

Tuesday, 23 December 2014

Debunked: What in the World Are They Spraying?

Debunked: What in the World Are They Spraying?

Multiple parallel trails over Mt Shasta, California. Taken in 1989, ten years before the chemtrail operations were supposed to have begun. Image copyright Taylor Sherman

The documentary film “What in the World are They Spraying, by Michael J. Murphy, attempts to promote the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory (which states that long lasting contrails are actually the result of secret government spray operations), and proposes a possible explanation: that the trails are part of a geoengineering project involving injecting large amounts of aluminum into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays.

The basic premise of the film is:

  • Normal Contrails fade away quickly
  • Scientists have talked about geoengineering using aluminum sprayed from planes
  • Since 1999, trails have been observed to persist for a long time
  • Tests in various locations at ground level have found different levels of aluminum
  • Monsanto has genetically engineered  aluminum resistant crops
  • The government denies any spraying or geoengineering is going on
  • THEREFORE:  The trails are aluminum being sprayed as part of a secret government geoengineering project.


Normal contrails can persist and spread


That reasoning is somewhat suspect even if you accept all the points. But where it really falls down is that it’s based on a false assumption – that “normal” contrails quickly fade away.   In reality, normal contrails can persist for hours, and spread out to cover the sky.  Whether they do this or not is entirely dependent on the atmospheric conditions that the plane is flying through, so it depends on the weather, and on the altitude of the plane. This is something that has been observed since 1921. Just look at any book on the weather, like this one from 1981:

They tested sludge, not water


So the film is based on a  false premise, and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion.  But what about the aluminum tests? You can find the tests referenced in the film here:

And this is the one shown in the film, which they claim should be pure water:

Pond with low aluminum in the sediment. The film mistakenly claims the level are high by comparing them to water levels.  Note the rocks (8% aluminum) that line the edges, and the bottom.

The bottom line here is that they are testing sludge rather than water. Sludge is water mixed with dirt. Dirt is naturally 7% aluminum. That’s all they are finding.

The first aluminum result is from the pond, discussed at the start of part 3, and it’s 375,000 ug/l.  What they don’t mention is that it’s from pond sediment, sludge.  So essentially it’s not testing water, but is instead testing the amount of aluminum in soil. So that’s  375 mg/kg for sediment that has settled in a pond over several years. That’s actually quite low. Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%, but is typically 7.1%, or 71,000 mg/kg.  The amount of aluminum found in the sludge is quite easily explained by windblown dust. It’s low, probably because it’s a new pond, so a lot of the sediment is vegetable matter.

Then there are the rain readings.  33, 262, 650, 188, 525, 881, 84, 815, 3450, 2190 ug/L. Wildly different values, some high sounding, some low.  But no details are provided that correlate these different numbers of contrail activity.  If this variation were due to aerial spraying, then surely a match would be found.  These numbers simply tell us that different tests produced different results.  It does not tell us why.   No details of the sampling procedure are given, or the weather conditions preceding the test.   Nor are we told what are the expected levels of aluminum to be found under these conditions.

Rain guage used for aluminum test. Note the mounting bracket appears to be made from aluminum.

Rain water contains particulates from airborne dust.  The amount of particulates will vary greatly based on the weather.  A sample from a brief intense storm after a dry period would give you more particulates than a sample taken in the middle of several days of rain. The amount of particulates in the sample would also vary with how long the container is left out in the open.  Dust will settle on the container if it’s left out for a while, increasing the amount of aluminum found.  All these tests are really telling us is how much dust the sample was contaminated with.

How much aluminum is there in the dust? Let’s say it’s about the same as the amount of aluminum in soil (although it’s probably higher). How much dust is there in rain? According of Edward Elway Free of the the United State Bureau of Soils, in his book “The Movement of Soil Material by the Wind“, in tests performed by Tissandier, rain water contained 25,000 to 172,000 ug/L of particulates.  But he notes “As the amounts of rain and snow which fell in the various cases are not given, the figures are of little value.  The first drops of a rain storm will of course contain the largest percentage of dust, and as the storm continues the air is gradually wasted clean.”.  Still if only 1% of the lowest figures there were aluminum, then that’s still 250 ug/L.  And at a quite plausible 10% of the upper range, that’s 17,200 ug/L.  A range that easily covers the observed test results.

See also the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, VOl 4, 1967, which shows Aluminum found in rain in the range 520 ug/L to 1,120 ug/L, over 13 different tests. This shows that the results in 1967 (when presumably there were no chemtrails) are pretty much the same as the results the WITWATS is getting. Nothing unusual.

Tens of thousands of time the “maximum limit” for water. Sure. But you were not testing water, you were testing dirt

The soil tests are where a typical mistake is made – conflating the percentage of the metal in one substance (soil) with the typical percentages in others.  As noted, soil aluminum naturally ranges from 0.07% to 10%, and is typically around 7.1%, which is 71,000 mg/kg.  The tests from Oregon (see sheet 16 in the pdf) list quite ordinary results for soil of 18,600 to 38,000.  But then they note the results are “Tens of thousands of times the maximun limit for water“, which is true, but they are not testing water, they are testing soil, and it less than half the normal value for soil.

They continue this on the next page, with a low soil aluminum value of 10,500 mg/kg (just 1% aluminum), and yet note: “Near playground Sisson Elementary 300‘ away”.  As if this is somehow dangerous to children.   It’s just normal soil, as found in any playground, anywhere, ever.


Aluminum is everywhere, in various quantities


Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust, about 8% of the ground is aluminum. In some places, like the Hawaiian islands, it’s 30-60%!
  • Aluminum is everywhere, in the food we eat, and the air we breath (as dust)
  • Aluminum is in daily contact with us, in soda cans, cookware, aluminum cooking foil, construction, transportation, baseball bats, etc.
  • The amount of aluminum in any location varies naturally. In some places there is a lot, in others there is very little.
  • Contamination of samples with aluminum is very common due to it’s abundance and common usage.  Unless careful control samples are taken, then the results are often wildly inaccurate.
  • One of the tests in the film was water collected by a schoolgirl in a mason jar.  Mason jars occasionally have aluminum lids
  • Another was taken from a ski area snow pack in early summer.  Skis, ski grooming equipment, and ski towers use aluminum. (Update: it is not an active ski area, so more likely it’s just dirt contamination, as the sample was taken in July)
  • Aluminum is a common ingredient in antiperspirants and antacids such as Mylanta.


 Aluminum resistant crops have been a goal for 100 years


And knowing that aluminum is very common will also answer why Monsanto would want to develop  aluminum resistant crops.  It will increase yields in areas with acidic soil.   Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminum in the ground, and the fact that aluminum ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been a known problem for a hundred years , it’s hardly surprising that someone would try to make crops have a higher resistance to it.  Here’s the Botanical Gazette of the University of Chicago, Volume 71, page 159, from 1921.

Note the reference at the bottom: “Aluminum as a factor in soil fertility”.  Note also they are discussing how to “reduce the toxicity of aluminum salts” in the ground.  So if scientists were doing it 90 years ago, then why exactly is it somehow suspicious that they are doing it now? For more discussion, see:


Discussing ≠ Doing


Finally, what of the government discussions of geoengineering, and their denials that anything is going on? Exactly.  What of it? They discuss geoengineering because it’s something that people might actually want to do in the future, so we’d better talk about it now, so we can figure out what problems might occur.  The concerns about health effects and effects on the environment are perfectly valid concerns, but they are not evidence that a spraying program is currently underway.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has no idea what you are talking about, because there is no government geoengineering project, just a few scientists talking about it.

And the most reasonable explanation for why they deny they are doing it because they are not actually doing it.  The congressmen interviewed in the film claim they they are not familiar with it because they are not familiar with it.  They don’t want to talk about it because they don’t know anything about it.  There’s nothing sinister going on there.  The congressmen are simply not familiar with this one particular theoretical geoengineering method (or probably any theoretical geoengineering method), so when they are buttonholed by someone who rather intensely asks them if they approve of it, then it’s quite understandable they don’t want to talk to him.

The film presents the conferences on geoengineering as if they are somehow secret and clandestine operations that need to be revealed to the public.  In reality geoengineering of this type has been discussed for at least sixty years. It’s hardly covered up, as the discussion has been constantly in the news, often front page news, since 2006, and has been making occasional mainstream news stories since the 1980s, with thousands of publicly accessible research papers over the last sixty years.   There’s no evidence anyone was doing it sixty years ago, there’s no evidence anyone was doing it in 2006, and as far as anyone can tell, nobody is doing it now. Denials are not admissions, and discussing something is not the same as doing it.

Update: If you are looking for a debunking of Why In The World Are They Spraying, first check out this post, as the second film really depends on the first being true, then have a look at the various errors in Why In The World Are They Spraying, detailed here:

I don’t want to make this article too long, but I’ve noticed a few more problems with the documentary, see the comment section for more info at the link below;

From Contrail Science @ http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

No-one likes to be fooled like this!

For more information about chemtrails see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/chemtrails   

Hope you like this not for profit site -
Like what we do? Please give anything you can -  
Contribute any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Please click below -

Spare Bitcoin change?

Video -  http://youtu.be/te_FOsKL_5Q


And see

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati


New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati



We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged,  - if you give attribution to the work & author. Please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).




From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


  1. It really bothers me that you are posting this, given the nature of what you normally post, and it begins to bring into doubt the true nature of your intent and work. Because that is what the plethora of disinfo agents out there do: put out a significant amount of true and valid information, and then seed it with dangerous and misleading falsehoods.

    Even if some or most of these arguments "hold water" (and I don't believe for a moment individually or collectively they do, because I know how well they "lie with statistics" and data - case in point the GMO "debate"), and have spoken personally with scientists who know otherwise. How is humanity served by adding to the specious arguments which result in people dismissing something truly threatening as non-threatening? The true body of evidence is damning against those who would have us dismiss the validity of this threat, including all the well-documented and numerous experiments the population has been unknowingly subjected to over the years by these same "experts".

    If you are really a warrior for truth, then I would expect you to do a follow-up to this piece which will help ameliorate the harm you are doing; otherwise, you have undermined your own standing with those who know the truth...


  2. What disinfo troll posted this article?

    To be "fair and balanced", I will provide you with a links to the websites of Dane Wigington and Clifford Carnicom, two of the foremost researchers in the field of geoengineering.

    After you have familiarized yourself with the information on both of these websites, please report back here and let us all know who is more credible.



  3. Here is more information for the debunker to challenge


  4. Marcela et al - there are many so-called scientists who 'know otherwise' about anthropogenic warming, too - 'scientists' who are for the most part overspecialised dullards who know nothing whatsoever about the topic they're commenting on. The mere fact that chemtrail theory is taken as gospel and treated as some sort of religious verity should ring alarm bells with any genuine investigator into the topic.
    We knew how many would react when we chose to present this material; there are many whose reading extends only to headlines or the captions on apparently convincing videos, but real research into a topic as detailed as this has been a major task. Suffice to say that despite months of searchng (and multiple requests on various networks) we've found NO documentation with any sourced, traceable data that actually indicates chemtrails exist - certainly on any scale. To be fair and balanced perhaps you need to READ this article and try to source the allegations made on the sites whose links you've provided. We have. Despite all the hysterical certitudes about us all being insecticided by malevolent plutocrats, no traceable evidence actually exists that demonstrates this is occurring. Quite the opposite. The many pilots and aircraft technicians we've discussed this with all agree, btw. It's a crock. They can't ALL be members of the evil geoengineering cult!
    If you can find a credible, testable source of real info for us - a direct link that doesn't involve unsubstantiable allegations by talking heads on videos or other media - we'll happily repost it.

  5. Case in point - that Activist Post link the bravely anonymous commentator pointed to above has NOTHING of any substance about chemtrails, though it details directed weapons and other forms of geoengineering. This kind of misdirection is a common gaff (or ploy) used by people discussing chemtrails and bespeaks a total lack of scientific understanding - or journalistic credibility.
    The link to the Carnicom Institute is a link to a front page with no information on chemtrails on it. You'll have to do better. Similarly, the Geoengineering Watch link is to ANOTHER front page, not to any specific or traceable or ACTUAL INFORMATION. Appealing videos just don't cut it.
    You have served to prove the point that no proof and little evidence exists to demonstrate what you're saying is true - and have the hide to declaim our motives for presenting rational arguments by specialists to the contrary.
    It wouldn't matter as much if not for the fact that many use fictions like chemtrails to 'explain' why our climate has gone belly up - when obviously we've polluted to planet to within a vanishing distance of its tolerance for us.
    Thus chemtrail advocates often play right into the moneygrubbing, destructive hands of Big Oil and Big Coal - and other so-called republicans.


Add your perspective to the conscious collective