I’m in the UK, and relatively new to the chemtrails idea, but I’m also an occasional artist and noticed over the last couple of summers that it was impossible to get a clear blue colour in the sky as a reference.
The skies were whited out with fimy, translucent silvery clouds that cut the sun off from mid morning. Even if you know your lapis lazuli from your cerulean, this is a pain in the neck.
I put it down to bad luck but when my Nokia ceased to function I finally bought an iPhone. One of the apps I downloaded was planefinder.net; as all ADS-B tracked commercial traffic was on there, with the known exception of the shorthaul Flybe fleet.
Apart from them, it’s only military aircraft which don’t show up. This would be very useful as my day job is to run a database of both scheduled and charter flights, which we sell on to agents and operators. We think we have pretty well all the UK departing flights on there.
When I’d try to match a comparative blue from the sky and found it messed up with swirling strings of white muck, I would get the planefinder app out to identify the culprit only to find not a single spray plane turned up on it. A white jet would be directly overhead, spraying away, but no commercial air traffic was present on planefinder over a 15 mile radius. I double checked with Daniels of pinkfroot and he assured me, yes, all commercial traffic, private planes etc, would be on there, in real time. All of them bar FlyBe? YES, he said.
I started to watch them more closely, and read about the Appleman chart which shows conditions at which contrails form: this is a combination of pressure, relative humidity and temperature, all of which can vary by altitude.
I also found a meteorological weather balloon site supplying these readings at all altitudes over Nottingham thus giving a very good idea of conditions over this area. Even on the hottest days of the year, the sky was STILL criss-crossed with this weird, solid white muck from planes. The white would turn to spidery trails which congealed with others to form a dull white mist over the entire sky. If this was condensation, it was a radical and stubborn new form of it.
We had a river festival in July; perhaps 10,000 people wandering out by the river. The sky went from a glorious blue in the morning to a zig zag, criss cross of white muck and spidery smut from at least 50 concurrent trails, more simultaneous ones than I’ve ever seen before. Why would anyone be carrying out this activity on such a beautiful, hot day when so many people were outside enjoying the weather?
So I checked the upper altitude readings and they were low minus 20’s – at least 15 degrees warmer than contrail air. At those temperatures contrails are impossible, not because I say so, but because of the laws of chemistry! Persistent, 6 hour white smuts are even more impossible, if something can be said to be beyond impossible.
Clearly these were chemicals. And strangely all the white smuts took the same shape and had the same persistence, on any and all days and altitudes, which you wouldn’t expect considering the huge variety of condensation dissipation and movement possible under all different conditions of air movement.
Just as a reminder, the image below is what a normal condensation trail looks like from a normal passenger jet, flying at about 17,000 feet. Planes at 30,000 feet are very hard to spot unless they have some small condensation trail.
These condensation trails cannot persist except under simultaneous conditions of very low temperatures and very high humidity at that altitude. There are some who, afflicted perhaps with “metabunk syndrome” (the psychological flaw requiring them to repeat verbatim everything which their government prints on paper, or recites into a microphone) deliberately confuse massive swathes of all-day chemicals so solid they cast shadows and resist even the dispersal effect of the wind, with tiny, localised conditions of frozen condensation.
That the trails observed over Bedford were all identical, regardless of varying temperature, relative humidity, natural cloud cover, time of day, plane direction, season or altitude can only mean their chemical composition imposes itself on the surrounding air, and not the other way around.
Knowing the altitude of BA and AF jets from planefinder’s readouts to be 30,000 feet (9144 metres) and that they look roughly a third the size of spray jets and seem to move at a much slower speed relative to the ground, the spray planes must be operating much lower, perhaps around 20,000 feet, which on the day in question, had a temparature of -20.7C.
Here’s the Appleman chart, showing that permanent contrails were impossible that day whether at 20,000 or 30,000 feet. At 30,000′ the pressure was 304 and relative humidity 23%. But at 20,000 feet the temperature was only -21.5C with 30% relative humidity. The commercial planes at intervals throughout the day left at most a tiny white comma, and many times not even that: the trails were just not there. The only trails were left by jets which did not show up as civilian, commercial or private traffic. This conclusion isn’t open to debate, and it isn’t a theory – it is a fact which can be verified by anyone with an iPhone and at least one eye, and the ability to tilt the head skyward.
On consecutive days I measured the weather and noted commercial air traffic on our database (for example 468 Luton flights compared to 465 the previous day, 379 against 385 from Stansted) when the skies seemed identical in the first hours of morning at 07:30. On one, the sky would be a pristine blue with the odd AF or BA jet leaving a minuscule white exclamation mark at 30,000 feet as shown on planefinder.
On the other, the sky would be filled from horizon to horizon with a grid of disgusting white muck. Having lived on the flight path to Heathrow in the 1960’s, and the flight path to Gatwick in the 1980’s, and having often travelled to Gatwick in the 1990’s to carry out work for tour operators I wrote software for, I can assure you the ugly smuts were never seen then, no matter the air traffic or time of year.
One last piece of evidence is a whistleblower, an ex-sergeant named Kristen Meghan, who after ten years quit her USAF bio-environmental engineering job in disgust when she found that attempting to warn colleagues they were being exposed to hazardous chemicals sprayed from USAF jets would get her 220 days in a military jail without interview. The video is only about 14 minutes long, but it gives an idea of the anger which the governent’s increasing appearance as a military dictatorship generates even in its own employees.
Recently there’s been a lot of talk about geoengineering, the idea of dumping reflective aerosols at high altitudes from planes, to reflect sunlight away from the planet. The engine mods are nil even if these aerosols are added to the fuel (as shown on the Disocvery Channel) because the only effect of the particles is to clean the turbines; the material must actually be injected into the exhaust stream because many witnesses, myself included, have seen rapid bursts of chemicals twisting in the wind, left hanging in the air, as if tubes were being flushed out at the end of their run. Another common sight is the switch on, switch off of chemical trails, so that a completely clean jetstream is immediately followed by a clogging spray of chemicals.
FOI requests confirmed that in the 50’s and 60’s, cities across America were sprayed with radioactive zinc cadmium sulfide to see how many cancers would result. In St Louis, rooftop pumps saturated the Prewett Eigel Housing Complex – selected as it was home to 10,000 people, 7,000 of which were children under 12: the ideal way to test how deadly the long term effects would be.
Details in declassified papers reveal the proposed response to patients presenting themselves with radiation sickness. US Radium was the American company linked to the experiment; they were the subjct of dozens of lawsuits after producing a radioactive fluorescent paint which killed many women handling it when embellishing watch faces. This was the ideal substance for the military to add to their sprays; their experiments would certainly have impressed the notorious scientist Josef Mengeles.
The military used planes to spray the toxic chemicals in Texas, while using pumps on rooftops or mobile flat beds around St Louis. The official line now? “That was a long time ago.. it’s time to move on.. it would be inappropriate to comment.” Just to be on the safe side and obliterate evidence, the government then demolished the same St Louis housing complex they had been spraying morning, noon and night.
Combined with some form of chemical filament, the highly reflective alumina particles remain aloft for hours because of air currents and variations in atmospheric pressures. The idea came from observing the effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption, after which there was a decrease in temperatures around the world as the massive cloud blocked the sunlight. Foremost among the expectant scientific types recommending money be put their way are David Keith from the University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira, backed by Carnegie Mellon.
There’s clearly a lot of money at stake despite the whole project being dubbed “reasonably priced” at around £5 bn per year. May I say, as a taxpayer, how delighted I am to be funding the desecration of our skies and the injection of chemicals into our breating apparatus. Money well spent, I feel certain! Lots of consultancy funds can be found in this gravy train, and for a scientist, these chances to get a long stretch of paid research by big institutions don’t come along every day.
Especially bearing in mind how science has taken some massive blows to its credibility recently. Sir John Beddington easily became the most derided geek in history when he gave a seminar to MPs that Fukushima was a storm in a teapot. The same day the MPs dutifully disseminated this advice, the reactor exploded and thousands fled for their lives. Workers volunteered to commit suicide attempting to put the fires out, and managers scrambled to hide the fact that reactor waste had been carelessly overstacked, to save a bit of money off the bottom line. Beddington, unperturbed, looked up briefly from his microscope and said Britain had nothing to worry about – the worst thing that could happen would be a few thousand children dying of cancer, mainly confined to Japan – so who really cares? It’s not our problem – calm down dear! Knowing his reputation now rendered him useless, cooler heads kept this brilliant scientist out of sight ever since.
The GM experiment has shown that toxin-producing DNA stuffed into crops now lives in our gut thanks to horizontal DNA transfer, something strictly forbidden by Darwin but carried out by bloody-minded bacteria who refuse to read his books on vertical inheritance. The heavily white lab-coated chemo industry is under fire, as doctors have admitted they’d never allow their family to suffer it, because it seems to actually spread cancer cells throughout the body while killing the patient off in a miserable, lingering death. The steadily growing awareness that fruit and seeds contain much stronger cancer-killing machinery than science could ever imagine producing has also tended to put the boot in rather swiftly and firmly.
To all this we should add the discovery in 2012 that most of our genes are not “junk DNA” after all, a weird Darwinist idea pushed by scientists and based on the vestigial organs. The same vestigial idea applied to tonsils and appendices, and as a result they were whipped out at every turn by surgeons dismissive of Nature’s sloppy engineering – only to find quite recently they were, respectively, a first line of immune defence, and a bacterial farm essential for digestion. Their absence causes serious problems for the hapless victim, but no concern to the white coat brigade eagerly in search of fresh opportunities to display their ravishing skills.
The “junk DNA” gibberish was touted by Richard Dawkins to support the idea of a random creation – after all, what self-respecting Creator would burden a genome with 95% garbage to be faithfully duplicated at vast costs of energy by the work-weary cells? Creationists should note “..95% of the genome may as well not be there, for all the good it does.. the genome is littered with discarded genes that never worked, and never will.. 95% of the genome is nothing but useless junk.” (Richard Dawkins)
But Nature, as always, had a suprise in store. It was found that this Darwinian scrapyard was actually an arrangement of switches, spare components, templates and toolkits so precise and hard to grasp that the finest minds had great trouble assembling its multi-layered purposes. Instead of apologising for a slur on biological engineering which only arose from ignorance, in debate with Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks Dawkins triumphantly announced it was exactly what a Darwinist would expect. Of course – why, they probably knew it all along! Heads I win, tails you lose.
Be that as it may, at a recent conference on geoengineering Keith welcomes further oprobium on the heads of micro-focused scientists by exposing his own – far from uncharacteristic – reckless personality. When questioned about the morality of dumping ten million tons of aluminum patricles into the stratosphere without having done any toxicology studies, and without bothering to read the ones already done which reveal that 10 micron particles of aluminum are extremely dangerous to human health, he grinned and shrugged:
“I don’t see it as a moral issue.. it’s more like freeriding on our grandkids.”
I’ve been in touch with Ken Caldeira and David Keith and they have nothing to say about chemtrails at all: they say their geoengineering would look more diffused, being at higher altitudes, and they swear it isn’t them. Keith’s background is at weapons lab Lawrence Livermore, and a recording exists of him casually wafting ideas about, concerning how to wipe out populations using biological hazards dropped from planes, or hydrogen bombs, or creating tidal waves.Like other mass killers, is he hearing voices? Ken says he would be willing to kill 18 people from one state to save 180 from another. This is known as eugenics, and in other circles, murder. Because the people he would be killing are just ordinary types like you and I; the reason for our execution is that he, as a human being no different than you and I, has worked out he could save many more lives in other state. Whathe forgets is that one human does not have the right to kill another, no matter what he supposes: for example by the same twisted logic, knowing that Ken Caldeira wants to kill 100 people to save 1000, someone whose mind is as twisted as his, might decide to save those 100 people by killing Ken Caldeira.
What Caldeira forgets, while in his pleasing intellectual bubble, is that killing innocent people creates a wave of shock and resentment in normal minds, and even revenge among the relatives and friends, or those who feel a kinship with the executed. You cannot kill even one person, let alone 180, and hope to avoid this come-uppance unless you are a psychopath who cannot imagine the feelings of others.
A chief argument against capital punishment is that around the time of execution, the murder rate spikes in that state becauses those already on the edge of sanity decide if the state can take a life in cold blood, then they, too, must be entitled to do so under what they consider provocation. The damage goes further still, as a society which engages in killing under the say-so of an ordinary person starts to lose their moral compass, delegating the ultimate decisions to others, and become insensitive to injustice.
No man is an island: something Ken would do well to remember in his laborious mathematical calculations involving the slaughter of you and I.
Like many intellectuals, they live in a bubble, think in a bubble, work in a bubble, and focus on whatever is on the tip of their nose: unconcerned about the sensibilities of people who see something seriously amiss in the skies – and failing to see that whether responsible or not, the inevitable exposé will wreck their own credibility – they casually waft away the danger posed by injecting 10 megatons of 10 micron particles into our lungs. After all, what interests them is the science. Now, that is fascinating. All else, including the devastation of the planet on which they live, is a trifle of no concern.
Pounds, Shillings and Sense
I noticed a very odd phenomenon recently, and that is the appearance of shills. The word, bandied about by bloggers, puzzled me until I understood that a shill is a person usually without any personal backstory and no credible web identity. They spend virtually all their time online “debunking” the ideas of activists trying to draw the public’s attention to strange phenomena such as chemtrails, or massive concrete and steel buildings collapsing without any apparent cause, but being blamed on bogeymen – that is to say, invisible, super-powered terrorists.
One particularly noxious individual on YouTube claimed it “proven” that an aircraft had hit the Pentagon’s accounting offices on 9/11, when the hole was not quite that of a garage door. When I asked why the Pentagon had failed to release any photos from around 86 cameras, plus cameras over the motorway, plus local hotel cameras which could easily have shown a colossal aircraft a few yards away to shut everyone up, he simply said, “it’s been proven.” I asked how the Pentagon could have produced the DNA (which denatures at about 60C) from all passengers if the plane had vaporised, as claimed, in what must have been a 3000C fireball. But if the plane had vaporised on impact, how did another hole appear three concrete layers deeper in the Pentagon? And if the plane really did fly at ground level at 500 mph, why didn’t the ground effect suck the wings into the ground, when the lawn directly beside the tiny hole remained unscathed? “It’s all been proven,” he limply replied.
I later found out, through his own admission on a separate site, that he had been sectioned for a psychological disturbance and had been given the task of “debunking” to secure an earlier release. In due course his profile disappeared, to be followed by another in which the same coarse grammar and the same debunking claims were bandied about, with the same obnoxious, and yet ignorant, manner.
Having made a few observations about chemtrails in the online world, I was intrigued to see the appearance last week of one Michael Vargas on twitter, denouncing me as a crazed conspiracy nut. Every attempt to introduce credible scientific evidence was met with a hail of sneering, caustic abuse. Having dealt with militant atheists I was used to this, but ever curious, I read through around a hundred of his most recent tweets and found every single one devoted to denouncing chemtrail activists.
Ever the opportunist, I contacted all his opponents and managed to widen my activist circle by about a dozen goodnatured people, all of whom had credible evidence of some kind of geoengineering activity directly over their heads, something apparently common to all NATO countries. Some had rainwater samples showing thousands of times higher readings of barium and aluminum than was deemed safe, and one had even registered radioactive snow, using a geiger counter which ticked merrily away.
But reading Vargas’ “blog” I saw it had ceased being updated somewhere in 2011; apart from information about a VW camper for sale, it offered marketing scam after marketing scam, from pet food wholesaling to retail investment expertise. The writing was also curious: although purportedly by an individual, it seemed generated by a corporation, easily discernable after a few paragraphs. On Vargas’ twitter account there were no personal photos, no identifying information of any kind.
So I was fascinated to read about the experiences of a paid shill who found himself unable to continue a lifestyle based on deception, understandably so as the normal mind prefers truth to lies, and even the most dishonest individuals eventually find a way to unburden themselves of past deceits. There are those who make good money from debunking sites – easily detected by their mindless parroting of everything the government either writes on a piece of paper or recites into a microphone, from fluoride to 9/11. The question is, who is paying for all this debunking? Follow the money, and you’ll have your answer.
But these shill sites rely on ignorance, and their credibility is severely dented by the unexpected appearance of individuals such as Kristen Meghan the former USAF biologist (see photo, above). Initially skeptical of chemtrails, she noticed that unmarked planes laying massive white smuts overhead were identical to the refitted, white-sprayed KC30 and KC135 on her base. Part of her job was to sign for canisters whose material data hazard sheets revealed carcinogenic metals, oxides and powders. Her suspicions were confirmed when soil samples from her back yard located on the flightline, revealed sky high levels of the same materials. It doesn’t take a Nobel Prize winner to figure out what was happening, and that NATO was a part of it. “When people deny chemtrails,” she said in one radio interview, “I just laugh. You can show some people the actual evidence and they still won’t believe you.”
Whatever is going on, is being done with our money: the difficulty is not just getting people to think critically about what they see in the skies – it’s also in getting them to look up.