Why the "Chemtrail Conspiracy" Is Real

Why the "Chemtrail Conspiracy" Is Real

[NOTE: The paper described below was retracted by the journal. The author's rejection of the retraction is published here.] 

While any discussion of the "chemtrail" phenomenon today is immediately labeled conspiracy theory, a new study provides evidence that a global covert program is underway, made possible through political, commercial, and government interests working in collusion to release extremely toxic material into the atmosphere ostensibly to "combat global warming."

Admittedly, when the topic of "chemtrails" comes up, I get a bit uneasy.  Like connecting vaccines with autism, certain topics have been so loaded with misinformation for so long that writing about them automatically invokes the specter of controversy, and not open discussion, as would be expected if discovering the truth were a priority. 

One highly marginalized but vocal sector of the population believes chemtrails are being sprayed on us like Raid on cockroaches by our invisible overlords to facilitate a depopulation agenda. On the other extreme are academics unashamedly publishing papers suggesting we should play God by using various geoengineering techniques with avowedly planet wide impacts to "combat global warming." Rarely, however, do we see anyone convincingly tying together the first-hand observational data with objective data, to prove that there is something in these persistent contrails other than frozen water vapor.

Thankfully, a groundbreaking study was recently published that did exactly this, bringing us closer to the truth than we have ever been before. The implications are simply profound and I believe may foment greatly expanded awareness and activism on the topic.

New Research Proves Coal Fly Ash Is The Source Material for "Chemtrails"

The new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health titled, "Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health," offers a convincing explanation for what is behind the so-called "chemtrail" phenomenon, revealing that the source material used to create artificial weather visible throughout the world is the extremely toxic waste material from the electric industry known as coal fly ash.

If you are not already aware, "chemtrail" is a colloquial term used to describe the persistent contrails, presumably laden with "chemicals," observed issuing from aircraft that result in the formation of artificial cloud patterns and weather. Their existence has been almost universally written off as "conspiracy theory" by the media and government despite global evidence – as clear as day – that the weather is being manipulated with aerosols, presumably for geoengineering purposes intended to offset global warming. 

The new study, authored by San Diego resident J. Marvin Herndon, was initiated after he witnessed his region being sprayed daily by an, as of then, unidentified aerosol:

"In the spring of 2014, the author began to notice tanker-jets quite often producing white trails across the cloudless blue sky over San Diego, California. The aerosol spraying that was happening with increasing frequency was a relatively new phenomenon there. The dry warm air above San Diego is not conducive to the formation of jet contrails, which are ice condensate. By November 2014 the tanker-jets were busy every day crisscrossing the sky spraying their aerial graffiti. In a matter of minutes, the aerosol trails exiting the tanker-jets would start to diffuse, eventually forming cirrus-like clouds that further diffuse to form a white haze that scattered sunlight, often occluding or dimming the sun. Aerosol spraying was occasionally so intense as to make the otherwise cloudless blue sky overcast, some areas of sky turning brownish (Figure 1). Sometimes the navigation lights of the tanker-jets were visible as they worked at night, their trails obscuring the stars overhead; by dawn the normally clear-blue morning sky already had a milky white haze. Regardless, aerosol spraying often continued throughout the day. The necessity for daily aerosol emplacement stems from the relatively low spraying-altitudes in the troposphere where mixing with air readily occurs bringing down the aerosolized particulates and exposing humanity and Earth's biota to the fine-grained substance. The author's concern about the daily exposure to ultra-fine airborne particulate matter of undisclosed composition and its concomitant effect on the health of his family and public health in general prompted the research reported here."


chemtrails San Diego

The Long History of Covert Geoengineering Programs

For those who have not witnessed the "chemtrail" phenomenon directly, it would be easy to write off this author's testimony as dubious or merely anecdotal. But the author rightly points out that there is already extensive evidence in the historical record of covert geoengineering programs, and which he summarizes thusly:

"Geoengineering, also called weather-modification, has been carried out for decades at much lower altitudes in the troposphere. The recent calls for open discussion of climate control or geoengineering tend to obscure the fact that the world's military and civilian sectors have modified atmospheric conditions for many decades as has been described by science historian, James R. Fleming [4]. Some of the early weather-modification research resulted in programs like Project Skywater (1961–1988), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's effort to engineer "the rivers of the sky"; the U.S. Army's Operation Ranch Hand (1961–1971), in which the herbicide Agent Orange was an infamous part; and its Project Popeye (1967–1971), used to "make mud, not war" over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. These few examples of weather-modification, all of them secret at the time they were engaged, show that the weather is in the words of the military, "a force multiplier" [5]."

The fact is that we don't need to speculate about whether these covert programs are still happening, because the evidence is "hidden out in plain sight" for millions to see on a daily basis.  [Note: I highly suggest you watch "Artificial Clouds," to get a primer on the difference between naturally occurring contrails and "chemtrails."]

The real questions here are: What is being sprayed? Who is behind the program? Why is there no public discussion of the program and its implications to human and environmental health?

Coal Fly Ash "Is More Toxic Than Radioactive Waste"

While it is clear that weather modification programs focused on enhanced precipitation are being conducted across the country using silver iodide, as recently exposed by our contributor Dave Dahl's documentary "Artificial Clouds," and that the result is global changes in weather patterns, exemplified by the temperature changes observed after the post-9/11 airplane grounding, the global geoengineering program appears to be a far greater threat to planetary health.

What Herndon's research uncovered is that, "[T]oxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health."

He arrived at this conclusion through the following methods:

"Two methods are employed: (1) Comparison of 8 elements analyzed in rainwater, leached from aerosolized particulates, with corresponding elements leached into water from coal fly ash in published laboratory experiments, and (2) Comparison of 14 elements analyzed in dust collected outdoors on a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter with corresponding elements analyzed in un-leached coal fly ash material. The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical."

Coal fly ash is a fine particle residue generated by coal combustion and is an extremely toxic material for the primary 3 reasons:

1)   Because of its nanoparticle range sizing not only can it enter more easily into human tissue through skin, oral, or pulmonary contact, but it may also have greater toxicity due to its ability to mimic hormones and/or pass through cell membranes and altering nuclear programs to adversely alter cell phenotype.

2)   It contains a wide range of heavy metals, including inorganic forms of aluminum and arsenic which are highly toxic to biological systems. It's mercury content can range as high as 1 part per million.1

3)   It contains low-dose radioisotopes which can have profound, severe chronic adverse health effects several orders of magnitude higher than present toxicological risk assessments account for. Herndon states, "Coal fly ash has been described as being more radioactive than nuclear waste [24]."


As Herndon states, "The consequences [of coal fly ash exposure] on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction."

Disturbingly, the EPA recently ruled that coal fly ash is not to be considered a "hazardous waste,"2 despite overwhelming evidence that contains dozens of compounds that individually present a serious enough environmental and human health risk to be classified and regulated as hazardous to health.

When you consider that the EPA requires coal firing electrical plants to sequester the coal fly ash due to its known toxicity as a pollutant, the hypocrisy here is astounding. Of course, this ruling would protect those orchestrating the behind-the-scenes geoengineering agenda of using the electrical power industry's toxic byproduct: millions of tons of coal fly ash, as a "beneficial" substance used to "combat global warming," even though the end result is the same: releasing a highly toxic material directly into the troposphere.

Profit Motive and Not Evidence Drives The Geoengineering Agenda

We already have examples of how this works. The private sector, like the aluminum industry, colludes with the government to take a highly toxic waste product like fluoride, and then lobby to have it legally mandated to be put into the environment and our bodies via fluoridation programs.  Suddenly the industry responsible for concentrating and unleashing a substance that is not legal to dump into the environment due to safety concerns gets paid to have it dumped directly into our water supply which ends up in our environment and bodies. A highly toxic substance is simply re-purposed and rebranded as "therapeutic" when the profit motive is compelling enough to trump ethical and legal boundaries.

As of 2005, U.S. coal-fired plants reported producing 71.1 million tons of fly ash, of which 29.1 million tons was reported reused for industrial applications.3 Were it not for this "recycling" the industry would be left with a billion dollar problem, not unlike the nuclear industry's problem with nuclear waste. Therein alone lies a plausible motive for its use as a "geoengineering" ingredient, turning a liability into a profit center.

Herndon offers additional insight into why he thinks coal fly ash was chosen as the preferred geoengineering ingredient:

While academicians debate geoengineering as an activity that might potentially be needed in the future [2,3], evidence suggests that Western governments/militaries moved ahead with a full scale operational geoengineering program. But instead of mining and milling rock to produce artificial volcanic ash in sufficient volumes to cool the planet, they adopted a low-cost, pragmatic alternative, but one with consequences far more dire to life on Earth than global warming might ever be, and used coal combustion fly ash. To make matters worse, instead of placing the material high into the stratosphere, where there is minimal mixing and the substance might remain suspended for a year or more, they opted to spray coal fly ash into the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, which mixes with the air people breathe and gets rained down to ground.

Another very important point made by Herndon is that this interventionist approach to "combat global warming" appears to have been poorly thought out, perhaps resulting in exactly the opposite of the stated intention:

"There is yet another consequence of tropospheric coal ash spraying that is contrary to cooling the Earth and has potentially far-reaching adverse ecological and public health implications: weather modification and concomitant disruption of habitats and food sources. As reported by NASA, "Normal rainfall droplet creation involves water vapor condensing on particles in clouds. The droplets eventually coalesce together to form drops large enough to fall to Earth. However, as more and more pollution particles (aerosols) enter a rain cloud, the same amount of water becomes spread out. These smaller water droplets float with the air and are prevented from coalescing and growing large enough for a raindrop. Thus, the cloud yields less rainfall over the course of its lifetime compared to a clean (non-polluted) cloud of the same size" [42]. In addition to preventing water droplets from coalescing and growing large enough to fall to Earth, coal fly ash, which formed under anhydrous conditions, will hydrate, trapping additional moisture thus further acting to prevent rainfall. That may cause drought in some areas, floods in others, crop failure, forest die-offs, and adverse ecological impacts, especially in conjunction with the chemically-mobile-aluminum contamination from coal fly ash. The consequences ultimately may have devastating effects on habitats and reduce human food production."

Herndon leaves us with closing remarks difficult to ignore, including a call to action that I hope our readers take to heart:

More than a half century ago Rachel Carson called the world's attention to the unintended consequences of herbicides and pesticides widely employed by agriculture. Instead of turning a blind eye, people everywhere became motivated to stop the worst of this environmental onslaught. Today we are fully aware of the vast interconnected web of dependencies and symbioses that comprise life on our planet. Earth exists in a state of dynamic biological, chemical, and physical equilibrium whose complexity far exceeds the understanding of contemporary science. The pervasive tropospheric spraying of coal fly ash threatens this equilibrium, whose delicacy or whose resilience we cannot quantify. Human health is at risk as is Earth's biota. Are we to remain silent? Or will we exercise our primal right to speak in our own defense as a species and question the sanity of emplacing coal fly ash in Earth's perpetually moving atmosphere?


"Fly Ash in Concrete" (PDF). perkinswill.com. 2011-11-17. Retrieved 2013-11-19. Fly ash contains approximately one part per million of mercury.

EPA 2014, Final rule: disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

American Coal Ash Association. "CCP Production and Use Survey" (PDF).

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry: Terrible article

Hello, SayerJi. 

First of all, I want to say that, human stupidity being what it is, I find it entirely plausible that some people may be contemplating geoengineering by spraying something into the atmosphere.

HOWEVER: I find NO actual evidence that "chemtrails" exist or that geoengineering is being attempted by this method.

We DO find all sorts of nasty things in our soil and water that do not belong there, including fly ash, but these things have been industrial effluents for decades longer than we have had jet aircraft. So there are totally conventional explanations for the presence of these things in soil and water samples.

There is no "case" for the existence of chemtrails. In order to have a "case" that will stand up in a court of law, there must be one or both of these two things:

* A responsible official must state, "Yes, we are spraying substances into the atmosphere." 
* There must be a chemical analysis of something emitted by aircraft, captured before it hits the ground. The analysis must be done by an independent and credible laboratory using documented and accepted methods of analysis, and the details of this analysis must be part of the "testimony."

If you don't have one or both of these things, there is no "case" and it's all speculation. 

Given that very sophisticated digital image manipulation can be done on a home computer, I do not accept digital photographs as proof of anything. And many of the images proposing to be "chemtrails" crisscrossing the sky show clear signs of digital manipulation and enhancement.

Additionally: ALL aircraft engines, including of propeller-driven aircraft, produce condensation trails under certain conditions of altitude and temperature. The shape of condensation trails and the length of time for them to dissipate is dependent on these conditions, not so much on the composition. This is basic science, and the proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory seem extremely weak in both basic science and basic logic.

So this article is extremely unhelpful — and IMO does not belong in a credible site such as this one. The logical chain is faulty at several points, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."

I am open to new information in this regard, IF someone can produce actual evidence that will give us leverage in a court of law as well as the court of public opinion.

It's telling that neither Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, nor Union of Concerned Scientists has chosen to take up the question of chemtrails. If at some point one of these organizations chooses to address "chemtrails" as a plausible issue, I'll be all over it.

Thank you for reading this far.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment

Key Research Topics

Popular Threads

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2017 GreenMedInfo.com, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.