren’t videos of strange donuts around YT that people can’t figure out.

    And you should care who I am (I’m not trying to sound facicious). If you were on a blog about bread making, vigorously discussing how to make the best sour dough, wouldn’t you listen to the baker above the rest?

  3. JazzRoc says:


    And what credibility does this site’s author possess that gullible people like yourself would fall for such tripe?

    They say beauty lies in the mind of the beholder – and the reverse holds too.

    How gullible do you think a 66 year-old engineer who trained at the National Gas Turbine Establishment, Farnborough, forty-two years ago might be? I suggest I possess about a tenth of your ability to deceive yourself – especially in these particular matters.

    I suggest you visit a library and pull out a couple of technical text books: one on the design and performance of contemporary turbofan engines, and another on the typical conditions one finds in Earth’s atmosphere between the tropopause and the normal altitude limit for commercial aviation.

    And may be a couple more: a textbook on logical thinking, and one on good manners.

  4. Stupid says:

    Hugh said,
    “And what credibility does this site’s author possess that gullible people like yourself would fall for such tripe?”.

    …..if you still doubt the real explanations of the claimed “nozzle photos”, please set the record straight, over here…

  5. Hugh says:

    No, that’s not what I meant…the person who runs this site wants to keep it limited to the one topic. You did direct some of that 9/11 nonsense directly at me, and I was just simply telling you that it’s not allowed here.

    So you’re not a fascist, you’re a blog nanny. And the two are different how, exactly?

    I have no credibility, but the images speak for themselves.

    Thank you for your honest admission. But unless you’re going to give yourself an honorary Ph.D. from F.A.K.E.U., I’d suggest rightfully calling this blog “ContrailSpeculator.com.” Science requires testing hypotheses based on empirical evidence, not “hunches” based on your “expert” interpretation of blurry, still photos.

    As for the images, here are a few more. What is your expert interpretation? And remember, you have to use your illogic that there can be only ONE correct explanation:


  6. Hugh says:

    And may be a couple more: a textbook on logical thinking, and one on good manners.

    Yeah, and add these to your Christmas wishlist yourself, jackass. As I recall, you initiated the geriatric condescension beginning with this comment:

    Spraying? So you could see the nozzles? You were using a camera fitted to a 6″ reflector telescope and motorized tracking mechanism, perhaps. Very diligent of you.

    I am frankly not impressed with whatever you wasted your life doing. Your ignorant, flippant remarks give away your arrogance in thinking that your age gives you a taller soapbox from which to spew. Have a heart-attack.

  7. You don’t need a PhD to do good science. A child can do it.

    Scientists don’t have a magical essence that makes what they say correct. The science, if done correctly, exists in it’s own right.

    The fact is that twelve photos of the object EXACTLY match the path of flight UPS902. That’s not my opinion – it’s a verifiable fact that anyone can check for themselves. You could check it.

  8. Hugh says:

    Here’s a patent for a “powder contrail generation” machine. But no, they wouldn’t actually use it to create contrails, would they?


  9. Well, no, technically not, as it makes them out of powder rather than condensation.

    It’s a patent for making a visible trail behind a plane, for track, testing, etc.

    You might as well say skywriting is chemtrails if you want to go down that path. Stick to the big fluffy trails that people claim are “chemtrails”

  10. MikeC says:

    Hugh is exhibiting a common pattern of hoax argument – unable to provide any actual evidence or refute actual science and fact, he is resorting to argument by association (911 was a conspiracy therefore chemtrails are too – god alone knows what the connection there is), ad hominem, “fact” spam (how is the speed of sound actually relevant here?) and general bad tempered posting.

    all par for the course for the hoax I am afraid.

  11. Hugh says:

    Hugh is exhibiting a common pattern of hoax argument – unable to provide any actual evidence or refute actual science and fact,

    I already provided my scientific evidence. That’s your problem if you are unable to comprehend it.

    he is resorting to argument by association (911 was a conspiracy therefore chemtrails are too – god alone knows what the connection there is)

    It was someone else who initially brought up 911. But not that that changes anything. There are MANY questions left unanswered. And the government’s police state mentality over the last nine years aught to be proof enough (warrantless wiretapping, cameras everywhere, facing ONCOMING traffic, naked body scanners, groping passengers who refuse to be x-rayed) But if you want to beleive the government’s bullshit story, be my guest.

    God? Now that’s the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.

    ad hominem

    I already identified JazzRock initiaiting the bad manners.

    “fact” spam (how is the speed of sound actually relevant here?)

    The fact that you don’t see a comparison between air “speed” of an object and “speed” of sound, both of which require mathematical formulae to derive, exposes your misunderstanding.

    and general bad tempered posting.

    That’s your opinion; just remember, I’m not the one who started off on the wrong foot.

    all par for the course for the hoax I am afraid.

    Believe what you want. There’s just no getting through to a devout religionist.

  12. Hugh, back on topic, can you find ONE verifiable error in this site (not in the comments, but in the actual posts). I’d be glad to fix it.

  13. Stupid says:

    (a verifiable error)
    …just one ? That should be so easy.
    I’m afraid this is where Hugh may have little to say……at the exact opportunity he is allowed (asked) to demonstrate his “research”.

    I assume Unicus’s above question is not just directed to “Hugh”, but to anybody.

  14. Indeed. I’ve been asking people to point out errors for YEARS. I’ve had a few errors reported from the skeptically minded people. But NONE from the chemtrail theorists.

    I guess they think there’s nothing wrong on the site, otherwise they would point it out.

  15. Hugh says:

    You might as well say skywriting is chemtrails if you want to go down that path. Stick to the big fluffy trails that people claim are “chemtrails”

    Yes, in fact, skywriting leaves “chem”ical trails. Do you really think that the powder doesn’t mix with the moisture on contact?

    I already pointed out an error on your other post. You compared the image of the missile to the space shuttle. And then all logic fell through thereafter. As I said, unless you have yet another photo of the missile from a different perspective, yours is pure speculation.

  16. What was the error? The comparison shows that the Nov 8th contrail does resemble a missile launch. I put them side by side to show have they looked superficially similar.

    So what is wrong? I picked the picture of a vertical launch that most resembled the image of the Nov 8th contrail.

    If you can find an image of a missile launch that looks more similar, then I’ll add that.

  17. Maybe this one? T+47 seconds:

    Please feel free to suggest a better image. There are several here:


    But really, the Space Shuttle was the closest match, probably because it is so big.

  18. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Yes, in fact, skywriting leaves “chem”ical trails. Do you really think that the powder doesn’t mix with the moisture on contact?”

    What “powder’? Do you mean the paraffin they spray onto the exhaust?!
    Not much of a chemical..certainly not a powder. It also doesn’t mix well with water. It’s also environmentally friendly.

    Where does it end?! I guess anything can be referred to as a “chemtrail”….flatulence, burps, what comes out of squirtguns… I thought this discussion was about the trails in the sky..not an argument about semantics.

  19. Steve says:

    I definitely didn’t make any new friends when I went to the Los Angeles premiere of “What In The World Are They Spraying”. Basically I handed out an eight page paper with Uncinus article on “What in the World Are they Spraying” along with the Mt. Shasta article http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1176011800/New-tests-find-trace-or-no-aluminum-in-area-watershowing that there was no to trace amounts of aluminum in the local water to people who were walking in to see the video. Most took it graciously from me at first until they actually started reading it. Some just returned the hand-out back while others started to engage in some pretty heated discussions at the entrance of the theater. It was a great opportunity to at lease try to communicate with these chemtrail believers by explaining to them that what they are seeing in the sky are just ordinary persistent contrails and not some chemical spraying operation. I was able to talk to Mike Murphy a bit, asking him about the pond sludge test. He didn’t really have an answer when I pressed him more and then excused himself quickly from our discussion. I pointed the same thing out to G. Edward Griffin as he walked in, who simply said he’d look into it avoiding me as fast as he could. Later I was interviewed by a video reporter who was documenting the event, explaining how this whole chemtrail thing was basically a misunderstanding and that the trails were just persistent contrails. There were about 75 paying viewers($10) attending each show that filled up the small 100 seat theatre.

    The audience was pretty much composed of two groups, hard-core chem-trailers made up of these kinda strange middle-age women from Santa Monica wearing chemtrail t-shirts and members of We Are Change LA local 911 truthers . I was the only person in attendance who expressed the “its only a vapor trail” opinion. After awhile the organizers started getting hostile towards me telling me to leave and accusing me of working for the dark secret government operation.

    At the end of the first showing I did manage to slip into the theatre to catch a bit of the Q&A where surprisingly I did manage to ask Mike and Ed who were on stage why they didn’t include any interviews with pilots or meteorologist in the video? Griffins answer was they tried but the pilots told them that it was against the airlines policy to talk about any operation . After a few more panic type questions about incoming Chinese missiles from the chemtrail believing audience I asked again why they used pond sludge samples on tests design for water. Mike then pointed out that I was a de-bunking agent that worked for the known de-bunking operation website of Contrailscience. He didn’t answer the sludge question directly but instead said that they found high levels of aluminum in the snow samples from Mt. Shasta. He then asked me what Contrailscience said about that at which time I said that the test could have been contaminated with snow grooming equipment or even aluminum skies. He replied that the snow samples were taken away from any ski activity and then went quickly to another question from the audience. Griffin said “these are all good questions and its good that we’re looking into it”, at which point he ended the Q&A part. The organizers told me to leave and threaten that if I came inside the theater again they would call the cops. I cooperated and left the building and went back outside where I engaged in more spirited conversations with some of the attendants who were also leaving. One of the more amusing things that happen was the concern that the high altitude clouds that had just moved in late in were not natural but were artificially made by the “spraying operation”. They are actually worried now of not just contrails but any high altitude clouds.

    All in all it was an interesting experience to actually meet the real chemtrail people in person and engage in face to face conversations rather than the computer type of dialog. I really wish Uncinus could of attended as his very wise and polite words were much need at this kind of event.

    It was a little tough being the only one with a dissenting view out of so many people who are so completely convinced that we are being sprayed by some type of poison. I left with the impression that these people are just a little”nuts” and that no amount of rational discussion will help in some cases.

    One other point is that all of these people are also completely convince that 911 was an inside job and that if the government could murder 3,000 of their own people then the “chem-trail poisoning operation” isn’t so far fetched to them. The two issues are very much tied together to them and anyone who tries to argue any rational points about contrails is regarded as abetting government murderers.

    I hope that some of you who have engaged in the many spirited discussions with these people on the web can get a chance to meet them in person. Just don’t expect to make any friends, and believe me, from my experience you won’t want to.

  20. captfitch says:

    Did you ask why none of them had anything over thier mouths to prevent the ingestion of chemtrail products? Why were they even standing outside? I am very much afraid of heights so I take active steps to avoid high places. (except airplanes oddly- that doesn’tt trigger my phobia for some reason).

  21. Steve says:

    Yes Capt. I did ask one of the chemtrail believing organizers while pointing at the beautiful cirrus formation, why she wasn’t putting on their protective gear from the incoming spraying operation. At first she didn’t respond, so I challenged if her complete belief in this so called operation was actually real or not. She then said at times she will actually put on a mask especially on heavy “spray days”. I also met a guy who said that he is a victim of the “spraying operation” who now has come down with the dreaded Morgellons disease. Weirdly I could see a strange sore on the tip of his nose that looked like it had been heavily scratched by him. I hate to say it so bluntly but allot of these people that attended this show are a just little….nuts.

  22. MikeC says:

    Steve thanks for the report.

    Re your comment on these people also being 9/11 hoaxers – it does seem that the kind of people prepared to believe 1 nonsense hoax will always believe them all.


    First of all,where does your money sources come from in regards to this site. Who do you people work for. It is so observable you guys are a gov. propaganda machine.This is all junk science.

  24. I run this site as a hobby. It does not really cost anything.

    If it’s junk science, then please point out an error, and I shall correct it.

  25. Steve says:

    Here’s some stills from the LA premiere of WITWATS.

  26. Raymond says:

    Wow their people photography is about as bad as their photos of planes. Identification is impossible.

  27. Ian Bryant. Authorized Representative says:

    The fibers are everywhere. The air is absolutely filthy. Soils are tainted, pH levels wacked. Crops have trouble growing. The aware are watching. The majority have no idea.

    The Santa Ana winds in Southern California are extremely dry and impossible to hold any “real” clouds, but now they bring clouds created by extremely abnormal aircraft traffic and silvery polluted horizons. The chemtrail campaign has been happening since the 80’s. Ive noticed it go absolutely full force since late 90’s.

    Keep telling otherwise though. The real ignorant feed off it. People that scare easy cant cope with the reality of the sky. It is so rare to see that deep blue again. Ive seen the days of true sky, and it feels like the magic.

    The aircraft that solely create the persistent trails all fly above the public fly ways. I have spoken to many pilots and flights attendants about this matter and tell the same story.

    Keep it positive.
    -Authorized Representative

  28. SR1419 says:

    I am confused…the “chemtrail” planes have flight attendants?

  29. MikeC says:

    Yeah – otherwise the pilots get lonely.

    IBAR is just another hoaxer – full of strong statements about what is supposedly happening, but providing no evidence at all.

  30. Artyom says:

    @Steve, I can’t believe you actually went toe to toe with them! lol… Its probably like going to a Dungeons and Dragons gathering saying that Lord of the Rings is for losers…. xD probably kicked over the bee hive. I am glad you survived. I have long given up writing on places like Prisonplanet….

    @George, you are behaving like someone told you there is no Santa… Dear God… Come with information that will prove ANYTHING wrong on the site that is listed…. If a chemtrail believer has correct info, it will be placed here!!! This site may be the last hope for some people’s sanity. So don’t trash it by calling REAL science, junk science…

  31. I B Authorized Rep. says:

    Then confused you will be. Until your mind feels otherwise.

    Commercial airliners that serve the public will have flight attendants.
    I did not say chemtrail planes had flight attendants, you decided to think this.
    I am not Hoaxer.
    Strong statements I am indeed full of. Authorized by my own representation.
    The world around me has changed. This I know. It is my evidence enough.

    Keep positive.

  32. “Knowing” is not evidence.

    Evidence is something you can show to other people.

    Do you have any evidence?

  33. I B Authorized Rep. says:

    Please show how you “know” your website’s evidence is not false.

  34. I don’t. Like I said, “knowing” is not evidence.

    Things you can show to people, that they can independently verify, are evidence.

    You can go and look at old photos of contrails, for example, entirely independently of me. I can point some out to you, but they would exist regardless of what I “know”.

    Now, what evidence can you show me?

  35. Ian Bryant Authorized Representative says:

    I would first like to thank you Uncinus for defining what evidence can and may be. I have been familiar to what evidence is for some time now, and my evidence is found purely through personal experience and based strictly off of my own experience through years of listening and watching my intimate surrounding, although this limits me to share unless you are a decent listener or have an ability to see into my thoughtful memory.

    Now it seems I do not have evidence to “show” you, but the “things” you show people that visit here through internets are being “independently verified”, so thus conclusively must be evidence to this website you may be hosting, under your description of “evidence”.

    Now, I being a decent listener and making a independent verification to what I’ve seen here on this website, and basing verification to my unique experiences, I am fully privileged to my own authorized entitlement of decision. Allowing me to feel otherwise to what is being shown to me here.

    Now with this understanding I feel that my evidence is just as credible as to what is being presented here. Please feel free to have an independent verification.

    -Authorized Representative.

  36. What do you make of history? Was there nothing in the world before you were born?

    Or is there some EVIDENCE that things were a certain way before you were born. Evidence that is not of your personal experience, but rather recorded and related to you be others.

    Much like the evidence I reference.

  37. Jimmy says:

    Written by I B Authorized Rep. on November 15, 2010.

    Then confused you will be. Until your mind feels otherwise

    IB authorized sounds a bit like Yoda.

  38. Ian Bryant Authorized Representative says:

    Fantastic uncinus, I uphold your personal verifications. As they are yours.

    -Authorized Rep.

  39. Ian Bryant Authorized Representative says:

    Yoda is a character in the series of movies called “Star Wars”, a wise green creature that was said to live many hundreds of years. I will take your statement as a compliment.

  40. I’m not verifying things, I’m point at things which you can verify yourself.

    Ignore everything I say. Lok at the facts, and decide for yourself. Just don’t ignore facts simply because I happened to be the first one to point them out to you.

    Like, the tests for aluminum in the pond. Were they testing water, or were they testing sludge. Now I’m not making any personal claims here, merely pointing to the actual test report where it says they tested sludge.

    Can you agree that they tested sludge?

  41. MikeC says:

    Yoda is a fictional character invented by a wonderful imagination.

    Much like chemtrails, only he’s clever.

  42. tryblinking says:

    The chemtrail proponents spent how much money making this? And this was to be their single, definitive, pure collection of evidence? They pooled all their resources and ‘scientific’ expertise, and this is what they made?
    That their highest quality of actual ‘scientific’ evidence is so low, speaks volumes about the veracity of their claims. If it had any plausability, and truth, surely there would be better evidence to provide than this?
    There is no verifiable, testable chain of evidence, linking ‘test’ results on the ground to contrails in the sky. Where is the link?
    Having a degree in Meteorology, I know how many weeks it would take particles from cruise altitude to reach sea level, and the colossal initial concentrations this theory would require after horizontal mixing to have any measurable effects on the ground.

    You’d think they could have made a really short film, where they spend the whole budget chartering a collection plane, and renting some lab time to show clear, verifiable, irrefutable proof.

    Unfortunately for them, it’s clear they chose not to simply obtain this proof directly, because they know there is none.

  43. captfitch says:

    It would cetainly help thier cause if they were willing to go sample a trail but for starters they need to constantly wear some sort of breathing protection.

  44. TheFactsMatter says:

    “You’d think they could have made a really short film, where they spend the whole budget chartering a collection plane, and renting some lab time to show clear, verifiable, irrefutable proof.”

    You’d think. But, who would they trust to retrieve and/or analyze the sample? I’m sorry, but I don’t think that would even be enough for them. They are so suspicious of other people (guilty until proven innocent…so uncivilized!) that they couldn’t possibly trust anyone else on the planet to sample the trail properly. And, after the sample is analyzed and shown to contain nothing that they claim, you’d be able to add that lab and the pilot who took on the task, to the LONG list of people who are “in on” this conspiracy.

    Nothing will satisfy these people. They “know” there’s a “spray program” and nothing anyone says to the contrary is believable. How sad it must be to live like that! To be so deluded that you can so easily replace decades, and millions of man hours of study, with opinion based on ignorance. It’s horrifying!

  45. MikeC says:

    TFM actually I think they are quite happy to be like that – absolute certainty is a valued state to the human psyche – from a purely pop-psychology p.o.v. I think it explains a lot of behaviour – especially anything associated with fanaticism or zealotry.

    It is only from outside the padded cell that that it looks sad and pathetic – inside it is comfy and warm!

  46. Brian says:

    Ummm ok, maybe they were testing sludge and it happens naturally as you guys are saying what about barium? Also what about white house admitting to be executing this chemtrail program to counteract the effects of man made climate change? What about the dozens of photographic evidence of jets packed with tons of canisters of who the hell knows it is?

  47. Raymond says:

    Brian: “Also what about white house admitting to be executing this chemtrail program to counteract the effects of man made climate change?”

    Thats exactly what they didn’t do, They have been talking about it because we need to talk about these sorts of things befor anyone would do it but they NEVER said they ARE doing it right now.

    “What about the dozens of photographic evidence of jets packed with tons of canisters of who the hell knows it is?”

    See here for that https://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

    And here for a little about barium https://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

  48. TheFactsMatter says:

    “What about the dozens of photographic evidence of jets packed with tons of canisters of who the hell knows it is?”

    Ballast tanks. One of the best parts of this hoax….

    It’s impossible to convince the suspicious mind that the tanks are filled with water. They don’t have the slightest clue about how much testing is done on an airframe before it’s delivered. They see a tank, and in their minds it’s automatically filled with a barium and aluminum mixture. Quite funny. As I’ve said before, this hoax is designed to take advantage of the fact that aviation is a rare study.

  49. JazzRoc says:


    Like, the tests for aluminum in the pond. Were they testing water, or were they testing sludge. Now I’m not making any personal claims here, merely pointing to the actual test report where it says they tested sludge. Can you agree that they tested sludge?

    Was this in Canada?


    Best place to go if you want to get yourself some barium, aluminum, younameit-um…
    Or just pyrolize a fish… 🙂

  50. MikeC says:

    TFM – another reason for having tanks inside the fuselage is ferry flights. when I worked for a small airline locally we ferried B737-100’s (ancient, ancient a/c…ugh…) and -200’s to and from the USA and they had several hundred gallons of Kerosene in tanks inside the fuselage. this was between 1987 and 1989, when the a/c stopped was replaced with another type.

    They had a blanked off connection to the fuel system under the floor above the wing on each side of the fuselage to accomodate such a system – I don’t know if those pipes were fitted when they weer built or at some time later, but we didn’t fit them.

    there’s a reference to such a sytem at http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm

    A commercial manufacturer of collapsable tanks has some potos of installations in various smaller aircraft here – http://www.turtlepac.com/products/collapsible-aircraft-ferry-tanks.html

    there’s a photo of an installation in a US military DHC-7 in http://www.wwaf.ca/Michael-Bannock-Aircraft-Ferrying.pdf (1.8mb pdf) that looks much like I remember the 737 ones looking like – albeit with different tanks in a different fuselage, etc.

  51. MikeC says:

    “Also what about white house admitting to be executing this chemtrail program to counteract the effects of man made climate change?”

    When did they admit that? I’m sure we woudl all be interested in an _actual_ admission! that would be _real_ evidence – something the hoax has never managed to produce so far.

    Indeed one wonders why such a statement has not recieved much wider notoriety!

    I would also point out that, if it is the case, then it is climate change, not population poisoning…….

  52. tryblinking says:

    I don’t believe in the 90’s chemtrail hoax, nor the more recent sludge tests and NWO spin. But, here’s something fun for you Uncinus, and anyone else keen on conspiracy theories.
    I sent a mail to Michael Murphy, as an impartial observer, asking him to take a look at this site. I mentioned that there was an ongoing discussion about his documentary, and that he might be interested to take a look. Here’s his response:

    “Thanks for the info. Due to the monetary and political interests associated with geoengineering programs, there is a tremendous effort to keep people in the dark and unaware of these ongoing programs. Contrail Science is believed to be one of the websites protecting these interests. Many believe it is one of the many well funded government run websites that have been working tirelessly to suppress the truths that have been coming to light. Thanks again for your interest and support.

    Michael J. Murphy”

    Does that mean I’m a government shill too, as I agree with you?

  53. A shill or a “dupe”, I believe.

    Murphy also believes that the entire scientific community is also in on the plot, so he had no actual meteorologists on the film.

  54. SR1419 says:

    I wish Murphy would actually deal with the substance of the information on this site, instead of just waving it away as a “disinfo” site.

    As Uncinus always says- assume he is a “shill”- assume this site is run by a bunch of spooks in Langley, laughing all the while as their minions are out back erecting FEMA camp trailers…

    …that doesn’t change the veracity of the information presented here.

    If its all lies- prove it.

    I wish Murphy would dare to comment here…why does he completely ignore the basic science of the atmosphere?

    Unicinus- I take it you never heard back from Griffin?

  55. Steve says:

    Here’s Murphys website:
    G. Edward Griffin website:

  56. No, I never heard back. He seems convinced I’m part of the plot, so he’s ignoring me.

  57. Steve says:

    Griffin and Murphy are just following the #1 rule: ” No matter what you do, some smartalec will come along and find the details you forgot, and try to spoil the whole thing, it never fails. Accordingly, you’ve got to learn the number one rule that anyone contemplating a chemtrail scare should make sure is covered:

    NEVER SHOW ANY REAL EVIDENCE AT ALL, NEVER, NOT EVER, (this way, anything you create out of thin air, exaggerate, or omit can’t be scrutinized)”

  58. TheFactsMatter says:

    “I wish Murphy would dare to comment here…why does he completely ignore the basic science of the atmosphere? ”

    Because he doesn’t understand it? Or, he thinks the science is a lie that “they” concocted?

    “Does that mean I’m a government shill too, as I agree with you?”

    In their minds, absolutely! They believe that there could be no other reason why you side with the facts as they have been understood for 9 decades. let’s face it, a trip to the library would clear all of this up…but these folks are so suspicious, that they won’t believe that information. In their minds, we are all in on the plot because we don’t agree with them.

  59. Alexey says:

    Thank you for this site, it’s very entertaining and educational. If not for the “LA missile”, I probably would never have stumbled upon it and learned about “chemtrails”. Is this paranoia, sorry, conspiracy theory, specifically American? I am from Europe and enjoyed watching contrails since my childhood (mid-60s), but I never heard anything sinister about them before.

  60. It’s actually world-wide, including many European countries. It’s a fairly niche theory though.

    See, for example:


  61. MikeC says:

    it is global – shere’s a couple of nut-job sites from downunder (New Zealand):


  62. Alexey says:

    I see. Sadly, the decease is spreading. I live now in the UK in the area with several civil and military airfields around, including USAF base. It must be them who criss-cross the sky in the night, drawing suspicious contrail patterns 🙂 This morning it has been a big pink ‘Z’, sign of Zorro.

  63. Skyver says:

    If anyone falls for bollocks on this site, then they deserved to get sprayed. As for the rest of us, it’s a shame that we have to endure being called paranoid etc.

  64. Skyver, if you could point out any error, I’d be happy to fix it.

  65. Steve says:

    From G. Edward Griffin Realityzone letter addressed to William. (FactsMatter) Debunking the Debunker:

  66. I meant point out errors on THIS site. What have I said that is wrong?
    [Edit], oh sorry, I thought that was from Skyver. Griffin has still not responded to my letter

  67. TheFactsMatter says:

    Thanks for posting that Steve. It made my day! The fact that he suggest that since he has a Ph.D., he automatically assumes that he knows more than I do on the subject…even though he’s never actually STUDIED the subject. Great stuff!

    I’d sure love it if this person could point out a single mistake I have made since he claims I don’t have an education in the subject I went to college for.

    It’s also interesting how Mr Griffin won’t respond to anything I write to him anymore, but will post trash like this from his like minded cronies. Typical revenge behavior.

  68. TheFactsMatter says:

    Oh, by the way… his Ph.D. is in “biblical studies”…

    Yeah, I can see why he thinks he understands the jet engine and how it interacts with the atmosphere.

  69. From that link:

    If this guy named William would do some credible research there are a number of websites in which notable geologists and weather scientists worldwide have taken air samples in their own private jets of Chemtrail spraying and found heavy concentrations of Aluminum and barium.

    Private jets? I’d like a link to one of these websites please.

  70. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Private jets? I’d like a link to one of these websites please.”

    Me too!

    Something tells me that you won’t be given any links…

    Oh, by the way…I sampled a trail from MY private jet and it came back negative for everything. It’s true, because I say it is.

  71. captfitch says:

    I actually have access to a fleet of private jets and would offer to go do some sampling but I don’t think it would do any good. I’m not willing to go to all the lengths it would require to make it valid.

    How could you really prove anything in a private jet anyway. Unless it was equipped with air sampling equipment you would have to take into consideration the fact that the air came through part of the engine first, then through the ducting, and was then mixed with the cabin air which might have all sorts of stuff in it. It’s just not possible to be accurate.

  72. SR1419 says:

    There are private aircraft equipped to take the necessary samples…anyone could easily hire them to go up and sample a contrail or 10 of their choice:


    It would be easy for Believers to raise money and hire a plane for a few laps…

    …and yet, they do not seem to bother…so much easier to take a “sample’ from a HEPA filter on the ground and claim it is from “chemtrails”

    Why don’t Murphy and Griffin put the proceeds of their DVD sales towards hiring a plane?

  73. TheFactsMatter says:

    Some other interesting blurbs from my newest admirer.

    “Being a keen observer of what was taking place over my head on a daily basis as well as having a scientific mind, I took hundreds of pictures of the unmarked high flying jets marking the skies with their “X” and “V” patterns,; something commercial jets don’t do. ”

    Really?! How can anyone even think such a thing!? flight paths cross all day long…everywhere. Depending on where they are going, they will leave patterns of all shapes and sizes if the atmospheric conditions allow for contrails. He claims to understand science and aviation, then he makes that claim. Is this all just about “belief”?!

    “Anyone who knows anything about jet propulsion knows the obvious difference between contrails and Chemtrails. Jet contrails do not linger for more than about 5 minutes and they darn sure do not form clouds that remain long after the jets have gone.”

    Again, why does this person pretend to understand the science that explains persistent contrails?! If the conditions persist, why wouldn’t the trails persist within those conditions?! If the temperature remains very low, and the humidity stays high, the extra moisture will have NO CHOICE but to persist in a frozen vapor form.

    Sorry for bringing quotes from other sites in here Uncinus, but DAMN! Where do these people get this bad information from?! Do they not understand what clouds are?! It’s just so sad!

    “Sticking ones head in the sand and pretending that the obvious does not exist such as the spraying of the atmosphere is the height of folly and ignorance! Get some real intelligence William and learn from Mr. Griffin about Chemtrail spraying or be exactly what the geo-engineers what you to be – dumber than dumb!”

    Sorry, I respectfully decline your offer to learn from Mr Griffin. I don’t recognize his supposed position as an educator in any way. I’ll stick with the important and basic facts. The first fact being that no one has ever been able to prove that these trails aren’t just plain old persistent contrails. That’s good enough for me! I guess I’m just less suspicious of my fellow man. I can’t imagine living any other way.

  74. Steve says:

    Why would they go to such an expense of hiring a private jet to sample the chemical-trails when they already know that you get much more accurate readings using pond sludge ?

  75. Faithinscience says:

    Too funny!

  76. captfitch says:

    I think the problem is he doesn’t think about the fact that there is more than one aircraft in the air at one time in the same area. Technically it would be very rare for a single commercial aircrat to make an X or V.

  77. Griffin got back to me, promised to have his production team look into my questions.

  78. Faithinscience says:

    Uncinus, could you share the questions with us?

  79. NewLight says:

    Hello all, I’m a bit new to the whole chemtrail phenomenon. I had first heard of them several days ago at a church meeting and I will admit, I was a bit skeptical. Then Rose led me outside and showed me the tracks in the sky and I was surprised that I hadn’t ever noticed such obvious trails before that day. Then I did some research into the matter and found links to the movie that Mr Griffin produced. I watched some of the movie and I was very concerned. Then I called our friend Roger who was always flying different planes around to spread the word. He told us that the whole chemtrail hoopla is nothing but a misunderstanding and that we shouldn’t take his word for anything and do my research. He then sent me to this site and I am so thankful that this web page exists. He told me that he knows for a fact that ‘normal’ contrails can and do last for hours and I was able to learn why on this site. I appreciate the work that someone has done here. I have seen no reason to believe that it’s funded by anyone from the government or is run by any evil entity. The information is the same as that I have found elsewhere and is quite believable. I’m surprised that in just a few days I was able to easily confirm Roger’s position and can’t understand why there are so many that are dissatisfied with the truthfulness of the information that is here.
    Anyway, I have strayed from the real reason I am writing here. I pray that Mr Griffin will take the time to learn about the science that explains these tracks. To accuse so many of such horrible things based on circumstantial evidence is a terrible thing to do. I’m afraid that his soul is in danger and I will pray that he takes the time to look at this controversial subject from all sides. I know from personal experience that those involved in aviation are not the monsters they are reported to be. Rose has explained to the others in our group that she was just a bit mistaken about a few facts.

    I pray that those who have been deceived by suspicion and mistrust will reacquire their faith in their fellow human beings and reach out to one another, instead of blocking the truth from those who are merely trying to help others. Peace and Love to all.

  80. ThefactsMatter says:

    So, I saw this quote up at the top of this page:

    “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. ”

    And it got me thinking about a problem with the Sudbury River in Massachusetts. There are signs all over the place that tell people not to fish because of the mercury levels in the fish. The funny thing is, this is the emergency drinking water supply for millions of people. How could this be?! Are the trying to kill us with the mercury?! Where did the mercury come from?! I see these trails all over the sky above the reservoir system and it’s obvious that something is being sprayed. Right?! So, is it a logical conclusion that the mercury came from the trails in the sky? I don’t see any other sources.

    Nope, the real source was industry.

    “Mercury is part of the legacy of the old Nyanza dye company in Ashland, which operated from 1917 to 1978. Nyanza released 45 to 57 tons of mercury into the river from its facility upstream, and left behind other forms of contamination in Ashland.”

    The sludge is full of the stuff…

    Why are so many so sure that the source of ANYTHING found at ground level is the trails in the sky?! It’s just such a ridiculous assumption.

  81. tryblinking says:

    correlation is not causation

  82. And they don’t even have correlation.

  83. A scientist says:

    I was standing outside talking to an ex-air traffic controller back around 2000 who also had a very strong chemistry background. It was a very hot day with low humidity. There were two lines in the sky we were looking at. One was a normal contrail that disappeared as expected at a very high altitude. Very far below it was a trail that was persistent across a very large portion of the skyline at low altitude on a very hot day; rolling, twisting, and spreading. His words still ring in my ears. “That is not a contrail”.

  84. How do you know how high it was? Can you draw a diagram of what you saw, or maybe there is a similar photo on the net somewhere?

  85. US Patriot says:

    I can’t believe you people are still debating this. When we all drop dead of aluminum/barium poisoning it will be the end of humanity and this circus of a website…

  86. MikeC says:

    You probably get more aluminium from deoderant than any other source, and I once had a barium meal and feel fine 30 years later….

    I’m prepared to take my chances with those 2 in the firm belief I will live to a ripe old age.

  87. captfitch says:

    US Patriot- what steps are you currently taking to avoid ingestion of chemtrail products?

  88. captfitch says:

    A Scientist- once I was flying at 25000 feet over Phoenix and the temperature outside my plane said -25. Do you suppose it also that cold in Phoenix that day or is there something else at play?

  89. SR1419 says:

    A scientist said “One was a normal contrail that disappeared as expected”

    …for being a scientist one would hope you would not expose your bias…or at least your ignorance so readily…

    …as any good scientist would tell you, after reviewing all pertinent data, that “normal” contrails often DON’T “disappear” but instead persist and spread…rolling and twisting from the wing vortices…

    As a scientist, surely you can understand how ice crystals might persist in the right conditions…right? Or how it is possible that there might be layers of atmospheric conditions that cause different trail behaviors…

    As a scientist, I am sure you knew all of that already.

  90. TheFactsMatter says:

    US Patriot wrote:

    “I can’t believe you people are still debating this. When we all drop dead of aluminum/barium poisoning it will be the end of humanity and this circus of a website…”

    Considering that airplanes have been laying trails like this for over 9 decades, there should be an increased incidence of aluminum and barium poisoning in some segments of the population. Can you explain why this isn’t the case?! Where are all of the sick people? Why does the medical industry still use barium in certain kinds of x-rays? Why haven’t the people who have had barium enemas dropped dead from the “barium poisoning”? You can “believe” that people are being poisoned with aluminum/barium all you want. But, the facts prove otherwise. Feel free to prove me wrong.

    Why do you believe that this website is a circus? All of the information is verifiable. It’s basic science based on basic principles. Could you PLEASE point out a single error?!

    Or, do you just dislike this site because everything on here disagrees with your beliefs about some silly hoax? I can see why that would upset you! Then again, there are FAR more websites that push the ignorant “chemtrail” agenda. Feel free to visit those sites if this one doesn’t suit you!

    If there is ANYTHING on this website that you feel is in error, please provide evidence and it will be changed. Just keep in mind that assumption and speculation are NOT evidence.

  91. TheFactsMatter says:

    A scientist wrote:

    “One was a normal contrail that disappeared as expected at a very high altitude.”

    And why would one “expect” a contrail to disappear?! How do you know the temperature and humidity of ANY portion of the atmosphere?! A trail could EASILY be disappearing for several miles and then the plane could fly through conditions that are VERY humid as well as very cold…and the trail would persist. But, from the ground, you’d have no way of knowing if a trail should be persisting or not simply because you don’t know the temperature or the humidity level.

    What you refer to as a “normal contrail” isn’t anything of the sort! They are ALL normal, given the atmospheric conditions. THAT is a fact. Please, if you can, take the time to prove me wrong.

    I have to wonder why there are so many folks that have convinced themselves that an education in atmospheric science and aviation aren’t necessary in understanding these subjects. So sad.

  92. tryblinking says:

    I commented the veracity of a video linked to this ‘documentary’ on youtube about chemtrails (something preposterous like contrail shadows being called ‘black lasers’ made by ‘invisible stealth planes’ – seriously, I am not kidding). In return I received a reply comprised solely of accusations and abuse, the average paranoid chemtrailer-trash™ response. He asked me what ‘cloud’ I was on.
    so I replied, “cirrocumulus lacunosus, much like your conspiracy theory”

  93. TheFactsMatter says:

    Isn’t it kind of funny that whenever we see one of these mysterious black lines, there’s an obvious persistent contrail quite close by. Someone once claimed that the lines were used to guide the planes. As if a pilot doesn’t have enough nav aids available to him/her. And why would ‘they” need to use an obvious black beam when there are several non-visible ways to guide aircraft. Sigh….

    In every single image I’ve seen of the “black beams”, Ive been easily able to tell where the sun in in relation to the trail. And there are always other obvious clues such as a visible haze for the shadow to be projected onto. And other obvious signs of layers.

    Are people just starting to look up for the first time in their lives? I remember seeing shadows of contrails as a young boy. I never, for a second, thought they were anything else. Why would I? The hoax hadn’t been invented yet.

    I really do feel so very sorry for those who have been duped by such hoaxes. What scary lives these people must live.

  94. tryblinking says:

    A 2 dimensional life. The people commenting on those vids, and indeed confused about atmospheric layers on here, seem unable to think in 3 dimensions.

  95. TheFactsMatter says:

    I agree, which is why there’s so much confusion about the California Contrail. They see a plume and they are unable to envision it going off into the horizon (or actually coming from the horizon). They can only see it is vertical. It also explain claims about aircraft flying close to each other, but a different perspective changes the appearance dramatically.

  96. John Joseph says:

    This website is very good and I like to see good thinking, I like how everything is explained very well and issues are thought out with intelligence. I have a hypothetical question and it concerns observations I have noticed and videotaped, I am sure you could make the same observations. I have gone to many events organized by various community groups. I saw “contrails” only over these events and nowhere else in the sky. I videotaped them and they were straight up and concentrated in only that area. The question being, Why would this be happening? Observe for yourself!

  97. TheFactsMatter says:

    The film “What in the World are ‘they’ Spraying” is getting wonderful reviews on Amazon.com. That must mean that all the information is true. One of the reviewers claims it should be mandatory to watch this monumental pile of crap…


    They praise Mr griffin as if he’s the Messiah. Yet, he’s nothing but a false prophet who is making false statements about things he’ll never understand simply because he refuses to accept information that has been taught to hundreds of millions of people (in the form of simple and basic science) because he believes the science has somehow been “staged”….and only “sheep” believe the story about this water vapor nonsense.

    That, or he knows he has a gold mine here and will fleece his sheep for everything he can (and they’ll keep on giving). He sure puts on a great show and is so personable that most will accept everything he says/writes as fact. All they need to do is make a few assumptions and watch a few youtube videos and they’re hooked!

    Really, is that what humans are capable of in the 21st century?!

    Wow. I’m so ashamed.

    I’m glad to see that there are only five reviews for the flick.

  98. John Joseph, contrails can appear to be “straight up”, but in reality it’s a bit of an optical illusion, and the contrails are actually perfectly horizontal. See:


  99. John Joseph says:

    I’m sorry, I can’t get away with inaccurate statements here for sure, I didn’t mean straight up, I meant directly above the event, regular looking “contrails” horizontal in appearance. Why would that happen?

  100. Well, it kind of depends on your definition of “straight up”. Think back to the event, and imagine where the contrails were. Then raise your arm and point at the contrails. What angle is your arm at?

    For many people, this is “straight up”

    But that’s actually 40 degrees from vertical, meaning a plane flying at 35,000 feet would be over five miles away (measured along the ground). How big was the event?

    Most likely you were simply in an area with a lot of air traffic. Some of it was near you.

Comments are closed.