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. Kat says:

    I love statements like this from tash: “Counter measures to assure us how wrong the movie is only proves that there is some substance to it.”

    So if someone showed you a home video of what they thought was Bigfoot and you said, “Hmm, no, that looks like a bear. They’re very active this time of year in that kind of location.” that means the original theory that the video is indeed of Bigfoot has substance? No. Countering a claim with evidence to the contrary does not automatically give validity to the original claim.

  2. Noble says:

    Well put Kat!

    That argument has always made me laugh.

    It’s so childish

  3. Frankly says:

    Monsanto sue small farmers when ‘their patented seed blows to the small farmers land’ .Something nature designed seeds to do. They genetically alter the food stuff to resist lets say a certain worm…that worm becomes resistant so they up the toxins used, by that I mean things like roundup resistant corn. India want to sue Monsanto for the mess they made with btcotton. Poland have banned them, France does not want them, but the US is pressurising EU to have the vile stuff, and in turn the EU have told france you cannot ban…haha the French don’t take orders well, not quite so brow beaten. It is still in the earth it is still poisoning the very soil we need . The bee decline…roundup again I believe.As I said before you really need to do some reading on Monsanto and their history, this is a different topic. Also why is your government so keen to hide GMO’s and not label…again off topic. People can do their own research if they look at evidence provided here about chemtrails, then evidence of what they have seen, they can make their own conclusions. That is NOT your right to deny. What I have read is very factual, and will explain many ‘trails’, not all though and definitely not enough to make me believe chem trails do not exist.

  4. Noble says:

    Show me a case where a farmer has been sued by Monsanto for any such thing…

    Just because people don’t UNDERSTAND what Monsanto is doing…doesn’t mean they are responsible for “horrendous deeds”.

    What “poisoning”?!

    This is what I mean…you let PERCEPTION oif the truth, based on ignorance, be your guide.

    The whole bee thing has NOTHING to do with any of this…just more ignorant assumption based on a world view that conspiracy theorists have.

    NONE of what you wrote has anything to do with trails. You are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions…and providing NOTHING to back up your beliefs about the trails.

    I never said “chemtrails” don’t exist. I’m saying the trails people take pictures/video of are NOT proven to be anything more than contrails…Not a SINGLE one.

    How do you know that “chemtrails” can even be seen with the naked eye?!

  5. JFDee says:

    Noble, during a visit in Newfoundland I learned about cases in Canada where Monsanto did exactly that – sue farmers when they found “their” genetic material on neighbouring farmland which was blown there. (It was a while ago and I doubt they’d do it again today.)

    Also, modifying plants to be resistant not against pests but against poison that they sell in a package is not exactly matching promises that were being made to promote “green engineering”. Personally, I can’t stand them.

    But the sympathy or antipathy with regards to Monsanto is not relevant here, is it? I think it’s a distraction.

  6. Noble says:

    Please provide links to information about such cases. Show me that it impacted the farmers in any way.

    And altering SOME plants to resist herbicide that they sell means nothing to me.

    Sounds to me like they are trying to modify plants so they will still grow after other plants (weeds, non producing plants) around them have been killed. I see nothing wrong with that…I certainly don’t see it as a “horrendous deed”…or having anything to do with “chemtrails”.

    Personally, I have no more of a problem with them than i do any major corporation. It’s all about greed no matter how you look at it. But, Monsanto IS trying to solve some problems with agriculture.

  7. MikeC says:

    I think the case people are thinking of may be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

    but note the farmer was NOT sued for having the crop grow “accidentally” on his land – he was sued for harvesting the GMO seed and deliberately using it in the next growing season.

    Unsurprsingly Monsanto makes this point on their FAQ page – http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/FAQs.aspx :

    “What is Monsanto’s standard policy if we discover a farmer is violating his or her seed contract?

    If there is evidence of seed piracy, we work with the farmer to confirm the facts and discuss how to resolve the issue quickly, amicably and professionally in accordance with our Commitment on Farmers and Patents. This commitment clearly outlines a strict code of conduct we must operate under if we are investigating possible violations. In particular, we do not threaten farmers, we respect their privacy, we do not trespass, and we do not pursue farmers for the accidental presence of our patented technology in their fields or crops.”

  8. JFDee says:

    I heard about the Canada suit while it was ongoing and I did not follow up, so I’ll drop that case in the light of the court’s decision.

    While researching, a whole list of other nasty details about Monsanto’s history came up though that I did not know about before, like their toxic waste dumping and selling dangerous weed killers long after the dangers were known. I call those deeds “horrendous”. No conspiracy involved though, unless you count cover-up attempts and heavy lobbying.

    The company may be as greedy as any other, but its greed is affecting people and the environment directly, and it is not as if you could easily opt out using their products (as opposed to, say, gadget sellers).

    O.K., no more from my side. Peronally, I wouldn’t mind if Uncinus “purged” this thread …

  9. Noble says:

    Fine by me….

    I was just pointing out that Monsanto has nothing to do with the trails in the sky.

    I do find it interesting how people confuse a breach of contract by the farmers to be a “horrendous deed” by Monsanto.

    It’s also interesting how the story gets more evil as it’s passed around.

    Just a big game of telephone…just as with the “chemtrail” advocates. First it’s smoke..then “chemicals”, then aluminum, then aluminum and barium, then it’s aluminum and barium and human blood cells. I can’t wait to see what they contain next…

  10. Noble says:

    Oh, and as far as hazardous waste dumping…was it Monsanto, or a contractor hired BY Monsanto to take care of the waste?

    And ALL weed killers are dangerous! In fact, everything we are exposed to is dangerous in the right concentrations, even water. It’s not Monsanto’s responsibility to police the use of their product by the end user.

    I don’t see how any of this adds up to “horrendous deeds” by Monsanto.

    Shit., years ago in my area there was a chemical dye company called Nyanza that dumped chemicals all over their property in the 50’s and 60’s. At the time they didn’t know it was dangerous to dump mercury into the ground/water (sure). I guess the fact that sometimes it would snow BLUE SNOW in that town wasn’t a hint of something wrong…

    Was it a “horrendous deed”? I’m not sure…it certainly was irresponsible. The Sudbury river is forever polluted. But, was that the INTENTION of the company or their contractors? I’m not sure.

  11. Jay Reynolds says:

    The only relevance between Monsanto and Michael J. Murphy’s propaganda movie “what In The World Are They Spraying” is that Murphy has continued to make the false claim that Monsanto is involved in spraying aluminum worldwide in order to benefit from a sed patent for aluminum resistance.

    Murphy knows that what he is saying isn’ true, of that I am certain. I know that he is aware because he has NEVER shown ANYONE this alleged patent. Don’ take my word for this. Go to his Facebook page and ask HIM to show you the patent. He will either not answer or somehow deflect because NO SUCH PATENT EXISTS!

    Why, you might ask,has Murphy been misleading people about this? What does he have to gain by making this claim? Why have none of his followers ever asked him to show proof of this claim?
    Here are the answers:
    1. Murphy has a long history of making absolutely bogus claims, as demonstrated in this link at contrailscience.com debunking his movie.
    2. Murphy also has a long history of riding any ‘wave’ that he figues will be of personal benefit, even if it brings him discredit. He has no real world work skills, and makes his living solely from promoting the chemtrails hoax.
    3. Murphy found that a ready-made constituency exists who believe that Monsanto is Satan, even if, as shown above in the reference to the Schmeiser lawsuit, the people are very poorly informed of the facts.
    4. In fact, that constituency, besides being primed and ready against Monsanto, have already demonstrated that they are exactly the sort of people he wishes to have as followers, who will :
    a) simply accept what they are told
    b) who don’t question anything related to Monsanto
    c) who won’t even bother to ask Murphy to see the patent

    If anyone wants to dscuss this particlar element of the movie or the subject area in general, late last year Uncinus started this thread which provides more information and allows continued discussion and debate:

  12. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    The debunking of samples of pond water with high aluminum content because it was contaminated with soil/dust/rocks has been undebunked.


    They now have samples with barium and strontium but ZERO aluminum. If the sample was contaminated with soil, then there should be aluminum in the sample as aluminum is naturally occurring in the soil.

    I know this film JUST came out but do you have any answers about re-debunking this yet or could this be considered proof?

  13. Alexey says:

    SeriouslyDebatable said:

    “They now have samples with barium and strontium but ZERO aluminum. If the sample was contaminated with soil, then there should be aluminum in the sample as aluminum is naturally occurring in the soil.”

    The previous samples were those of sludge, that is, suspended solids, not water itself.

    The most abundant aluminum compounds are aluminum oxide and aluminum hydroxide, and these are water insoluble. In pure water, aluminium has a minimum solubility (about 0.05 ppm) in the pH range 5.5–6.0; this roughly corresponds to the pH range of normal rain. Therefore, if suspended solids and sediment are filtered out, rain water normally would contain hardly detectable amounts of aluminum.
    In contrast, the oxides and hydroxides of barium and strontium are quite soluble, therefore these metal ions may well be present in dust-contaminated samples.

  14. captfitch says:

    Alexey will take “Compounds that are water soluble for 1000” Alex. Awesome.

  15. Alexey says:


    I am not sure about your meaning of “Alexey will take “Compounds that are water soluble for 1000″”.

    My point is following:
    The results in the movie suggest that the concentration of aluminum in the sample is below the minimum detection level (MDL), which is 0.040 (mg/L), whereas the concentrations of barium (0.026) and strontium (0.209) are above their corresponding MDLs of 0.004 and 0.001, respectively. Firstly, it means that the concentration of dissolved aliminum is not necessarily ZERO, it may well be higher than the detected concentration of barium. Secondly, it is not unexpected to see the concentration of better soluble substance in water being greater than the less soluble one, even if the latter is more abundant in the environment.

  16. Alexey, captfitch was complimenting you on your expertise with that comment. It’s a reference to the US TV quiz show “Jeopardy” where people use that language to pick a subject. Taking it “for 1000” implies you picked the hardest question, and hence you are very knowledgeable on the subject.

    I want to include this in my debunking of WhyWATS, in a nice simple way with references. I’m wondering tough if it would also apply to unfiltered rain – I’m just not entirely sure of the mechanisms involved.

  17. Alexey says:


    No offence taken 🙂


    I would guess that both filtered and unfiltered rain water can be analysed by the same method, like absorption spectroscopy. All it needs is solid residue after water has been evaporated, either filtered or not.

  18. The tests used (EPA 6010B) don’t need a solid residue, as far as I can tell.

    What I’m wondering about is the mechanism for getting a barium positive sample with zero aluminum in unfiltered rainwater.

  19. Alexey says:

    “The tests used (EPA 6010B) don’t need a solid residue”

    No, they do not, but the method description (http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/EPA-Method-6010B.pdf) suggests that the samples may have been prefiltered:

    “All matrices, excluding filtered groundwater samples but including ground water, aqueous samples, TCLP and EP extracts, industrial and organic wastes, soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid wastes, require digestion prior to analysis. Groundwater samples that have been prefiltered and acidified will not need acid digestion.”

  20. Yeah, the problem witha lot of the test results that they put up is that there is no indication of if the sample is filtered or not during or after collection.

    Clearly they can’t filter “soil and sludges”

  21. Jay Reynolds says:

    The followers of chemtrails who have been influeced by Michael J. Murphy’s propaganda movie need to ask themselves who no reputable scientists have taken up their cause.

    There are tens of thousands of atmospheric scientists studying pollution issues worldwide. If the claims of the chemtrails promoters have been making, why have none of these thousands of reputable scientists expressed any concern at all?

    The reason why is that repuable scientists can all see that the entire sampling and interpretation by the chemtrails people shows ordinary levels of all the elements found in rain snow and ground water.

    I’ll be quite frank with you people, you’ve been had by a gigantic hoax. Some of the chemtrail promoters may indeed believe what they say, but they have also been influenced by a hoax and have added to it by bungling everything they have told you about the samples, some of them, along with others are making a living off of it.

    The tens of thousands of reputable scientists worldwide who find nothing out of the ordinary in these samples haven’t bought into the hoax, and are ignoring the bunglers and profiteers for a reason.

    You need to ask yourselves why you believe what reputable scientists don’t believe.

  22. Noble says:

    Because they aren’t “awake” and they are “sheeple”…

    I have asked that question a thousand times…and this is the response I get.

  23. Not a sheep says:

    I see this website is designed around Contrails. Without an argument this site wouldn’t exist.
    That aside.
    You will be foolish to believe chemtrails don’t exist.
    Pilots have came forward. Mechanics which work on waste systems, honey trucks and pumps.
    You calling these people liars ? You discrediting their work as a civilian wanting to help better the world?

    Listen to what you are saying.
    Then go work for the geo engineers (or an airport they use) and open your eyes.
    Here is a story just rambled from me about a guy whom worked for TSA since then
    .(dont they do background checks on fired airplane mechanics which are blamed for cutting wires?)

    John the low end mechanic who gets to work on waste systems was working on a unique plane and opened the waste panel to trace a hot wire to the pump room which shouldn’t have been hot because the plane was in zero power mode.” The battery unplugged and mains off.
    John always follows protocol and paperwork of course.
    Within 5 minutes John was verbally escorted away from the plane due to opening the waste panel and to wait in a room for a meeting with his manager. John waited in the room until the end of his shift when finally his manager and a black suit clean cut showed up and fired him.
    The reason was because he was “framed” for cutting random wires in the plane!
    “John did not cut a single wire” He only opened a panel and had a voltage tester from the kit.”
    John touched a few wires going to a faulty pump for the bathroom sink.
    The voltage tester is just a piece of smooth plastic housed instrument you simply touch to any wire insulator without doing probing damage to the wire.
    The plane was started up and driven out of the bay within the hour. ( if wires were cut, they would review entire plane which takes up to long hours he claimed.
    The work was done on cctv where he was caught opening the waste panel but his manager claimed it wasn’t recorded, only reviewed.
    They gave him advice to work for the TSA before he was fired so he went with that and fueled airplanes with TSA ( why is tsa fueling the planes? weird, normal?) John ended up hurting his back lifting fuel nozzles, clipping them onto planes above for long duration. So he quit TSA before his probation ended and now works somewhere else much better.

    Myself? I believe this story is not bs and if you dig further you will find out about horn bell sprayers attached to some “unique’s” as John calls the jets with attached funnel sprayers clearly sticking off the side and always get parked under the ctv camera which is watched by somebody who got him fired.
    John also points out the fact these “uniques” are designed to fly at 30,000 – 43,000 ft and the pilots would only look at him with a dull look on face and not say a single word and would only talk with co-pilot and hush up like kids turning their heads away when confronted with a comment.
    The full story can be found somewhere on a complaint board but i won’t mention which airlines.
    These aren’t crop dusters Dorothy.

    I sure hope chemtrails are not true. ( More facts & History please ! )
    My Grandmother died from high level of aluminum intake from her well water.

    p.s. Would someone please tell Alex Jones to stfu for a while so the truth can be conducted ?

  24. Not a sheep says:

    P.S.S I would be concerned about putting hitler- fluoride into your bloodstream currently.
    Sry. no pun intended.

  25. Strawman says:

    So far, no evidence for chemtrails. You didn’t provide any. Care to change that?

  26. Danny55 says:

    Not a Sheep,
    I spoke with John a couple of weeks ago. He was telling me that the story you reproduced above was a joke between the mechanics and a couple of chemtrail believers that they met outside a bar giving out fliers and telling people to “Look Up!”
    John and the mechanics decided to have some fun and get a couple of free beers, so spoke to the 2 chemtraillers and the upshot was that they all went into the bar and the chemtraillers supplied the beer while John told his “story”
    Since john told the story he has been promoted and is now in charge of maintenance for the Western Division chemtrail planes at Denver Airport where he has a very good salary and now owns a large house with extensive garden and pool.

    PS this story has as much credibility as yours.

  27. MikeC says:

    I’m an aircraft mechanic, and the story smacks of BS to me.

    You don’t open “a waste panel” to check pumps – such pumps would be located next to the water tank, assuming they exist at all and the pressure isn’t supplied by a pressurised water tank. And what is a “pump room” on an aircraft???

    The plane was started up and driven out of the bay????? Why not tow it away? – it’s much easier and safer. And planes are not normally “driven” – they are taxied, and almost never out of any sort of maintenance facility as the thrust (even from a prop) will do a lot of damage.

  28. Jay Reynolds says:

    Good catches, Mike. As an avaiation professional, these ae the sorts of things you would know, and any mechanic would know. So, this story seems to be coming from someone who isn’t at all familiar with what a mechanic would know, including what actually goes on at an airport,

    If a mechanic really experienced something like that, all he would have to do is to name the tail number of the plane. It would all come down to one simple number. Easy, so easy. However, this story, along with each and every fake chemtrail mechanics story for a decade, never comes with a number. Believers in this story need to look for something concrete in all of these stories, and wen there isn’, they need to consider the source and reject it if nothing actionable is brought forward.

    Since we are discussing aviation issues and “What In The World Are They Spraying”, readers need to know that some of the actors in that movie, namely Francis Mangels and Dane Wigington, made false claims that only four ordinary passenger jets per day fly over their area.

    In order to verify this claim, which those men should have and could have easily done, considering the seriousness of what they say, I surveyed ordinary air traffic over that area using several methods.
    I found that there were over 100 ordinary flights each and every day between 6 am and 6 pm.
    see the results:

    As stated before, this movie describes aviation issues, it makes claims about airplanes, but the major actors didn’t even bother to find out if the lanes they see are simply ordinary Alaska, Southwest, or United airlines flights?

    Doesn’t anyone even wonder why they didn’t?
    Doesn’t this bring other questions to mind?
    If they could be so wrong about the identity of the ordinary traffic flying over their area, a basic beginning for anyone watching planes fly over, what else were they wrong about? Well, go back and read the article, “Debunked: “What In The World Are They Spraying”, and you will find out many more errors made.

    Ask Michael J. Murphy, Dane Wigington, and Francis Mangels about this. They already know about what I found, and they are hiding it, they won’t discuss the matter, they don’t want YOU to know.
    After doing that, consider the source, and reject it as it deserves to be rejected.

  29. Strawman says:

    So there’s two possibilities with these stories: a) they are urban legends, b) they are lies.

  30. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Ahhhhhh good old John. The one that got away.

    I remember telling the boss that we should have bumped him off like we do with the rest. He was always getting drunk and mouthing off.

    I dunno. The boss had a soft spot for him or something. I don’t like rumours but I think something might have been going on between the two of them.

    I told them they’d be sorry. But we learnt from the mistake.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I’m entering this late in the game..just after watching the “conspiracy” video..and I have this to say: The truth is..someone is spraying something more than ice,..and I can tell this just by the patterns. There are patterns..that defy normal patterns of typical air travel. It does not take a scientist to see it, only an observant person, no matter how sceptical. I have seen the unusual crisscrossing patterns, the kind that show deliberation. The effect of pseudo science in this country has wacked out a lot of people, it’s true, but there IS a deliberate lie on the part of those making these trails, and that is, “It is just ice”. Why are they crisscrossing-deliberately-spending millions of dollars of tax payer money.. to make..ice? Also, I know from the history of this country that it only takes one whacko..like Paul Ehrlich..to convice the world that we are “all going to die from overpopulation”..to produce the effect of 100 million (deliberate) abortions on a “science” believing populace. Some of these whackos are in government today, and I would not put it past them to convince people they are doing the world good..by destroying part of it.

  32. captfitch says:

    yes- you are very late to this site. Please send some time catching up and you will see several explanations as to the patterns that you’re seeing.

  33. Jay Reynolds says:

    Anonymous, here is the explanation that you will not see on any “chemtrails” video or website:

    Now, anonymous, ask yourself why a video that purports to offer information about aviation never bothered to show you what normal flights making ordinary contrails would look like?

    Anonymous, you speak of lies, but I have seen exactly how Michael J. Murphy interviewed a man who told him all about how ordinary planes making contrails could create the deliberate crisscrossing patterns you describe. Murphy deliberately threw hours of that sort of information on thecutting room floor, he made a conscious decision to omit factual information simply because he knew he could not persuade you in the way he did if he told you the WHOLE truth.

    What Michael J. Murphy did was to lie to you by omission, a very cruel thing to do, because he set you up for failure by not telling you the WHOLE truth.

    Think about it………and think about how we told you the whole truth, we are here discussing the issue, Murphy will not, even though he knows exactly what we are doing here. Ask him why he didn’t tell you all the things rought up here abouthis movie…….ask him why he won’t address these issues…..ask him why he did what he did.

    I doubt if you’ll get an answer, because what’s worse than getting caught out telling thousands of people a lie?

  34. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Now wait just a minute….. Previous tests were sludge, from the lined pond… but the newer tests were all rainwater. Some of the rain water samples contained no aluminum… and some of the rainwater samples DID contain aluminum. So how can you explain aluminum samples in some of the rainwater samples if aluminum is not soluble? Shouldn’t NONE of the rainwater samples contain aluminum if this were true? The only way this could happen is if some of the samples were filtered and some were not, or the dust/soil had different amounts of contaminates per sample.

    Are you suggesting that dust contaminated ALL of the rainwater samples (giving it the positive result for barium and strontium), and that some samples were more contaminated than others (naturally or from failure to filter the sample) which resulted in detectable amounts of non-soluble aluminum in some of those samples?

    That is an assumption and not an answer. We are not the ones conducting the tests (although the admin of this site should be doing his own tests). Tests for sludge will always produce aluminum, barium and strontium because they are in the soil naturally, right? and rainwater has none of these 3 elements in it correct? So the only way rainwater can test positive for these is if it is contaminated by dust/soil right?

    So just to make this clear I would like a direct answer. Are you suggesting/assuming that every single rainwater sample was contaminated even though you personally had no participation in the sampling?

  35. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Uncinus says:

    What I’m wondering about is the mechanism for getting a barium positive sample with zero aluminum in unfiltered rainwater.

    Me too.

  36. I think people are getting the wrong idea when talking about the samples being “contaminated” by dust, as if some dust has blowing into the container after the pristine rainwater has been collected. That’s not at all what is being suggested.

    The “contamination” is just part of everyday rain. The raindrops collect dust within the cloud, and as they fall through the air below the cloud. Some dust is an expected part of normal rain.

    The amount of dust, and the composition of that dust, is going to be pretty random though. Anything from about zero for the rain in the latter part of a rainstorm, to very high for the first rain after some dry and windy weather.

    There’s also non-local sources of dust that can end up on the rain. See “rain dust” for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_dust

    The issue of “getting a barium positive sample with zero aluminum in unfiltered rainwater.” has several possible explanations that I can think of:

    1) It actually was filtered. We don’t know the details of the test
    2) The dust was from a mineral that was low in aluminum (the test for barium is much more sensitive than the test for aluminum)
    3) Some physical mechanism in the rain formation absorbed the barium, but not aluminum
    4) The barium came from a later (actual) contamination.

    Either way, isn’t the “footprint” of geoengineering supposed to be all three? So what does just barium signify? And what does it signify when you find all three? What does it signify when you find nothing? What does the vast variety of results signify?

  37. The “rain dust” is not just a european phenomena either:


    Now of course the “rain dust” is just when the level of dust reaches levels that are visible, but as you can imagine there is always SOME dust in the air, and hence in rain. And this example shows it can sometimes come from a pretty specific source.

  38. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    I agree with your analysis. There are possibilities like you said, but nothing conclusive unless we do independent testing. Have you thought about conducting any tests yourself? Do you have links to other independent tests already performed by other parties?

  39. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    It just occurred to me, if I remember correctly they had addressed the issue of dust in the air because they claimed to have taken samples AFTER periods of heavy rainfall, after most of the dust would have been removed from the air from the previous rainfall already. Again this would need to be independently verified, however if verified it would (should) eliminate the questionable issue of “contamination” from naturally occurring dust in the air.

  40. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Regarding the “footprint”; if anything would be sprayed, there is a possibility that it could be a mixture of the 3 metals, or just one of the metals itself, or perhaps something completely unrelated… depending on the application or the goal of the test they were conducting. The “footprint” should be a term used loosely to describe the majority of supposed tests taken, which usually contain all 3 metals. However, the possibility of spraying does not RELY on a “footprint”, it just seems that tests results with this “footprint” are more frequently found than other test results.

  41. Jay Reynolds says:

    Here is a video I created to help people understand what is naturally present in the atmosphere:

    As you can see, besides dust, the atmosphere contains natural particles of “sea salts”, which approximate the elements found in sea water. Besides sodium and pretty much every other element, sea water is fairly enriched in strontium, for example. Maybe the strontium came from an air mass strongly infused with sea spray?

    The atmosphere also contains soot particles from things that burn naturally and from manmade burning. For example, hydrocarbon fuels, especially coal, contain a fairly large amount of barium. Maybe the rain water samples showing barium came from a air mass infused with man-made pollution from burning?

    Depending on the origin of air mass and where it came from, more or less of these substances, or different combinations might be found in different rain samples. Go to the top of this page and review the 1967 study, note the large variation in aluminum found in the samples, all of which were filtered, BTW.

    When examining an unknown, the first thing to do is to research the subject throughly. Say, for instance, you found something in rainwater and wanted to understand why it is there. The first thing to do would be to research what is ORDINARILY found in rainwater, look at historical studies. This is what the Shasta group never did before jumping to a conclusion. They based their conclusions in ignorance. They ASSUMED that rainwater should have no elements in it, but that has been shown to be false for over 100 years. Here is a fuller discussion of the subject:

    Take note that the whole Shasta group, Dane Wigington, Francis Mangels, Michael J. Murphy and the rest have all been informed of what we are showing here. I began informing them over ONE YEAR AGO of their errors. They won’t discuss the matter, they won’t debate the matter, and they certainly don’t want YOU to know about it because they have egg on their face and cannot find a way out of the hole they have dug for themselves. Those are the facts, like it or not, and no amount of them trying to cover it up will help them. It is also the reason why no reputable atmospheric scientist has ever joined them in their belief system.

    Now YOU know, and will you take it to their table and ask them to address these issues? They have all been invited here and elsewhere to do so, but all they have done so far is to run, hide, and cover up for each other. It is getting quite tiresome all the time having well-meaning people like you who have been deceived by these people come here and have to find out that they have been misled.

    I’m surprised that more of you haven’t become angry at these people for their deceptions.

  42. Jay Reynolds says:

    Seriously debateable wrote:”It just occurred to me, if I remember correctly they had addressed the issue of dust in the air because they claimed to have taken samples AFTER periods of heavy rainfall, after most of the dust would have been removed from the air from the previous rainfall already. Again this would need to be independently verified, however if verified it would (should) eliminate the questionable issue of “contamination” from naturally occurring dust in the air.”

    I asked the Shasta group for documentation for how they took their samples. They refused to publicly release any:

    The largest organized effort to collect rain water was made by the “Chemtrails Project”. Their leader suggested sampling at the BEGINNING of the rain.

    The bottom line is that none of these tests have consistent repeatable methodologies. One might leave open plastic dishpans out collecting dust and then pour the whole mess into a jar, another might scrape a windshield, or another might collect snow that has lain out for a week beside a highway(oh, did I mention that car brakes contain high levels of barium?).

    BTW, don’t take my word for any of this. Most technical universities have an Environmental Science Dept. Go ask a professional about these rain tests and get back to us about what they think. I really hope you do.

  43. Steve Funk says:

    One thing to keep in mind is that a zero aluminum sample doesn’t necessarily mean zero. It means less than the reporting limit, which is 5 micrograms per liter for water, and 50 mg/l for soil. http://www.basiclab.com/environmental-analytical-testing/list.php?i=webdw&c=drinking-water

  44. I think that zero result actually means less than the MDL (Method Detection Limit), if it returns some value between MDL and RL they will report < RL (i.e less than the RL, e.g. <5.0 ug/L). So 0 means <0.5. I've seen people confuse the Reporting Limit as something that must be reported to the EPA, but that number is the MCL/AL (Minimum contamination Level/ Action Level) This all either confuses people, or they are entirely oblivious to it.

  45. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    This is not about the Shasta team, it is about having accurate test results. The Shasta team does not need to release their data on how they conducted the tests, all that needs to be done is for someone else to conduct the tests, and release their (consistent) data which would prove that the Shasta teams (inconsistent) tests were flawed.

    All you are telling me is that the tests have not been validated, and that there are possibilities to explain the positive test results. This does not prove that the tests are inaccurate. We don’t need to prove inaccuracy in a test that the methods of collection were not outlined in… this is theorizing. We need to prove accuracy in a test that the methods of collection ARE outlined in.

    I asked once but it has not been addressed yet. Are there any people out there conducting their own tests?

  46. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    P.S. with these 3 elements already being found naturally in the air, are the tests even worthy of being discussed? Would there be any method of conducting the test that would give a satisfactory answer? Would the only satisfactory test be from someone who is following an alleged aircraft spraying one of these trails, and sampling it directly?

  47. You’d have to correlate “spraying” with increased values. The only scientific attempt to do this (in Hawaii) showed no correlation.

    Air, water, and soil are tested for various contaminants all the time, probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times a year. AFAIK nobody has noticed anything unusual.

  48. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Would the only satisfactory test be from someone who is following an alleged aircraft spraying one of these trails, and sampling it directly?

    Only satisfactory depending on which side of the argument you are on.

    Hence there not being that much point of…

    Are there any people out there conducting their own tests?

    … because the only person it would satisfy is me. And I don’t need satisfying about anything.

  49. jim says:

    And what you, the debunker left out….is the fact that all of the people in the northern hemisphere who test their blood for aluminum are finding 15 to 30 times the amount in our blood as what the average individual had 12 years ago….myself included @ 97.86ug/L.

    Either you are part of the deliberate cover-up, or you’re as smart as a pile of crap. Actually, either way you’re about as smart as a pile of crap.

  50. That is a bit high, but the thing is not everyone is having elevated levels of aluminum in their blood. If there was spraying then you would expect every to have elevated levels, yet lots of people have been measured at zero.

  51. Strawman says:

    And a follow up questions, since people have different aluminium levels in their blood, how can you be sure that it’s from “chemtrails”? Have you looked at all possible explanations, including, for example, local enviromentmental factors, diet, digestion? If you didn’t, I’m sorry to say this, you are jumping to conclusions. That wouldn’t be too smart, neither, would it?

  52. Danny55 says:

    “is the fact that all of the people in the northern hemisphere who test their blood for aluminum are finding 15 to 30 times the amount in our blood as what the average individual had 12 years ago”

    Perhaps some paperwork to show the historic and current levels would be helpful to prove what you claim.

  53. JFDee says:


    “the major route of exposure to aluminium for the general population is through food, both as a consequence of the natural occurrence of aluminium in food (e.g. fruit, vegetables, cereals, seeds and meat), and the use of aluminium and aluminium compounds in food processing, packaging and storage, and not least the use of aluminium compounds as food additives.”

    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/754.pdf (on page 16)

    You can find many other papers from all over the world about aluminum in food. The bottom line is that there are plenty of sources contributing to aluminum intake.

  54. Jay Reynolds says:

    At JFDee’s link, on page 19 you will find the following:
    “However, the Panel noted that in the FEEDAP opinion on Zeolite, a form of sodium
    aluminium silicate used in animal feed, it was stated that sodium aluminium silicate may be
    partly hydrolysed in the digestive tract, mainly in the abomasum (because of the low pH value)
    resulting in release of aluminium and silicate ions. Thus, in an unpublished study in cows, an
    increase of the aluminium serum level from 13 μg/l before treatment to 85 μg/l during a threeweek
    administration of 600 g Zeolite per day was reported.
    This finding on sodium aluminium silicate in cows is in line with the suggestion by some
    authors that acid digestion in the stomach would solubilise most of the ingested aluminium
    compounds to the monomolecular species Al+3 (e.g. hydrated Al(H2O)6)3+). The Panel therefore
    noted that other insoluble aluminium-containing food additives that previously have been
    considered not to be absorbed from the gut can be expected to behave similarly.
    After absorption, aluminium distributes unequally to all tissues in humans and accumulates in
    some. The total body burden of aluminium in healthy human subjects has been reported to be
    approximately 30–50 mg/kg bw. Normal levels of aluminium in serum are approximately 1–3
    μg/L. About one-half of the total body burden of aluminium is in the skeleton, and about onefourth
    is in the lungs (from accumulation of inhaled insoluble aluminium compounds).”

    You might find it interesting that, despite his claims that aluminum is so toxic, Michael J. Murphy himself recommends ingestion of the zeolite aluminum mineral mentioned above which is documented to raise serum aluminum levels when exposed to low pH in the stomach.. Read more about it here:

    In a recent interview, Murphy said this @ 1:52:05:
    “There are various foods that we can eat to chelate these metals out of our bodies, bentonite, chlorella, zeolite are very effective chelators at removing this.”

    What are we to think about a man who would on the one hand spin up a tale about a substance so toxic it can “shut down life”, and who on the othert hand advocates his followers eat the same substance on a daily basis?

    Murphy won’t address the issue, because he knows it is a contradiction, and of course some of his close friends sell the stuff…….

    Something to think about?

  55. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Maybe it is a safe form of aluminum in the zeolite. one would have to determine what kind of aluminum it is and how it reacts compared to “toxic” aluminum..

  56. Anonymous says:

    Nice try…no cigar.

  57. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Uncinus says:
    August 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Air, water, and soil are tested for various contaminants all the time, probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times a year. AFAIK nobody has noticed anything unusual.

    I thought I remembered the old man in the “what in the world are they spraying” video saying that his soil ph levels were going way up over the last few years… this would seem unusual to me. As for the tests being taken numerous times a year, Have the tests changed in the recent last few years? I just found this:


    “From a telephone conversation with one of the agronomists at the laboratory (A & L Canada Laboratories East, Inc.) I learned that soil testing that included aluminum testing was a relatively new addition to the standard agricultural tests – just over the last few years.”

    “If anyone in the farming community or elsewhere has any records of soil tests containing aluminum readings that go back perhaps five years I would be grateful if you would contact me. See mail link below. It seems that only by having such records available will it be possible to establish some sort of values for what may be the normal background levels of naturally occurring aluminum in agricultural soils or at least to establish if there has been an increase in such levels over the recent years.”

  58. JFDee says:


    if you are looking for numbers, there are some (including historical data) in this thread:


  59. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    What are we to think about a man who would on the one hand spin up a tale about a substance so toxic it can “shut down life”, and who on the othert hand advocates his followers eat the same substance on a daily basis?

    If you wanted people to send you blood tests with raised aluminium levels then that’s quite a good way of making sure you get them.

  60. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    What about soil core samples or ice core samples? That would show whether there has been an increase within a certain amount of years, wouldn’t it? Has anyone taken any of these types of samples?

  61. Jay Reynolds says:

    Seriously debatable wrote:
    “What about soil core samples or ice core samples? That would show whether there has been an increase within a certain amount of years, wouldn’t it? Has anyone taken any of these types of samples?”

    Nationwide, thousands of soil tests are taken daily by individuals and farmers then professionally analyzed by County Extension Agents, for free. Over one year ago, I contacted the Siskiyou County Cooperative Extension Agent which serves the Mt. Shasta area, in order to confirm the veracity of what was being claimed in WITWATS. I spoke to Steve Orloff, who told me that his office was not seeing any unusual pH or elemental changes in soil test results. He was also unaware of the claims being made by the Shasta Group.

    You can confirm this by contacting him yourself, or your local County Extension Service.

    Besides this avenue, hundreds if not thousands of experimental plots are probably being analyzed yearly at agricultural research faciities nationwide. If soil elemental or pH changes were taking place as claimed by the chemtrail promoters, this would be big news. It is not happening.

    Anyone truly interested in confirming the claims being made should have made every effort to do so before creating a movie making absurd claims. The Shasta Group and Producers of WITWATS didn’t do their due diligence, and now they have you spun up in a frenzy. They also know that I contacted Steve Orloff and his information.

    Michael J. Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, Francis Mangels, and Dane Wigington are all engaged in a cover up of great magnitude when they omit this. They know, but they don’t want you to know the things revealed on this webpage. They have deceived by intention and omission, and are withholding information from you. This should make you angry enough to demand correction. If you are truly interested in a resolution of this conundrum, you simply ave to hold their feet to the fire and demand that they be responsive to criticism, to correct their errors, and to stop making claims they surely know are false.

    To do otherwise is to enable them in promotion of false claims, omission of exculpatory information, and gross public deception. It is long past time for you people to act in your best interest to seek a resolution. Many people have done what they can to get this done. Until you people clean up this act, you will continue to be spun around in a whirlpool of lies and deception. Muck out the barn or be overwhelmed in excrement. Your choice.

  62. Steve Funk says:

    Bentonite, which in some formulations is 10.9% aluminum, is also used as a pond liner. I wonder if anyone knows what Dane Wigington used to line his pond? I assumed it was a commercial plastic liner, but who knows. I will have to ask Francis if he is still speaking to me.

  63. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Not the answer I was looking for Jay.

    1) a soil test is not a soil CORE test. with a CORE… we could sample years worth of accumulation and then test to see if there has been an increase. It would be more accurate because there could be many tests conducted at once, the same way in the same environment etc etc…

    2) I could care less about the makers of a film, stop shooting the messenger even if the messenger turns out to be wrong. I HOPE the messenger is wrong! I am aware of your opinion on the film makers and no further opinions of them are needed.

    3) Thanks!

  64. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    P.S. Im not caught up in any lie. I am undecided…. I am doing my own research, and not condemning those who have done research previously which may not be accurate, I just ignore inaccurate information. I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone spreads disinformation… I got news for you Jay. It is YOUR fault if you blindly believe it. People lie intentionally and unintentionally all the time about many different things. I am not going to contact ANYONE and demand that they give me an answer. I can find my own, by asking questions and seeing which ones are answered to my satisfaction.

    P.P.S. the title of this page should not be debunked, it should be unsubstantiated. There is no evidence which proves the case either way.

  65. “Debunking” is pointing out the errors in the evidence, – i.e. removing the bunk. That’s what I did. You can draw conclusions from what remains.

    The idea is not to prove something is not happening, but to demonstrate that there’s no evidence that it is.

  66. Alexey says:

    SeriouslyDebatable said:

    “a soil test is not a soil CORE test. with a CORE… we could sample years worth of accumulation and then test to see if there has been an increase. It would be more accurate because there could be many tests conducted at once, the same way in the same environment etc etc…”

    No, you could not sample years worth of accumulation like this. Soil core is not the same as the ice core. Unlike ice in ice sheets and glaciers, soil does not form from the incremental build up of annual layers of dust and precipitation. Event if it is not cultivated by man, the contents of different layers would be mixed together by rain, wind, earthworms etc etc…

  67. You could in theory use varves, which can show pollution changes on a near yearly basis.

  68. Jay Reynolds says:

    Seriously debatable wrote:
    “I could care less about the makers of a film, stop shooting the messenger even if the messenger turns out to be wrong. I HOPE the messenger is wrong! I am aware of your opinion on the film makers and no further opinions of them are needed.”

    The subject of this thread is the film. Seriously debateable, so far you haven’t shown in any way how the bunk identified in this film was incorrectly labeled, or presented evidence of your own.

    Ignoring false information is a very poor way to live your life, and detrimental to others because it is precisely that information you and so many others have been exposed to which has inculcated the whole chemtrails hoax. By so doing, you remain part of the problem, and contribute to the failure to find a solution.

    Will you make a personal effort to identify and then document the planes you see or not?
    If so, congratulations, for you will find the answers you seek, and will discover what the promoters of chemtrails never intended you to know.
    If not, you have been assimilated unto a collective which has no true free will and simply twists in whatever wind someone else feeds you

    The choice is yours. I hope you choose the most direct path to a certainty about the identity of the planes, and work from that, because it is the most easily done solution that I can imagine. It harnesses and leverages an enormous potential across a vast area to obtain indisputable first-hand information which can be easily followed up on. It would also be the preliminary step towards any in-situ testing of an actual trail. It documents in indelible undisputable form the actual identity of the planes, and removes all doubt as to what would be spraying, who the owner is, who is rersponsible for piloting the plane, and the moment-to moment movements of the plane.

    Here is how to do it:

  69. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    @Unicus The term debunked means to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of. The claims they made may have been exaggerated, but the term “debunked” has a negative connotation and implies that the conclusions are also wrong. “False” and “exaggerated” have different meanings and to combine them into one word does not seem to be an adequate way of describing something specifically. A lot of people interpret “debunked” to mean “false”, making it very vague and somewhat misleading to use that particular word to relay the position in which the facts currently stand. Using that word entices some people to ridicule the claim makers as well which is not a productive means of debate. We currently have no conclusive or inconclusive proof as there is currently no method of verifying tests in a controlled way which is being used.

    Varves are more or less what I meant by a soil core sample. If you took a core out of a varve… yadda yadda yadda. Thanks to Unicus for clarifying. The question remains unanswered. Has anyone taken any ice core samples or varve core samples?

    I am indifferent on the conclusions of chemtrails/contrails. My opinion sways because I have an open mind and I am always willing to change it when new facts come to light that were not previously factored into my decision making process. At present moment the tests being conducted are fundamentally flawed, and that is inadequate enough for me to currently leave my position as “open”. As for ignoring false information, I am not here to teach people how to think for themselves. I am responsible for my own actions, not the actions or false beliefs of others. In that spirit, I am also not interested in sending film makers emails until they make a public announcement admitting that they were wrong. It will never happen and it is a waste of time to go down that avenue.

  70. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    P.S. @Jay
    The public has no access to military flight records so your last suggestion would not make the issue indisputable in one way or the other. It would still leave open the question of military spraying.

  71. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Would tree rings also be feasible to perform tests on? Trees grow one layer per year. Has anyone done any testing on the rings on trees?

  72. @Unicus The term debunked means to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of. The claims they made may have been exaggerated, but the term “debunked” has a negative connotation and implies that the conclusions are also wrong. “False” and “exaggerated” have different meanings and to combine them into one word does not seem to be an adequate way of describing something specifically. A lot of people interpret “debunked” to mean “false”, making it very vague and somewhat misleading to use that particular word to relay the position in which the facts currently stand. Using that word entices some people to ridicule the claim makers as well which is not a productive means of debate. We currently have no conclusive or inconclusive proof as there is currently no method of verifying tests in a controlled way which is being used.

    I “expose the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of” the chemtrail theory. I stay away from ridicule. I’m away of the occasional negative connotation – but some people also attach negative connotation to “science”, so you can’t win them all. See my discussion here:


    I’m pointing out there is no evidence. Hence no actually reason to believe in the theory. It’s impossible to prove it is not happening, like robot spy cats.

  73. Juspassinthrew says:

    If all this was no big deal then why the [email protected]*% do all you people feel the need to debunk it. I’m sure you have health insurance anyway or @ least own shares. To think you actually did all this work for nothing.No, no i get it……. no I do…………….

  74. We’re debunking it BECAUSE it’s no big deal, but people are making like it is.

  75. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Uncinus says: “It’s impossible to prove it is not happening, like robot spy cats.”

    Actually you could take those Ice core samples or varve core samples from multiple sources and if there was no increase in the frequency of these metals over a span of however many years, then chemtrails would be disproved.

    By the way, for the third time.. does anyone know if any ice core or varve core samples have been taken by anyone?

  76. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Or tree ring samples?

  77. It’s an interesting theory – you should suggest it to the chemtrail theorists, and see what their take is. I suspect that the data might already be out there. Here’s an older example.


    Obviously people are taking ice cores and varve samples all the time – the question is if they are test for those metals, and if the resolution is high enough to see a change.

  78. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Cool! I posted without registering so it might take some time for my post to be approved. I will wait for an answer and keep checking that forums. Thanks!

  79. Jay Reynolds says:

    seeriouslydebatable wrote:
    “P.S. @Jay
    The public has no access to military flight records so your last suggestion would not make the issue indisputable in one way or the other. It would still leave open the question of military spraying.”

    You seem to have missed a key part of my plan. This link ‘zooms in’ on the relevant part.


    It is quite possible to photograph a plane at contrail altitude such that it is identifiable from tail number, even if military. Indisputable.

  80. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Yeah I seen something about that. http://theintelhub.com/2011/05/30/action-alert-investigators-wanted-to-document-chemtrails/ They are looking for independent investigators to use “plane finder” software but that was dated over a year ago. Has anyone done the research or is it still ongoing? There is no follow up article yet.

  81. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    I might add that if they can turn the spray on, or off, or if it is sprayed sometimes and not other times depending on certain factors, or perhaps randomly as in for testing, that this method of detecting chemtrails/contrails still will remain disputable until years of data have been accumulated and a definite pattern can be found.

  82. Jay Reynolds says:

    Seriously debatable, the ‘intelhub’ is not a reliable source of information. I speak fairly regularly with G. Edward Griffin, and he told me that he did not get much cooperation from his cohorts at trying to identify the planes, but he was able with the folks that did respond to determine that what I told him was correct, the planes that he was able to identify making what he had been calling “chemtrails” turned out to be ordinary commercial airliners.
    Yes, I know that some will still claim that military jets might possibly be making “chemtrails”, that is why there is an even more indisputable method of identifying the planes. That method is by using telescopic photography as described in POST #4 here:


    There is no better way to solve this mystery than being able to identify the planes which each have a number, a paper trail of ownership and a pilot’s name, and a log of movements from place to place through time.

    Once you have all of that evidence, you can untangle the whole riddle, see?

  83. Johnny B Good says:

    Can anyone explaine why some trails seem to be turned on and off as if on purpose? I have seen that myself.

  84. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    @Johnny it could be pockets of air from an updraft or something else but it does seem weird that they are so scattered. I would not expect air to have so many fluctuations in such a small area.

    @Jay it would definitely shed some light on the subject… but there are a few things it would not clear up like if the pilot was unaware because it was mixed with the fuel, or if the pilot is lying… also if a sprayer was turned on during 100% humidity, the chemtrail could be effectively masked. About reliable information… All I mentioned from that site was that G.E.G. was asking for people to use “plane finder” software to get more information about this issue, and you confirmed that you spoke with him and that is what he did. So how is that an unreliable source of information? It was accurate. YOU are the final arbitrator of information, and even a broken clock is right twice a day. Never exclude a source just because you do not agree with the opinions of its authors. That is my advice to you, Jay.

  85. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Let us not forget that they (the sprayers) could have interspersed programs which span certain times and/or areas, so observations may not be very effective… unless there is a current ongoing program in a specific area which is not ending any time soon. It would be hit or miss.

  86. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    I have seen video of trails which go on and off when there are no clouds in the sky. How is this explained?

  87. By the diagram above.

  88. Anonymous says:

    It is possible for air at contrail altitudes to be ice-supersaturated and yet not have any clouds. Jet fuel when burned creates 1.4 pounds water per pound of fuel burned. This additional water is enough to form a persistent contrail in clear air @ >-40C which is sufficiently supersaturated with respect to ice. nce created, the contrail will persist and can grow by accretion of additional ice from the saturated air.

    It is estimated that on a global basis the sky contains these ice supersaturated areas about 15% of the time, whose size can range from less than 1sq. km. to hundreds of sq. km., and may be only 500 m. thick. When a plane flies through air patches of differing levels of ice supersaturation, or merely changes altitude a few hundred meters, it can enter or depart one of these areas, leaving an on/off contrail.

    Ever flown in a jet and felt the turbulence? Probably those ‘bumps’ you felt were the result of air that was rising or falling and probably had different chaacteristics from place to place as a result. That is why yo have patchy clouds, moisture isn’t always the same in each and every spot in the sky.

    section 4 gives more details but uses more technical language:

    They installed moisture detectors on commercial flights and measured the extent of ice supersaturation:

    How does something like this happen?

  89. Jay Reynolds says:

    On off trails.
    Short answer: Contrails need moisture to persist. Moisture varies from place to place in the sky, which is why clouds form and sometimes don’t, from place to place, right?

    Medium answer:
    Contrails formation conditions: Jet fuel, when burned, produces 1.4 lb. water per pound of fuel burned. If air temperature is less than -40C, this water vapor freezes into ice crystals.

    Contrail persistence conditions:If the air is not moist enough, those ice crystals will sublimate from ice directly back into invisble vapor. If, however, the air is superaturated (with respect to ice), a specific meteorological term which means there is sufficient moisture in the air, the ice crystals in the contrail will not sublimate but rather persist. With enough supersaturation, the contrail ice crystals can even grow larger from water vapor from theair accreting onto the existing particles.

    These ice supersaturated regions (ISSR’s) can be small or large, from a few km to hundreds of km across, and can be less than a few hundred meters thick.Thus a plane fling into or out of one of these regions will leave a contrail that persists while in the ISSR, and when it flies out of an ISSR the contrail outside of the ISSR will dissipate. Measurements show that on a global basis, about 15% of the sky contains ice supersaturated regions.

    Long answers:


  90. Steve K says:

    I have a some-few very specific memories from the very early 1980s, way back when I was a young puppy, about looking up into the summer sky, and being fascinated by the sight of a plane crossing the sky, leaving a white “plume of smoke” some distance behind it – almost as if this “smoke” was chasing the plane, but never catching it. Occasionally, another plane would appear to cross it from another direction leaving a “+” or “X” shape from the perspective of the ground/angle of viewing.

    Some days it would last for hours, and some days it would be gone within a minute. I never knew then why this was so, but years later as I gained my education in physics, chemistry and science I also learned it was vapour, and not smoke. I kinda hoped once or twice one would intersect the other at the middle of the cross… Hey! I liked fireworks! And that was way before I was aware of what “death” actually was…I grew up watching American TV like “The A Team”! Cars blew up, lots of guns, but noone died! O_o

    Of course, this is a memory, and that’s often unreliable as to actual events, but they are a few of the most vivid memories of that time to me, 30-odd years later…

  91. Johnny B Good says:

    Talking about geoengineering and chemtrails, Uncinus says,”Nobody was doing it sixty years ago, nobody was doing it in 2006, and as far as anyone can tell, nobody is doing it now”.
    Chemtrails is another word for cloud seeding and the first recorded proof of a military application of cloud seeding occurred on Oct 13 1947, when the U.S. Military (as part of Project Cirrus involving General Electric) dropped 80 kg of dry ice into a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean, safely off the eastern coast of the USA. The hurricane changed direction and traveled inland, where it did extensive damage to property in Georgia. The U.S. military classified the data from the seeding of this hurricane to avoid litigation.
    It seems that cloud seeding has gone from seeding with dry ice to all sorts of chemical products.
    According to one article in the Las Vegas Sun dated monday, Aug. 31 2009, “The authority (Southern Nevada Water Authority) has been involved in the institute’s cloud-seeding program for years … It has paid the research institute $121,000 over the past three years to conduct cloud-seeding research and spur precipitation in the mountains between Denver and Grand Junction, Colo….Cloud seeding means adding chemicals to clouds to induce or increase precipitation. In Nevada that most often involves pumping silver iodide particles into clouds from a remote controlled mountaintop station when the right cloud patterns are present”.
    Today anyone can ask Evergreen Supertanker Services Inc. to cloud-seed with their Boeing 747 for weather modification purposes.
    So, contrary to what Uncinus says, geoengineering has been in existance since 1947 to this day.

  92. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    But if geoengineering is so open then why the secrecy behind chemtrails?

  93. JFDee says:

    Johnny B Good said:

    “Chemtrails is another word for cloud seeding”


    The word “Chemtrails” is used by proponents for (persistant) contrails in higher altitudes (above 35000 feet or so).
    Cloud seeding is done on lower levels, in or above clouds and thus hardly visible. Yes, it’s been around since the 1930s.

    To claim cloud seeding is “geo-engineering” is a bit of a stretch though. All you can do is to make it start raining a bit earlier. This will not change the climate.

  94. Jay Reynolds says:

    Persistent contrails which is what people see, usually form at high altitudes around 30-40,000 ft.
    The temperature needs to be below minus 40 degrees for an engine contrail to form.
    With the exception of thunderstorms, weather is below that altitude, which is one reason those jets fly that high.

    Cloud seeding is done in the weather, in the clouds that make rain, and much lower than contrails, because anything released at contrail level would usually be blown by high winds far away from the clouds at much lower levels which you are trying to seed.

    Geoengineering, which isn’t to seed clouds at all but rather to control climate, would be done, at a minimum, around 60,000 feet. This is because unless the geoengineering material were released that high, up into the middle stratosphere, it would begin to fall out far too quickly. You wouldn’t want to try to control climate by putting something into clouds that would rain out, or at 30-40,000 feet where it would fall out too quickly.

    In fact, however, none of the jets seen making persistent contrails are anywhere near 60,000 feet where geoengineering would be done, nor are they in the weather where cloud seeding is done. The reason why they aren’t up at 60,000 feet is because it is a physical impossibility for these wide-body jets to make it up to that altitude. The A380 and 747’s can make 43,000, barely.

    The promoters of the movie, “Why In The World Are They Spraying” speak about military jets, but the only large jets which the military has which can reach 50,000 ft are B-52 strategic bombers, which are quite recognizable.

    What people are seeing are simply ordinary passenger and air cargo jets making contrails. How do I know this?

    Because if you look acrefully at the ending credits of “Why In The World Are They Spraying”, while the reggae music is playing, you can stop the film and clearly see an ordinary CARGOLUX jet being shown.
    The makers of that movie had no military planes to show you, so they just showed you an ordinary jet.

    What In The World Were They Thinking?

  95. Twiglymcgee says:

    ok so lets all agree for one second that these strange looking clouds in the sky really are normal. can be attributed to normal conditions and our use of combustion engines. now, lets agree that the conditions have to be just right for these contrails to linger for hours (or in my personal experience in canada – they last all day, only being blown out of my line of sight by the wind). and lets agree that the giant X’s and other patterns in the sky are also normal, brought about by air traffic over airports yadda yadda yadda. so now that we have agreed on all that, what id like to know is this : what are the ground conditions like when the higher altitude conditions favor the storage of contrails? earth’s atmosphere isnt that thick, kind of like a singler layer of paint over a balloon. could global warming actually be helping these favorable condtions for contrail ‘storage’? (i call it storage because they dont evaporate, they are at the mercy of the winds) the fact still remains that these contrails are being seen more and more with each passing day. if they really are NORMAL (and i really dont see how the vast numbers of the contrails stay for as long as they do – i can remember a few here and there growing up but nothing like it is today!) and even if we factor in the population explosion, and more air traffic, it just doesnt make sense why there are SO MANY of them ALL OVER THE SKY, LASTING ALL DAY in most cases! so lets stop arguing with each other and lets find out why these contrails are lasting longer and longer. there has to be a logical explanation as to why this is happening. if this is really normal, then these favorable conditions happen more and more frequently. i mean clearly, if contrails are lingering longer and more people are starting to notice it…. just please, all you big science guys. stop telling us that what we are seeing with our eyes isnt real. there is something going on. keep in mind science guys, im not trying to say anything negative about your methods, or your scientific explanations or anything like that. lets look at what kind of ground conditions are present when the higher altitudes favor contrail formation and storage BEFORE we start fighting with everyone who disagrees with you.

  96. JFDee says:


    If you want to see how variable the atmospheric conditions are even in this relatively thin layer of atmosphere, look at the “soundings” acquired by weather balloon, usually twice a day:


    If you set the output (second dropdown) to “GIF: SkewT”, you get a graphical output where the left thick line shows the humidity and the right line shows the temperature, in relation to the altitude.
    I don’t think there is a rule how the conditions in 35000 ft. are related to the conditions on the ground.

    You said:

    “if this is really normal, then these favorable conditions happen more and more frequently”

    That may well be; scientists predict that the atmosphere will hold more water as a consequence of global warming. Maybe you can find any figures in the Net?

    There are figures available for the increase in air travel though:

    While the number of “departures” has ‘only’ doubled since 1975, the number of passengers has more than tripled, which means that the aircraft size has increased too.
    So double the number of planes, bigger planes – and that’s only the U.S. carriers!

    Engines have improved too, leading to more thorough fuel combustion, which is producing additional water compared to older engines.

  97. Jay Reynolds says:

    “what are the ground conditions like when the higher altitude conditions favor the storage of contrails? earth’s atmosphere isnt that thick, kind of like a singler layer of paint over a balloon. could global warming actually be helping these favorable condtions for contrail ‘storage’?”
    The atmosphere at 35,000 ft bears no resemblance to the atmosphere on the ground. The lapse rate, which is a generalization, approximates the change in temperature. About 3.6F degrees drop in temperature per 1000 feet, so 35 x 3.6 = 126 degrees drop in temp. So, with a ground temperature of 80 degrees, up there you have a temperature of -46F.

    I don’t need to tell you much more than to ask you what an ice crystal will do when exposed to 46 degrees below zero?

    You can learn more about the details of your questions by looking along the left margin of this webpage.

Comments are closed.