Aerospace Engineer Confirms “Chemtrails” as Covert Aerosol Geoeongineering 1

Global Research, July 30, 2010

Aerospace Engineer Coen Vermeeren Reviews “Case Orange” Report

Comments by Peter Vereecke, Belfort Group

120369At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

charles_hatfield-1915-san-diego[1]

Rainmaker Charles Hatfield, in 1915, destroyed much of San Diego.

The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.

Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]

Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”

The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.

In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.

Contrails Are Chemtrails

Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.

chemt

Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.

“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”

“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]

Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)

However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])

stormfy

The crew in Operation Stormfury in 1963. Note the special belly on the Douglas DC6-B for cloud seeding purposes. (From Case Orange)

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]

Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:

“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material ….”

The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”

Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)

Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.

Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:

“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”

ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”

Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18]

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

usaf 2025

Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:

2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;

2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;

2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;

2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.

Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21] In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.

Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:

“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

The report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe. For December 6, 2008 in the first image.

owning-the-weather-all

In the last 3 images – “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following images cover January 3-5, 2010:

Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.

They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.

The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:

‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”

Recommendations

“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs.

Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.

Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.

Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.

Epilogue

Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone:

9 chemtrails-davie-fl-3-30-2010-x325

The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails aren’t visible.

A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report. That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and they’re not telling us.

Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that was published in 2007!

So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair researcher.

Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the subject. It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay.

Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find. The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are supposed to expose government shenanigans.

A Brief History of Cloud Seeding

Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.

1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]

10 charle-hatfields-rain-washes-out-dam-1915

Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died.

1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]

1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]

11 romy-ny-dry-ice-seeding-1946

New York dry ice seeding 1946 (Life Magazine)

1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]

1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque. [31]

1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]

12 china-weather-rocket-x-impactlab

China weather rocket (2008 by ImpactLab)

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

05_Flatbed_2 - OCTOBER

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

 

________________________________________

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.

Notes:

[1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test

[2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/

[3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.

[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427

[5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices:
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

[6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html

[7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.

[8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

[9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html

[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

[11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf

[12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html

[13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144

[14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

[15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186

[16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html.

[17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073

[18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/

[19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

[20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/

[21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.
http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf

[22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf

[23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf

[24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf

[25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt

[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at
http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf

[27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545

[29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.

[30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html

Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml

[31] Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false

[32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=
tkN51NoxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html

Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm

[34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJ
OTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false

[35] ibid. pp. 54-60.

[36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html

[37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/

[38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U

# # #

Comparative Contrail Analysis Shows Evidence of Covert Geoengineering Aerosols Reply

Published on Jul 31, 2012

EVIDENCE for COVERT GEOENGINEERING: In 2010 Aerospace Engineers submitted conclusive evidence for Covert Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, (aka “Chemtrails”) in a 336 page report called “CASE ORANGE”.

The report was commissioned by THE BELFORT GROUP (UK), who held a “CHEMTRAILS SYMPOSIUM” where the conclusions were presented by Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren.

The Term Chemtrails was invented by The Department of Defense as title to a chemistry manual for for Air orce Acedemy pilot training.

 

The Term “Chemtrails” is in the text of 2001 legislation (HR-2977) defined as an “exotic weapon”.    http://tinyurl.com/7d7v57o

Documentary: What In The World Are They Spraying?: http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA

Documentary: Why In The World Are They Spraying? (Trailer) http://youtu.be/s3__ssxTvN

 

Analysis of Welsbach Alumina Aerosol Seeding Patent As Major Contributor to Global Warming 1

Welsbach Seeding-Patent-AA

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

Notice the Welsbach patent specifies deployment of aluminum oxide into the STRATOSPHERE at 70 to 90,000 feet where the majority of military and commercial aircraft cannot even fly.

When aluminum oxide – as artificial contrails and clouds – is sprayed up to 7 miles lower in the troposphere, the result is consistent with climatologist data that confirms the result could warm surface temperatures - thus aggravating global warming.

Welsbach Patent Increse Global Warming

Image from Page 1 of Welsbach Patent (PDF) Click Here

IPCC scientists and NASA agree that Contrails and artificial clouds have significant impact of climate.

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”. (1)

Artificial clouds sprayed by jet aircraft can “change the climate and affect natural resources”. (2)

“The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics” (3)

Sources:

After 15 years of spraying aluminum oxide in the troposphere, the level of spraying has increased. This suggests the plan to warm the climate is more likely the true motive all along.

This deception evolved from proposals to warm the climate as far back as 1877 – 7 years after the formation of Standard Oil – when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

The amazing history of “Global Warming” – as a good thing – was popular until  the 1960′s, when (in 1966) NASA organized government agencies into the “National Weather Modification” program that was quickly taken over by the military to develop climate weapons. This could explain why government agencies have adopted a “top secret” deniability about covert geoengineering – aka “chemtrails” as they are sworn to secrecy for the usual “national security” reasons.  (Complete article)

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS with a total of 66 such operations in 18 Countries.

In April, 2013, Weather Modification Inc. listed 37 Cloud Seeding operations in 17 States within the CONUS

Texas-Precip-Enhancement-Lg

Public Health Issue

dr-russell_blaylock-mug-CaptionEven without considering “Chemtrails”, the fallout of toxins as the demand for cloud-seeding increases is disturbing.

This relatively provincial level of cloud seeding is evidence that the corporate mentality will inflict public exposure to massive levels of airborne toxins. We would be foolish to expect any less from the perpetrators of covert, and global geoengineering operations.

“My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.” - Neurologist, Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. (Complete Article)

Environmental Monitoring Captures Covert Geoengineering With Time-Lapse Video Reply

Luke Skywatcher

Apr 14, 2014  Youtube LukeSkywatcher  –  Facebook

Many people are noticing the aggregate effect chemtrails are having on the environment, and the increasing respiratory ailments of people in their cities and towns. We all share pictures online and are able to compare what an area is like on any given day, doing this.

However, I wanted to see whether I could make an effective continual time-lapse of the sky with the bare minimum resources, ( spare computer parts, old wires, recycled monitors, etc.) so that ANYONE interested, would know that THEY TOO, could create their own time-lapse set-up.

With many of us doing this around the world, we could answer the important questions:

Do these chemtrails occur at certain times, on certain days and over certain areas? Are they really sequestering radiation, or cooling the atmosphere? Is there a predictable pattern? Are they happening at the same time in different regions? Do they follow the stages of the sun? Do they affect certain people and types of flora? On the days that they happen, are there more people admitted to hospitals for similar complaints? How do they affect temperature and humidity readings? or vice versa? Does heavy chemtrailing activity precede large storms, or long periods of drought? Is there more activity surrounding an environmental disaster, ie: radiation leaks, chemical spills and unusually destructive tornadic activity?

So, I created this video as a simple, visual, step-by-step guide to making your own set-up in order to prove that ANYONE can do it, with just about any old parts. You don’t have to have amazing equipment, just a little time, a true concern for the world (and your HEALTH) and some determination.

Chemtrails tankers Panel Header-B

Jet Aircraft Geoengineering and THE POISONER Reply

The Poisoner

 

This Brazilian TAM Airline Airbus is revealing  a leak in the chemical aerosol container due to faulty design at sea level vs. actual competency under rarified atmospheric pressure differential at thousands of feet above the ground.

Careful inspection of the video shows the origin of the leak is close to the belly of the aircraft rather than from the tip of the tail.

Aerosols have been noted leaking from similar commercial aircraft in the same area of the belly while spraying “poison” into our breathable atmosphere.

TAM_A330-200_PT-MVO_FRA_2011-10-28

A TAM Brazilian Airlines Airbus A330-200 wearing the new livery at Frankfurt Airport. (2011) with Headquarters in Allentown, PA and São Paulo, Brazil

See More Chemtrail Tankers

 

 

 

 

Geoengineering The Skies in North Florida 4-14-2014 3

4/14 2014 – Gainesville, Florida:

High altitude atmospheric data reveals no conditions of near saturated relative humidity exist at flight levels above 29,000 feet (8,841 meters) to explain formation of persistent contrails and/or persistent-spreading contrails in this example.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

4.14.2014: Top photo taken at dawn. Botton photo near 8 AM local time

High altitude atmospheric data reveals no conditions of near saturated relative humidity exist at flight levels above 29,000 feet (8,841 meters) to explain formation of persistent contrails and/or persistent-spreading contrails in this example.

The absence of near-saturated relative humidity points to release of non water vapor jet emissions as deliberate and covert deployment of aerosols into the troposphere. (1)

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air compared to what the air can “hold” at that temperature. When the air can’t “hold” all the moisture, then it condenses as dew. (Dew Point) (2)

The USAF contrail science facts document requires that relative humidity (RH)  be near saturation. (ie: RH near 100% ) at the altitude where the aircraft is flying.

” If the atmosphere is near saturation, the contrail may exist for some time. Conversely, if the atmosphere is dry, the contrail will dissipate quickly.” (3)

The Case for Covert Geoengineering to Produce Deliberate Surface Warming and Climate Change.

man_made_global_warming_is-chemtrails-xyThe IPCC and NASA Agree on significant climate change effects of contrails and thin, high (Cirrus) clouds.

“Contrails tend to warm the Earth’s surface, similar to thin high clouds”. (4)

Artificial clouds sprayed by jet aircraft can “change the climate and affect natural resources”. (5)

Sources:

NASA Contrail Education

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

 

 

 

Talk Radio Disinfo Trolls at WHO Lose Debate to Dane Wigington 1

Geoengineering Watch Header

Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

dane wigington mug bDebating a “doubleteam” of disinformation trolls on a major national radio station can make for some interesting conversation. After I stumped the ideologue “head in the sand” disinfo host on an earlier show, he invited me back for another go, this time with his hand picked “expert” who teamed up with the host against me. The two of them did their best to “debunk” hard geoengineering data, you can decide who had their facts straight. The interview is only the first 40 minutes of the linked recording below. Though it was scheduled for a full hour, it seemed the disinformation “tag team” decided to throw in the towel. The host even cuts off one of his own listeners who calls in at the end of the debate to agree with the facts I had presented. It is my hope that this debate might be of assistance to activists that inevitably find themselves in such exchanges.   *** Continue to 20 Minute audio

Air Force Decides to “Cut Power” to HAARP By June 4

Alaska Dispatch Header

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy organized a meeting Feb. 26 of federal agencies with an interest in ionospheric research, hoping to develop options to save HAARP. The 30-acre field of antennas, power plant and associated buildings is about 15 miles from Glennallen along the Tok Cutoff near Gakona.

Mixed signals emerged from that February session. At first, it appeared that research agencies might have two or three years to develop a business plan. But then the Air Force said it wanted to cut the power when a final research project wraps up next month. *** Continue

HAARP Facility in Gakona, AK

HAARP Facility in Gakona, AK

Italian Senator Demands Public Disclosure Of “Chemtrail” Agreement With US Air Force 7

 

News Voice Header

Italian senator wants to publish secret agreement with the U.S. on chemtrails

Original Post – April 2nd (Italian)

Italian to English Translation provided by “Google” with comprehensive editing by HSaive
April 2, 2014 By NewsVoice

Senator Domenico Scilipoti MugItalian Senator Domenico Scilipoti has recently requested that the Italian government, through the Prime Minister, publish declassified documents about chemtrails .

The senator from “Forza Italia” alleges the Italian government made ​​secret agreements with the United States.

According to Scilipoti, Italy entered into a bilateral agreement in 2002 with the U.S. on climate research. The following year, in 2003, former Defence Minister Antonio Martino, gave U.S. Air Force permission to fly over Italian airspace.

“From that moment on, our country’s population has been exposed to major health risks”, said the Senator. “The flights emit heavy metals and chemicals in the air, forming long lines, and polluting the rain and damaging agriculture.”

Note 1.   In Italy there is a newly coined term “pentito” which refers to key persons in organized crime who turn state evidence and whose evidence becomes crucial In establishing a case and uncovering cover ups and intrigues . There is no proper word to translate it into English but the literal translation is ” confessed person.”  The new culture of “pentiti” informers in Italy in recent years has started to break the back of the mafia and expose not only mafia gangsters who were protected by long years of Mafia secrecy within the mafia organization (omerta ‘ – silence, wed pain of death) but overpriced their political allies.

Comment:  Pentito appears to be the Italian concept of the USA’s “whistleblower”.

Rodolfo Ragonesi, CEO of the Gaia Foundation,  is clearly a man of truly exceptional courage and focus. While nearly all of the environmental and science communities have remained criminally silent about the blatant and highly toxic climate engineering constantly occurring in skies around the globe, Ragonesi has taken a stand and is demanding answers. Rodolfo’s efforts to expose the truth in Malta are outlined in the link below. *** Continue

 

 

 

 

 

 

IPCC Lost Credibility on Global Warming, Necessarily Renamed “Climate Change” Reply

Listen Closely to Media Fear Porn Propaganda That Blames Fukushima Disaster on “Climate Change”

IPCC History Lesson

February 17, 2014 (Original upload by Suspicious 0bservers)

The impetus to create this page was the assertion that Maurice Strong wrote the terms of reference for the IPCC Climate Assessments to cover only man-made causes of climate change. Terms of Reference are the de-facto “thou shalt only speak of these things” in this realm of study. While Mr. Strong is currently living in China-unresponsive to all attempts for contact- and while his signature is found on no official documents for that reference that I can find on the internet, I can say this… “U.N., we have a problem.”

IPCC WG1 Full Report – 1st Assessment +400 pages: Selected Screenshots and explanations for inclusion.
Click the Images for a Larger Version

Title 1 title 2

The Initial Charge to the IPCC:
1st IPCC WG1 Human Only
This is the first indication of how the IPCC views Climate Change. Although we do not yet see an expressly biased position, we see where the focus of causation could be found.

The Activities of Working Group 1:
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.15.12 AM
Working Group 1. The IPCC was divided into three working groups, each group was to build on the work of the previous group ONLY. This is not a wholly improper scientific technique, as it helps define the scope of the work. However, here we see the scope defined in the early 90s (actually much earlier) as being only that which might arise as a result of man’s activities. Working Group 1 built on those. Does this mean that WG2 and WG3 can only consider the work of WG1 on the result of human activities? Yes.

Oops.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.19.19 AM
Nothing dishonest here… their models said one thing, that with the increasing CO2 we would see warming SURFACE TEMPERATURES. We know that CO2 is skyrocketing, and that the IPCC recently (2013) said there has been no global warming since the first report – but that the warming was occurring deep in the oceans. Honest mistake :)

Mister Twister calling the Past
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.20.37 AM
“Paleo-climate data is potentially useful but it’s not. It has too many variables but may yet be useful.” Is this a serious segment of a scientific report? Essentially, the historical CO2/Temperature data-match is one of their proofs for the current CO2 story, but where that correlation is now broken and we appear to be on the precipice of another temperature drop (keep reading) the historical context is clearly not a factor… right?

Discussing THEIR POTENTIAL ERRORS (A sign of good science; 1 point awarded to Slytherin)
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.23.58 AM
This is what we have come to learn more and more, including a few days ago in our morning news via NASA, Johns Hopkins and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem …maybe not such a drastic forcing effect after all?

So much for good science.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.25.32 AM
As the highlighted portion suggests, it is obvious to the IPCC that our emissions are the primary factor. This cuts against their recognition of cooling mechanisms from the previous screen-shot, and indeed the words directly above the highlighted portion itself. They are NOT certain; they list their uncertainties but then claim that certain things are obvious. As it turns out, we now know our emission levels since then, the effect on atmospheric concentrations, and their LACK of an ability to warm the SURFACE TEMPERATURES as they so obviously predicted.

The can’t decide how uncertain they are…
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.27.35 AM
…but they can definitely say that they considered their current ocean-warming explanation way back then. Another point for the IPCC.

They should choose a different word.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.28.52 AM
Significant. adjective – to the extent where it materially alters the outcome of a given scenario. I’ll use it in a sentence: No conclusion is worth reading if it has ‘significant’ errors.

We’re starting to get serious.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 10.31.31 AM
So what exactly is Working Group 1 supposed to cover? They characterize these as “scenario” evaluations, and the scenarios are restricted to greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine the Reverse: It would be unwise to leave out all scenarios involving greenhouse gases, right? …just as absurdly, the “STEERING GROUP” veered WG1 away from anything natural, such that the scope of climate change would be so-defined.

Just Read.
Gangbusters
Plain and simple, from the start, CLIMATE CHANGE did not include naturally-forced variability.

Kind-of a cheap shot.
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.00.49 AM
“Oh look how cold we would be!” You mean if we took away a huge part of our atmosphere we’d be colder? You don’t say. In the box- I’m pretty sure there are a gargantuan amount of radiators from the earth that are not the direct result of greenhouse gases… oh crap, I forgot, that’s not allowed to be part of this analysis. My bad.

Look how close they were…
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.01.31 AM
Greenhouse gases are #2, the Sun is #1 – they knew it all along.

Don’t Lose Perspective
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.13.39 AM
One of the primary messages of our C(lie)mate video series is that the health affects of pollution, including those to the flora and fauna of earth, is a paramount concern, but one that cannot be used to cloud the meteorological analysis of our planet, and especially not in perspective with the changes in the rest of the solar system. Fact is, pollution is not a good thing for a large number of reasons. Even where no emissions are present, this author strongly opposes things like deforestation- for more reasons than I care to mention here. Got a little bit of hippy in me, so what?

Remember that paleo-data which may or may not be useful? They say THIS part is useful-
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.02.02 AM
Let’s go ahead and take their word for it…

…Look familiar?
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 11.38.20 AMScreen Shot 2014-02-17 at 12.00.12 PM
On the left side you see the image given in the original IPCC report with the latest data on the left and going into the past as the chart goes to the right; on the right side you see a bit more data-directly from the best available ice core data, and current day is at the right with the past shown to the left. Keeping this mirror-effect in mind, you should recognize the same source of the two charts. Look at the IPCC’s version, where it claims to show the current levels as of 1990… compare to the right side, where even that is outdated as we’ve broken the 400ppm mark in the atmosphere in the last 24 months. The IPCC chart is a lie; it does not show the most current data they had available, as 1990 levels of CO2 were well above the high 200s, and had already stopped being so-perfectly correlated to global surface temperatures once the industrial revolution began.

“Searching for a handle on the moment?” Feel like you have seen a lot but don’t know where to go from here? Curious about the implications, the natural variability, and what’s coming? Click Here.

The scientists at the IPCC aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong – although it is quite clear that at least some members of the steering committee and the scope-definition parameters for the initial project had just one agenda in mind. The scientists, for the most part, are performing a scientific process under the scope of those who are ‘above them.’ Consider that the evidence has been pushing us towards a more detailed look at solar forcing and the cooling mechanisms of certain emissions, then see the NEW definition of Climate Change in the latest IPCC Assessment (5th):
Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at 1.11.21 PM
Well now… that’s quite the shift now isn’t it? Great revelations in understanding do not happen overnight… and apparently only to small extents even over a couple decades. Baby steps…

The pattern is clear; the warming has stopped. The sun was strongest during the periods identified for global warming, and while scientists have identified the pacific ocean cycle as the current cause for a lack of surface warming, it matches the solar weakening we’ve now seen for years (better described in the C(lie)mate series). Despite the shift in evidence and discourse, the IPCC’s conclusions mysteriously get “more certain.”

Dear IPCC-

You brought all your skills, you brought all your data, you brought all your friends…

Chemtrail and Heavy Metal Detoxification Product Developed in California 5

 

By G. Edward Griffin -  3/26/2014

envioshield-Chemtrails MitigationLook at the graphic on the photo to the left and you will know what EnvioShield is all about.

It was developed by Matt and Olesya Novik, who live in Southern California, to combat the symptoms of toxicity they were experiencing on those days when the sky was laden with gray haze from high-flying aircraft. Matt described their symptoms as: “Everything from Asthma, Neuropathy, Vertigo, fatigue, frequent illness, etc. It was to the point where both my wife and I had to rely on an inhaler to breathe properly.”

They were convinced that the increase in levels of toxic chemicals found in soil and rainwater following these “chemtrail” events had a lot to do with their deteriorating health. Instead of just complaining about it, they decided to take action. After determining what those chemicals were, they researched known methods for safely removing them from the body. They found there was plenty of information on these remedies but, because they come from nature and cannot be patented, they are ignored by the pharmaceutical industry and not used by mainstream medicine.

HOW ENVIO-SHIELD WAS DEVELOPED
Matt and Olesya experimented with these substances one at a time, then in combinations, always checking for effectiveness and possible adverse reactions. After many months, they found a potent combination that gave them the relief they were seeking. The problem was that, with each component purchased separately, the cost was high ˗ several hundred dollars a month for their family. The logical solution, they thought, was to put them into a single product with all the components blended in the right proportion. That did reduce the dosage cost, but it requited an order for a minimum of a thousand bottles before a formulating lab would even talk to them.

By then, many of their friends had tried the formula, found that it also worked for them, and wanted a less expensive alternative, so Matt and Olesya decided to bite the bullet and place an order. EnvioShield was born.

I like this story for two reasons. First, the product appears to be excellent in every way. It is long overdue, and I am thankful that now there is a convenient and modestly priced safeguard against all the deadly stuff being dumped into our environment. Second, this is an example of good-old free-market entrepreneurship where people see a need, find a solution, and are willing to take a risk to convert that solution into an enterprise. I wish Matt and Olesya great success in this venture.  *** Complete Article

Chemtrails, Geoengineering and The Climate Industrial Complex 1

NASA Documents Reveal Mission of Military and Federal Agencies to Modify the Climate

Video Script (PDF):   AGW, Artificial Global Warming and the Climate Industrial Complex

 

__________________________________________________

Men in Black Neuralyzer Chemtrails SRM sm

____________________________________________________

It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in Climate Warming Weapons Technologies for more than 20 years.

____________________________________________________

TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” (PDF)

This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate. Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by a matrix of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.

TITLE: “The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System” (PDF) A 1986 Critique of the 1966 initiative.

This document appears as an anonymous draft intended as a critique of the US Weather Modification Program that the author characterizes as hijacked into a military weapons system.

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Jules Verne wrote about geoengineering the earth’s climate in 1889 in a sequel to “From the Earth to the Moon” called “The Purchase Of The North Pole”. Verne writes that the Baltimore Gun Club purchased large tracts of the Arctic then used the famous canon from the earth-to-the-moon to tilt the Earth’s axis. The goal was to establish a tropical paradise as a profitable tourist attraction at the North Pole while “improving” the entire global climate.

If Verne correctly predicted that man would travel from the earth to the moon, it should be no surprise that he also predicted that a small group of influential men would consider warming the climate for profit.

Verne could have been inspired by Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler who proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic back in 1877 – a dozen years before Verne’s “fantastic”story was published.

____________________________________________________

Warming the Arctic with large-scale Geoengineering projects has been the vision of industrialists for 100 years – and still is

____________________________________________________

A total of 88 atmospheric, 29 underground, and 3 underwater nuclear devices were detonated in the Arctic region from 1955 to 1990

Uploaded on Friday 17 Feb 2012 by GRID-Arendal – Nuclear activities in the Arctic over the last 50 years

From collection: Vital Arctic Graphics (2004 edition)
Author: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Numerous nuclear explosions have taken place in the Arctic. One of the largest military nuclear testing facilities is on the island of Novaya Zemlya, where from 1955 through to 1990 the Soviet Union detonated 88 atmospheric, 29 underground, and 3 underwater nuclear devices. Dozens of civilian ‘peaceful nuclear explosions’ have also occured in the Russian Arctic, where nuclear bombs were used into the late 1980′s for seismic studies, mining, and in attempts to extinguish oil-field fires. (Source)

nuclear-activities-in-the-arctic-over-the-last-50-years_12df

___________________________________________________

In 2008 – a year before low solar activity began to forecast the possibility of 40 to 60 years of global cooling, the chemtrail industrial complex was confident they could achieve a significant arctic thaw for BIG OIL, a carbon tax and the politics of a United Nations led New World Order. The most cited example of global cooling due to low sunspot activity is the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715. (Wiki)

World Watch Institute: March, 2008: Arctic Melting May Lead To Expanded Oil Drilling

More than half of the Arctic Ocean was covered in year-round ice in the mid-1980s. Today, the ice cap is much smaller. Alarming evidence of this warming trend was released last week when the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released satellite evidence that perennial Arctic ice cover, as of February, rests on less than 30 percent of the ocean.

“The rate of sea-ice loss we’re observing is much worse than even the most pessimistic projections led us to believe,” says Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director with Greenpeace USA. For the first time in recorded history, this past summer the entire Northwest Passage between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans was ice-free, according to scientists. (Source)

Cosmos Carl SaganTerraforming Mars

Carl Sagan reported in his 1980 series “COSMOS” that he considers melting arctic ice as essential to successful terraforming of Mars for restoring an atmosphere for human habitation.

The ethics of terraforming Mars: a review
iGEM Valencia Team 2010

“In Blues for the Red Planet, the fifth episode of his mythical television series Cosmos: A personal Voyage (1980), he exposes his ideas to the public. Sagan’s plan for terraforming of Mars implies seeding its polar caps with dark plants. These plants will be artificially selected or genetically modified to resist and “survive” the harsh conditions of Mars climate. The positive point gained with this seeding will be releasing oxygen and darkening the martian surface, melting down the polar caps and liberating the ancient martian atmosphere trapped in there.” (The ethics of terraforming Mars: a review PDF)

USAF_Air-Force-Academy-Chemtrails ManualIn 1990, the Department of Defense published a chemistry manual for future pilots at the US Air Force Academy titled “CHEMTRAILS”. Like many book titles, ie: “The Grapes of Wrath”, “The Old Man And the Sea” and the “Holy Bible”, the title never appears inside the book to be explicitly explained. Likewise, the content of the Chemtrails Air Force manual does not attempt to define the title. Instead, the content of these books provides the nuanced or implied sentiment to the title., perhaps whimsical title, “CHEMTRAILS”.

When we refer to an automobile as a “Ford”, the intent is to define the manufacturer of the car based on appearance. Likewise, when observers refer to jet trails they are differentiating the species of trail as either a contrail or chemtrail, based on “appearance”.

The Section on “Energy Simulator Handout” (p. 64-74) explains global oil reserves, peak oil and the status (1990) of various domestic and industrial energy reserves. This academic departure from chemistry to teach global energy politics as a requirement to become an Air Force pilot brings implicit meaing to “chemtrails” and suggests the mission could more likely involve offensive weapons rather than strategies for defense.

In this academic setting, it’s not difficult to understand how spraying chemical aerosols into the atmosphere could grow to be called “chemtrails” – first within military ranks and eventually by thousands of civilian observers who witness frequent, massive aerosol spraying by military jet aircraft. Download the USAF Academy Chemtrails manual PDF

Remember when the Public Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

VILLAGE VOICE: “ Hey, remember when climate change was a swell idea? Coconuts were in the offing.”

“Imaginations ran wild, and The Washington Post envisioned Manhattan becoming a tropical paradise” … “People would be gathering oranges off the trees in Central Park, or picking cocoanuts from palms along the Battery, [and] hunting crocodiles off the Statue of Liberty.”

The prospect sounded so splendid to New Yorkers that Senator William Calder (1917-1923) tried to get $100,000 appropriated for a study of the idea. Village Voice

Remember when Scientists Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)

Wexler’s was last in a long line of ambitious proposals to warm the Arctic. Coincidently, his proposals were made at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program – a direction in which the military had already embarked in 1958.

“Global Warming” initiatives proposed by Wexler:

  • To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
  • To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C could be doable, “by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
  • To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane. Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5 (source)

The decision to reverse direction from warming the arctic to cooling the arctic was announced in 1963 - the year following Wexler’s death when the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Atmospheric Sciences recommended appointment of a Panel on Weather & Climate Modification. pg 2

Prevailing Circumstances following WWII:

  • Operation Paperclip (Also called Operation Overcast) succeeded in recruiting scientists from Nazi Germany for employment in the US after WW II and led to the formation of NASA and the ICBM program.
  • The National Security Act passed in 1947 made possible the rise of the military industrial complex and creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ) to increase opportunities for scientific experiments to be conducted without public knowledge or Congressional oversight.
  • Post-war advances in science and advanced physics opened up opportunities to develop concepts of advanced thinkers like Nikola Tesla that had been waiting on the shelf for over 50 years.
  • In 1958, military application of Tesla’s little known methods of electromagnetic manipulation of earth’s atmosphere was already underway. White House advisor on weather modification to President Eisenhower reported the DoD was studying ways to manipulate electrical charges of the earth and sky in order to manipulate the weather for purposes of national defense.
  • The rise of an informed and educated middle class looked down on proposals that employed nuclear detonations that became regarded as dangerous and arrogant. This is not to say that proposals to mediate the arctic climate were totally abandoned.

____________________________________________________

If warming the arctic was regarded as good for commerce for 100 years why would a discovery that found carbon dioxide was already performing the task for free, suddenly be regarded as a catastrophe to prevent?

____________________________________________________

The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates how Big Oil exists in a world of opportunistic pragmatism, no matter the risk to the environment. With an established record of corporate sociopathy, Big Oil would have little interest in what event would cause arctic ice to retreat as long as their long-held dream of new arctic navigation routes and access to previously ice-locked oil and gas reserves was realized. It could make marginal difference if the arctic temperatures rise due to (1) rising CO2 levels or (2) covert arctic climate manipulation.

This timeline of determined Geoengineering projects suggests the goal of mediating arctic climate remains a favorite goal of the fossil fuel industry.

1877 Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

1912, New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200 mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth. The New York Times characterized the proposal as “amazing”… but not insane.

1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors.

1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.

1946 Village Voice article from 2005 reporting on theMay, 1946 issue of Mechanix Illustrated that featured several arctic-warming geoengineering proposals. One “brave new idea” was proposed by Julian Huxley, then the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and brother of Aldous Huxley, that would detonate atomic bombs to warm the Arctic.

1958; M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist; Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice.

1958; Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer; Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive.

1958 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s proposed melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice, creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat and to divert warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions. This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959.

1958 Atlantic Richfield geologist L.M. Natland, proposed exploding up to 100 underground nuclear bombs to mine the Alberta Oil Sands. Heat from the detonations was expected to boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard drilling operations could be used. The plan was encouraged by US efforts to find “peaceful uses” for atomic energy. The project was approved in 1959 but the Canadian government reversed their decision in 1962 and declared that Canada was opposed to all forms of nuclear testing. In 2012 the Canadian Tar Sands are, again an issue of international concern.

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)

____________________________________________________

It remains largely unexplained why decades of optimism for warming the arctic was suddenly replaced with a campaign of fear and doom for the consequences of warming the arctic under the name of “Global Warming”

____________________________________________________

In the 1960’s Geoengineering proposals to warm the Arctic took a largely unexplained U-turn when oceanographer, Roger Revelle’s research concluded that carbon dioxide was already warming the climate for free and without the need for expensive and risky geoengineering projects.

This U-Turn of direction appeared to be a setback with the exception of those stakeholders in the energy sector who had been invested in arctic warming projects for decades. Did the CO2 story finally promise to give Exxon, BP and Shell what they wanted?

If the science of Roger Revelle’s forecast for global warming turned out to be wrong or too slow, the DoD could step in – for reasons of national security – to assist arctic warming as secret component of the military’s classified weather modification and weapons program.

The 1996 Air Force document that forecasts “Owning the Weather in 2025” would not rule out using Tesla and plasma technologies to increase arctic temperatures in order to disadvantage a perceived enemy. A decision not to intervene might betray the military’s primary objective of “Full Spectrum Dominance”. After all, access to Oil and Gas has been a national security priority for decades.

In 1966, Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald was Chairman of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification and wrote:

“Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.” Gordon MacDonald “Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment. Source

MacDonald was referring to Roger Revelle and Hans Suess paper that reversed the debate from how to warm the arctic to how to avoid warming the arctic. Revelle’s ocean research reported a rise in carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere was allegedly a result of industrial age manufacturing and coal-burning.Source

Revelle had worked with the Navy in the late 1940’s to determine which projects gained funding and successfully promoted the idea that the Navy should invest more in “basic research”. Revelle was deeply involved in the global growth of oceanography. He was also one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the “Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation” (BEAR), 1954-1964. Revelle’s world influence was significant as president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects. Revelle and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests so that oceanographers might make use of the data. Source

The conclusions of the BEAR report were understandably significant for demonstrating the harmful biological and environmental damage of atomic radiation and could easily suffice to thwart geoengineering projects that recommended detonating H-bombs. But the evidence is weak that all intentions to mediate arctic climate was totally abandoned.

If the fundamental goal to warm the arctic remains an unspoken priority of national security in the energy sector, the project could be taken out of public view and committee oversight to become a classified operation in the development of the military’s weather warfare program – an initiative that was acknowledged by civilian weather modification programs formalized by the 1966 NASA and ICAS charter.

____________________________________________________

Since 1958 Congress and the military had already been working on exotic weather warfare systems that involved electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.

____________________________________________________

US Congress, Senate, Committee on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce, Weather Modification Research, Hearing, Washington D.C. US Govt. Printing Offlce, March 18-19, 1958; Lowell Ponte quotes Capt. Orville as reporting “that the Dept. of Defense was studying ways to manipulate the charges of earth and sky and so affect the weather by means of an electronic beams to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area” …. Capt. Orville also discussed ongoing US Air Force experiments with ‘sodium vapor, ejected from jet planes to intercept solar radiation ‘ over enemy countries and rain their weather. (The Cooling, op. cit. pp. 168-169 Source P. 42

The flip-flop from finding ways to warm the arctic to suddenly finding ways to keep the arctic from warming was announced in 1963 – the year following the sudden death of Meteorologist, Harry Wexler. Having total awareness of the military’s 1958 weather weapons program, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended the appointment of a “Panel on Weather and Climate Modification”. source This event could serve to consolidate military and civilian weather modification programs for peaceful purposes or – if necessary – as covert weather modification and even climate warming operations secretly carried out by the military under the catch-all justification of “national security”.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: Lobbyists for Big Oil publicly claim Global Warming is a hoax while quietly investing billions in new drilling opportunities due to the reality of receding arctic ice. The energy sector has made huge investments in ice-breakers and drilling equipment to profit from the very global warming they are reluctant to acknowledge. The position of having your cake while eating it is essential. When arctic climate warming is revealed as a military climate modification operation, big oil can fall back on “we told you so”. Since governments may come and go over the next 100 years, they calculate the demand for oil – and the companies who drill for it – will remain intact.

  • “As the polar ice cap retreats, energy companies are looking north for a potentially huge new source of crude” Source
  • “Shell is one of six companies planning to extract oil, gas and minerals in the Arctic as global warming melts ice and opens new sea lanes to commerce.” Source
  • “Remote and dangerous sources of arctic oil are becoming increasingly attractive as the global need for oil grows and the existing reserves dry up.” Source

____________________________________________________

Documents from 1966 reveal how the military and federal agencies are modifying the global climate.

____________________________________________________

TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification”

This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration , working with the military to Geoengineer the climate. Created as an agenda of the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by every government agency in this web of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.

  • 1966, JUN: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” Prepared by the ICAS select Panel on Weather Modification
  • 1966: NOV: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, D.C.
  • 1966: APPENDIX I – Panel on Weather and Climate Modification to Committee on Atmospheric Sciences NAS-NRC – Membership Recommendations
  • 1966: APPENDIX II – Special Commission on Weather Modification – National Science Foundation Membership Recommendations.
  • 1966: APPENDIX III Report prepared by the ICAS Select Panel on Weather Modification; “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification,” dated June 20, 1966
  • 1966: APPENDIX IV Memorandum for Dr. Homer E. Newel1 from J. Herbert Hollomon, Chairman, ICAS, Subject: National Weather Modification Program, dated June 21, 1966
  • 1966: APPENDIX V NASA Panel to Study Weather Modification Activities; Membership, Chronology of Meetings, and a Compilation of Supporting Material used by the Panel
  • 1966: APPENDIX VI Budget Recommendations and Trends for a National Weather Modification Program

1966 – NASA: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A report to the Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, DC.

In 1966, a report from NASA to ICAS (Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences, NAS) was the first step in establishing a national Weather modification program that would ultimately involve multiple federal agencies. The report focused on four initial agencies: ESSA, NSF, NASA, and the Dept. of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation.

Under Recommended Principals it was noted that (a) each agency would be independently funded while stressing inter-agency cooperation in research. Independent funding of agencies could make the program less conspicuous and more difficult for Congress to defund. Also, new agencies could be brought on board without high profile budget hearings. (b) A designated “central” agency – while having responsibility for focusing the national program – would not have any real authority to implement programs, leaving those decisions to probable unidentified civilian lobbyists and DoD “stakeholders”.

Although the theme of the ICAS report is in the context of protecting water, agriculture, forests, lands and natural resources, the knowledge gained from climate manipulation was of more immediate interest to the military and their industrial complex.

Thirty years following the creation of the Nation Program in Weather Modification, the US Air Force published a document (Owning The Weather in 2025) establishing that federal agencies involved in the National Weather Modification program are under tacit authority of the Department of Defense.

Owning the Weather in 2025 – Opening Statement: Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale. Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.

In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather-modification, its use in our national military strategy will naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational capability would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-modification is to deter and counter potential adversaries.

In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.1 “The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”2 in 2025 we can “Own the Weather

_______________________________________________________

Federation Of American Scientists – Case Study 2

A 1986 Critique of the NASA 1966 National Weather Modification Initiative

The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System

CASE STUDY Document located on the website of the Federation of American Scientists – Click Here

_______________________________________________________

This document appears as an anonymous draft intended as a critique of the US Weather Modification Program that the author characterizes as hijacked into a military weapons system. The final draft is not yet located.

For over 100 years, experts and authors were advocating geoengineering projects warm the arctic. The public, at large, was entertained by these concepts even when suggestions to detonate hydrogen bombs over the north pole were advocated by a nationally recognized weather expert in 1962.

It’s revealing that initial proposals to solve the newly discovered CO2 “warming” problem had less to do with cutting back on carbon emissions and more to do with a rush to release toxic atmospheric aerosols without first, researching the hazards. The specter of polluting the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and causing the release of huge volumes of CO2 from the jet aircraft aerosol sorties is an obvious public health and strategic concern that requires years of research that the government was unwilling to legislate and fund. Therefore, the impatience with which these chemical aerosol schemes were promoted suggests that emergency steps to cool the planet with aerosols was never the primary mission.

____________________________________________________

In 1962, Geoenginnering efforts to warm the arctic were widely entertained but in 1966 it was top priority to prevent the arctic from warming by even one degree.

____________________________________________________

Trojan Horse?: Under the military’s vision to Own the Weather Weather in 2025 atmospheric warming with ionospheric and plasma weapons is an established capability. The numerous agencies inside the National Weather and Climate Modification program are actively guarding the military’s aerosol and energy weapons program with stiff denials to the public and media whenever the issue of “chemtrails” is a story on local radio or TV stations.

It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in climate modification since the mid 1990′s?

An abrupt reversal of policy from promoting arctic climate mediation to preventing Global Warming resulted in ideas that both polluted the atmosphere AND became a source of Global Warming.

Just as the ICAS/NASA National Weather Modification program is being formalized the record shows most ideas to cool the planet suddenly involve bazaar schemes to spray or disburse particles, biology and dust into the atmosphere and oceans. These are the same people who – just a few months earlier, were eagerly lining up to hear Wexler talk about ways to warm the planet with hydrogen bombs, destruction of the OZONE and orbital particles.

While most of us realize that many of these proposals from respected experts would be catastrophic to the environment, not all of these draconian ideas have been rejected, even as increasing evidence determines that deploying chemicals into the atmosphere does more harm than good.

Deployment of geoengineering aerosols as observed in practice for two decades is now regarded as a source of global warmingnot a fix.:

____________________________________________________

Geoengineering Aerosols Are Warming the Atmosphere and are a Source Global Warming

Joyce Penner

____________________________________________________

In 2007, investigator, Cliff Carnicom calculated the impact of the current unacknowledged aerosol deployment into the atmosphere and concludes:

“It can be seen from this model that the results of artificial aerosol introduction into the lower atmosphere can be of a magnitude quite on par with the extraordinary impacts projected by even modest and conservative global warming models upon humans in the near future. As the model presented herein is intended to be reasonably conservative, the impact of the aerosol operations could be much greater than these results show. It is advised that the citizens consider the viability and merit of this model in the examination of the global warming issue, and that they openly take aggressive action to halt the intentional aerosol operations.

This paper is late in its offering, as my availability for continued research at this level is limited. I am nevertheless hopeful that the information can be evaluated and assimilated into the many rationales and arguments that have developed over the last decade to cease the intentional alteration of the atmosphere of our planet.” – Cliff Carnicom Complete study

____________________________________________________

Geoengineering Proposals to Warm the Arctic Are Replaced by Fear of Global Warming

____________________________________________________

  • 1965; President’s Science Advisory Committee, United States; Proposal: Investigated injecting condensation or freezing nuclei into the atmosphere to counteract the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.
  • 1977; Cesare Marchetti, Italian industrial physicist; Coined the term “geoengineering” and proposed sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean.
  • 1983; Stanford Penner, A. M. Schneider, and E. M. Kennedy, American physicists; Suggested introducing small particles into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space.
  • 1988; John H. Martin, American oceanographer; Proposed dispersing a relatively small amount of iron into appropriate areas of the ocean to create large algae blooms that could take in enough atmospheric carbon to reverse the greenhouse effect and cool Earth.
  • 1989; James T. Early, American climatologist suggested deflecting sunlight by 2 percent with a $1 trillion to $10 trillion “space shade” placed in Earth orbit.
  • 1990; John Latham, British cloud physicist; Proposed seeding marine stratocumulus clouds with seawater droplets to increase their reflectivity and longevity.
  • 1992; NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy proposed adding more dust to naturally occurring stratospheric dust to increase the net reflection of sunlight.
  • 1998: International Space Station (ISS): The first modular component of the International Space Station (ISS) was launched and is the current (in 2012) habitable artificial satellite in low Earth orbit following the Salyut, Almaz, Skylab and Mir. (1998 ISS mission consistent with same year increase in jet aerosol public observations and complaints) The stated function of the SSI is to provide an international space platform for research and experimentation in the fields of biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology (weather) and other fields.
  • 2010: Geoengineer, David Keith (AAAS Meeting) proposal to use jet aircraft to spray Sulfur dioxide and aluminum nano-particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.

In 1968, Gordon J. F. MacDonald authored a chapter in “Unless Peace Comes“ where he correctly predicted that future means of obtaining national objectives by force hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of planet Earth.

“When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars.”

“To consider the consequences of environmental modification in struggles among nations, we need to consider the present state of the subject and how postulated developments in the field could lead, ten to fifty years from now, to weapons systems that would use nature in new and perhaps unexpected ways. “

More Than Owning the Weather in 2025

The confidence and enthusiasm expressed in the USAF 1996 document: Owning the Weather in 2025 was supported by the advent of scalar weapons technologies during the Reagan Star War years. The document promises: “weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. The “never before imagined” comment speaks directly to the HAARP ionospheric heater facility, the Bernard Eastlund patents and military strategies for global military dominance. This scenario of weather control harkens to the predictive warning from Gordon MacDonald in chapter in the book: Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment. Source

Timeline for Owning the Weather: From 1987-1992 ATPI scientists build on Bernard Eastlund’s patents for development of new weapon capabilities

In 1994 ATPI is bought by E-Systems with a contract to build the biggest ionospheric heater in the world (HAARP). — In 1995, Raytheon bought E-Systems and old APTI patents. — In 1996 the Air Force publishes: Owning The Weather in 2025

In his 2011 book, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, scientist and author, Tim Flannery reminds us that proposals to melt the Icecaps were advanced after World War II by reputable figures including the first director-general of UNESCO (Julian Huxley-1946), by a top official at the U.S. Weather Bureau, and by a Russian oil engineer Petr Mikhailovich Borisov. Scientific conferences debated the merits, while mining and energy corporations contemplated the use of nuclear detonations in the extraction of coal and oil.

Reputable figures in the international community saw an opportunity to detonate nuclear weapons as a novel and constructive way to geoengineer the Arctic. The prevailing rationale to justify method included: (1) The arctic is nearly too cold to be habitable by humans (2) The polar ice cap blocks valuable shipping lanes. (3) The expanses of frigid water up North contributes to uncomfortably cold winters in many countries. (4) difficulty of drilling for oil through ice.

The idea was publicly floated as a “peaceful use” of atomic weapons.

Flannery offers this example as evidence of humanity’s seeming propensity for hastening its own extinction.

Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet - By Tim Flannery. Book Reviewby Mark Engler

Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s Proposed Method of Melting the Arctic Icecap

Borisov’s idea: If the Arctic ice is once melted much less of the sun’s radiation will be reflected out into space and therefore the arctic ice cap will not re-form. An ice-free Arctic Ocean would be a great boon to oceanic shipping, especially between Europe and East Asia. Much land in northern Canada and Siberia would be freed of permafrost and made suitable for agriculture. Borisov believed that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would lead to increased evaporation of water and hence increased rainfall worldwide, including the region of Sahara Desert leading to grass growing there. Borisov considers all of the impacts of the melting of the Arctic ice cap to be beneficial. He asserts that the melting of the Greenland ice cap would raise sea levels at a rate of only 1.5 to 2 mm per year.

This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959. Borisov’s suggestions to warm the arctic included:

  • Covering great areas of the Arctic with black powders such as coal dust (G. Veksler, 1959) (Carbon Black?)
  • Dispersing the cloud cover over the central Arctic Basin (D. Fletcher, 1958) (Geoengineering Aerosols?)
  • Deepening of the Thomson Sill (V.N. Stepanov, 1963)
  • Covering the water surface with a monomolecular film (M. Budyko, 1962)
  • Installations to direct warmer Atlantic water into the Kara Sea (V.P. P’yankov, 1965)
  • Pumping cold Arctic water into the Pacific to draw warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Basin (P.M. Borisov, c. 1968)

This concept also required construction of a dam across the Bering Strait. Source: P.M. Borisov, “Can we Control the Arctic Climate?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March, 1969, pp. 43-48.

In a related scheme, a proposal was floated to store nuclear waste in the Antarctic. The plan would allow specially designed canisters of hot radioactive waste to melt down through the ice until it reached the “ice-rock interface” where it would supposedly remain in cold storage for 250,000 years.

The following Timeline is from the book, “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP” Advances in Tesla Technology by Jeanne Manning and Dr. Nick Begich and contains disturbing facts about the little known history of our Government’s use of scalar technologies to modify the weather. Additional events and links were inserted in 2012 to update the list.

Timeline of public and covert testing and development of energy weapons

  • 1886-8: Nikola Tesla invents system of Alternating Current power source and transmission system. As 60-pulse-per-second (hertz) AC power grids spread over the land, Earth’s resonance frequency will eventually dance to a different beat than her usual 7-8 hertz .
  • 1900: Tesla applies for patent for a device to transmit Electrical Energy “Through the Natural Mediums”. U.S. Patent #787,412 issued in 1905
  • 1924: Confirmation that radio waves bounce off ionosphere (electrically-charged layer starting at altitude of 50 kilometers).
  • 1938: Scientist proposes to light up night sky by electron gyrotron heating from a powerful transmitter.
  • 1940: Tesla announces “death ray” invention.
  • 1945: Atomic bomb tests begin 40,000 electromagnetic pulses to follow.
  • 1952: W.O. Schumann identifies 7.83 hertz resonant frequency of the earth.
  • 1958: Van Allen radiation belts discovered (zones of charged particles trapped in earth’s magnetic field) 2,000+ miles up. VA Belt violently disrupted with nuclear detonations
  • 1958: Project Argus, U.S. Navy explodes 3 nuclear bombs in Van Allen belt.
  • 1958: As far back as 1958, the chief White House adviser on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the DoD was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the Earth and sky and so affect the weather by using an electronic beam to ionise or de-ionise the atmosphere over a given area.
  • 1960: Series of weather disasters begin.
  • 1961 – Project Skywater – Bureau of Reclamation (water) cloud seeding project funded by Congress.
  • 1961: Copper needles dumped into ionosphere as “telecommunications shield”.
  • 1961: Scientists propose artificial ion cloud experiments. In 1960′s the dumping of chemicals (barium powder etc.) from satellites/rockets began.
  • 1961-62: Soviets and USA blast many EMPs in atmosphere, 300 megatons of nuclear devices deplete ozone layer estimated at 4%.
  • 1962: Launch of Canadian satellites and start of stimulating plasma resonances by antennas within the space plasma.
  • 1966, June, Report to ICAS by ICAS Select Panel – Chair, Gordon JF MacDonald. “Future plans of Federal Agencies in Weather and Climate Modification.”
  • 1966, Nov, report from NASA to ICAS (Independent Comm. for Atmospheric Sciences of the Nat. Academy of Sciences, NAS) was first step in establishing a National Weather Modification program
  • 1966: Gordon J. F. MacDonald publishes military ideas on environmental engineering. MacDonald was Chair of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification.
  • 1960′s: In Wisconsin, US Navy Project Sanguine lays ELF antennae.
  • 1968: Moscow scientists tell the West that Soviets pinpointed which pulsed magnetic field frequencies help mental and physiological functions and which do harm.
  • 1968: Gordon JF MacDonald authors chapter in book: “Unless peace Comes – a scientific forecast of new weapons” MacDonald was Chair of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification.
  • 1969: Hail Suppression Data from Western North Dakota, 1969–1972 South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City.
  • 1972: First reports on “ionospheric heater” experiments with high frequency radio waves, at Arecibo. 100-megawatt heater in Norway built later in decade; can change conductivity of auroral ionosphere.
  • 1972: Potential Value of Satellite Cloud Pictures in Weather Mod. Projects – Report prepared for NASA by Institute of Atmospheric Sciences South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Rapid City.
  • 1973: Documentation that launch of Skylab and associated rocket exhaust gases `’halved the total electron content of the ionosphere for three hours.
  • 1973: Recommendations for study of Project Sanguine’s biological effects denied by Navy.
  • 1974: United Nations General Assembly bans environmental warfare. ENMOD
  • 1974: High-frequency experiments at Plattesville, Colorado; Arecibo, Puerto Rico; and, Armidale, New South Wales heat “bottom side of ionosphere”.
  • 1974: Experiments airglow brightened by hitting oxygen atoms in ionosphere with accelerated electrons.
  • 1975: Evaluation of Monte Carlo Tests of Effectiveness of Cloud Seeding on Growing Season Rainfall in North Dakota.
  • 1975: Stanford professor Robert Helliwell reports that VLF from power lines is altering the ionosphere.
  • 1975: U. S. Senator Gaylord Nelson forces Navy to release research showing that ELF transmissions can alter human blood chemistry.
  • 1975: Pell Senate Subcommittee urges that weather and climate modification work be overseen by civilian agency answerable to U.S. Congress. No action taken.
  • 1975: Soviets begin pulsing “Woodpecker” ELF waves, at key brainwave rhythms. Eugene, Oregon, one of locations where people were particularly affected.
  • 1976: Drs. Susan Bawin and W. Ross Adey show nerve cells affected by ELF fields.
  • 1977: Environmental Impacts of Precipitation Management – Inferences to Project Skywater
  • 1979: Launch of NASA’s third High-Energy Astrophysical Observatory causes large-scale, artificially-induced depletion in the ionosphere. Plasma hole caused by “rapid chemical processes” between rocket exhaust and ozone layer.” …“ionosphere was significantly depleted over a horizontal distance of 300 km for some hours.”
  • 1979: Annotated Bibliography of Predictor Variables for Weather Modification Applications – Funded by NSF Grant ATM 79-05007 pub., Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana.
  • 1985: Bernard J. Eastlund applies for patent “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere,” (First of 3 Eastlund patents assigned to ARCO Power Technologies Inc.)
  • 1986: US Navy Project Henhouse duplicates Delgado (Madrid) experiment — very low-level, very-low-frequency pulsed magnetic fields harm chick embryos. 20
  • 1987: In the later part of the decade the U.S. begins network of Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) towers, each to generate Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves for defense purposes .
  • 1987-92: Other APTI scientists build on Eastlund patents for development of new weapon capabilities.
  • 1994: Military contractor E-Systems buys APTI, holder of Eastlund patents and contract to build biggest ionospheric heater in world (HAARP).
  • 1994: Congress freezes funding on HAARP until planners increase emphasis on earth-penetrating tomography uses, for nuclear counter proliferation efforts. (Oil and gas exploration)
  • 1995-1997: Public complaints accumulate across the US regarding unusual cloud formations and sudden increase in observable persistent jet contrails that appear unnaturally under dry atmospheric conditions. These observations are accompanied by complaints of biological specimens and web formations that appear to fall from the sky. Many instances of qualified lab analysis reveal high concentration of aluminum, barium and other elements that are consistent with DoD electromagnetic experiments
  • 1995: Raytheon buys E-Systems and old APTI patents. The technology is now hidden among thousands of patents within one of the largest defense contractor portfolios.
  • 1995: Congress budgets $10 million for 1996 under “nuclear counterproliferation” efforts for HAARP project.
  • 1995: Test of patent number 5,041,834 to generate an Artificial Ionospheric Mirror (AIM), or a plasma layer in the atmosphere. The AIM is used like the ionosphere to reflect RF energy over great distances.
  • 1994-6: Testing of first-stage HAARP (euphemistically named High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) equipment continues, although funding was frozen.
  • 1996: HAARP scientists test the earth-penetrating tomography applications by modulating the electroject at Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF)
  • 1998: Projected date for fully-operating HAARP system.
  • 2009: Operation HAMP – Department of Homeland Security operation to Modify and Steer Hurricanes with Geoengineering Aerosols
  • 2012: Celebrating 50 years of Success. A Compilation of highlights from the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Rapid City.

____________________________________________________

The World is Waking Up to State Crimes of Climate Warming and Violent Weather by Combinations of Powerful Electromagnetic Energy Weapons and Aerosol Geoengineering

____________________________________________________

It was in the mid- 1990′s when the US public a were suddenly confronted with unexplained changes in the sky that included bazaar new cloud formations and new types of jet contrails that persisted in the skies for hours even while the relative humidity was very low at the altitudes where the jets were flying. These observed changes were coincident with events following the 1994 E-Systems purchase of APTI, also holder of plasma physicist, Bernard Eastlund’s patents and contracts to build the world’s largest ionospheric heater (HAARP).

The history of the 1966 National weather Modification Program and the coincidence of events around the time of bazaar new cloud formations is sufficient reason to pursue the relationship of persistent jet aerosols to the ionospheric heater experiments at the HAARP facility and Gakona, AK, Aricebo, PR and many more similar facilities brought online in recent years.

The ongoing depletion of earth’s protective OZONE layer is a known risk to manipulation of the ionosphere with powerfully heated beams of electromagnetic radiation. Pollution from the Shuttle missions, alone has accounted for rapid ozone depletion according to NASA’s own documents.

Further damage results when chemical aerosols deployed over either polar region traps heat in the troposphere resulting in a rise in surface temperatures to endanger normal formation of seasonal ice with an associated plunge in stratospheric temperatures into the range of -109 deg. F. with the formation of chemically contaminated ice crystals that react with sunlight to further deplete the OZONE.

From 2009 to 2012 persistent jet chemical aerosols are clearly observed over the North Polar regions on many satellite images and ground-based photographs. It is no surprise that NASA now reports new OZONE depletion in far northern latitudes where none was previously detected.

It’s no secret that government agencies, the military and commercial interests of the US and abroad have invested in a radical scalar system of weather modification that is now revealed to have far too many unintended negative consequences to sustain life on earth.

Continuation of this vast and terra-deforming aerosol geoengineering operation will only confirm that one agenda is to deplete the arctic ice – a concept that has been embraced by influential men, Oil companies and nations for nearly 100 years.

The government, military, IPCC, UN and corporate stakeholders can no longer pretend to be desperately concerned about global warming and climate change while the world is waking up to realize these same entities are participating in the deployment of electromagnetic weapons and aerosols of massive climate destruction as a monstrous and Orwellian hoax on humanity.

UPDATES

World Wide Watch Institute, 2014:

In the seas north of Russia and Alaska, expanded oil-and-gas development is already under way. The U.S. Department of Interior last month sold a record-breaking $2.6 billion in development bids throughout the Chukchi Sea, just above the Bering Strait. Additional sales are scheduled for 2010 and 2012. As companies move into the Arctic to search for energy reserves or to create new shipping lanes, the potential environmental impacts could be huge. Balton acknowledged that shifting ice and coastal erosion makes exploration and development risky. “It’s definitely a dangerous area to maneuver. An oil spill would be really hard to clean up,” he said. *** Continue

Related Links:

___________________________________________________________

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT:
NikolaTesla, Inventor of the Death Ray, died in Jan, 1943 wherein the FBI took possession of his papers and documents.

After WWII, Operation “Overcast” (Later named opertion Paper Clip) was a US program to employ NAZI regime scientists in US laboratories.

The National Security Act, passed in 1947 Created the Central Intelligence Agency and made possible the rise of the military industrial complex
to increase opportunities for scientific experiments to be conducted without public knowledge or Congressional oversight.

In 1958, the military announced they were experimenting on the ionosphere with electronic beams for the purpose of manipulating the weather.

In 1962 Respected Meteolrologist Harry Wexler proposed geoengineering strategies to warm the planet.

In 1963 the National Academy of Scientists proposed formation of a panel to create a “National Weather and Climate Modification Program”.

In 1966 Plans to warm the arctic were abandoned without comment to be replaced with warnings that CO2 was already causing the atmosphere to get warmer.

This video introduces the article. Global Warming Linked to Advanced Climate Change Technology.

The title sounds provocative but NASA has concluded that man-made, persistent contrails are exacerbating global warming and could contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate.

The article explores the forgotten history of America’s National Weather and Climate Modification Program – Still in existance – and how it rapidly evolved into a military/civilian weather warfare program of mass destruction.
The documentation and subsequent critique reveals a program that went into rapid mission creep when the military became involved. The critique was drafted in 1986 by a member of the Union of Atomic Scientists.

The record shows that industrialists and their scientists have been looking for ways to warm the arctic for 100 years beginning in 1877 when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Sea.

Decades of arctic warming proposals followed until 1962 when respected MIT meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed 3 schemes to increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C,:

(1) Detonate 10 hydrogen bombs in the arctic ocean to send ice crystals into the polar atmosphere
(2) Destroy the ozone layer by using aircraft to spray chlorine or bromine into the stratosphere .
(3) Launch dust particles into equatorial orbit to diffuse light to heat to warm the polar regions.

These ideas sound pretty frightening today, but in 1962 Wexler’s ideas were gaining traction and nobody “important” was calling him a lunatic. But following Wexler’s untimely death that same year the problem of how to warm the planet completely reversed polarity.
Suddenly – and without explanation – it was now imperative to find ways to cool the planet and to keep the atmosphere from warming.

The U-turn in national direction came about when a paper was published by oceanographer, Roger Revelle who claimed earth’s atmosphere was warming due to a buidup of carbon dioxide from burning coal back in the industrial age.

The new narrtive became “official” for media consumption in 1966 when Gordon MacDonald – Chairman of the new ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification stated: “Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.”

Wexler’s proposals to warm the planet were never mentioned again but remained quietly popular with stakeholders in the oil and energy markets who had always seen vast opportunities for new shipping lanes and drilling as soon as the ice melted a bit.

In view of NASA’s position that man-made persistent contrails are exacerbating global warming – what are we to think?

If these man-made clouds are normal water vapor we have a problem that accelerates global warming. But If the problem can be fixed, and no governrnment authority has yet thought it was important enough to take immediate action we can reasonably assume that warming the climate with persistent contrails is a tolerable or even desired outcome.

And if If man-made clouds are revealed to be chemical aerosols deliberately sprayed into the atmosphere we can reasonably assume that heating the atmosphere is a hidden agenda inside a covert aerosol operation that mimmicks the appearance of a geoengineering plan to cool the planet. In reality, the chemical aerosol operations provide plausible deniablity to spectators that our benevolent government is secretly spraying the skies to test ways to mitigate global warming for the good of humanity.

This plausible deniaility is taught to us through media coverage of geoengineers lake David Keith who presents aerosol “cooling” strategies in frequent public appearances that are – in turn – presented as news in multiple media sources..

So, the agenda to warm the planet is cleverly hidden in plain sight disguised as an undisclosed but benevolent government program to test aerosol spraying to cool the planet if we should ever decide it’s necessary. Meanwhile, arctic ice continues to retreat despite decades of “testing”.

Aerosols are not the sole requirement in advanced climate change technology. High energy ionospheric heaters, Tesla Arrays, and exotic electromagnetic devices are required to interact with chemical aerosols in ways that normal water vapor contrails never could.

EXPOSED: Climate Change Lies, Suppressed Evidence and Corporate Profits 2

Occupy Corporatism header
March 10, 2014
Susan Posel

Climate scientist Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok have determined in a newly published study that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other cohorts in scientific circles have doctored numbers and statistics about atmospheric carbon dioxide called “climate sensitivity”.

The IPCC claimed in 2007 that the planet’s temperature would rise by 3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century; however because actual real world observations have not correlated with this assumptions, the IPCC changed their estimated to a 1.5 to 2 degree difference.  *** Continue

Gore Chemtrails is Conspiracy Theory GW is Real

CHEMTRAILS: A Planetary Catastrophe Created by Artificial Global Warming 2

Harold SaiveNote: Increasing evidence points to Chemtrails as a weaponized version of geoengineering intended to warm the planet to melt ice in polar regions and to manipulate the weather for inducing drought, floods and corporate control of food and water resources. 

Geoengineering via Chemtrails should not be confused with geoengineering proposals by David Keith that require aerosol spraying high up in the stratosphere for the sole purpose of mitigating the extreme effects of global warming.  Read More.

CHEMTRAILS: A Planetary Catastrophe Created by Geoengineering

This photo-documentary has been revised and updated as of December 5, 2013.

Original post at CosmicConvergence.org

Planet Earth has been besieged by many and diverse scientific experiments over the past one hundred years. The quantum leap in applied science and technology has “precipitated” a literal explosion of top secret and highly classified operations conducted in the atmosphere, throughout the planetary surface, as well as deep within the Earth’s crust. However, none comes close to the degree of round-the-clock damage inflicted on the biosphere as the DARPA-sponsored program of geo-engineering.

Just one component of this secret geo-engineering program is known as chemtrails. For those who have never heard of chemtrails, they are not to be confused with contrails, which are the normal exhaust vapors ejected from jet engines in flight. Here is a photo of numerous chemtrails having just been laid down by special jets equipped to do the job:

Can you imagine that the government has labeled these chemtrails as normal contrail activity?   *** Continue