Investigators Wanted to Document Chemtrails

By Rady Ananda

One of the producers of What in the World Are They Spraying is organizing a systematic method of documenting aerial applications of toxic materials, calling for 50-100 volunteers to collect specific info and record it on a prepared template over the next month.

“We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute.” ~ G. Edward Griffin

Tools Needed:

iPhone or computer
Plane Finder:
Time Converter:
Lat/Long Locator:
DataRecord Template:

Extra (Not essential, but useful)
Camera or video recorder

Can Chemtrails Be Proved?

By G. Edward Griffin
May 27, 2011

It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always manage to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in our snow and rain water as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.


When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow is merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from a toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by saying that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.

Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and refrain from challenging the prevailing view.


Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.

We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the “dust-bowl” theory even remotely plausible. But it will take a little time to pull the facts together.

Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples around the world is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, our critics will become hard pressed for new theories.


One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this application on an iPhone is $2.99, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and large private aircraft. Small planes, military aircraft, and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.

I’m sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing trails from horizon-to-horizon all will be identified as commercial craft, and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system … well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.

To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable. Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a flight that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters. One blogger who is unhappy with the Plane Finder claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.) In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable.

You get the picture.

In spite of these arguments, I think there is an opportunity here to collect data that will be compelling, even if there are areas not serviced by the technology and even if a small percentage of commercial planes are, in fact, without transmitters. If we can demonstrate that flights with horizon-to-horizon trails are missing from the system, we will have put one more nail into the coffin of chemtrail denial.


This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from scheduled planes carrying passengers or freight? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who believe that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.

Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you can go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Vice versa, when you see an aircraft overhead, you should be able to go to your computer and watch it moving across a map on your screen if it is in the system. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight, including the time.

Be aware that the time is given in what they call Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). This is the same time everywhere in the world, so it probably will not be the same as your local time. To convert to local time, you will need a conversion chart, found at A simpler way to obtain the local time is to read the hours from your watch or clock and record the minutes from the program readout.


Although not essential, it would be a great help to photographically document each plane that is recorded, especially any that don’t show up in the system. The simplest method is to take a still photo and make sure the photo ID number is recorded along with the flight data. That will make it harder for the debunkers to claim that there is no way to substantiate that our subjective interpretation of a contrail vs. a chemtrail means anything. Let the photos speak for themselves. If you are a video buff, it would be a nice additional touch to have a second party take videos of the whole verification process, everything from seeing the plane in the sky to photographing it and getting its identification (or finding that it has no identification). If we produce a follow up to What in the World Are They Spraying, this might make an interesting segment. But don’t let the added requirement of photographs and video get in the way of doing the basic observations. That is what really matters in the long run.


To generate a statistical summary, we will need all data in a uniform format, so we have created a data-record template that you can download here:  Please use this to enter your observations.


When complete, the sheets can be scanned and emailed to me as a digital file to
Or fax the sheets to 1-805-497-0685
Or mail them to P.O. Box 4646, Westlake Village, CA 91359.

That’s it. If 50 or 100 people will do this, and if they are able to collect data on flights over a one-month period, we will have a record of immense value.

Are we going to have fun or what?

Ed Griffin

P.S. If you have not yet obtained a copy of What in the World Are They Spraying, there is no better time than now. It can be ordered here.


And here’s something for fun:

21 responses to “Investigators Wanted to Document Chemtrails

  1. Cool; Glad to see it up there. Where I live up here in the great white north. It appears to be not as much of an issue as they passed a moritorium on atmospheric aerial aerosol spraying but I do see it. It appears that much spraying is done over Northern Michigan and except when the lows come in back filling from the south east, our weather movement is from the north west. That appears to be the direction where most of the lingering ones are coming from. I see lots south of me in the northeastern US south of the Great Lakes. I’ve read discussions on Tesla Domes, it seems to have some bearing here, can anyone shine some light on that topic.

    • well, the US did not agree to the moratorium and is still heavily engaged in chemtrailing our skies.

      so grab the data sheet and start taking notes

      let the games begin!

  2. Rady, this is very, very, very superlatively good (I might be missing a few “verys” there). I cannot quite express how good this is! Thank you for posting!
    Here’s why I’m so uncharacteristically exuberant: G. Edward Griffin’s project is running in the U.S., but the tools he points to can be used just as well over here in Europe. I’ve already begun generating data on my own while thinking about how to get more detail and also how to generate an integrated picture. This isn’t best possible method and it certainly has some gaps – but it’s a very good method, way, way better than what I’d come up with so far, it works now, and because participation has a near-zero marginal cost, there’s a good chance to interest 100 people in collecting data for a month.
    I hope you get a lot of high-quality participation over there.
    Data about the commercial flights shouldn’t be neglected. For the purposes of the study, commercial flight data is at least equally interesting as the “black” data (in the sense of black projects) because recording near 100% of publicly declared commercial flights for a known period at particular location demonstrates high data quality. The conclusion that additional flights are military, black or other non-approved would then be very robust.
    Apropos the double-edged sword, I’m surprised that G. Edward Griffin doesn’t mention Project Cloverleaf. He certainly knows about it, so I suppose he has his reasons.
    And thanks again!

    • hey, Thassalarche — I am almost POSITIVE Griffin will accept info from outside the U.S.

      If you do collect data and post it on his spreadsheet, why not send it to him anyway?

      I’ll write him to confirm, but meanwhile, am so glad to hear of your efforts elsewhere.

      btw, I’m under a fly lane, so we get planes every 2-3 minutes (as you can imagine, all of us have compromised respiratory systems). But, we also get chemtrails, just not as often.

      I’ll do as much as I can cuz I can hear the planes long before I see their exhaust.

      and yeah, I’m sure he knows about cloverleaf, but his email is just about finding volunteers.

      • Hi Rady, great, please let me know. If G.E.G. is willing to deal with the greater data volume, I’ll be absolutely delighted to contribute data from Germany and to look for other European contributors. A worldwide scope is likely to give the project considerably more impact.

  3. please,all you good people,we already tried this in the uk in 1999 & germany 2003/4/5 it is inadmissable evidence! we already have all the evidence,i have almost 20000 docs.from US NAVY/AIR FORCE/CFR/ROYAL SOCIETY/RAND/DOW/RAYTHEON/MITRE/DARPA/CIA/EVERGREEN/BOEING/CARNEGY&FORD FOUNDATION/DOD/NOVAVAX/EVERGREEN etc just to name a few.nothing will stop them.too many other programmes are piggy-backed on the VTRPE/RF/RED GRID-BLUE GRID program of which weather/eco-warfare is only a small part yet a convenient cover,arrogant,ambitious glory seeking scientists are the perfect patsies,”what in the world” is a good start but way off,please,im dying to tell you about ALL the projects & what it’s all about but i don’t wanna end up like J.P.Wheeler,General Tinsdale,Admiral J.Bordin and so many others.i promise,i will try to clarify by the end of the year when i will be in a safe place and under protection of “ghost troop” but til then,im so very sorry but i just can’t.i hope you’ll understand.

  4. Sounds scary. Guess we’ll have to wait. In the meantime, for those of us thirsting to get a glimpse of their modus operandi, this’ll have to do. We’ll try it in the court of public opinion

  5. dear hybridrogue , very well said , and once you know all the different applications/project you can identify them on the different nuances within the chromatic haze spectrum & different grid patterns

  6. This is quite interesting with regard to the recent very strange tornadoes in the midwest. So much for freedom of the press.

    And don’t come back!

  7. “not only in the blatant crisscross patterning,” Do these criss-cross patterns ever match known pathways that commercial aircraft take? Hint: Yes.

    Look any contrail you see and check You will see it matches with a commercial flight.

    Why does the “Debunk This” guy block everyone that debunks him? It makes it seem that nobody can do it, but I have done it several times, over and over. I guess he is afraid of reality.

  8. Probably because he has no time for your spin on reality

    • “he has no time for your spin on reality” = CTists can’t answer specific questions.

      Why do CTists think they are above the 99% and not the bottom? Do they really think they are the one’s with such “inside information”? I guess if you spent so much time on a lie, you will work as hard as you can to try and spin it as truth.

  9. What in the World are We Breathing

    Connecicut video of flocking particualets, after the storm.

    Forward to 3:09 amazing!

  10. i sure hope that lady was wearing her NBC mask!

  11. Do me a favour will you ieaffiliates, next time you look up and see a criscross pattern in the sky, take a deep breath..

    • I always do knowing that in basic physics it would take an impossible scew to make it float against the jetstream, fall faster than gravity and affect me below it. Then we can calculate the concentration formula to see if after falling 35K feet that it would still be in anyway greater than 5 ppb no matter the substance.

      Does anybody that follows scary chemtrails understand basic physics or meteorology?

  12. Thanx Rady,im all over it ,actually im at the moment waiting for a specific document by us naval research office to be declassified,i was suppose to get it this morning but they are dragging their heels,i’ll keep you posted,in the meantime here is something (unrelated) to keep you busy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s