Competition Rules and Evidence Standards

1. The Proposition

The purpose of this competition is to determine whether the following proposition (“the Proposition”) can be established using independently verifiable evidence.

A current, deliberate, undisclosed, large-scale atmospheric spraying or geoengineering program exists and is being conducted for the purpose of modifying the Earth’s atmosphere, weather, climate or environment.

The burden of proof rests entirely with the entrant. For the purposes of this competition:

• Current means the alleged program is operating at the time the evidence is submitted, or has operated within the previous twelve months.
• Deliberate means the activity is intentional and not the result of routine aviation operations, accidental releases or naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena.
• Undisclosed means the program has not been publicly acknowledged by the organisation or organisations responsible for conducting it.
• Large-scale means the activity extends beyond isolated scientific experiments (such as the ARIA experiments or Stardust Solutions), local weather modification projects (such as companies like Rainmaker), or publicly declared cloud-seeding operations and is capable of affecting a substantial geographical region or population.
• Atmospheric spraying or geoengineering program means a coordinated activity involving the intentional introduction of substances, particles or other agents into the atmosphere, or other intentional atmospheric intervention, for the purpose of modifying atmospheric, environmental or climatic conditions.

2. What Must Be Proven

To establish the Proposition, the evidence, considered as a whole, should demonstrate each of the following:

1. The alleged program exists.
2. The program is deliberate.
3. The program is currently operating.
4. The program is conducted on a large scale.
5. The program is not publicly acknowledged by those responsible.
6. The purpose of the program includes modifying the atmosphere, weather, climate or environment.

Failure to establish any one of these elements will ordinarily prevent the Proposition from being proven.

3. Standard of Proof

The adjudicators will assess all evidence collectively. No single item of evidence will automatically establish the Proposition. Likewise, no single item of evidence will automatically be disregarded if it is capable of independent verification. The prize will be awarded only if the totality of the evidence satisfies the adjudicators that the Proposition has been established. Evidence supporting only one or more individual elements of the Proposition, without establishing the Proposition as a whole, will not be sufficient to win the competition.

4. Evidence That Does Not Constitute Proof on Its Own

The following, whether individually or collectively, will not constitute proof without substantial independent corroboration:

• Patents or patent applications.
• Proposed or enacted legislation.
• Parliamentary speeches or political statements.
• Newspaper articles or opinion pieces.
• Social media posts.
• Internet videos or documentaries.
• Photographs or video without independently verified provenance.
• Aircraft contrails or unusual cloud formations.
• Personal observations or anecdotal accounts.
• Anonymous documents.
• Anonymous whistleblower claims, or whistleblower claims that are discredited.
• AI-generated images, audio or video.
• Unverified laboratory reports, or those without a control sample.
• Statements made by public figures without supporting evidence.

These materials may be considered as supporting information where independently corroborated, but they will not establish the Proposition on their own.

5. Evidence Likely to Carry Significant Weight

The following categories of evidence may carry substantial evidential weight if independently verified.

Scientific Analysis

Air, rainwater, soil or other environmental samples where:

• collection procedures are fully documented;
• chain of custody is established;
• appropriate control samples are included;
• the laboratory is identified;
• testing methodology is disclosed;
• results are reproducible or independently confirmed.

Documentary Evidence

Authentic operational records demonstrating activities directly relevant to the alleged program. Examples include:

• loading records;
• chemical inventory records;
• procurement documentation;
• transport manifests;
• authenticated flight operation records;
• maintenance records;
• operational directives;
• internal communications whose authenticity can be independently verified.

Witness Evidence

Statements from identifiable individuals with direct knowledge may be considered where:

• the individual is identified;
• their qualifications, employment or role are relevant;
• their account is internally consistent;
• their account has not been discredited;
• their claims can be independently corroborated.

Witness testimony alone will rarely be sufficient.

Physical Evidence

Physical evidence that can be independently examined, authenticated and evaluated by appropriately qualified experts.

6. Relevance

Evidence must relate directly to the Proposition. Evidence relating solely to publicly acknowledged activities, including:

• conventional cloud seeding;
• atmospheric research;
• climate modelling;
• weather modification experiments;
• routine aviation operations; or
• other publicly disclosed programs,

will not by itself establish the Proposition. Similarly, evidence concerning unrelated scientific theories or technologies will only be considered where it directly supports the Proposition.

7. Verification Requirements

Every submission must contain sufficient information to allow independent verification. Where applicable, submissions should include:

• dates;
• times;
• locations;
• names of organisations;
• laboratory details;
• chain-of-custody documentation;
• methodology;
• original source documents;
• supporting references.

Evidence that cannot reasonably be verified may be given little or no evidential weight.

8. Independent Assessment

Each submission will be assessed solely on the evidence presented. The personal beliefs, opinions or affiliations of the entrant will not influence the outcome. The adjudicators will consider:

• authenticity;
• reliability;
• relevance;
• corroboration;
• consistency;
• evidential weight.

The decision will be based on the totality of the evidence.

9. Guiding Principles

This competition is not intended to promote or dismiss any particular viewpoint. It exists to encourage evidence-based discussion by applying a transparent and consistent standard to an extraordinary claim. The competition is not concerned with whether atmospheric modification is theoretically possible, whether weather modification has been researched, or whether limited and publicly acknowledged cloud-seeding programs exist. The only question being considered is whether there is sufficient independently verifiable evidence to establish the Proposition defined in these rules. If the published standard is met, the prize will be awarded. If it is not met, the prize will not be awarded.

10. Competition Period

The competition will remain open for a period of six (6) months from the official opening date of 20 July 2026. All eligible submissions must be received before the published closing date. No submissions received after the closing date will be considered unless the competition period is formally extended and notice of that extension is published on this website before the original closing date.