Case Orange Report Provides Conclusive Evidence For Secret Geoengineering and Chemtrails 23


May 29, 2010, Ghent, Belgium: The Belfort Group hosted an international symposium titled:

The Illegal Spraying Of Harmful Substances In The Atmosphere By Airplanes Also Known As ‘Chemtrails’.

peter_vereecke-mugPeter Vereecke, the former mayor of Evergem, Belgium told attendees, “Don’t confuse this with contrails. Those are harmless condensation trails that are only visible for a few seconds. On the other hand chemtrails are clouds of chemicals.” … “Far from harmless, contrails are significant contributors to global warming.”

Highlight was the presentation of “Case Orange”. This 300-page scientific report (with 177 footnotes) was commissioned by the  Belfort Group. In the absence of legal protection for whistleblowers, an international team of  “inside experts”, remained anonymous in order to safely and effectively author the most useful data possible. The anonymity of the scientists is irrelevant since nearly all the evidence and back-up material is available in the public domain

Vereecke has personally delivered the “Case Orange” document to the Brussels headquarter of UNO and NATO, as well as the embassies of the USA, UK, Germany, France, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela and elsewhere.

On August 17, 2009 Peter Vereecke “personally lodged a complaint with the Belgian Justice department against the intentional and systematically spraying of heavy metals, chemical substances and virological filth into our atmosphere.”   As a result of Vereecke’s activism,  there is “an ongoing investigation into the Chemtrail issue.

Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren presents an informal peer-review of the 300 page research document  “Case Orange”, commissioned by the Belfort Group.  (Dr. Vermeeren’s Bio)

There is virtual unanimous consensus within the Belfort Group to the conclusions and recommendations prescribed by the authors of the 300 page “Case Orange” report.

 Aerospace engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren presents an informal peer-review of the 300 page research document “Case Orange”, commissioned by the Belfort Group.  (Dr. Vermeeren’s Bio)

There is virtual unanimous consensus within the Belfort Group to the conclusions and recommendations prescribed by the authors of the 300 page “Case Orange” report.



When combining the knowledge of the formation of contrails, the effects of Cirrus clouds on climate, the historical records of weather manipulation programs, the scientific studies on geo-engineering through modification of Cirrus clouds, the available and patented technology coupled with reactions of pilots on the internet one can only come to the following conclusions:

1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

2. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

3.The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.

4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.

5. The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.

6. Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.

It is not the purpose of this research paper to give a moral appreciation of these actions.  Nevertheless the investigation team unanimously comes to the following recommendations for the future:

a)  Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and public health on this subject should be considered. Results -whatever the outcome- should be made public.

b)  It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future. Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as practical.

c)  When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a geo-engineering or military instrument. If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.

d)  Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is mandatory that such statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national security.

google-site-verification: googleafe9667984f4f6cc.html


  1. Pingback: Debunking NASA Persistent Contrail Myth Using Weather Sonde Data « GeoEngineering Exposed

  2. Pingback: Look Up To See Something Important « GeoEngineering Exposed

  3. Pingback: Climate Assessment Report is Rejected Without Full Disclosure of Secret Geoengineering and Climate Modification Programs « GeoEngineering Exposed

  4. Pingback: Enter a pI reject all climate change assessments, statements and reports issued by NCACDA as irresponsible and incompleteost title « phantasypublishing

  5. Pingback: Chem-trail skepticism ends here! - Page 55 - Christian Forums

  6. Pingback: Belgium “Skyguards” to Petition Parliament to Force Action on Chemtrails « GeoEngineering Exposed

  7. Pingback: Contrail Science: « GeoEngineering Exposed

  8. Pingback: Contrail Science: Deliberate Ambiguity Betrays Scientific Method |

  9. Pingback: Chemtrails and Geoengineering: The Hard Evidence « GeoEngineering Exposed

  10. Pingback: Reject All IPCC Climate Assessment Reports Until Consequences of Covert Geoengineering Are Made Public « Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon

  11. Pingback: IPCC FAIL: Another Scientist Exposes Covert Aerosol Climate Engineering « Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon

  12. Pingback: Geo-engineering 101: Klimaatmodificatie – Waarnemingen en Getuigenverklaringen | Lang Leve Europa!

    • Who do you think is best qualified to go through it in detail?. I don;t think any one person has all the answers. Instead I suggest we form a work-group to go through the data and arrive at points we all agree with..and honestly admit the areas that remain in doubt. After all.. climate engineering is a secret operation. The best scientific mind on this issue is that of Cliff Carnicom who has published more data on chemtrails than any of us but is rarely cited.

    • Looking at Russ’s post, I have to admit there are several areas where I disagree with his comments and interpretations. So should I be responsible for debunking a debunker who’s supposed to be an activist ally? This seems very self-destructive. I think a work-group might solve this problem.

    • Reading through the 6.1 Conclusions and recommendation of Dr Vermeeren in 2010, there is only one comment I would disagree with. I don’t know why Russ is finding so much fault with it, especially when we should be moving forward to build on what is already understood.

  13. The Case Orange conclusions were presented by Aerospace Engineer, Dr. Coen Vermeeren. I feel he did an honest job in evaluating the info that was given to him at the time, however much more has been learned since this presentation. – Russ is presenting his case as if Dr. Vermeeren was lying. This is not the best way to rehabilitate perceived errors presented by an Aerosopace engineer with an advance degree who was fully willing to be our ally. After all, his conclusions that planes are spraying chemicals was a giant leap from where we had been.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s