Skip to main content

Up in the sky — is that a contrail or chemtrail?

OK, weighing in on the chemtrails issue. For some, the very existence of chemtrails is a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that has large forces of government, giant corporations, and other such dark (often secret) forces, acting in collusion to control the weather and even to control countries and their populations.

[I catch a contrail or chemtrail. Click for bigger.]
The most visible "evidence" cited are persistent contrails (often in crosshatch patterns) left in the sky. These chemtrails (chemical contrails) are not composed of the vaporous exhaust of airplane engines, but intentional injection of chemicals into the stratosphere. The supposed purposes of laying chemtrails range from global weather control, international warfare, or world depopulation initiatives. All of this in secret without any oversight or control by the affected populations.

Oh my. For a while the chemtrails theory seemed to call out for skeptical distancing on my part.

My worldview accommodates some fundamental craziness in everyone so I'd tolerate my "rational" friends going off on chemtrail tangents from time to time. I did watch some very carefully made and "reasonable" documentary efforts on contrails, particularly "What in the world are they spraying," and its sequel, "Why in the world are they spraying." (Both are available online.) But the idea that the government, or some giant corporation in collusion with the government (the "Monsanto Model") would be able to get away with spraying crap into the air seemed unlikely to me.

On February 14, 2013, NASA scientist Riley Duren gave a presentation on geoengineering. It was a very interesting talk about controlling the weather. He very plainly discusses the precise methods of laying chemtrails, and their costs and purposes. He didn't say anyone was actually laying chemtrails, but that it was an inevitability! Holy crap!

The entire broadcast is still available. I made an 8 minute edit which excerpts the parts concerning chemtrails.

Does this prove chemtrails exist? Not necessarily, but it shows that NASA (and many others) know how to make them and know that they can be "weaponized" for global control and giant profit.

Would a corporation be able to get away with it? And why do chemtrails? Here's a scenario. In 2013, Monsanto purchased Climate Corporation for $930 million. That's almost a billion dollars. What does Climate Corporation do? It underwrites weather insurance for farmers. So if you underwrite bets on weather, being able to control the weather or even influence it the tiniest bit could pay off big time.

That people on the ground may suffer unpredictable flooding or drought might stop Monsanto, though. Not.

In the presentation, Duren gives the hypothetical cost of a global chemtrail campaign at $10 billion a year. That's a steep price even for Monsanto though, with a total capitalized value of around $20 billion.

But how about a really gigantic corporation like BASF? They're the biggest GMO/pesticide/chemical corporation on Earth with a capitalized value of around $87 billion, and revenue last year of around $100 billion.

But wait. In an article cited by Duren, the RRN Team of the World Economic Forum states, "Recent studies suggest that a small fleet of aircraft could inject a million tonnes of sulphur compounds into the stratosphere – enough to offset roughly half of the global warming experienced to date – for US$ 1 billion-US$ 2 billion annually."

That's an order of magnitude less than Duren's estimate, and that much more doable.

(And it would have to be even less than that if the motivation were not to reduce global warming but to influence weather in specific areas. A drought or a flood can sell the right seeds and chemicals.)

So, up in the sky. Is that a contrail or a chemtrail? Well, it certainly could be a chemtrail, couldn't it? But if it were, we the people would be informed about it, right?

Our government wouldn't let harmful chemicals be injected into our skies without telling us, right?

We'd have to have informed consent to allow chemicals to be sprayed into the atmosphere, right?

Especially if those chemicals might have unpredictable effects on our health, the weather, or that might unfairly profit huge corporations at our expense, right?

They would have to disclose what chemicals they are spraying and observe some kind of buffer zone, right?


H. Doug Matsuoka
15 June 2014
Makiki, Honolulu

Recorded Ustream of Riley Duren's complete NASA presentation on geoengineering:

Youtube of my edit of Duren's NASA presentation:

Publication cited by Duren: World Economic Forum 2013 X Factors list:

Article mentioned by Duren (Guardian 7/17/2012 US geoengineers to spray sun-reflecting chemicals from balloon):

World Economic Forum: Are we at risk from rogue geoengineering?

Monsanto purchase of Climate Corp:

Documentary: What in the world are they spraying?:

Documentary: Why in the world are they spraying?:


Popular posts from this blog

Love, Truth, and Action: John Kelly's 3 requirements for activists

[I found this essay, originally published in 1997 and simply titled, "Save Our Surf" at Hawaiian Sovereignty activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele's Hawaii-Nation website. I have retitled it and added headings and illustrations. All illustrations are from the University of Hawaii's digital collection of Kelly's pamphlets, posters, and photos. The are from protests and demonstrations dating back to the 1960's. 

Kelly's Save Our Surf (SOS) group started in the late 1960's in an effort to protect surfing and fishing sites that were being threatened by corporate development. Not only was SOS successful in those efforts, it helped create legislation protecting our natural resources, and was behind the creation of the first inventory of the public use of Hawaii's shoreline on all islands. — H. Doug Matsuoka]

Love, Truth, and Action
by John Kelly

One often hears dismay over differences among the various [Hawaiian] sovereignty movements today. We belie…

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb

I think my boss at work (a Honolulu nonprofit) is a littled miffed at me. When the incoming ballistic missile warning came in over everyone’s phone this morning, she texted that she had just had training on this and for us to, “stay indoors, preferably on the floor away from windows.” I texted back that I was going to post, “still time to donate” on our website.
I live in a wooden house with windows facing Honolulu International Airport, Hickam Air Force Base, and Pearl Harbor. Given even a sub-megaton airburst at several thousand feet, and that the fatalities from atomic weapons come from the flash, not the blast (the flash of nuclear energy and not the explosive force), I’d be a memory before my body could experience any misgivings about the situation.
My boss is a quarter century younger than I am and lacks the dubious benefit of having lived through the Cold War with the Soviet Union (check history books for those guys). The American national doctrine against nuclear war with the…

What The City Doesn’t Want You To Know About Thomas Square

[This article was originally published by CivilBeat on July 21, 2016. I'm reprinting it with video clips. Doug]

The City of Honolulu plans to close Thomas Square on Aug. 15 for six months and re-open it in February 2017 as something completely different, according to its master plan. Although city officials have unveiled grandiose plans concerning a drastic makeover, there are a number of troubling things they are trying to keep under cover:

1. It will no longer be a public park. The master plan calls for Thomas Square to be transferred from the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation, where it is a public park, to its Department of Enterprise Services. What is it? The department runs the Blaisdell Center, the Waikiki Shell, the zoo and the public golf courses. By way of a memo dated April 28 from the city’s enterprise chief Guy Kaulukukui to the state’s head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the city asked the state to make changes to allow a change of purpose for…