“PROOF” of Chemtrails? Whistle-Blower Debunked (Updated)

Debunked: German Aeronautics Engineer “I Installed Chemtrail Devices” Whistleblower

Someone linked a story to a conspiracy article about chem-trails being proven by an unnamed “aerospace” engineer that was fired from an unnamed business at an “open mic” event. Yes, like an “open-mic session” at some hipster douche coffee joint… but on a sidewalk or park. It is almost like “no-proof” is proof… like atheists say nothing is something.

Here is the post:

chemtrail SPG

(The article mentioned originally is linked in the above pic.)

In an excellent article, the whistle-blower is debunked by MetaBunk:


Here is the MetaBunk text from their post:

  • On May 12th, 2014, at a German Peace Demonstration in Dresden, a person who claimed to be a former aerospace engineer (later identified as “Jens”) gave a brief talk, claiming to have have installed “chemtrail” spray equipment on planes. But his story fell apart after he presented his “evidence”. The plane he claims to have worked on in 2008 was an 2003 icing test plane, retired in 2005.

In this aforementioned article linked on FaceBook, there is this picture PROVING the spraying of chemicals into the air:


You see there! MORE proof this conspiracy is real… er… unless that is… you do just a bit of research.

Just a bit.


In each new jet model, prototype are made for various tests. At MetaBunk, you can find MANY pictures of these preceded with this explanation:

There are several photos that crop up on a daily basis on Facebook chemtrail groups with descriptions like “Chemtrail Plane Interior”. These are almost all photos of pre-production test aircraft which are fitted with ballast barrels, although there are a few that are interiors of firefighting planes. I’ll try to make this post be a comprehensive explanation of all the photos. Let me know if I miss any. And if you see some chemtrail promoters using this photos in error, then please let them know.

Ballast barrels are just big barrels of water that are used to simulate passengers when testing various configurations of weight and balance on the aircraft during test flights. The barrels are sometimes isolated, and sometimes connected with tubes, so water can be pumped around in flight to simulate passenger movements….

One of the reasons I love doing posts like this is that I learn a lot about both the lows of human reasoning can reach as well as all the neat science/engineering stuff your learn. Here is the video:



Here is a photo during a tour of one of these 787-8 Dreamliner test jets (if you right click and open in other tab you will see the full rez of the photo):

Tour Water Ballast Chem Trail 2

How fun. BTW, the comments section of the MetaBunk post on this is very informative as well.


After pointing a couple of these things out to the person posting the original conspiracy article that is easily disproved by a ninth-grader (well, when my boys were freshman at least), I immediately got the cut-n-paste of all the “patents” via the geoengineeringwatch.org’s conspiracy site started coming in. Here is one on the list commented on:

Patent 5003186

Patent Transparent PNG

Here is the commentary:

  • The ‘Welsbach’ patent is well known, old (it’s patent has expired), and more importantly, there’s no evidence that it has ever been fitted, let alone used. But what if it had been used, it’s just a delivery system for a form of SRM. Geoengineering, if it ever happens, will be taking place in the stratosphere, and would not look like contrails, you sure as hell wouldn’t be able to see the aircraft, if they went that way. Balloons or rockets are as likely, as there are few planes that could fly to the required altitude.

Here is a great video debunking the claims made by geoengineeringwatch.org:

Here is another video dealing with some false claims made by Dane Wigington, lead researcher at geoengineeringwatch.org, on the same patent:

Leap of Logic

So the simple question becomes: since when does the existence of a patent mean anyone is doing anything with it? Its a jump in logic that does not prove a thing. Not only that, but even the success rates of patents getting to the end (being made and successfully implemented. is very-very low. For instance, here is one YouTuber making some common sense points MetaBunk makes in their article on the matter as well, “Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent

Patent 1338343

The second patent used in the supplied — tired — list (normally the first) is this one: 1338343– August 14, 1990 – Process and Apparatus for the production of intense artificial Fog. Here are comments on it:

Detailed description [here]

Since no explanation was given on the purpose of the first patent on the list, I thought I would try to figure out what it was about. The US patent doesn’t mention the intended use for the invention. My first thought was that maybe it was for special effects in the movie industry. But, I looked at the corresponding UK patent, and it mentions that it’s for military use.


Makes sense. The patent was filed during the middle of WWI. And, titanium tetrachloride, the chemical used in the patent, is included in a list of chemicals used for making military smoke screens

You can see it in action in this joint Korea/U.S. amphibious beach landing to surely ruffle the gulag cult to the north:

Misc. Others

After another very long cut-n-paste by a person in a forum similar to the one I am dealing with, we have this zinger:

… if you can tell us WHY each of those patents is relevant, it would be a help.

For example. patent 3899144 1975 Powder Contrail Generator.

This patent was issued for a device to be affixed to a target used in Aerial Gunnery Target Practice. The target is towed behind an aircraft and the Powder Contrail Generator leaves a trail of white particles behind it so the Gun Crew can see their target. 

It uses 1.5 kilos of powder.

What does this have to do with “chemtrails”?

Also, please note that the issuing of a patent does not mean that the invention patented is actually in use otherwise we would be born by centrifugal force

see http://colitz.com/site/3216423/3216423.htm


You can’t just post up a list of patents and say “These prove chemtrails!” You should explain WHT you think these prove chemtrails

For example, from the list you posted:

“6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated the highly reactive chemical species “

What does this patent have to do with alledged spraying????

Keep in mind since I have been following these stories/conspiracies, they have changed… as do all conspiracies that fail to meet the simplest evidential standards. Which is why, for example,  most of the “evidence” in the first Loose Change (a “documentary” about our government or massive insurance fraud being behind 9/11) is shed for new “evidence.” As these “so-so” stories fall apart, many are getting away from the spraying of what is typically thought to be aluminium or barium. Other conspiracy nuts would site Manganese (as the video to the right exemplifies).

A great collection of discussions can be found at Contrail Science. I also have a section on my C-O-N-Debunker Page on this topic. Take note as well that amateur rain collectors report high levels of harmful chemical. However, upon review of their collecting techniques, contamination would be the rule.


While a bit off topic… I love this exposing of lies and misinformation of some geoengineeringwatch article’s:

Too funny!