Chemical or Condensation Trails
What are those Streaks across the Sky?
Visit the Evidence Files Facebook and YouTube pages; Like, Follow, Subscribe or Share!
Find more about me on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Mastodon. Or visit my EALS Global Foundation’s webpage page here.
Those white streaks you have often seen in the sky are one of two things, depending upon your point of view. They are either Chemical Trails or Condensation Trails. Chemical Trail (“chemtrail”) advocates say they are indicators of the release of chemical, biological, or some other agent for purposes such as controlling the weather or population, reflecting sunlight, or poisoning the human race. Condensation Trails (“contrails”) are thought to be water vapor created as a result of aircraft exhaust. So, what does the evidence say?
Chemtrails
The organization/website “Chemtrail Protection” purports that those white trails “consist of chemical or biological agents, deliberately sprayed, for sinister purposes, over the general public without their consent.” This seems to mirror the widely accepted definition. “Chemtrail Protection” acknowledges the existence of a thing called contrails, and even defines them largely the same as others do. The difference, it claims, is that contrails—like your breath on a cold day—disappear quickly. While chemtrails linger behind in the skies because of their ingredients, including “toxic metals, chemicals and biological warfare products.” Therefore, in their view most of the tendrils in the sky are chemtrails, given their staying power. This website offers a call-in consultation service for $105, which then offers a “Monthly Chemtrail Protection Star Team Program” for an additional $59 per month. I couldn’t find exactly how it offers such protection, or against exactly what, beyond the ephemeral effects of these purported floating chemicals. I was unwilling to fork over $105 for this research.
Another chemtrail advocate, Kristen Meghan, made a public ‘whistleblower’ statement in 2015, claiming something to the effect that as an alleged former Industrial Hygienist and Environmental Specialist for the US Air Force, she started seeing “large quantities of chemicals… that did not have a manufacture name” being used by the US government to conduct some form of population control. In a video of a speech by her posted on YouTube on October 6, 2022, she started out by showing a bunch of clips related to global warming. Many of the images and headlines she included are either debunked nonsense, or completely out-of-context snippets. Don’t take my word for it, check out the link. Chemtrails as an element of a global warming conspiracy are a common trope used by such spokespeople. The remainder of the video consisted of about 15 more minutes, none of which included anything beyond alleged anecdotes. I watched many more videos of her speeches, but still found no presentation of actual evidence, just stories of things she allegedly saw. Of note, Ms. Meghan’s current career seems entirely dependent on these types of speaking engagements.
Then there is another vaunted ‘whistleblower’ in the chemtrail community known only as “OP.” This anonymous person allegedly spent 17 years developing the chemicals present within chemtrails. In a blog/interview featured on godlikeproductions.com, this mysterious OP made some profound claims. Among them, the chemicals he (she?) allegedly helped produce had more purposes than he could “count on ten fingers.” Furthermore, “Some of the mixtures we developed were intended to dissipate to concentrations as low as one part per billion by the time they reached ground level. Others were specifically designed to reach ground level and last for up to a year. Even after rain/wind/snow, etc.” None of these statements makes any sense. It is curious that he does not address how it is that not a single person of the 8 billion people on Earth has detected any of these chemicals. Of further note, the only chemical named in the entire exchange between OP and the blogger is barium—which is a commonly cited chemical in the chemtrail narrative. In addition to this curious absence of naming the very chemicals involved, OP also stated that during production they made sure to avoid a paper trail. OP also claimed he could provide zero actual evidence out of fear for his personal safety.
Another organization, Geoengineering Watch, has a host of articles, videos, and other items on its website. Many of them include videos that simply repeat the implausible things others have said, citing images of the sky as the ‘evidence’ behind the claims. Some claims are simply factually wrong, such as a posted article stating that “By design, [modern jet engines are] nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most rare and extreme of circumstances. Even then, only a short, very rapidly dissipating, trail could ever be produced from a ‘high bypass’ jet engine due to its design characteristics.”
Most other articles and videos on the website are speculative, and equally without evidence. The rest of the site is primarily devoted to selling things. Similar to the above is Global Skywatch. This site makes most of the same claims, but uses as ‘evidence’ other events that appear to be true and then tentatively ties them to chemtrail activity. Also like the above, it hosts numerous videos that make vast conspiratorial claims, but supports it with non-contextual observations, or outright falsities. It also repeats the mantra about how modern jet engines do not produce contrails; this again is false. (More on this below). This website, too, provides ample opportunity for visitors to spend money, the common denominator among all of these speakers and sites.
I searched far and wide across the web. Aside from various nebulous services offered to ‘protect’ you from the sinister effects of chemtrails, and plenty of claims about one conspiratorial plan or another, I could not find any credible evidence behind any of it (non-corroborated ‘whistleblower’ statements and anonymous interviews are not themselves evidence). As with most conspiracy theories, this lack of evidence is casually described away as part of the cover up, even though the mechanisms of this are not explained. The notion that a global program involving spraying dangerous agents for whatever nefarious purpose could be kept silent by one or more governments, is itself more preposterous than the notion of chemtrails themselves. On the occasions where proponents attempt to offer evidence, such as lab analyses of samples purportedly contaminated by chemtrails, their efforts rely on flawed methodologies. Typically, the methods of testing or collecting alleged samples ignore decades of evolution in the respective fields, simply to obtain the desired result. This is akin to the insistence on citing the Bedford Level Experiments by Flat Earthers as proof of anything other than the results of the legitimate version of this experiment (spoiler: the Bedford Level Experiments actually proved curvature in the Earth). The entire theory of chemtrails is built on claims about observable phenomenon (the actual white streaks) followed by a host of unsourced claims built out of a general belief system that government is bad and out to kill us all. Aside from visual phenomena that seem open to interpretation (yet, are not), there is virtually zero evidence to support the claims. Belief in the idea, however, remains robust, spread prolifically on Facebook. It also seems to be a moneymaking enterprise for its loudest proponents.
How it Came About
The chemtrail conspiracy is believed to have first taken hold in the 1990s. Its ‘legitimacy’ is built on some historical incidents wherein the governments of the United States and UK did spray their populations as part of secret tests against potential bioweapon and chemical attacks in the 1950s. Moreover, the US Air Force’s public conclusions about the potential for weather modification, released in the mid-90s, gave further force to such conspiratorial beliefs. Indeed, it didn’t take long after the release of that report for the issue to be widely discussed on the infamously ludicrous Art Bell show, one of the most listened-to AM radio shows at the time. One chemtrail believer interviewed by Carey Dunne of the Guardian, summed up quite well how she came to accept the idea. She told Dunne:
How does someone like me know what’s true and what’s not? I’m 54 years old. I don’t watch the news. I don’t listen to the news on the radio. Then when I’m on the internet, and I see something where I’m like, ‘Holy shit, really?,’ I’m led down this path of believing it. I don’t have the knowledge that a journalist has about how verifiable is the source. When you’re just a standard person, you can really be led to believe anything. Because of the internet, anybody can put news out there. How do I know if it’s the truth or not?
It remains a serious problem in this information (and misinformation) age, that an educated, middle-aged person has no knowledge of how to verify a source—a true indictment of the education system in which that person grew up. And worse, rather than choosing to dismiss unverifiable information, such a person instead adopts the notion as inherently true. In the case of chemtrails, a great deal of careful scientific inquiry has been made into the subject, which should make it easy to render a verdict on the veracity of such claims.
Contrails
One 2016 study asked 77 scientists about evidence it had collected that purports to support the theory of a secret large-scale atmospheric program (SLAP), the parent program of purported chemtrail efforts. The study noted that in addition to images of trails left behind airplanes, the most common evidence it could find in support of the various chemtrail theories were “elemental analyses of water, soil, and snow samples” conducted by chemtrail proponents. According to the ‘collectors’ and ‘testers’, these analyses revealed elevated levels of strontium, barium, and aluminum in various places where there seemed to be an abundance of supposed chemtrails. The survey protocols can be found here and here. Scientists surveyed included “atmospheric scientists with expertise in condensation trails and [] geochemists working on atmospheric deposition of dust and pollution on the Earth's surface.” When asked if any of the scientists had encountered any evidence of a secret large-scale atmospheric program, 76 of the 77 scientists responded that they had not. The study authors noted that, “The one participant who answered yes said the evidence s/he had come across was 'high levels of atm[ospheric] barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'.”
When shown pictures of the sky from chemtrail websites, 100% of the respondents provided the same answer about what the photographs showed—contrails. Many of the respondents provided documentation with their answers showing studies that actually proved the mechanisms for how the trailing streaks behind aircraft form. In other words, 100% of the 77 scientists explained that what they saw in these images was water vapor trails streaming behind aircraft, and several provided abundant evidence to support their conclusion.
Likewise, the survey recipients were shown three different laboratory analyses offered as evidence by chemtrail proponents that indicated high or abnormal concentrations of various elements in soil and air. 86% of the respondents provided explanations for these results, such as that the levels were neither high nor abnormal in some cases, or that high amounts of these materials are routinely found in certain conditions such as those indicated in the lab analyses they were given. On the whole, the experts questioned had lower confidence in their ability to assess the results of these lab tests than they did in describing what they saw in the aircraft images, primarily because they did not agree with or know enough about the methodology in how the lab tests were conducted. Despite several detailed questions regarding both atmospheric issues and soil conditions, only 1 out of 77 believed there was even a remote possibility that a secret large-scale atmospheric program could exist based on any of this evidence, but even that one expert stated that none of the evidence presented was definitive of anything.
A study published in 2018 went even further and analyzed more claims, this time directly rather than through surveying other experts. It broke down several chemtrail arguments, possibly the most absurd of which is that “aircraft did not previously leave trails, the phenomenon started a few years ago.” The reason groups like chemtrail enthusiasts are so readily dismissed is that they often refuse to discard arguments that are so obviously disprovable. The notion that aircraft-trailing streaks are new ignores a long history of observation and analysis of them, as well as the popular accord contrails had in society, especially in and around World War II. As far back as 1915, observers recorded “ice particles collected on impactors and halo observations, [and] also provided the first information on the size and shape of contrail and cirrus ice particles” trailing flying aircraft. Civilian awareness of contrails grew in World War II in particular, as numerous planes entered formations that created crisscrossed designs, and became associated with major battles or bombing campaigns. In 1941, the term Condensation Trails was coined, and in 1946 A.W. Brewer first described in detail under what atmospheric conditions they might form. Among the factors he noted, were the temperature, saturation of air, and the effects of aerodynamics—conditions still applicable to the aircraft of today. Moreover, the steady increase of air traffic following WWII has led to greater concern and inquiry into the effects of contrails on the environment. A comprehensive study on this issue was conducted in 2004 wherein it traced the increasing prevalence of contrails over numerous past decades and whether their presence influenced climate change.
Relatedly, chemtrail advocates frequently state that today’s aircraft engines are “nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most rare and extreme of circumstances.” In 2018, a study examined the “distribution of [the] microphysical and optical properties” from contrails. It noted that specific definitions exist for long- and short-lived contrails, including those that retain their linear shape and those that disperse into more expansive clouds. Furthermore, the authors stated that the challenge in studying the dispersed clouds of contrails breaking apart, called contrail cirrus, is particularly difficult because the content of these clouds are all but indistinguishable from naturally forming clouds. Nevertheless, there is no question that modern aircraft engines create “more, whiter, and longer-lasting contrails.” Among many reasons, one is that more efficient aircraft engine design allows for flights at altitudes where the conditions for condensation formation are more frequently present. While specific engines have slightly differing optical trails from each other, the physical mechanism for the formation of contrails is largely the same for all. Contrail formation occurs as a combination of atmospheric vapor, temperature, and supersaturation. These factors exist together most frequently at higher altitudes, where modern aircraft prefer to fly because of their engine capability and the efficiency of flight at those levels. Add to that the higher frequency of air traffic generally, and the sky will appear littered with contrails of both the long linear type, as well as the dispersed contrail cirrus clouds.
The mechanism for the formation of contrails also explains why they can appear broken, or emanating from one plane but not another while viewing them simultaneously. For chemtrail proponents, observing either of these phenomena evokes a “eureka” moment. Unfortunately for them, contrails are strongly affected by the conditions of the air at the moment of their formation. This means that drier air, for example, will more swiftly sublimate the ice crystals formed in the aircraft’s exhaust output, leading to the faster breakdown of the trail, or the absence of its formation altogether. Other factors, such as humidity, cause the opposite result. Commercial aircraft cruise at speeds between 440 knots (506 mph) and 518 knots (596 mph). At these speeds, the atmospheric conditions behind the engines often change rapidly, which can alter the visual effect of the subsequent contrails. Moreover, visually observing two aircraft simultaneously, that are leaving different contrail patterns, is almost certainly a result of flight altitude differences. This has been shown in several simulations. For a person on the ground, the mere observance of two aircraft anywhere in proximity to each other in the sky almost certainly means the aircraft are flying at least 1000 feet apart in altitude as FAA regulations require this minimum level of separation. Such distances result in significant differences in the atmospheric conditions between the two observed aircraft. From the ground, it is near impossible to estimate the actual distance in altitude between two aircraft.
As the humidity affects the formation of contrails, it also affects the longevity of one’s visibility in the sky. The higher the humidity, the longer a contrail will remain intact and visible. Even under ideal circumstances, however, clear air turbulence can disrupt all or part of a single trail, creating breaks in one or many places that look to the uninitiated as unnatural phenomena. In addition to buffeting an airliner, clear air turbulence often results from or accompanies wind shear, which essentially is a sudden change in the speed or direction of wind. Such changes can occur in relatively small spaces, but consist of extremely powerful forces—strong enough to tear even a hurricane apart. Thus, wind shear and clear air turbulence can easily dissipate or chop up contrails. These forces can also distort contrails, rendering them into unusual, picturesque shapes.
The physical attributes of aircraft render the notion of emitting long, dangerous chemtrails almost moot. First, and foremost, to produce a single chemtrail of any considerable length, how much material would a plane have to carry? Consider that the largest firefighting aircraft ever used (in terms of available load of retardant) was the Boeing 747-400 SuperTanker. Specifically fitted for firefighting operations, it carried 19,200 gallons (605 tons) of water at its maximum, twice the amount of the next largest vessel ever used. It could unleash the entirety of this load in under 20 seconds. Furthermore, to carry this volume of material, the Global Super Tanker had no passenger space whatsoever. Even if it somehow conducted a slower release, how could it possibly create a miles-long chemtrail?
Some planes come equipped with the ability to dump fuel, primarily in an emergency. Many aircraft models use gravity to conduct fuel dumps, so estimating the exact dump rate is difficult. But, a Boeing 747 is generally considered capable of dumping fuel at a rate of 1-2 tons per minute. This video shows what that looks like from the ground. The trailing fuel does look like a contrail that breaks up quickly. A Boeing 747 carries a maximum of around 210 tons of fuel. This means that at best, one of the largest planes in the air can purposely create a trail behind it using chemicals (here, fuel) for just about three hours. Only an Airbus A380 carries more fuel, and neither the B747 nor the A380 are among the most common aircraft in the sky.
Using other chemicals, a commercial aircraft carrying passengers would be able to emit decidedly fewer amounts. I mentioned before that the Boeing SuperTanker firefighting aircraft could carry 605 tons of water (and lower amounts of heavier liquids). At the rate of 1 ton per minute, if that’s even possible, the aircraft could theoretically create a chemtrail of one streak for 10 hours. Since planes emit multiple trails (based on the number of engines, which itself is strong evidence against chemtrails), a 747 would reduce that time to just about two and a half hours. And again, this is with NO passengers. With passengers and cargo, the emission system for its chemtrail operations would have to be considerably smaller, and probably could not emit for more than a half hour or so. This also assumes such a system could even be fit into an airplane with passenger capacity—an unlikely proposition.
Boeing 747 SuperTanker; Credit: Getty Images
Many YouTube videos on the subject proclaim that pilots themselves are unaware of the fact that they are releasing Chemtrails. This is debunked by problems associated with volume, weight, and flight performance. To properly takeoff in any airplane, pilots must consider several factors, such as center of gravity (COG) and weight, in order to calculate the speeds necessary to be able to obtain lift, plan an aborted takeoff, and to achieve proper climb. The overall issue is quite complicated, but it is simply impossible to expect a pilot to successfully fly an airplane without knowing these specific details, especially in airliner-sized aircraft. For an overview on the factors a pilot must consider, see here. Likewise, a safe landing depends on the pilot knowing many specific details to ensure that the airframe and landing gear can handle the pressure of the landing, and that the aircraft will be steerable and stoppable once on the ground. Even the approaching airspeed is dependent on these details. In other words, there is no conceivable way pilots are dumping hundreds of tons of liquid cargo midflight unknowingly, nor are they taking off or landing without knowing these items are/were onboard. Moreover, there is no possibility that the FAA would approve cargo sheets eliding this information on passenger flights.
Conclusion
The evidence is clear. Every argument made on chemtrail websites or by chemtrail “whistleblowers” simply does not hold up under any level of scrutiny. Aircraft engines most certainly create water vapor trails in flight, atmospheric conditions significantly affect how long the trails last and how they visually look, and the presence of such trails has been known by researchers and the general public for nearly a century. The mechanics behind the creation and emission of chemtrails does not comport with aircraft performance in almost any case. And even if there were some secret aircraft that could create such trails using nefariously-purposed chemicals, the volume of observable streaks in the sky strongly negates the probability that this is happening at any relevant scale. Moreover, while I did not address that possibility, given the number of flights chemtrail aircraft would have to fly to create the volume of trails in the sky, the presence of such planes and their purpose would not be secret for long, if at all. The more logical conclusion from all this is that contrails are precisely what many have already described—water vapor exhaust. And chemtrails, like so many conspiracy theories, are little more than a tool for some to prey upon conspiracy-driven believers to obtain ill-gotten financial gain and some minimal level of fame.
***
I am a Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, Certified Crime Analyst, Certified Fraud Examiner, and Certified Financial Crimes Investigator with a Juris Doctor and a Master’s degree in history. I spent 10 years working in the New York State Division of Criminal Justice as Senior Analyst and Investigator. Today, I teach Cybersecurity, Ethical Hacking, and Digital Forensics at Softwarica College of IT and E-Commerce in Nepal. In addition, I offer training on Financial Crime Prevention and Investigation. I am also Vice President of Digi Technology in Nepal, for which I have also created its sister company in the USA, Digi Technology America, LLC. We provide technology solutions for businesses or individuals, including cybersecurity, all across the globe. I was a firefighter before I joined law enforcement and now I currently run a non-profit that uses mobile applications and other technologies to create Early Alert Systems for natural disasters for people living in remote or poor areas.