1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    In a paper publish in Environmental Research letters, August 2016, 77 scientists with expertise in atmospheric science and geochemistry were asked to give their expert opinions regarding the most common claims of evidence put forward by proponents of the "chemtrail" or "covert geoengineering" theory (referred to in the paper as a "secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP)". The evidence being photos of trails left by planes, and chemical analyses of air, soil, and water. The scientists overwhelming rejected the idea that the photos and tests were evidence of a secret spraying program. All of the atmospheric scientists and all but one of the geochemists saw nothing suspicious about the proffered evidence. The photos were all identified as contrails, and the chemical analyses were generally identified as expected results due to normal variation and poor testing methodology.

    Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program
    The paper (of which I am a co-author) came about partly as a response to problems scientists were having with harassment from chemtrail believers. The science of geoengineering is largely theoretical, however researchers in this field have been subject to threats, and disruptions at their conferences and during public talks.

    Chemtrail believers frequently show the same kinds of evidence over and over. Because of the fringe nature of this belief many scientists simply ignore the issue and the claims of evidence are likewise ignored. Since the claims are often only refuted by online lay skeptics the believers in the theory think they may have more validity than they actually do. So by having a large number of actual experts examine the evidence and give their professional opinion, a more accurate assessment of the evidence can be given to the believers.

    And it is a large number of experts, have a look at the list of atmospheric scientists polled:
    • Andrew Carleton, Penn State University
    • Andrew Heidinger, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    • Andrew Heymsfield, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    • Andrew J Weinheimer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    • Brian A Ridley, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • Bruce Anderson, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • Bryan Baum, University of Wisconsin-Madison
    • Charles A Brock, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    • Charles E Kolb, Aerodyne Research
    • Christine Fichter, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    • Christos Zerefos, University of Athens
    • Cynthia Twohy, NorthWest Research Associates
    • Darrel Baumgardner, Droplet Measurement Technologies
    • David Doelling, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • David Kratz, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • David Lee, Manchester Metropolitan University
    • David Lewellen, West Virginia University
    • David J Travis, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
    • Donald P Garber, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • Eleftheratos Konstantinos, University of Athens
    • Gaby Radel, University of Reading
    • Guy Febvre, Observatory of Atmospheric Physics at Clermont-Ferrand
    • Hartmut Grassl, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
    • Jack Dibb, University of New Hampshire
    • Karen Rosenlof, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    • Klaus Gierens, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    • Larry Miloshevich, Milo Scientific
    • Markus Garhammer, Ludwig-Maximilians-University
    • Matthias Tesche, Stockholm University
    • Michael Ponater, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    • Michael Prather, University of California, Irvine
    • Otto Klemm, University of Muenster
    • Patrick Minnis, National Aeronautics & Space Administration
    • Piers Forster, University of Leeds
    • R Paul Lawson, Stratton Park Engineering Company
    • Rabi Palikonda ,National Aeronautics & Space Administration
    • Reinhold Busen, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    • Robert Sausen, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
    • Robert Talbot, University of Houston
    • Ru-Shan Gao, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    • Sonia M Kreidenweis, Colorado State University
    • Stephan Bakan, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
    • Tatiana Khokhlova, University of Washington
    • Thilo Stilp European, Aviation Group for Occupational Safety and Health
    • Tove Svenby Norwegian, Institute for Air Research
    • Ulrich Schumann Institute, of Atmospheric Physics
    • Ulrike Burkhardt, German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    • Volker Grewe, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
    • William L Smith, National Aeronautics and Space
    Every single one of these scientists rejected the hypothesis that the four photos shown were evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program (SLAP). They all identified the trails as contrails, and gave scientific explanations for the effects seen in each photo.

    The photos were chosen to illustrate the most common type of photographic evidence presented by chemtrail believers:

    a) Planes leaving long trails where seemingly adjacent planes leave no trails
    b) Trails from planes that leave gaps
    c) Trails that seem to come from the whole wing surface, and exhibit a spectrum of colors
    d) Multiple persistent trails curving and criss-crossing the sky.​

    (unfortunately since Environmental Research Letters is a UK publication, they were not able to display all the photos due to the more restrictive UK copyright laws. I have reproduced them all in the copy of the figure above).

    As well as simply giving a yes/no answer on if they thought the photos were evidence of covert geoengineering, the scientists were asked to explain what they thought was going on in the photo. For example the photo (b) with the gap in the trail (credit: Forest M. Mims III)

    The atmospheric scientists were all asked a simple question:
    "What is the most likely reason there is a gap in this trail?"

    A variety of answers were given, for example:
    • "A local area of the upper troposphere where the temperature or the humidity (or both) are below the threshold values needed for a persisting contrail (e.g., due to locally sinking air at that altitude, which warms up and dries out the air)."
    • "A dry spot."
    • "Water vapor fields are not homogeneous or uniform. Part of the contrail is in a region where the relative humidity is less than 100% with respect to ice and the crystals are evaporating"
    • "Aircraft passing through local turbulence condition (strong upwinds?) leading to a rapid break-up of the vortex in the area. Likely to accelerate also the break up of the vortex."
    • "Atmospheric variability: In that area the air is probably not moist enough, not a ice supersaturated region ."

    These various answers were manually grouped into the four most common variants, along with an "other" category, and the results were graphed:

    The results were similar for the other three photos, as seen in the top image.

    The scientists were also asked "Could you provide a citation to a publication describing the mechanisms that most likely account for the phenomena shown in the photo?", and a wide variety of scientific papers were cited with the most common reference for photo (b) being Schumann’s ‘On conditions for contrail formation from aircraft exhausts’ (1996) and Schumann’s ‘Formation, properties, and climate effects of contrails’ (2005), both cited by 6% of experts.

    The geochemists survey was slightly less clear cut, which probably reflects the more ambiguous nature of the data, and lack of information regarding collection procedures. Three chemical analyses were presented, all of which we picked because they have been continually cited by chemtrail believers for several years, and are still in use as of today. Unfortunately they were not reproduced in the paper, so I will reproduce them here.

    Analysis a, pond sediment

    Analysis b, airborne particulates:

    Analysis c, Snow Surface

    With the results:


    The question with the most consesus is the pond sample, which was featured in the film "What In The World Are They Spraying?" in 2010. The scientists were asked:
    "Do you think the most parsimonious explanation of these results involve the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program?

    If yes, why? If not, how would you interpret these results?"​

    As with the contrail photos the answer was generally "no" and there were a variety of interpretations which were grouped as seen above. Some sample responses:
    • "It looks like about 5 grams of average soil or desert dust in a liter of sludge, quite reasonable."
    • "I would compare the concentration of Al, Ba and Sr to that in local sources (e.g., local streams, rocks/sediments/soil, discharges from local facilities)."
    • "The elemental concentrations are consistent with silicate mineral dissolution. The Al concentration could be due to colloidal Al. Nothing unusual here, No red flags from this data. More really needs to be known; i.e what is the pH and O2 status of the pond, also what is the DOC. Hard to say much from 3 concentration numbers"
    • "Most likely anthropogenic pollution (industrial or municipal); any more detailed interpretation would require knowledge of the environmental context"
    • "All three of these elements are major constituents of crustal material. The concentrations reported for the three elements are much less than what is present in average upper continental crust. The results report an aluminum concentration of 375000ppb which is less than 0.04%. Average continental crust is 7.96% aluminum (Wedepohl, 1995). All three elements are reported at values two-three orders of magnitude less than crustal values."
    Interestingly in the other two samples, there was one scientist who actually did think the results were evidence of secret spraying program. This seems to be due to him interpreting the results without sufficient context about what actually was being tested, and what the expected results should be for that test. They also claimed 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'. It's not clear what they mean by "high" here, or what tests they are actually referring to. This one person is very much an outlier result.

    The confusion about what the test actually represented was shared by other scientists, some of whom took the comparison against the MCL levels at face value, but others correctly identified the problems, like with the second sample:

    • "As in the last example, the units reported are not directly interpretable. Are the results reported as concentration in air, or as concentration in a lab prepared solution? There are many possible sources of these metals as airborne particulates, especially in an urban environment."
    • "The concentrations per unit mass look like average soil or desert dust. The MCL values are not relevant, and look to be based on drinking water standards"
    • "Presence of particles from aeolian [wind] erosion?"
    • "Firstly, all three elements are common constituents of crustal material. This figure does not provide adequate information regarding collection methods, location, analytical methods, etc for one to make any judgement regarding their validity whatsoever. Further, the MCL values quoted are for contaminants in water not air."
    • "Probably from mineral particles."

    In addition the scientists were asked to give their assessment of the water testing procedure that geoengineringwatch.org used at the time for analysis (a).

    The results were largely critical (emphasis mine):
    Atmospheric scientists were also asked if contrails were persisting more now than they were before, about half of them said yes, for a variety of reasons.
    Participating in this study was a very interesting experience for me. It actually started over two years ago, in July 2014, when I was approached by Christine Shearer who was in the very early stages of working on the study with Steve Davis and Ken Caldeira. My contributions were largely based on my experience of what claims of evidence the chemtrail community commonly used, and we spend some time debating which photos and tests would be most representative, and how to phrase the survey questions.

    Progress seemed very slow, as the main authors had other projects to work on. With chemtrails being a bit of a fringe subject it seemed difficult for some people in the academic community to take it seriously, and there were occasional reports of people being highly surprised at the very idea of such a study, including some of the experts who were surveyed (or who were asked, but declined).

    The surveying was completed early 2015, but again other commitments kept the main authors from working much on the project until later in the year. I contributed a little to the wording and proof reading, but the vast bulk of the work collating the results, writing the paper, and creating figures was done by Christine and Steve. The paper was completed in early 2016, and published on August 10th 2016.

    The big question of course is: will it help? Time will tell. There's some debate regarding fringe subjects as to whether they should be addressed at all. If you take conspiracy theories seriously enough to write a peer reviewed paper rebutting them, then does it actually make the theory more plausible for some people? Will media coverage of the paper actually just lead to more people being exposed to the chemtrail theory? These are genuine concerns.

    My hope is that our attempt to ask neutral questions about the photos, and the honest responses of the experts, will act as a reality check. Is it really possible that these 49 listed atmospheric scientists, from all over the world, scientists who are leading experts in the field of clouds and contrails, is it possible they are all wrong? And if not (and surely nobody would argue they are all simply mistaken) then is it possible that all of them are in the employ of whoever is doing the "covert geoengineering"? And these are a representative sample of thousands of similar experts. Are they all wrong too?

    Ultimately there's no convincing some people, and this study may well backfire for the hardcore conspiracist. But for people on the fence, who have not yet fallen down the rabbit hole, I think it will help them. I think this help will outweigh any harm. But time will tell.

    Here are the original sources of the photos and test results:

    Plane Trails

    Photo 1 - Longer and Shorter Trails
    Source: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=8579#.VmW6r-MrKEI
    Photographer: "Bornfree" (anonymous forum poster)
    Captioned: "Two Contrail planes alongside one Chemtrail plane. These pictures were taken in Tucson Arizona in 2011."

    Photo 2 - Trail with gap in between
    Current Source: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...ated-chemtrail-conspiracy-continues-unabated/
    Previously: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-05-28/news2/index.html
    Photographer: Forrest M. Mims III
    Caption: "The break in this contrail indicates drier air than the air in which the contrail is visible."
    Published in 2004

    Photo 3 - Trails with color spectrum in between
    Current Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/plane-flying-over-sea-of-clouds-leaving-high-res-stock-photography/71083312
    (Previously: http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Cargo/Boeing-747-206BM(SF-SUD)/0239080/L/ )
    Photographer Josef P. Willems
    Caption: "KLM Flight 9165 from Amsterdam to Dubai, cruising at FL350, seen from 1000 ft above. Maybe the largest trails I've ever seen..."
    Photo taken May 21, 2002

    Photo 4 - Swirling Trails
    Source: http://war.163.com/07/1225/08/40I0FABE00011MTO.html (http://archive.today/ojnZc)
    Caption: "战机大规模演习后空中流下的尾迹。" (Contrails behind fighter jets in the large scale exercise)
    Photographer unknown, possible an official Chinese government photo.


    Sample 1 - Pond Sediment
    Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying",
    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
    Time: 30:10
    Sample taken 04/29/2007, Dane Wigington

    Sample 2 - Air particulates
    Source: http://arizonaskywatch.com/az-tests/our charts/phx_particulates_2008.htm (Crop of third image)
    Sample take 05/01/2008, Air through Hepa Filter, by "Arizona Skywatch"

    Sample 3 - Snow Surface
    Source video: "What in the World Are They Spraying"
    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
    Time 25:03
    Sample taken 07/08/2008, Rose Taylor

    Geoengineeringwatch Water Testing Procedure:
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html (http://archive.is/tskGA)
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    Excellent - if somewhat sobering, because there are outliers even among experts ...
    Calling a contrail "vortex" suggests that this is not the primary research subject of the respective scientist.

    On the other hand, the range of explanations works against the impression of a "text book reply" which conspiracy believers may expect, particularily with the foreseeable argument that the rank of scientists here comprises mainly those from the Western hemisphere who are therefore more likely to be "in on it".

    Were there any 'Eastern' scientists on the original list of candidates?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Why did you list the atmospheric scientists' names but not the geochemists'?
    Who was the one who disagreed? Herndon? ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    The other names are also listed in the paper.
  5. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    The fact that the name of the dissenting geochemist is unknown makes all the geochemists in the list suspect. So it would be better to name the one dissenter.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    We can't, as the survey specifically stated:
  7. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Fine, but the dissenter can still be asked at this point whether he/she wants to reveal his/her identity.
  8. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Patrick Minnis said once that he had been an active debunker, posting under an alias on chemtrails sites. (Can't remember the source for this. It was several years ago.)
  9. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Yes, he posted by the nickname "canex" on chemtrailcentral.com about 15 years ago.
  10. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Looking at Fig. 3c, apparently there was 1 geochemist who thought SLAP is the simplest explanation, but additional 4 geochemists were "not sure", so they thought SLAP may be the simplest explanation?
    So in the end, 5 of 28 geochemists thought the data seriously suggest that SLAP may be happening?
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not really, it indicates more confusion about this portion of the study, and clarity problems with that section. The question was:


    So it's more a "more information needed" response. The problem with the whole atmospheric deposition section was lack of context about the test results. To really understand the Mount Shasta reading you have to know that in June on Mount Shasta, no fresh snow has fallen for weeks, and the snow surface is covered with dust. Instead they are presented with a reading that would indeed be odd for fresh winter snow.

    It's regrettable, but we also wanted to avoid leading the scientists towards a conclusion, so just presented the tests without any interpretation or hints. The real answer is not immediately apparent, but still the large majority of them figured it out.
  12. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I have not yet listened to Dane Wigington's latest radio program in full but he mentions Ken Caldeira in it around 34:15. This is what he has to say:
    He made similar highly defamatory statements against David Keith in the past.
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The inclusion of Christos Zerefos must be an awful disappointment to Wayne Hall of Athens who hounded him for years but seems to have failed in the conversion.
  14. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    One theory of chemtrails is biowarfare for population reduction.
  15. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Well they're terrible at it because the population ain't reducing.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Swing Dangler

    Swing Dangler Member

    I have some criticisms of the paper.
    1. Were the pictures of the sky minutes and hours after the trails shown to the scientists or just those trail pictures? 100's pictures display blankets of haze blocking out the natural blue sky that were not there prior to the trails dispersal and do not show up in local radar returns. Various photo's and videos show this effect on the local atmosphere. None of the after effects were shown to the scientists. Why?

    2. To remove bias in the answer, instead of using the term 'chemtrail' which of course a fringe term, the authors should have used the term 'geo-engineering' or 'atmospheric modification program' without the covert/secret label attached to the question.

    3. Is it possible to determine Federal funding sources for the experts departments/programs, their Universities, and programs. Conspiracy theorists suggest if a scientist is receiving federal funding then they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them so to speak.

    4. The opening question mentioned a 'secret geoengineering' 'large scale secret program'or 'covert program. All of these of course are loaded biased terms that should not have been used. The authors should have removed secret and covert. A theorist would argue that the only thing secret about "chemtrails" is the purpose because you can look out and see it happening. How would scientists know if there is a secret program or not? By definition, they wouldn't, hence it is a secret. And if they were aware of the program or a part of the program, do you think they would reveal the secret nature? Highly unlikely. These terms alone, in my opinion, discredit the findings as being scientific.

    [#5 discussion split to https://www.metabunk.org/swing-dang...sive-evidence-of-covert-geoengineering.t7865/ ]

    6. Conspiracy theorists often bring up the patents that enable large scale spraying programs. Were the scientists informed of this or was it assumed they knew or was it not deemed relevant? Were they informed of the findings of the researcher paper entitled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 which included the potential of "alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale."

    Thanks for your time.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2016
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    We wanted to use the most common types of photos used by the chemtrail community, and we just picked four to keep the workload down.
    But since the spreading of contrails into sky-blocking haze is something that contrail scientists have written about for over 70 years, it seems unlikely that would have altered the result.

    The actual study used the term "secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program", as we specifically thought using "chemtrails" would prejudice the answers.

    Their affiliations are all listed. Note there are several from European countries.

    But if it exists, then it MUST be secret. We have to specify exactly what we are asking about otherwise they might respond thinking about non-secret programs like crop dusting or cloud seedin.

    We asked them if they had seen any evidence. They had not.

    No, because patents don't actually mean a thing is being used, or will work. Nor does a discussion paper equate to a plan.

    Stepping back, this study asked some specific questions, and got the answers. At the very least we know that those four type of photos of contrails, and these types of tests, are not considered evidence of a secret large scale program by the scientists (except for one, who found some barium he thought might have been evidence). They also don't think there is any evidence of such a program, and they think there's reasons why there's more contrails now.

    Does this then mean "covert geoengineering is 100% false". No, because you can't prove a negative. But we have shown that the most common evidence claims are actually not evidence. So what are we left with? Speculation about patents and discussion papers? The actual physical evidence is debunked.

    Maybe there's a secret spraying program, but if there is, it's not leaving any evidence. So why believe in it?
  18. zeroabsolu

    zeroabsolu New Member

    Interesting article. However, when I read the title, I was expecting new, scientific evidence on the chemical compounds found in contrails/chemtrails, compared to these in "clean" air and ordinary clouds, rather than a survey. We live in the 21st century and methods such as dispersion of light and measurements with lasers are well known. Chemical substances on the sun were measured, it won't be that difficult to make an accurate study on the chemical structure of a contrail. I am not a scientific expert, but I do believe there might be some sort of impact on people and environment, caused by air pollution, without this being any sort of weather modification or spraying/poisoning on purpose. A good scientific study on this phenomenon would give some answers on how contrail pollution might affect human's health and how much it might pollute the environment.

    Contrails, on the other side, if not dangerous, are ugly. It is quite disturbing when you are relaxing in nature and instead of a clean sky, you see a sky full of air pollution. There must be some methods for dissolving the contrails in real time. The only solution the Internet shows us information about is Don Croft's "chembuster" which is a pseudoscientific tool, based on the hypothesis of the widely misunderstood orgone energy, discovered by Wilhelm Reich. I really do not want to discuss this tool, since it has no scientific background.
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    There are already studies on that.

    The pollution is still there when you dont see it. I personally think people SHOULD be disturbed.. fly less, use cars less etc etc.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. zeroabsolu

    zeroabsolu New Member


    Can you give me some more information about these studies? I have read a lot of things, however, I am not sure which information I shall consider accurate.
  21. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Wandering off topic but for example:

  22. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i think he's asking more about emissions studies. pollution. i'm gonna let the contrail nerds answer you @zeroabsolu only because i'm not sure even where to start. you can use "google scholar" for aircraft pollution, emissions, etc to find a whole list of studies in the mean time.
  24. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Contrails are not air pollution. Aircraft are not creating more pollution when they create contrails: the pollution is there whether there is a visible trail or not.

    And yes, there are ways of preventing contrails. They work by producing MORE pollution. The more efficiently an aircraft engine is running, the more likely it is to make a contrail, all other things being equal. So, a recently patented invention by Rolls-Royce has a system that detects when a contrail is forming, and deliberately reduces the engine efficiency, thus stopping the contrail forming. The result: no contrail, but more air pollution and more fuel being wasted.

    In the past, other contrail suppression techniques were tried out by the military, which used various chemicals sprayed into the exhaust. Again, the result is more air pollution.

    Yet a third technique that has been proposed is to avoid contrail formation by routing flights away from the areas where contrails are likely to form (ie this with cold, very humid air). The trade-off is that such routes would not be the shortest routes, so again you would burn more fuel and produce more pollution.

    Now, we know that contrails do have a global warming effect, so it may be that it is "better" overall to reduce contrail formation at the expense of producing a bit more air pollution. But it is important to realise that contrails themselves are not a visible quantifier of pollution.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  25. zeroabsolu

    zeroabsolu New Member

    @deirdre - exactly. Contrails/chemtrails do have the potential of pollution and when we have accurate studies on the right chemical compounds we might have answers to quite common questions such as:
    How long does it take 'til these compounds enter the soil? (How) do these compounds affect plant growth? Do these compounds dissolve with time? If not, how to neutralize them, when a negative effect presists? etc etc etc.

    IMO the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory does have a point, however, it is way too exaggerated, and it uses some pseudoscientific background. No one has died because of contrails, however, theoretically, it is not impossible to have such poisonous particles sprayed, and there we have another method of mind control, by using people's fear.

    @Trailblazer @deirdre you do have a point here that dissolving contrails will not reduce any pollution. And I am pretty sure that even if there is some accurate way to reduce the pollution and the visible trails, it will not be applied as it needs more and more resource. The Chemtrails conspiracy theory is a money maker - a lot of Internet sites rely on this for earning money for advertisements, some people use it for selling their junk, even doctors use the conspiracy theory in order to hide their lack of knowledge.

    But as I said before, in each dull conspiracy theory, there is at least 1% truth. It is hard however to realize what is real and what not.
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    potential? they [airplanes] do produce pollution, just as cars and trucks and boats produce pollution. its the exact same thing. the pollution from cars and trucks [hits the ground] alot faster than planes... just fyi. They know what is produced as a byproduct when airplane gas is burned, just like they know what is produced as byproducts when car gas is burned. it's the same concept.

    And as Trailblazer said, the contrail you see has nothing to do with it. The white stuff behind the plane is just a cloud. Literally a cloud.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
  27. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Then why don't "chemtrail" believers DO that?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. zeroabsolu

    zeroabsolu New Member

    I would have done such measurements if I had the financial possibility, lack of money and time are the reasons I haven't done such a research yet. I am not a chemtrail believer, however, I am not a non-believer either. I used to believe in chemtrails and in other conspiracy theories, til I started re-educating myself in orthodox physics.

    There are however a lot of universities that do have the possibility to do the right measurements and to debunk the entire chemtrail drama step by step. However, my opinion is that no one has the interest to publish a real, elaborate, scientificly based study on this phenomenon, because:

    1. Scientists don't want to waste their time on something that is man-made, and which they consider as obvious
    2. This is a great mind-control method for the masses
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Getting off-topic, but what do you think those steps would be which would satisfy the true believers? There have already been in situ tests of trails, showing them to be made nearly exclusively of WATER.

    Truth is, no matter what tests were performed, the hard-core believers wouldn't accept them as definitive. The entire chemtrail story has no basis in fact and no real evidence supporting it. How much counter-evidence need be shown in the face of sheer foolishness? None is really needed, but no amount will suffice.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The reason they don't is the lack of evidence.

    Before spending thousands of dollars to send a plane up, or millions on a comprehensive study, surely the first step is to establish if spending that money is justified. You would want to look at the existing claims of evidence, such as the photos of odd trails, and the chemical tests, and see if that evidence warrants further investigation.

    And that's exactly what we did here.

    We took the existing things that geoengineeringwatch, etc, claimed as evidence, and we asked experts in the field if that actually was evidence of a secret spraying program, and they almost unanimously said no.

    So what is there to debunk? If there's no evidence that a thing exists, why (and how) should a university go about proving it does not exist?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  31. zeroabsolu

    zeroabsolu New Member

    It's a huge off-topic I can write about here. Shortly said: Those are masses, sometimes you need to use their language and tell them some "truth", and I mean the language "they" have learned at school. We all have learned physics and chemistry, right? It is that difficult thing from school. I am sorry for the off-topic, and I am thanking you sincerely for the information provided by this site!
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think you'll find that the majority of people in the world remember almost nothing of any physics and chemistry the learned in school. Try asking a few people what the difference is between a molecule and an atom.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  33. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea because Universities are so conscientious about how they spend money ;)
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Individuals generally are though, and someone would have to think this a good idea, and someone else would have to okay it. At the very least they would want some evidence to base their decision on, beyond "some people believe in chemtrails"
  35. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I think they could come at it as more of a let's test the contrails (which i know can be done in a lab), since this bunk is sometimes infecting political levels and wasting tax payer money. I'm actually a bit surprised that none of the West Coast schools have touched on the subject. I mean you would have to get a private donation a imagine, that that shouldnt be too hard. Rich people throw money at silly things often enough. I'm thinking it's more because they dont want to be ridiculed unmercilessly in the press.

    Of course I've never heard of a University researchign bigfoot. So maybe youre asseessment is right.
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think the current study is sufficient. Going and testing some contrails would not help at all, and in fact would probably make things worse, as it implies that there's sufficient evidence to do that testing.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Who paid for the expenses incurred in preparing this article?
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think it was University of California, Irvine.
  39. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    I think that should be done by Believers. There are options to do so but never taken
    • Agree Agree x 2