Since the spraying program is covert, officialdom assures us the lines in our skies are just harmless condensation trails or contrails.

Wikipedia defines condensation as:

“the change in the state of water vapour to liquid water when in contact with a liquid or solid surface or cloud condensation nuclei within the atmosphere.”

In other words, water cannot change from gas to liquid without something to attach to, a condensation nucleus. Neither product of jet exhaust – hot CO2 and water vapor – are condensation nuclei.

The only way water can change phase from gas to liquid (or solid) in the absence of a condensation nucleus is when the air is supersaturated – greater than 100% relative humidity. In layman’s terms, unless it’s completely humid (100% or more) water evaporates instead of condensing. Condensation trails cannot form or persist.

Southern Oregon was heavily sprayed from September 7th to 9th – and then it abruptly stopped on the 10th. 60 miles west of Chiloquin, there is a Wyoming Soundings weather station in Medford, where weather balloons are sent up twice a day to record, amongst other things, relative humidity. I took the precaution of saving the data in a pdf.

On September 8th when the skies were filled with so-called contrails, the relative humidity at cruising altitude (33,000 feet) was 23% – less than a quarter of the humidity required for condensation to form. Here’s a picture I took at 7:42pm.


But three days later on September 11th after the spraying stopped, I took another photo in the same location. But although it was almost 50% more humid than the heavy spray day (relative humidity 31% – still too dry for condensation to occur) not a trail could be seen in the sky.


Since this proves condensation nuclei are present on days where the skies are filled with persistent trails, what are they? Could it be that the widely publicized “proposals” to spray us with sulfates, Welsbach materials, nanoparticulate alumina, barium, strontium, titanium and other toxic metals are in fact a currently deployed program? Observational data, including rainwater analysis and mortality statistics back this up.

Some argue they are contaminants in jet fuel, or soot from incomplete combustion. If that’s the case, shouldn’t there be more trails in the sky when the relative humidity is 50% higher?

One of the main proponents of the condensation trail myth is Mick West, who runs disinfo sites Metabunk and I made this video for him:

UPDATE – two hours after challenging Mick West on the Wyoming Soundings humidity data, the University of Wyoming conveniently took most of it’s data offline, including all of North America’s. Good thing I saved a pdf of the damning info.

Here’s a screenshot – the map should be covered with clickable station codes, but there are none:

UPDATE 2 – One hour after Tweeting the disappearance of the Wyoming Soundings data, it mysteriously reappeared. Nothing like a public shaming to reveal the truth. Still no response from Mick West, though.



  • It’s a good question, because it shows that you are aware that contrails actually CAN persist and spread.

    Contrails need a relative humidity over with respect to ice of over 100% to persist and spread. This is nothing to do with the presence r absence of nuclei, as they need nuclei to form regardless.

    100% RHI is about 60% RHW (the more common RH value, and the one given in the soundings, with respect to water).

    Soundings unfortunately are a terrible way of getting local humidity at high altitudes in cold air. Firstly they are spaced apart, in time by 12 hours, and in space by around 200 miles. Humidity can vary vastly in a few hundred feet, which is why we sometime get individual clouds instead of huge sheets.

    An equal problem is that the reading for humidity basically stop working below -40°, and are quite inaccurate at lower altitudest. See Figure 2 here:

  • I have thousands of photos of planes overhead (central kalifornia), ones with no trail, ones with short trails, and ones with very persistent trails. To me, it’s obvious when I see a real contrail (which I call type1 to type3 whereas type0 is a plane with no trail and type9 is one that goes from horizon to horizon and lasts for hours) that dissipates in 10 to 30 seconds. It’s obvious that a type9 is a chemtrail. Type7&8s are chemtrails, too, but don’t last as long because of drier air. What I’d like to figure out is what type4to6 are, where they last for minutes and expand.
    Also, I go to to see if I can match a plane/trail to a flight shown. Too often, there is no flight shown going the right direction at the place seen at the time of the trail. It’s been suggested that at least some chemtrails are done by drones and it sure has looked that way a number of times.
    I’d also love to get humidity readings for 30,000 feet as you have, to help determine which planes ought to be making trails and which ought not.
    I’d also love for somebody to contact me about studying this more.

    • Even the short ones are suspect, IMHO. Condensation can’t occur in the absence of condensation nuclei unless the relative humidity is much greater than 100% – supersaturated.

  • It would probably not be a bad idea to have private investigators follow people like Mick West and David Suzuki and Bill Nye around for long enough to understand why
    they seem to tow the line for this insane problem the world is trying to get a grip on.
    Maybe we should also have these people tested for the very ingredients we know they
    should have plenty of. If they don’t then we need to find out why and get us whatever that is so we can walk around saying “Chemtrails shmemtrails. What me worry.” But seriously maybe there are technologies they have been awarded for doing what they do. Or maybe they’re just being lied to as well and haven’t figured that out yet. Either way it’s a win win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *