Home » contrails » Contrail Grids are not Chemtrail Grids

Contrail Grids are not Chemtrail Grids








The full infrared image

You can already start to see that the contrails are confined to a band of cloud, they stop abruptly where the clouds also stop. It’s a bit less dramatic in the original infra-red image. You get an even better view of the overall situation in the true-color satellite photo:

True Color Satellite Image. Note these are all from the same photo.

Looks a lot less dramatic now. But still, it’s an unusually large amount of persistent contrails. Something you only get with some rather specific weather conditions. Of course, you get conditions like this every day, somewhere in the US. It’s just unusual to have such a wide area.

The above image is available at full 250m/pixel resolution. It’s a 17MB jpg file, here. Quite a spectacular image, with some dramatic “grids” when you zoom in.

Full resolution image of contrails over Florida. Look at the direction they are streaking in to see the wind direction

We can tell which way the wind is blowing for a particular cloud by seeing what streaks it leaves behind. This is particularly true for ice clouds – as the older crystals grow large enough they precipitate out and sink to air that is generally slower moving (wind speeds generally increase at you get higher, and decrease as you get lower). This is also what produces the distinctive Cirrus Uncinus clouds, which are basically the same thing, except they are from smaller individual clouds, not a long thin cloud.

From the 1963 book “A Colour Guide to Clouds”, this diagram shows how decreasing wind speeds cause precipitation from an ice cloud to spread out as it falls.

We can see this pattern of wind pretty consistently when we look at the weather aloft for Jacksonville Florida. This is from Jan 30th, 2011, so at the same time of year.

Winds aloft over Florida. This shows that contrails will be blown to the east at 100 mph, and as they precipitate ice it will be spread over the sky.

If you look at the contrails just to the upper left of the center, you can see the streaks point more or less a bit south of west. So we’ve got a westerly wind blowing. The contrails are moving, probably pretty fast (over 100 mph) towards the East, and out into the Atlantic. We can see this even clearer if we enhance the contrast on those contrails over the ocean:

You can see how far the contrails have moved. Probably twice as far as the length of the tail they leave.

The lake in the bottom left is Lake George in Florida. It’s about ten miles long. We can see that some of the older contrail tails are around 30 miles long and that the contrails to the East have longer tails. All of this suggests that the contrails were formed a long way from where they ended up, possibly more than 100 miles away.  If a contrail were to persist today for two hours, then with the 122 mph winds at 34,000 feet, it would move 244 miles away from where the plane originally flew.

With all this information is very easy to see how the grid patterns form. Planes flying either over Florida to other destination, or flying to and from the cites of Southern Florida, will leave trails in this large mass of moist cold air. These trails will successively be blown to the east at 122mph, leaving the long smears of clouds across the sky, while new planes fly along similar routes, leaving trails parallel to the firs trails. These continue to be blown to the east, and after a couple of hours of the right weather conditions, and perfectly normal air traffic, we get the impressive looking images we see above.

Unfortunately, in the chemtrail community, this impressive and informative image has taken on a life of its own, co-opted to suggest the pattern of spraying is deliberate. Here’s an example of the reasoning given:

The “chemtrail” interpretation of the image. Note that “lines connecting cities” is the exact opposite of what we would expect to see.

They indicate the positions of some nearby cities and say that because the lines don’t connect the cities, then it must be a deliberate grid. Of course “lines connecting cities” is the LAST thing we would expect to see in a satellite photo of contrails. Firstly, as we see above, the contrails are moving east at 100 mph, so they will not end up positioned on the line between the cities, but instead tens or hundreds of miles away, but parallel to that route.

I wrote a simulator to demonstrate this:

And this video illustrates it perfectly

Secondly, and this is a frequently missed point. Planes don’t leave contrails near the airports they land at or take off from. They don’t because they are too low. Only when a plane reaches cruising altitude will it typically be cold enough for persistent contrails to form. If a contrail is seen near an airport, then it’s flyover traffic. Quite often though airports are used as navigation beacons, so act as a kind of crossroads in the sky. So while you will see flight paths above 30,00 feet radiate out from those cities, they are not actually going to those cities. Here’s a plot of FAA data of all flights above 30,000 feet for one 24 hour period in that region:

Thirdly, as you can see from the larger images, the regions of moist cold air are concentrated in bands. It’s actually quite rare for a contrail to form and persist for the entire length of a flight (at cruising altitude). You are going to see the contrails broken up, and only in some areas, as the plane moves in and out of various regions of the air.

So, an impressive image. But what it’s really indicative of is the weather conditions on that day, and the sheer volume of traffic we can get in a few hours over that region of the US. Check out this video to see 24 hours of flights:

This intensity of contrail cover is actually fairly rare. I reviewed all the shots of that area for winter 2012/2013, and I only found one that looked similar. Jan 21, 2013.


131 thoughts on “Contrail Grids are not Chemtrail Grids

  1. When I get some time I’m going do do a simulation showing how the grids form, similar to the Racetrack Contrail simulator.

  2. Janet Detwiler says:

    I’m fairly certain I’ve already thanked you for this excellent site, but just in case I haven’t, thank you. I still don’t know how I got caught up in the chemtrail conspiracy, but damn it, I did, and I still know a lot of people who are believers.

    I keep trying to steer them to this site, but it seems the last thing a CT is looking for is a plausible explanation.

    Thank you again, your web site is just excellent, and I’ve really learned a lot from you.

    Janet Detwiler

  3. Thanks Janet. And remember that for every conspiracy theorist who is an unreachable true-believer, immune to evidence, there’s also someone on the fence. Someone, like you, who can find this info useful.

  4. Mr. Suntour says:

    You hit this one out of the park Uncinus. After reading this article there’s no way anyone can dispute “grids and X’s”, although I’m sure they will.

  5. Sammy says:

    For anyone reading this and believing you I feel so sorry for them. To bad you can’t be honest. More Government propaganda i see.

  6. Sammy, as always I’d be happy if you pointed out any errors in the above article. I’ll correct them immediately.

  7. TheFactsMatter says:

    Sammy, have you ever actually read any NON-fiction about the trails in the sky?! May I suggest that you go to the library and take out a book on atmospheric science/meteorology . I KNOW there is much you could learn.

  8. Dmitri Noi says:

    Hey Sammy,

    I understand your misgivings, but what is wrong with the evidence presented here? Just looking for a premise.

  9. Janet Detwiler says:

    Hey Sammy, just curious why you believe this site is propaganda but believe chemtrail conspiracy sites are not? I think it’s the other way around these days, but if it matters, I used to believe very strongly in chemtrail theory. My belief system centered around weather mitigation to combat Climate Change. Since there are a number of different reasons people believe in chemtrails, could you explain your chemtrail theory?

  10. Dan says:

    Hello, Folks. My name is Dan and I am a chemtrail believer. I became aware of the ‘chemtrails’ in the summer of 1997 and and I have been paranoid and upset about them since. If I have been misunderstanding what I have been observing for the last 13 years or so I would sure like to know about it. I was told by a friend that this would be the place to come to get an education on this subject. I also understand that this site has some very thorough threads that will help to explain things so that I don’t have to bug you folks and make a fool of myself by asking about stuff that I can just go and read about. So, please if there is somewhere on the site where I can go to catch up let me know and I will. I sincerely would like to be cured of this delusion if that is what it is. so as long as you will have me I will stick around and read and ask questions until I am satisfied one way or another. I am probably not the worst CT believer that you have run into but I am pretty bad so I apologize in advance.
    So first off……. If you could produce a satellite image like the ones above that is dated prior to 1996 I think that in itself will go a long way to setting me on the road to recovery. Thanks very much.

  11. Dan says:

    I am sure that I am missing something upstairs there but…. What about the grid patterns, x’s etc. that are witnessed being created by observers?

  12. MikeC says:

    I’ve only got a few minutes left of my lunchtime but you might like to check the NASA imges database at http://www.nasaimages.org/ – I typed in “contrails” to their search & found several images of contrails from 1968 to 1994 including a few “X”‘s, and a nice shot of a “racetrack” over the Himalayan foothills near Bangladesh in 1992!

    Assuming you get the same results as me, check the images labeled “Aircraft Contrails” (the 1st one in the list for me, 1992), “Central Italy” (2 of these, both 1981), Himalayan foothills (reacetrack, 1992), & Swiss Alps (1994 – a distinct “X” on the left hand edge)

    also the 1 labelled “East Coast of the USA” from 1968 (Apollo 6 unmanned mission) says it shows contrails, but the only ones I could see were very indistinct, and simlarly with 1 labelled “Greek Islands” from 1993 which says it has 2 contrails betwen Turkey & Rhodes.

  13. MikeC says:

    Dan “X”‘s beening seen being created are quite common now – when, say, a north/south and an east-west flight cross, and both are making contrails you get an “X”.

    If there’s a wind blowing at those altitudes (and there usually is), then the “X”‘s shift with the wind – and when the next flights come along similar routes the first “X” has been displaced and the new one makes the pattern look like a “#”.

    Winds at high altitude can be quite powerful – you have probably heard of the jetstream? But even a modeate wind – 30-40 mph can shift a contrail several miles before another flight along the same route 10-15-20-30 or however many minutes later.

    Aircraft contrails making patterns like this are not natural – they are clearly artificial. But they are a normal product of a lot of airliners flying along relatively narrow flight routes.

  14. Very nice find MikeC, I was not aware of those photos!

    Here’s the 1992 photo

    1992 Racetrack

    In the 1968 Apollo image, the contrails might be these:
    Hard to say.

    One thing to remember is that satellites have improved a lot in terms in resolution, and the amount of photos available, so it’s a lot easier to find dramatic contrail shots in the MODIS shots (which cover every inch of the globe twice a day) than in the older shots, which are of limited low resolution random areas, and only very occasional.

    I suspect there must be an archive of earlier photos somewhere, just not yet accessible to the public.

    Dan, could you explain why you would NOT expect to see grids and X’s? Read the top article here.

  15. The apollo photo is also oriented and oddly. The top half is ocean, and up on the image is actually southeast. A N/S traditionally oriented image would be:


    Which actually fits with the image in the top post. Contrails going to or from South Florida, blown to the east. Cool!

  16. Aha! High resolution version:





  17. Stupid says:

    Has anyone posted this time-lapse (contrail) video ?


  18. Stupid says:

    I am set on creating my own time-lapse videos of contrail formation and movement…but every free day I get off…….no contrails available.

  19. That’s a cool video, it neatly shows how a grid will form, and that the planes are all flying along the same path, and the wind just blows things sideways.

    I made this time-lapse video of short sunlit contrails during the Mystery Missile thing.


  20. JFDee says:

    Stupid, I plan to do such a video. It should be possible to set the camera up so I can initiate the session before leaving for work. I’m lucky to have a gorgeous view of the sky to the east and the west from my flat.

    I bought a 4 MP Canon camera on eBay which I used so far for taking aerial pictures from my “Mikrokopter”. It works with a tweaked firmware (CHDK) where you can control almost anything with on-board scripts, including timed automatic shooting.

    Now I’m waiting for the fog to burn off, hopefully with some stable weather following.

  21. Alexey says:

    This vimeo video is very good and for addressing many points raised on this site. In particular, it supports the point I made yesterday ( http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/#comment-57614 ) that some contrails, in parts, can spread fast in right conditions, growing very wide in just a few minutes. See for yourself, one second of this timelapse video corresponds 1.5 minutes of real time.

  22. JFDee says:

    Uncinus, I’m sure you had hoped for annother “rocket launch” …

    But it is stunning to see how one contrail touched the horizon – you need an ocean for that, and very good conditions. What’s also remakable is the wind shift of the whole sky setting which even gives the false impression of a moving camera.

    If only Beethoven had stretched out that sonata some more 🙂

  23. Stupid says:

    “”If only Beethoven had stretched out that sonata some more :-)””

    yes…he failed us.
    Maybe Chopin next time.

  24. Wickid says:

    Actualy. I don’t think the clouds in post 16 are contrails. I think they are normal convective cumulus clouds formed by thermals. They tend to line up along the wind direction. A thermal is a column of hot rising air which comes of a city or a dark field. When the air rises it cools until the moisture in the air condenses and forms a cumulus cloud. The cloud then drifts downwind and the thermal forms a new cloud which then also drifts downwind. They form long lines of cumulus clouds which glider pilots call cloudstreets.

    That also explains why the clouds suddenly stop at the coast. For thermals to form the surface needs to get warm and heat the air above it which then rises. This doesn’t happen over water.

  25. The rows of clouds over land on the left are clearly just that. The contrails are the very thin white lines casting shadows in the bottom right. There’s also a couple of very small contrails up the coast a bit.

  26. JFDee says:

    “This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is not available in your country”.


  27. Dan says:

    Hello, I left a long post yesterday and it does not seem to have been posted. I have been having problems with the site. I post and then I am unable to log on again for what seems to be 24 hours or so. I am anxious to parley with everyone here. Uncinus, I recognize you screen name from ATS and I personally appreciated all of your help and contributions with the Jerusalem thing. Anyhow, Chances are I will not be able to get back to this thread for another 24 so I would be very appreciative if someone could help out. Thanks in advance guys and gals.

  28. Dan says:

    Oh, Ok. The system/s seem to have overcome the issue. I will try and recreate the post….please stand by.

  29. Sorry about that Dan. Long posts sometimes get marked as spam, but I can’t find any trace of your post anywhere. I’d recommend trying another browser.

  30. Dan says:

    First off thank you very much for taking the time to post the images. The first one certainly looks damning doesn’t it? The others look like clouds to me. I was hoping for some images like the ones further up. I know that I am in no position to request that kind of work and effort from any of you but some better images would be helpful. Thank you, Mike C. for the link. I promise that I will slog through it very soon and I will post any images that i think are pertinent to this post.

  31. Dan says:

    Mike C., There is no reason for me to not expect to see crosses and exe’s. To my eye the effect is either created because another plane comes along before the first Con/chemtrail begins to disperse or, yes, the wind blows them in to these seemingly meaningful configurations. In the early days of my panic I took a lot of photographs of these things. Like a lot of people I’m sure. I remember following one along the Foothill Fwy and photographing it. They have always been subject to movement by the wind as far as I can tell. They also seem to hold their shape quite well under these conditions which has always amazed me if these are simply the products of combustion. So anyway, I do not see the crosses and exe’s as such a big deal. I am not sure how the wind moving either a chemtrail or a contrail made from POC through the sky makes a difference.

  32. Dan says:

    Also Mike C. in a post above you stated, ‘Dan, “X”‘s being seen being created are quite common now’.
    Mike C, I mean no disrespect but why weren’t they common before? And before when? What used to happen when, ‘say, a north/south and an east-west flight cross’?
    One of my questions is, “Why did these things seem to suddenly appear in 1997? I have been an avid sky watcher since childhood, I am sure like many here. I was also in the 82nd airborne for 4 years. So technically I am a trained observer. Better than some worse than others. I have seen all sorts of stuff in the sky (again, like many) but considering all the military posts I have been on worldwide and all of the giant mass tactical exercises I have been a part of, involving all types of aircraft I have never seen anything like these.
    Here is a request. I understand from the friend that sent me here that there are aviation professionals who frequent this site who might be intimate with the flight patterns of aircraft in SoCal. I have been observing this for so long that I have been seeing some patterns that might easily be debunked by someone in the know. I have been seeing regular flights that seem to pop up from behind the Santa Monica Mtns, traverse the San Gabriel Mtns and head off to the NE. They then seemingly return along the same route and go back and forth until the Northern sky above the Mtns is obliterated. If someone might be able to tell me, for instance, that these birds are coming out of Burbank or something, I would feel pretty foolish.
    Thank you all, This means a lot to me.

  33. Dan says:

    There we go. I think the posts I was trying to add were too long.

  34. SR1419 says:

    Dan wrote-

    “One of my questions is, “Why did these things seem to suddenly appear in 1997? ”

    I am not sure if you are referring to persistent contrails in general or persistent contrails that cross and make an “x” like pattern….

    Either way a quick review of all the info on this site should help you understand that is simply not the case:

    See here for an “X” from 1972:


    I trust you have reviewed the extended discussion of “grids”…?:


    Clearly they DID exist prior to 1997 (everybody claims a different year)…it just that you noticed in 1997…



    They are “products of combustion” in that they are clouds. Combustion of jet fuel produces a lot of water (burning a gallon of jet fuel creates 1.3 gallons of water, which is a little counter-intuitive). This water freezes into clouds, which can then grow, just like normal clouds do.

    Holding their shape might seem odd, but that’s probably because you think of the wind at altitude as being like the wind at ground level – whipping things around. But six miles up the wind is basically the entire air mass moving as one, so even though it can be moving at 100 mph, ALL the air is moving at 100mph, so there’s not as much turbulent flow as you might think.

    Just think of contrails as high clouds, because that is what they are.

  36. captfitch says:

    Dan- I have flown all over SoCal many times and I can tell you that, apart from the relatively complex and crowded airspace around LA, the rest of the area is basically a free for all. There are some highly trafficed routes that hang out over the coast but inland there’s nothing too defined.

    Also, as I’ve stated before, there’s no such thing as regular flight patterns at altitudes that are contrail condusive. Once you get up there you can go pretty much wherever you want. Shortcuts and direct-tos and diversions are all everyday events. Plus, trying to devine the patterns of aircraft by observing the trails they leve is almost always highly error prone due to the winds.

  37. Dan says:


    Thank you all so much. I really do not know what to say. I wish I had come sooner. I have reposted an image from your generous links that shows what I now am beginning to realize are condensation trails.
    Curse my eyes! This is going to take a while to digest. It took me 13 years to get this way and I hope the way down is quick.
    CaptFitch, Thanks for chiming in with that. Just what I was looking for in terms of feed back. And I’ve gotta say; that must be a kick in the ass to do what you do. I imagine that once the planes are up there, like you say, that it must be a little like surface streets in L.A.. Sometimes it is good to go this way. Sometimes that way. Which must be why they seem to swarm that route a little when I see the ‘pattern’ I mentioned. Thanks again for all of the help. I am going to hang around and read what you have provided and go thru the site a little. Gotta back burner most of this stuff anyhow as I am about to get really busy with other things. I feel better. Thanks.
    One more question. Any chance something could have changed in our atmosphere since the late 90’s that makes persistent contrails more ubiquitous?

  38. MikeC says:

    There are a LOT more aircraft flying, and they are flying longer – I have a document here from Boeing that gives the number of large jet a/c and the number of flights and hours theyare flying from 1989-2008.

    In 1989 (roughly – taken from scaling a bar graph) 9,000 a/c, which did about 12 million departures and 20 million hours flown.

    In 2008 (exactly – because the give the figures) 20,470 a/c, 21.8 milloin departures, 46.3 milloin hours flown.

    Note that the number of departures has not increased by the same percentage as hours flown and a/c – I suspect this is because larger, longer ranged a/c and more “open skies” are now letting a/c fly further than ever before – hence longer flights means more hours and more passengers, without requiring a conmensurate increase in departure numbers.

  39. Dan says:

    One more picture post…..
    So I have been mistaking these for ‘doughnut on a rope’ chemtrails create by a pulsed spray rig (see how vivid my imagination is?). But based on what I am learning this effect is created the same way that Mammatiform clouds are formed. The Jet POC provided the cloud ‘materials’ (water then ice crystals). A cloud formed. And this trail is just above a stable air mass so it forms ‘pendules’ or if there was more mass a mammatiform cloud. Have I got that?

  40. Dan says:

    Mike. You are awesome. That totally makes sense. So if I follow you it would make sense out of the fact that I see a lot more aircraft stacked over LAX then ever before. It seems to make sense to me that there would not be more departure times but there would be more aircraft waiting to park.
    I swear sometimes I feel like a savage that just walked out of the woods.

  41. Dan says:

    OP. Please excuse my off topic remarks. I apologize for having chosen your thread to get my head re-arranged but I felt I had to jump in somewhere and my thinking was clouded by enthusiasm. Much thanks.

  42. SR1419 says:

    Dan- I always find this a fascinating view-

    watch this animation of a days worth of flight traffic in the US-

    sorta boggles the mind to think there are that many craft in the sky at any given moment…:


  43. Dan says:

    Have to thank Uncinus, too….


    You have a gift for placing things in nutshells. Great post and I really appreciated it. I get that right away. Here is a question. Does the a/c actually create the water or does it aggregate it?

  44. MikeC says:

    A bit of both – somewhere there is a figure of 1.3 litres of water generated per litre of jet fuel burned – so that’s creation.

    AFAIK more water is generated because there’s a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbons – typically 8-16 carbon atoms per molecule in Jet A1 (it is a mix of various hydrocarbon molecules), each with 2 or more hydrogen atoms – so when the molecule gets burned there is a lot of hydrogen freed up – some of it recombines with carbon to make CO2 and CO, and some combines with oxygen to make water. Or something like that!

    However if the air is “supersaturated” – and this is strictly my own amateur understanding – that is there’s actually more water or ice in it than it could normally support – then the generated water/ice becomes the nucleus for the excess to condense out of the air, and so it also “aggregates” it.

    my understanding is that air can become supersaturated if it cools down past its dew point, but there are no particles for the excess moisture to nucleate on – so water mist or ice fog does not form. Or course this does not happen close to ground, because ther is always plenty of “wind blown dust & dirt” at low altitudes.

    Fallstrak holes in clouds are an example of what can happen when such a supersaturated air does get something to nucleate on – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallstreak_hole

  45. Ross Marsden says:

    Good explanation, MikeC.
    I will correct you on one small point…. “wind blown dust & dirt” along with smoke and salt particles are common all through the troposphere and are cloud condensation nuclei for the vapour to liquid water phase change when saturation (with respect to water) is reached.

    There are almost no naturally occurring freezing nuclei (FN) for the phase change from vapour to solid. Dust and dirt, etc are just not the right shape, etc to nucleate the water vapour. That is why you can have ice-supersaturation in the free atmosphere with no clouds forming. There are no FN for that to happen.

    FN are provided either by already frozen droplets (ice particles), or the aerosols in the exhaust of engines; especially SO3 (which forms H2SO4 with water) and soot.

    Incidentally ice-supersaturation above about 140% is approaching water saturation and soon enough a liquid droplet cloud will form – cirro cumulus. And soon enough those droplets will freeze by homogeneous nucleation – some shearing by wind, etc – cirro stratus, then halos and sundogs; the whole zoo.

    I got a bit carried away there.

  46. MikeC says:

    Ah – thanks for that – I think I can probably remember that it is freezing that needs nucleation 🙂

  47. Alexey says:

    Ross and MikeC,

    let’s throw in some figures.

    The amount of water vapor that air can hold rapidly decreases with the decreasing of its temperature. For 100% relative humidity, the absolute humidity at 0 °C is 4.8 g/m3 (grams per cubic meter); at -20 °C – 0.9 g/m3; at -40 °C – 0.1 g/m3.

    A jumbo jet, for example, Boeing-747, flying at cruise speed of 250 m/sec, burns about 4 liters of fuel per second, producing about 5 kg = 5,000 g of water vapor. The cross-section area of each of its four turbofan engines is about 5 m2 (square meters). Therefore, the initial concentration of water vapor in its exhaust is about:

    C = 5,000 g/seq / (4 x 5 m2 x 250 m/sec) = 1 g/m3.

    This is more than enough to make a contrail at low temperatures even if the air is very dry. As the exhaust, mixing with the outside air, cools down, it also expands. At -40 °C it has to expands tenfold before the equilibrium shifts back to the sublimation of ice crystals in the contrail into vapor. This is why there are at least short contrails formed behind jet engines at these freezing temperatures. The more humidity, the longer the contrails and the longer their lifetime. If relative humidity approaches 100%, they persist. In “supersaturated” air they spread, sometimes quite rapidly.

  48. Ross Marsden says:

    OK, all mostly right…
    Here is a diagram representing the mixing process from engine to environment.
    In this, the water vapour concentration is represented as the partial pressure in hPa.
    If the mixing line crosses the dark blue “saturated with respect to water” line the vapour will condense.

    Here is a similar one as an applet – the axes are in the other sense.
    I have posted this before.

  49. Alexey says:


    I remember seeing this applet, it is from an advanced course on contrail formation. I was trying to explain “by fingers” the answer to Dan’s question “Does the a/c actually create the water or does it aggregate it?”

    Continuing along these lines, I’d like to add that the length and lifetime of contrails are merely indicators of relative humidity at the plane altitudes in a given area. The absolute humidity at these altitudes may seem pretty low, about 0.1 g/m3, but it means that there are about 1000 tones of water in a strip of air layer of 100 km long, 1 km wide and 100 m thick. The plane flying in the supersaturated air layer triggers condensation of the excess water vapor, resulting in a spreading contrail that can be many times heavier than the plane itself.

    I have posted before an “optical” estimate of the mass of a spreading contrail:

  50. Alexey says:



    The contrail grid over the Kattegat sea area between Denmark and Sweden that connects the North Sea to the Baltic Sea in today’s MODIS satellite images: http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Helgoland.2011089 . In the Aqua image (right), that has been taken just about ten minutes after the Terra image (left), there are two more contrails added to the grid (click on the image to enlarge).

  51. Alex says:

    I’m reading a lot of the comments here, but I haven’t heard an explanation yet of the unnatural levels of aluminum and barium being found when tested?

  52. Try:


    Or let me know which tests in particular, and I’ll try to explain them. The bottom line is that dirt is 8% aluminum naturally, and you’ve got to do your tests right.

  53. Julie Peterson says:

    Aah. hello, ‘Dan’? Sorry, but I’m not buying that you are some disillusioned guy who has ‘seen the light’. It’s actually comical to see a guy apologize as much as you have. You have apologized for being unenlightened more often in these posts than all the men I’ve ever known in my life combined. No man puts himself down as much as you have. You gave yourself away. You know more than you’re letting on but you act as if you’re an idiot for being “so disillusioned”. Nice try Dan Shill. Okay, that out of the way, this site is so bent on explaining away chemtrails; i.e. geo engineering, that you dismiss the obvious that also explains the trails. Such as: patents for aerosol spraying, NASA website showing a powerpoint of why and how geoengineering and climate control would work, blown up photos of planes in the air that have the (patented?sure looks like it) aerosol dispensers attached under the wings, LOADS of non passenger planes (no markings of any kind)flying 3 or more abreast(difficult to tell the altitude but following a POD) leaving long trails of chemicals behind them, illnesses after spraying, I personally get a tinny taste in my mouth a few hours after spraying or especially if there is snow or rain and the residure is all coming down at once. If I am inside and get that taste, i just look up and sure enough, the sky is loaded with chemtrails, if our government is so concerned about it’s citizens many complaints of spraying, why not quell that concern with a statement? I would love to be wrong but I haven’t heard anything yet to counter what is obvious. The aluminum and barium oxide rates in the air and water in Az and CA. is many, many times greater than what’s considered acceptible for our health. Canada complaining that the US has not honored their no spraying zone in Vancouver, Monsanto taking a preemptive move by patenting an aluminum resistant seed. This has been in the making since the 1990’s. A sticky filmy residue that falls from the sky onto plants,trees, cars shortly after heavy spraying and confirmed containing these mentioned chemicals, air quality testing before and after spraying showing changes to high rates of chemicals(see above). NASA’s updated list of ‘new ‘clouds’. Really? New clouds? I could go on, but please, know a (not so good) shill when you hear one. Until I see the government/military address these issues with someone of some neutral clout will I not believe anyones version of contrails over what is so apparent. Dennis Kucinich was taken to the shed after he wanted chemtrails addressed in a bill. Hmm, the part about chemtrails was never to be heard from again. I guess we won’t be getting answers anytime soon. BTW, did you know that their have been very few years since the 1930’s that our military has not sprayed it’s citizens or our troops with their experiments? Check that out, it’ll blow your mind. Why is this so unbelievable? We’ve been their guinea pigs with Agent Orange, some other Agents (purple and red, i think) DDT, Arsenic, etc, etc. Do some homework,

  54. MikeC says:

    Or alternatively you could read this site and see what the science actually says, why Kucinich changed his bill, that aluminium poisoning of soil is something that has been written about for 90 years at least, so there’s always been billions to be made once genetic engineering allowed the natural resistance of some crops to be transferred to staples.

    How bad science has fooled you with every one of those “high levels of aluminium/barium/etc

    Have you ever taken a samples of the sticky stuff from you car to see what it REALLY is? If not, how do you know where it came from – why do you think it was sprayed at 30,000 feet, and why doesn’t it appear every time there are “chemtrails”??

  55. Jay Reynolds says:

    Each iota that you have mentioned above has been addressed on this site somewhere.
    The fact that Dan has turned his life around by checking it out after being misled for 13 years
    should be a teachable moment for you. Realize that all the counter-arguments on this site
    are why ordinary people do not believe in chemtrails, and that is why after 13 years Dan has
    finally figured it out. I hope that Dan can help you personally find a way out of the thing that
    has control of your mind. Yes, you are mind-controlled by what started out as a hoax and got
    way out of hand. Yes, a hoax, as I describe here:

    It is really sad for me to see you where you are at right now.
    Imagine the relief when you can let it all go!

    I always wished that a group like alcoholics anonymous could be set up for the people
    who have gotten out of the hoax to help others. Dan, think about it…………

  56. Julie Peterson says:

    well, go ahead and live in your dream world. It’s a world of beautiful peace, sun and roses isn’t it? We have a decision to make. That the elite who are appointed to their positions to keep this world sane and safe for all of us are either 1.) less brilliant than we thought,2.) are in it for themselves and what they can acquire through their power position or 3.) dumber than a post.
    I personally think they are brilliant and have the power to keep us us sane and safe but choose #2. The world around us proves that.
    Stay in your delusion. I prefer to keep people accountable for their actions and when THEY address this issue fully, i hope I will be wrong. I won’t be back to this site. My neck hurts from sticking it in the sand. See ya.

  57. SR1419 says:

    Julie said” “I won’t be back to this site.”

    of course not- why bother reviewing information that might be contradictory to your beliefs?

    Its much easier to think you know rather than challenge yourself with new information and different perspective for fear you might be wrong…

    I believe this what is meant by a “closed mind”.

    Julie- everything you mentioned is addressed somewhere on this site and elsewhere…you should at least review the information and analysis….

    why wouldn’t you?

  58. captfitch says:

    Julie says she hopes she is wrong…

    I’ve heard that a few times and I wonder, do they really hope they’re wrong? To be so determined about a particular side of an argument only to hope that your arguments are unfounded seems very strange to me. If it turns out that one is actually wrong doesn’t that invalidate that person?

    With such zeal I suspect that, deep down, they are very afraid that they may be wrong and often define themselves by such a steadfast hold to thier beliefs.

  59. tryblinking says:

    Jay, I’m liking the idea of documenting this hoax’s spread, a little like the CDC would with something physically harmful. All I ask, as a typographer is that you format your text a little for ease of reading; just left align/justify and it’ll be a much more welcoming resource. I’m sure if you need any extra info this is the best place to ask.
    As for the Julie’s of this hoax, they are what Uncinus noted: ‘true believers’. These people actively reject any information or evidence contrary to their beliefs, without examination. Our best effort is to show where they are wrong, not tell them without calmly stating the reasons. I understand, as a qualified Meteorologist how frustrating this can get, and how the burden of knowledge – and ultimately of proof – lies with the accuser, but we must retain the definitive objectivity which has made the scientific method mankind’s crowning achievement.
    I say that, but then I remember the schadenfreude which keeps me addicted to this site…

  60. JazzRoc says:

    Julie Peterson : “My neck hurts from sticking it in the sand.” – That made me bite my lip. Come back, Faithinscience.

    Tryblinking: “then I remember the schadenfreude which keeps me addicted to this site” – Non-participation has its withdrawal symptoms – but “we must retain the definitive objectivity which has made the scientific method mankind’s crowning achievement” – hence my bitten lips.

    Just a point. I’m not a qualified meteorologist but I do not believe a distinction could possibly be made between particulates (or “events”) nucleating droplets of water and nucleating crystals of ice.

    For a start, all these processes exhibit dynamic equilibrium which means that “stability” entails both nucleation/condensation/freezing and evaporation processes having equal rates, and “instability” entails one rate increasing as the other is decreasing.

    Particulates aren’t necessarily a requirement either. An aerodynamic contrail requires no particles to form. Just a rapid reduction in pressure starts the process.

    I also suggest that supersaturated air is clean – and without particulate material in it. It has become this way because nucleation has already cleaned it this way. The one follows the other.

    The Earth’s atmosphere has been self-cleaning this way now for 4.6 Bn years, fortunately for us, for originally it was vented from volcanoes as ash-laden steam and dioxides of carbon and sulfur.

    This self-cleaning makes drivel of “chemtrailer” prose. Or verse, for that matter…

  61. tryblinking says:

    Verse indeed :o)

    Condensation of vapour to water just needs a non gaseous surface. As I understand it ice crystallisation works best around hexagonal particulates, but the presence of any particulates raises the minimum crystallisation temp from around -42C up to around -10C.

    As you’ve probably guessed that means the contrail temp of -40C is an absolute minimum for idealised clean gaseous air. Any presence of aerosols will allow trails to form at a much broader range of altitudes, and down much lower, which entrains them in weather systems, by definition.

    As you say, if this widescale scrubbing process didn’t happen, our atmosphere would be very different, and we probably wouldn’t be here to notice.

  62. tryblinking says:


  63. jeanette says:

    for it to be a hoax there would be no patent on a hoax would there and there is im afraid they call it a powder contrail and there is a drawing on the aircraft with the machinery to use it aerial spraying is what it is.


    [ADMIN EDIT – added link to patent, removed small images]

  64. jeanette says:

    for a hoax there are alot of patents and alot of science which has tested the chemtrails/geoengineering/aerial spraying honestly when are we going to come together as a people and stop this thing or are you all part of it? Scientists have proven these poisens are being sprayed int he air by testing water. Ex military some who became weather men on the tv have said in a matter of a fact way they were part of it they said it was done for military manovers they even showed the chaff. These patents prove it and i see it daily i see planes with contrails and planes with chemtrails spraying the area i know the difference. The new world order is surfacing illuminanti is advertising itself on the net with a come join us attitude. Face it you dont have to keep the lie up any more.

  65. Jeanette, if the “chemtrails” were being produced by the apperatus shown in the image they would not have a gap between the plane and the start of the trail.

    So would you then say that any trails that has this gap is not a “chemtrail”?

    And why are there no photos showing a plane spraying from an apparatus like the one in the patent?

  66. MikeC says:

    Why are there no photos of aircraft with the device even fitted (AFAIK)?

  67. Florida Native says:

    No one can seriously be saying there are no chemtrails correct? If so then I would like to know why in Florida we are now living in, for all intents and purposes, a military zone? Low flying NON commercial aircraft all day and night some spewing some just way to low. Only one is a commercial passenger plane (Allegant – and even that one flies much lower than ever before) the others are unmarked military aircraft I have several hundred photos to prove it. They are the same planes/helicopters every day – then we have the Stealth looking bomber that zooms by at various times as well over the Gulf.
    If any one disputes this is going on they are in so much denial it is unbelievable if not sickening I feel like I’m in a Twilight zone episode because it is so obvious but people have been so ingrained to look down or stare at TV/phone and believe everything they hear.
    Also no one seems to address the dying trees, plants, animals everywhere because the ground or leaves now so effected by whatever this crap is they don’t absorb water. This is Florida in Spring and everything is turning yellow or brown and drying up to death – trees (I even have an orange tree in my yard that has had the same oranges on it for over a year and not one has dropped or if a random one does fall they never rot), flowers won’t grow, not one frog in the now drying-up smelly creek behind my house or any normal animal sound at night and the smell of some animals that have died that are rotting with no rats to eat them now either.
    It is barely night here now and it is an eerie “dead silent” outside when it used to be full of life with racoons, possums, frogs, lizards and much more…now nothing. I don’t even kill wasps anymore because at least it’s something living, although they also are dying off.
    So I guess if some still want to debate contrails/chemtrails you can go on doing it but by the time you define it, will it really matter, it will be way too late by then – if it’s not already.

  68. captfitch says:

    Nobody else seems to be reporting the same things as you. I just searched. Are you the only one who sees these things? Don’t you find that bizarre?

  69. JFDee says:

    Florida Native,

    what about draught conditions in your state?

    – or –

    Your “Spring in Florida” may in fact become but a memory of the past.

    Of course there may be many theories to explain the drought, most of them not requiring any chemicals to be involved.

    My guess is that the least far fetched theory is our continuing mass production of CO2. But I’ll rather leave the “final opinion” to our weather professionals around here.

  70. SR1419 says:

    FLorida Native-

    please post pictures of these low flying aircraft.

    Why does the fact that a stealth bomber flies around mean that “chemtrails” are real?

    Please explain.

  71. Jay Reynolds says:

    Yes, florida native, please post your photos,
    I hope you are using the Michael J. Murphy approved method of photography like this:

  72. Shelby Werner says:

    And if these are innocent contrails that are so are so natural that they are mostly flown ONLY over or near the sun at Sunrise and Sunset right? And serioulsy don’t ANY of you remember something called “clouds” when you were younger? Where the heck did those “natural occuring” things go or do they teach cumulus, stratus, cirrus, nimbus and chemical as types of clouds now?

    From USA Today: Scientists call it “geoengineering,” but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades….http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm

  73. MikeC says:

    How do you figure that contrail only form at sunrise and sunset?? they occur all times fo day here.

    Or are you refering to coloured clouds at sunrise and sunset? I’ve seen some people refer to those as “chemtrails”, eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z56tLjsBrU4

    but red skies at sunrise and sunset have been around forever – do you not have the old saying “Red sky at night, shepherds (or sailors) delight, red sky in morning shepherds (or sailors) take warning”??

    The saying has been around for 2000 or more years – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_sky_at_morning

  74. Ross Marsden says:

    Shelby, I get it that you observe that contrails are only over or near the sun at Sunrise and Sunset from your point of view.
    There must be a location 100-some miles to your east or 100-some miles to your west where there are people who are also observing the sky. Do you suppose that they ONLY observe contrails directly overhead, and NEVER at Sunrise or Sunset? How do you account for that?

    Where I live, I observe them in the lower western sky at any time of the day. They sometimes drift up and overhead if the wind up there is fast enough.

  75. AnonD says:

    OK, interesting point, but planes flying in crosswinds of 100-120mph?

  76. Crosswinds are only a problem at low altitudes, and mostly when landing. At high altitude all you do for a 100 mph crosswind is angle into the wind 15 degrees or so. It just slows you down.

    Imagine trying to cross a river. To get to point directly opposite on the other side, you have to point your boat a bit upstream.

  77. brainfan says:

    The reason why people believe in conspiracy theories is because there are so many conspiracies. People conspire on every level of life, from when we are children to when we are adults. To suggest that this isn’t so is every bit as off the mark as any chemtrail enthusiast. I don’t understand why people feel the need to create this artificial divide between those who “believe in” conspiracies and those who do not. The entire point of lobbyists and think tanks are to conspire to coerce the government and people to think and regulate in desired ways. The fact that so much information is kept out of public view only encourages people to try to put two and two together, and since we HAVE been taken advantage of by various nefarious organizations, many people will fill in huge gaps of information with presumptions rather than questions.

    As for chemtrails, I never could get myself to come close to believing they were anything other than contrails. A lot of interesting discussion here!

  78. Jim Sechrist says:

    I would like to bring to focus the fact that many people (myself included) have actually seen the jets laying out the trails in tic-tac-toe style. These are definately not natural formations. Yes the natural ones do form…..but when you actually see jets laying out grids….seeing is believing. I myself can’t stand “neysayers” of any type. Having a completely open mind is way better than having a judgemental- closed one. I truly wish that at least the majority of us Humans don’t have to be shot with a gun to believe it will hurt. Why is it that if people don’t have a mothership land on thier lawn….they refuse to believe????

    The scientific research here is awesome, and can not be disputed…..but that only explains the trails that are seen without seeing the jets lay them out. Here in Texas we had many grid trails laid out recenly, with the the (usually 2) jets easily seen laying them out. Now that Texas is in “draught statis”, we are seeing absolutely no trails. I personally feel the Govt. dosn’t want people blaming them on the severe weather or lack thereof, so they refrain from laing them out at times for that very reason. “Sheeple” have always been very predictable in thier assumptions and the Govt. of course knows it and so this strategy actually works.

    A pilot recenly exposed the fact that he was one of the trail layers and the spray nozzles were mounted on the rear lower section of the fusalage. Their missions were called “Devil Runs” by the participants. These are not natural formations folks. Only God and the superiors involved know what is in the 55 gallon drums on those planes and what it is meant to do. Speculators are knee slapping funny to claim they know what/why this is being done. Air under some of the trail grids has been tested many times now by Dr. Lida Mouton Howe and other highly respected individuals, and the multiple substances found were in such high concentrations that no way can they be considered “natural” environmental amounts.

    If the Govt. tells us the truth about everything…..most people really could not “handle the truth”. Maybey we shouldn’t know the whole of it…..for so many would act crazy and upset the delicate balance of our society which is on the verge of collapse already. Could all these “sheeple” even understand it if the Govt. was honest……Na. They would misinterpet it all and many would dispute the info as just another coverup. If you youself were one of those in control……youwould then understand exactly why the GP will NEVER be told the honest truth. Thanx to my son Chase for enlightening me on this wonderful site….And just try to keep an open mind out there…..You’ll actually sleep better and get along with others better as well. Jim

  79. Hi Jim. I’m not clear why you think the grids you see are not regular grids. Did you see the planes turn around?

    I suspect what you are seeing is regular flyover traffic, being blown into a grid by the wind. But there are also situations in which planes can fly in patterns for a variety of reasons. Do you have photos? Or maybe there are some similar photos on the internet somewhere?

    The 55 gallon drums contain water for weight and balance testing. See:

    If there were “spray nozzles were mounted on the rear lower section of the fuselage”, then there would be photos. The lack of photos is pretty strong evidence against this – unless it was extremely limited in scope.

  80. Joe C says:

    Hi there I like your politness policy I have one question how does the U.N. put a ban on something that according to you doesnt exsist?, have you came across this article? http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
    Sir I do want to believe you!, but it has become extremly difficult to, all the whether control patents describe how large clouds of barium and aluminum along with other heavy metals are required to carry out such a task. Is it also a coincidence that the US set an agenda of owning the whether by 2025? Please Im not trying to be an opposing force here I love this country and would die for it,if there is something about the American people i know is that we are risk takers and this is one risk I dont want to support!!!

  81. That was a moratorium. Things don’t need to exist for you to put a moratorium on them. Things don’t even need to exist for you to ban them. There just needs to be the potential that they might exist in the future.

    And it’s not a ban on “chemtrails”, it’s about some forms of geoengineering, and is actually mostly focussed on ocean fertilization.

    The US did not set any agenda for “owning the weather”. Someone in the army wrote a thesis. It was not a position paper.

  82. MikeC says:

    The UN moratorium on geo-engineering is on anything that may harm biodiversity.

    Given that any ge-engineering is trying to change the climate, an any climate change is likely to have some effect on wildlife, it is widely interpreted to effectively ban all forms of geoengineering – unless tehy can prove that they are not adversly affecting biodiversity.

    And by “prove” I mean actual scientific proof….with lots of papers and studies and statistics and other repeatable information – not just chemtrail say so! 😉

  83. Alex says:

    I have personally shot video that shows –

    – Two planes at similar altitudes in the sky, with one leaving an ordinary contrail and the other leaving a persistent contrail.

    – An instance where one silent, gray aircraft leaving no contrail was shortly followed by an identical-looking plane leaving a persistent contrail.

    – A persistent contrail which was sprayed in a segmented, crescent shape.

    – Persistent contrails that abruptly and sharply start out of nowhere, although the aircraft didn’t appear to change altitude, and the atmospheric conditions didn’t seem to differ by a significant degree.

    – An unusual wingless-appearing aircraft (the wings were probably hidden due to haze) leaving a very persistent contrail, then seconds later, leaving only a slight transparent wisp of exhaust.

    The list goes on even further.

    A lot of the debunking makes much sense – persistent contrails being a part of jet engine history with photos to back it up, strange cloud types like the altocumulus and other striated varieties being documented even in the early 1900s…

    Not everything can be sealed up into a neat little package, though. And if I was going to do something clandestine, I would hide it in plain sight as well.

    Thank you.

  84. JFDee says:

    To test if two airplanes are at “similar altitudes” is quite hard from the ground with no technical aids.

    And even if the altitudes are similar there might be different conditions.

    There is a good wrap-up of this issue here:

  85. Alexey says:

    Recently I noticed from my window that a plane leaving a short contrail seemed to follow nearly exactly a long contrail left by another plane just a few minutes before. I immediately checked this at http://www.flightradar24.com, there was no mystery: the second plane flew by a parallel route a few kilometres further from my home and several hundred metres higher than the first one.

  86. Alex says:

    @JFDee & Alexey – thank you for the replies and information.

    I personally don’t think it explains everything I have captured and witnessed, but I’ll keep this all in mind and approach things from a debunking angle from this point on instead of automatically jumping to the ‘chemtrail’ conclusion.

    I am a science-minded individual and I have no emotional attachment to any theory, so whatever is true is true.

    I’ll most certainly check the flightradar24 site next time I observe this activity.

    Thanks again.

  87. Alex says:

    After looking at all the “chemtrail” video I have captured, and reading most of the articles on this site, there’s nothing I have recorded that can’t be rationally explained away.

    I actually feel pretty ashamed of myself…

  88. Hey, you should feel proud of yourself, for figuring it out. Well done!

  89. Ross Marsden says:

    Well done, Alex!
    And thanks for ‘fessing up.

  90. Alex says:

    Thank you, Ross and thank you Uncinus for all of your superb information…and the reality check.


  91. HumanBean says:

    I’m so glad you that are still in deep denial live somewhere that this crap doesn’t exist OR you are so much in denial you don’t even look at your skies OR your plants/trees OR anything around you. UNBELIEVABLE! Just be grateful you don’t have this crap over your house every day and every night and witness it first hand – NO RESEARCH NEEDED on things that are so unbelievably obvious it’s just stupid to deny it anymore. House Bill 2977 speaks about EVERYTHING happening now but please stay in denial as long as you can – http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH: — Maybe you can argue whether or not airplanes even exist next. In the meantime maybe watch this too – I’m sure it’s not true either. Weather Modification And The U.S. Military by Massachusetts School of Law — http://youtu.be/KwxbwGi9ze0

  92. JFDee says:

    HumanBean said:
    “NO RESEARCH NEEDED on things that are so unbelievably obvious”.

    But you did quite a bit of research, right? Unfortunately, this research seems to have a little one-sided.

    Try to read the articles on this site with the same openness as you do with chemtrail pages.
    Like this piece about H.R. 2977:


    One more thing about “obvious”: imagine you hadn’t been to school at all, had not read any books, watched no television – could you say it’s obvious that the earth is not flat ?

  93. TJ says:

    FloridaNative- Most pilots in Florida fly very low. This is because the land is flat. On a recent trip to Florida in my family’s 4-seater, general aviation piston prop plane, we encountered little to no air traffic even at 5000 feet. Being from the Appalachian Mountain Range area, we were shocked, as we could see a whole bunch of planes flying below us, which is really uncommon in the Mid-Atlantic. Also: How could you tell if the plane was unmarked? If it were flying over you, you would only see its belly, and the tail numbers are printed on the sides of the tail.

  94. rob says:

    common sense says to me that ‘X’ and ‘grid’ pattens are a very inefficient way of chemical dispersal. i wonder why the pro chemtrail ‘lot’ concentrate on these shapes??
    surely the most efficient way to disperse chemicals evenly over a large area would be a big circle, it’s dia. depending on the conditions at altitude and thus speed of ‘trail spread’??
    the cellphone network being a good example, omni-directional antennas giving much better even coverage over an area, than a grid of directional yagis would.

  95. The most efficient would be a series of parallel lines, perpendicular to the wind direction. Imagine you are spray painting a wall on a windy day.

    Efficiency here would be a trade-off between energy (cost), time, and evenness. So it kind of depends what the purpose of the proposed spraying is.

  96. captfitch says:

    efficiency be damned! this is the government we’re talking about! one line will do the job so lets put down six just to be sure.

  97. Weinlock says:

    I think this video is quite representative of how contrail grids form:

  98. Wendy Cakes says:

    Thank you for a very informative site, I’m happy to say you’ve debunked Chemtrails for me..it’s a fantastic feeling to be rid of that negativity. I can look up now and not feel sick at heart seeing the CONTRAILS (there, I said it) Thank you Peacin Freedom for pushing me to this site. 🙂

  99. Shakira says:

    OK. First of all, I believe in chemtrails.
    Second of all, the air is not moving ALL AT ONCE – hence the formation of the cloud Cirrus ‘Unicus’. You should be familiar with these. And the cloud altocumulus undulatus; these formations occur because of different wind speeds above and below the cloud.
    And third of all- us guys want to be wrong about chemtrails -not only because we are selfish and only want to prove a theory because doing so will make us correct and amazing and will make the ‘opposition’ sad and wrong, unlike some people I know but won’t mention – but because if we were RIGHT then it would have consequences for the clouds,the weather system, and ultimately the ground down below and everyone on it. We don’t want these consequences to occur, if they will at all.So why would we want to be RIGHT if this would mean the dreaded aforementioned??
    This is not a competition between chemtrail-believers and non-chemtrail-believers. One side shouldn’t be trying to tell the other side off or think it less because it believes in something. Instead we ALL should be watching the sky in unison, both sharing observations and findings – and if there is something like a chemtrail that is altering the weather patterns, then we all together try to stop it. If there isn’t – then we DON’T scream at the chemtrail-believers, telling them they brought everyone out for nothing, and make them feel worse or less. We shake hands and try to explain our observations.
    I know I must sound like one of the weirdest chemtrail-believers you’ve ever had on this site, and I know you think us weird. But I really belive that, whoever is right, we should not do this simply to ‘be right’. We should do this either to ‘calm down the chemtrail-believers and reassure them/us with scientifically-proven remarks’ or to ‘warn the non-chemtrail-believers and to let them/us know that the whole world , nephology and meterology, will be affected by chemtrails, and to help do something to stop it’. Whoever’s side you’re on. Thank you.

  100. Shakira, did you see the image of the Cirrus Uncinus cloud in the top article? You are right that the air does not move all at once – it varies with altitude. I discuss this in the article.

Comments are closed.