1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Promoters of the "chemtrails" theory often rattle off a list of three elements, Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium. They claim that these are a "footprint" of geoengineering, supposedly being the exact three elements that geoengineering researchers have suggested using to block the sun, and also being the elements found in geoengineering patents. They test the soil, the water, the air, the rain, and they find varying amounts of these chemicals, and claim that this is evidence of a covert geoengineering scheme carried out with "chemtrails".

    There are a number of problems with this theory. The biggest being that the amounts found are pretty much within the normal range of variation you'd find everywhere. Aluminum in particular makes up about 8% of the dirt and dust everywhere, and the other elements are also commonly found in the ground, and hence in the air, rain, and water in the form of mineral dust.

    Secondly, even if the levels were elevated, how is this connected with what's going on 35,000 feet? The source of the pollution (which has never actually been demonstrated to be elevated anyway) could be local sources, or even something blowing in on the wind from thousands of miles away. California gets dust and pollution from China, the East Coast gets it from Europe and Africa.

    The promoters then bring out what they think of as a trump card - the "footprint" of Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium. Why, they ask, are they finding the exact same three elements that are in all these geoengineering proposals and patents? For example:


    Well, for a start it's because they only test for those three elements. If they tested for other elements commonly found in the ground, like silicon, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, etc, they wold find them all too. And they would find them in much higher concentrations (on average) than they would find either barium or strontium. The footprint they are finding is that of dirt, but they only test a bit of that footprint, so they think it's their geoengineering footprint. It's like finding someone with blue eyes and white teeth and saying he's Justin Beiber.


    These problems alone are enough to dismiss the theory of the Aluminum/Barium/Strontium signature, but there's one more problem with it that basically makes it entirely worthless, even if we overlook all the other problems. The problem is there is no footprint.

    There's no footprint because there are no geoengineering proposals or patents that suggest spraying strontium.

    There's very few that suggest spraying barium either. There are a few that suggest using aluminum, there's even one by David Keith that suggest using aluminum and barium together - but that uses rather impractical microscopic levitating disks that would be easily detectable with a microscope. Most geoengineering proposals that call for spraying something call for spraying sulphates. None of them call for strontium. So the claim on geoengineeringwatch that barium and strontium are "named in numerous geoengineering patents as primary elements" is just flat wrong.

    Don't believe me? Check for yourself. Search the literature for "geoengineering" and "strontium". The only things that come up are conspiracy theory web sites. And check the patents they reference, the most common being what they call the "Welsbach" patent:
    This patent does not mention either barium or strontium.

    Try a search of Google Scholar for "geoengineering+strontium", there are many results, including some for conspiracy sites, or forums like this one, but none of the results are a serious discussion of spraying anything that contains strontium. Search instead for "geoengineering+sulfates", and you will find hundreds of scientific papers about spraying sulfates.

    You can repeat these searches in Citeseer, or Google Books, or any other search engine or reference database. The only places that talks about spraying strontium are the conspiracy sites (and books). There are no scientific papers about spraying strontium, there are no patents about spraying strontium, and there has never been any proposal or discussion from scientists that included spraying strontium in any form.

    So why do the "chemtrail" promoters think there's this "footprint", well, it turns out it was a bit of an accident that dates back to a post 15 years ago when someone found a patent for coating things with barium strontium titanate, which is a substance used in electronics.

    The process is called "chemical vapor deposition", and it's possible they got confused and thought this mean spraying chemicals in the air. But regardless, the misconception seems to have stuck, and now 15 years later the chemtrail promoters are basing their entire theory on finding this "footprint" of geoengineering, a footprint that, it turns out, never existed in the first place.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
    • Like Like x 13
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Let's note that actually there is no relationship between the two patents, other than the fact that both describe a chemical vapor deposition procedure to manufacture objects coated with a thin film.

    Also, barium doesn't occur in any geoengineering patents either.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Fixed that, the BaSrTiO3 patent is just for the creation of electronic components. I thought that it was referenced in the chaff patent. They probably just both indirectly reference some older patent for chemical vapor deposition. There's kind of a family tree for patents.

    Edit: actually I can't find any simple connection, so yeah, looks like they are unrelated. And anyway, chaff isn't geoengineering.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Added another infographic to the OP:
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's also interesting that the term "Welsbach Material" has never been used in the context of geoengineering outside of that one patent.

    What are Welsbach materials? The patent says:

    Which is interesting as the wording there suggests "the oxides of metal" are NOT "Welsbach materials".

    In fact the term "Welsbach material" is almost exclusive to the chemtrail conspiracy theory. There's no wikipedia entery for Welsbach materials, the only real results are:

    It seem that a "Welsbach material" is another name for material used for gas mantles (aka Welsbach mantles) - materials that glow brightly when heated.

    So a "Welsbach material" is pretty much just Thorium Dioxide used on gas mantles.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  6. JDubyah

    JDubyah Member

    More like a 'fingerprint' for fallout from a fireworks display..

    I like the graphic, but I worry that some will see Al and Ba up there without the X and somehow spin it as an admission that Aluminum and Barium *are* part of the fingerprint of 'chemtrails'.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One step at a time.
  8. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Couple of points. Barium was mentioned in a proposal at least so "only one of which" isn't quite correct (don't know if Keith took out a patent on the levitating disks), and you go from fingerprint at the start to footprint at the end.
  9. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    It's correct because it says "one of which is in geoengineering patents". Keith's proposal is not patented. He is against patenting SRM proposals because he thinks no private company should profit from the technology.
  10. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Yeah it's nit picking but the kind of technicality that would lead some to dismiss the entire thing
  11. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Interestingly, in his last radio interview, Dane Wigington listed the geoengineering materials as "aluminum, barium, and other metals I don't want to mention".
    • Funny Funny x 6
  12. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    "Vanadium said it'd hurt my family if I said... Oh no."
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, I remembered it as "Fingerprint", and only when I came to do the second graphic did I see it was "footprint". I'll change it all to avoid complication.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Concerning the Welsbach patent, it's also worth noting that the claims made in the patent is not about blocking out the sun (Wigington claimed it did). The patent believes such methods (spraying reflective metals) will contribute to global warmnig and the patent is actually proposing a different mechanism to cool the atmosphere. Discussed here:
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    Dane Wigington appeared on a three-hour long Wagemann and Wagemann podcast on July 8th.

    At about 46:10, he responds to a question about the materials he found in aerial spraying. He focused primarily on aluminum, basically repeating a summary of past claims. He did mention barium, but not strontium.

    It is interesting that he included copper in the "lethal brew" (his words) being sprayed on the world.
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Very true (if unfortunately difficult to explain to people). I've split out your explanation into to separate thread.
  17. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    I searched a patent database for the term "welsbach material", the first occurrence was in a patent that issued in 1930 for "Electric Lamp with Concentrated Light Source" - US Pat No 2,007,945. The term is used once in the following context: " A cylinder I2 of refractory material such as Nernst or Welsbach material may be supported by any suitable means..."

    The term doesn't appear again until 1988 in a patent issued to Hughes Aircraft for "Selective Thermal Radiators"
    Abstract:Source: US4755673A [EN] An improved thermal radiator uses host materials having high internal reflection and scattering co-efficients for improved effectiveness. Selective thermal radiators are used for frequency conversion of incident radiation through the Welsbach effect. A Welsbachmaterial screen is used to convert incident IR radiation into visible radiation, permitting visual observation of IR radiation and facilitating control and monitoring of IR equipment. Welsbach material is also used as a dynamic IR target which converts incident visible radiation into a high resolution IR source pattern. Welsbach material is also employed as a temperature stable material for converting solar radiation into heat.

    Then it shows up in 4 more Hughes Aircraft publications around 1990, the last being a European patent publication for a "Temperature Regulating Coating". The term wasn't used for 20+ years after that until it showed up in US patent application publication no. 2014/0150668, for "Steel Rail Solar Radiation Sheilding (sic)", which published last year listing Keith Langenbeck and Shelton James as inventors.

    So it shows up in just 7 patent publications, 5 of which were assigned to Hughes Aircraft.
    • Informative Informative x 4
  18. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Somewhat related:
    DEBUNKED: Geoengineering patent suggests spraying aluminum, barium and strontium to reflect sunlight
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  19. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Some chemtrail believers cite this patent for cloud seeding: Metallic composition for production of hygroscopic smoke.
    This proposes, among others, barium and strontium (and also aluminum):
    Of course this is not for geoengineering but for cloud seeding. It proposes a mixture that is burned to produce smoke, and barium and strontium are only examples in a long list of elements that could potentially be used. The patent mentions two concrete examples for mixtures, none of which contain either barium or strontium (although they contain aluminum):
    Also, this patent is from 1966, and chances are it has never been used.
    • Informative Informative x 3
  20. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    The problem is that believers often confuse the two, thinking they are exactly the same thing. I've seen it plenty in my discussions online.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And aluminum.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. CeruleanBlu

    CeruleanBlu Active Member

    An interesting NASA test involving some "buzzwords" came up, and I think it might be best to drop this here in the strontium discussion. (If it doesn't fit Mick please move to a reasonable place.) This is what caught my attention:

    When I sought out more information I found this piece from a NASA site:

    I highlighted some interesting bits. It seems that when NASA does see fit to use one of these chemicals as a tracer agent it's awfully high up there, and can leave visible colored vapor clouds. Plus they use less than a July 4th fireworks show puts out.


    Edit: If anyone catches this in the next few minutes they are showing it live on USTREAM, and say the vapor release should be visible!
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    Last night I watched a local 4th of July firework display from a hillside about 2 miles away from the display. I couldn't help but notice how long a cloud of smoke persisted above the display area. So I googled "aluminum, barium, strontium & fireworks" and sure enough, they are all elements found in fireworks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_colorant
    I wonder if any local chemtrail believers have spent $$ testing water samples from the lagoon where the fireworks were launched and concluded that planes flying at >30,000K have been dumping chemicals on us?
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Jul 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2