Lookittt!!!!!! A Bill with Chemtrails in it!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

Yessir, I know it must be hard to believe, but there is an actual piece of legislation up mentioning chemtrails by name...as well as some other very interesting nasty, somewhat sci fi weaponry, like HAARP, tectonic and electromagnetic and mind control. So...who's crazy?

Here it is:

animalwaitress@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002


Dang! Try this instead;


-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 16, 2002.

Gee what a nice bunch of words.......Now in the real world of political a**holes...what are his chances of getting that passed????.....can you hear the million words of debate???

There just ain't no such thing as Chemtrails..........ya.

-- Jim-mi (hartalteng@voyager.net), January 16, 2002.

Chemtrails above 60 kilometres? Huh, thats about 200,000 feet! Maybe an SR71 can (could ?) fly that high, dont know about anything else. Just for comparision Francis Gary Powers was shot down at about 60,000feet in a U2 over the Soviet Union.

So don't worry, this would not inhibit development and deployment of 'chemtrails' because the most likely zone is way below this definition of 'space'.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 17, 2002.


Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

*********Always pay careful attention to the negatives! This does nothing to stop the testing (ahem).

John, isn't it much closer to 36 miles? 5280' per mile times .6 (what a kilmeter is to a mile) is 3168' times 60= 190,080 divided by 5280'= 36 miles. That puts the limit right where most commercial jets fly. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I'm wrong often enough thaat it doesn't upset me too terribly anymore ;).

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 17, 2002.

Commercial airliners (long distance flights) normally fly at altitudes of between 28000 and 33000 feet, with the normal maximum being 40000 feet. The planes are constructed to maintain pressure at these altitudes.

This is in the range of 5.3 to 7.5 miles.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

For some reason, reading those definitions reminded me of Lex Luther and Superman..we cannot keep the earth friendly what makes this poor guy think he can make outer space a place to play nice? And, if you have no means "out there" of shooting down somebodys new toy that they put up there in spite of a treaty, then what good is an unenforceable agreement? I guess the only good thing is that he mentions chemtrails so folks who believe in them can feel justified....I am still on the proverbial fence, trying to keep an open mind.... God bless.

-- lesley (martchas@bellsouth.net), January 17, 2002.

As to believing in them...it's like believing trees have leaves. It takes absolutely no faith or thought to acknowledge what your eyes see. Once you have some experience accumulated looking at clouds, when you see a chemtrail being laid down, you know it isn't a cloud. BTW, I hope you never see one, Lesley. They are most likely aluminum and granite particles and a jet fuel substrate...according to an article where a military spokesperson said they were those things. All I *KNOW* is that I get a headache when they are thick.

It sure does sound like some kind of super hero fantasy at a glance. I guess the congressman that proposed it is a big government guy. It makes no sense, but it seems to have a lot of folks thinking it's a good thing because it acknowledges the existence of these things.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 18, 2002.

Hi, Doreen, You're right that 60 kilometers is ABOUT 36 miles, though you arrived at that by a rather round about way (60 miles times .6 = 36)

Now multiply the 36 miles times 5280, and you'll arrive at 190,000 feet plus (actually I think a kilometer is closer to .62 miles, which makes the altitude very close to 200,000 feet.

With all due respect, your headaches are not necessarily caused by the "chemtrails", at least not directly. If a person gets headaches just from discussing these alleged phenomena, does that mean they exist? I think not...

BTW, this link you posted does not take us to the official site for Legislative bills. Are you sure this isn't someone's idea of a joke? I have a hard time believing ANY congressman would put his/her name to a bill with this chemtrail business in it, myself.

It's like writing a law forbidding trolls under freeway bridges!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

Go to thomas.loc.gov and do a search for the bill by number yourself. It's in the upper left hand corner. I guess we never had a government who gave syphyllis to black men and didn't treat them, or gave small pox to the Indians, or LSD to college students, or any number of other things. Research Project Montauk. This congressman may very well be on several radio interviews because people are talking about this all over.

Yes, I do math in a strange fashion. It always was a challenge to proof my work. My instructors could never figure out I arrived at the correct answer.



1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.


Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.


The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.


The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.


The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.


Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space- based weapons or systems.


In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 18, 2002.

Hi, Doreen,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it resulted in the following message:

"Please resubmit your search Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information. "

Any other suggestions on how to verify that this is for real? Actually, I hope it is, as I'm up for a good laugh!

By the way, since this bill allegedly prohibits "chemtrails" above 36 kilometers, it certainly won't affect the ones (whatever we want to call them) we're seeing now, since they appear to be located at regular commercial airline altitudes. (30,000 feet÷5280÷.62=9 miles)

I'm certainly in favor of whomever's attempt at banning development of space weapons (including the "star wars" scam the president select is pushing for. But it seems clear that this bill, if it exists, is not aimed at the things you're calling chemtrails. If anyone ever wanted to produce chemtrails, in space or anywhere else, I will support such a ban.

Doreen, you said, "I guess we never had a government who gave syphyllis to black men and didn't treat them, or gave small pox to the Indians, or LSD to college students, or any number of other things. Research Project Montauk." What's your point? Does this relate in some way which I am incapable of understanding, with chemtrails???

Is this info you posted from the thomas site? if so, I'll concede that it's likely valid. I'm happy for you, and all chemtrail officionados, that the word chemtrail has finally been given some airtime (no pun intended). However, it does not convince me, even a little bit, that all the vapor trails are anything related to some diobolical plot by big govt, big business, the Taliban, ATF, CIA, or the League of Women Voters. If it gives you some perverse satisfaction to believe this, that's your business.

BTW, does this bill contain a definitons section? Does it define "chemtrail"? As far as I can tell, that word was made up by some Gary North mentality; it's not in any of my dictionaries, for instance.

If the bill does not define that word, what are we banning, exactly?

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.


A little problem with your formula:

30000 ft divided by 5280 divided by .62 =9Miles

Should read 9 kilometers not 9 miles. (5.68 miles}

Rather unusual, but interesting topic. Does anybody know if Art Bell has discussed this on his radio show?

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

Are these chemtrails coloured indigo?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 18, 2002.

Thanks, Bob, I guess my math was ok, but I'm writing challenged?

John, the trails I see are colored white, except in the early morning or late afternoon, when they are often colored pink, purple, indigo, etc.

Apparently, the swing shift and graveyard shift folk are allowed to use different chemicals in their trails. Maybe they are spraying potassium permanganate, with some terrorist blood mixed in, to make these shades?

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

Joj, the text says to go to #########thomas.loc.gov########## They do not cache by the search which is why the page someone saved with this bill on it is not linked to a governmnet site. You have to do the search yourself, by putting the bill number in the box on the left side of the page and then hitting search.

To quote you: (quoting me;) "Doreen, you said, "I guess we never had a government who gave syphyllis to black men and didn't treat them, or gave small pox to the Indians, or LSD to college students, or any number of other things. Research Project Montauk." What's your point?

ANSWER: All of these things were denied for many years, yet they were true. Project Montauk was in the 50's I believe and dealt with mind control experiments through electronic pulses.

Does this relate in some way which I am incapable of understanding, with chemtrails???

ANSWER: Yes. You say they don't exist even though you are older than I am and sure to have looked at many more clouds and true contrails, yet you refuse to believe your own eyes, or legislation that supports a view you are not comfortable with.

Is this info you posted from the thomas site? if so, I'll concede that it's likely valid.

ANSWER: Yes, it is from the Thomas site.

"I'm happy for you, and all chemtrail officionados, that the word chemtrail has finally been given some airtime (no pun intended). However, it does not convince me, even a little bit, that all the vapor trails are anything related to some diobolical plot by big govt, big business, the Taliban, ATF, CIA, or the League of Women Voters. If it gives you some perverse satisfaction to believe this, that's your business. "

ANSWER: It gives me no satisfaction. The ATF, Taliban, League of Women Voters have nothing to do with it. The CIA, big business,(the fella who brought us the hydrogen bomb was the one who came up with the idea to spread the aluminum and granite to 'help' combat global warming...Livermore laboratories) and military complex government are not exonerated. And the only reason I even brought up the chemtrail aspect is because it has been a source of some disagreement here previously.

I hope you all get a laugh about it.

Bob, I'm sure Art Bell will have something on regarding this. But I'd bet that he misses the negative aspects of this, too.

Doreen ~the sick as a dog chemtrail watcher~

-- (Ihavefoodpoisining@andamin.nomoodforfighting), January 18, 2002.

Doreen I am sorry that you are obviously concerned about chemtrails but for my part I find the whole idea just not credible.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 18, 2002.

John, as you were growing up, do you remember seeing contrails that lasted for hours, and lots of them in the sky at one time? I don't remember that. This morning, as a matter of fact every morning this week I have seen the sky covered in contrails that lingered. Is there some rational explanation for this phenomenon? Has jet fuel changed since ten or fifteen years ago? Doubting is fine. Disbelieving is dangerous...

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 18, 2002.

Has jet fuel changed? I doubt that it has changed much and I am not even sure that all jet fuel is the same. The gas turbine engine is a continuous burn machine and unlike our car engines would probably give satisfactory operation on fuel with a wide range of varied combustion properties. Jet engines have certainly changed since I was a kid, for one thing the by-pass ratio is now much higher, now this is the ratio of air that passes through the combustion chambers to air that just passes through the compressor turbine then mixes with the exiting combustion gases and knowing this I can well accept that condensation trails may have changed somewhat.

It is a long time since I studied meteorology but from what I recall I would not argue angainst anyone who proposed that the passage of an aircraft could start the process that would lead to cloud formation.

But do I believe there is a wide range conspiracy to sow chemicals by mixing them with commercial jet fuel? Frankly, no. Disregarding any sympathy for or prejudice against a conspiracy theory I very much doubt the airlines would be party to pumping granit, aluminium powder or anything else through those expensive power turbines.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 19, 2002.

John, these are not airline craft. They do not fly in the normal flight paths of commercial liners. You may not have them in NZ. I can't recall hearing reports from there about these. They are however, reported all over Eastern Europe, America and Canada and Australia.

What Gilly said is correct, there weren't streams of contrails that just hung in the skies for hours and then started to look like clouds when I was a kid. Heck, I never even saw these things until just a few months ago. And the headaches I get are not from talking about them, when these trails arre laid down fairly heavily I get a headache similar to the one that comes from doing a lot of spray painting.

I don't care if you don't believe me, but it is frightening to not believe your very own eyes.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 19, 2002.

I'm with Doreen on this. If you don't believe in chemtrails, it's because you haven't seen them. We haven't seen them since moving here, but we certainly did in Texas. And it was frightening. I wouldn't let the children play outside on days they were laying them down.

-- mary (marylgarcia@aol.com), January 19, 2002.

Hmmmmm! If the chemtrails are not being laid by commercial aircraft they must be being laid by someone else, maybe the military. Have all commercial aircraft been banned from the skies? I don't think so. Obviously commercial aircraft are still flying and still doing what they have always done so on a good day you should be able to see both regular condensation trails and the 'chemtrails' Right?

So get your best camera and take a coloured photograph of the sky on a busy day. Now have some high school kids do a spectragraphic analysis of the various trails and spot the differences. It might even be an ideal home-school physics project.

Ah, no we don't see chemtrails in NZ but then I don't spend all my time in NZ. We are at lattitude 43s where there is very little land and the winds blow right around the world, anybody doing a chemtrail attack on NZ would need to do their 'sowing' a few hundred kilometres west of here so I would not see them.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 19, 2002.

John, Here is where to go if you want great pixs!!! A friend sent me this [email] I don't know how to do the link thing but here is the very long addy >http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/Willthomas/chempics/chempics.htm<

Please John, Doreen, et all check that out really good pixs.

#2 I haven't heard anybody say that the supposed chemicals were run _THRU_ an engine!. Ever heard of a outboard mounted nozzle!

-- Jim-mi (hartalteng@voyager.net), January 19, 2002.

john, I don't think I ever said that normal contrails were not visible at the same time as these chemtrails. I have tons of chemtrail photos now. One day i saw three normal contrails and a bunch of chemtrails, but I didn't have my camera with me. I will make a point of carting the digital one from work with me and see if I can't get you a simultaneous comparison to view.

Jim-mi, I will need to check out that site in a bit! Thanks for posting it!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 19, 2002.

Chemtrail Pics

-- (for@jim-.mi), January 19, 2002.

When referring to mind control weapons , would that include satilite TV ?

-- SM Steve (notreal mail@msn.com), January 20, 2002.

Doreen if you never see commercial condensation trails on days when chemtrails are present surely that means the commercial aircraft have been banned during the 'operaton'? Have you had any news of mass cancellation of commercial flying? An alternative explanation may be that condensation trails look different on some days, i.e. some days aircraft leave what is recognised as condensation trails and on other days they appear as chemtrails. Just WHY they appear different is another matter.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 20, 2002.

Hi John, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I HAVE seen at the EXACT same time normal contrails from presumably commercial airliners, and CHEMTRAILS from ???? airliners. I am presuming that the ones with the normal contrails were commercial liners as they are in the same flight paths as usual air traffic.

The abnormal chemtrails are very rarely in the same flight path as the commercial flights. So if there is an anomaly in the atmosphere it could not be explained by simultaneously different contrail effects. And also, I have seen the chemtrails being laid down, and stopped, then continued. So it is definitely NOT part of the exhaust. It has to be tanks seperate from the fuel. At first I thought they were just added to the exhaust of the craft, but I now have much more experience with them and there is no way they could be with what I have seen exhibited.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 20, 2002.

Ok Doreen, I don't really KNOW if chemtrails exist or not and although I find them highly unlikely my opinion will never prove anything so lets think of how we can gather useful information.

May I suggest that you keep a lookout for the aircraft responsible then we will attempt to determine what we can from what you see. The aircraft will be visible some distance ahead of the end of a trail and fortunately viewing from the ground is possibly the best angle to identify the aircraft type.

If the chemtrails are being laid by other than commercial aircraft I expect they would most likely be laid by heavy aircraft able to carry a substantial load of 'stuff'.

The most likely candidate for chemtrail operations would be the KC- 135 aerial tanker, which is a variation of a commercial aircraft type, the Boeing 707. There are several hundred of these aircraft maybe close to 1000.

Obviously it is going to be a bit difficult to spot the difference between a KC135 and commercial airliners but you will be readily able to spot a fighter aircraft. The shape of commercial jets, and of course the KC135 is well known and quite different from most fighters which have a 'delta' shaped wing silhouette.

So where does all my rambling lead us? If you see trails from heavy aircraft only that tells us nothing but if ANY of the weird trails are associated with delta shaped aircraft it is probably NOT from anything being sprayed from the aircraft.

Then of course "they" may be using some of "their" very few delta wing heavy aircraft now flying to throw us off the scent. :)

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 21, 2002.

John, this is an interesting site. Chemtrail Central

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 21, 2002.

Thanks Bren, but have you noticed that the majority of images on that site that show 'chemtrails' also show cirrus type cloud formations? Can you suggest any correlation between chemtrails and cirrus?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 21, 2002.

I do not know if there is a correlation between chemtrails and cirrus clouds. The earlier site posted for Chemtrail pics appears to have a majority of pictures showing chemtrails without cirrus present. In my experience, I've seen them more often without cirrus. But that is just my experience. Do they especially lay down chemtrails during cirrus formations? Do the chemtrails cause the cirrus clouds? Are the two even connected? I have no idea...

-- Bren (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 21, 2002.

There are some strong opinions about 'chemtrails' and apparently no 'official' information that can be relied on.

My opinion is that the whole concept is just not credible while some folks appear genuinely worried about them, in fact I suspect being worried about chemtrails probably shortens one's life more than the trails do.

If we are to learn anything it will be from our own observations. So lets put our heads together and see what we can find! I mentioned cirrus clouds because they are ice crystal clouds and exist at a level where invisible water vapour turns directly to ice without going through the crystal stage. It is my understanding that the water vapour exists at a temperature below freezing but is unable to make the change without an exchange of heat, the passage of an aircraft is just the thing to joggle this unstable vapour into ice crystals. I am not certain and maybe some knowledgable person can enlighten us, but I suspect aircraft vapour trails will be very readily formed in the same conditions as cirrus clouds naturally occur and I also suspect that such trails would be different to those of visible water vapour as are formed when the passage of an aircraft causes a change of pressure (and hence temperature) at lower temperatures in high humidity conditions.

Is there any evidence that 'chemtrails' appear LESS frequently when cirrus clouds are present?

P.S. Re my opinion, I have been know to be wrong in the past! :)

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 21, 2002.

No, no, no, no, no! Warm days, cold days, cirrus clouds, cumulonimbus clouds, clear blue sky, it doesn't matter. I'm telling you, John, I'm no sappy sucker looking for something to fret about. I am a pissed off citizen observing with conscious and rational thought what appears to be a completely ignored man-made phenomenon that scares the sh*t out of me. I've seen these things spreading across the full moon not once but three or four nights in a row just recently. If you don't buy it that's fine - I didn't buy it at first either, but SOMETHING'S going on and nobody's talking about it. Nobody but us.

I often see regular flights on regular flight paths leaving regular contrails in their wake at the same time as the chemtrails are being laid down and are spreading (dare I say oozing) out to form a cloud layer across the sky. It is creepy. If you want to argue about it you'll have to argue with someone else, because if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, over and over, I wouldn't have believed it either.

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 21, 2002.

John, I'll post several tomorrow that have no cirrus clouds. The trails do seem to spread more slowly when cirrus or cumulo are present. There are a millio out there right now, but I am charging the batteries on the digital camera. My business partner knows how to put photos on the net, I know how post them here, so you will see some soon. It will be another thread tho' ;).

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 21, 2002.

Gilly, I am trying hard not to argue! I have stated my opinion but I am not expecting you to accept it on just my say so. I am just trying to encourage everyone to take as wide a view as possible, if there is something there any objection will be stronger with an informed background, if nothing is there the sooner we all understand that the better.

Believe me, I am quite concerned that you are concerned. Someone is up to serious mischief, either chemtrails are being created, for goodness knows what purpose, or someone is scaring good folks by inventing them. Either way the subject now has my curiousity well and truly arosed.

Already I see some useful comments, cirrus clouds are as I mentioned ice crystal clouds and condensation/chemtrails will likely be different in their environment to those in other atmospheric states.

Cumulous clouds are associated with convection, i.e. vertical, air currents and fully developed cumulo clouds will push right up through the domain of cirrus clouds. I would expect the incidence of breaks in trails to be greater when cumulus clouds are about.

If I understand the mood correctly we are after the same thing.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 21, 2002.

Well John, I expect I should be able to get some more photos tomorrow as they seem to run heavily for a few days in a row. I can tell you that the breaks are caused by turning the applicator off and on as I have watched it, but for scientific purposes I do not mind investigating things as you suggest. I'm glad your curiosity is peaked.

Gilly, I'm right there with you. Sometimes they are very heavy at night, but without night vision it isn't possible to photograph them. From many of the articles I've read, and from my experience, it seems they are spread in the morning and the evening -mostly-. The reason given was that the heating and cooling of the atmosphere created better dispersion through inversion at those times. Have you noticed any difference in the times of spraying where you are?

-- doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 22, 2002.

Doreen you say you have seen the applicator being turned off and on, I assume this is your interpretation of breaks in the trails but if I saw such a thing I would be thinking that the aircraft had flown through a patch of air where the humidity, temperature etc were not conducive to formation of condensation.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 22, 2002.

John, You won't be swayed will you! I'm a weather watcher an know a few clouds etc.etc. What they are talking about here is way out of the norm. If you had seen these trails I'm sure you'd change your mind!

-- Jim-mi (hartalteng@voyager.net), January 22, 2002.

Doreen, I usually notice them at drive time, and that's not just because that's when I'm outside. I actually work outside quite a bit so I get to see the sky more than some. Here they seem to be laid down at about dawn or a little after and then start up in the afternoon sometimes as early as three, but more so towards dusk. The full moon trails I saw were early evening, but I have seen some in the wee hours of the morning when I step outside to get firewood. I've only been aware of the concept of chemtrails since you returned from your trip and brought them up. Even so, it doesn't take long to get a feel for them since I see them ALL THE TIME.

-- gilly (wayoutfarm@skybest.com), January 22, 2002.

Jim-Ni, it is good to hear we have an experienced sky-watcher among us. Although it is unlikely I will be in the US for some time (for one thing there are stamps in my passport that might land me up in Cuba) perhaps I might see a chemtrail or two elswhere. In which case what characteristics should I look for in a chemtrail that I would not see in a 'regular' condensation trail?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 22, 2002.

John, I believe you're on the right track. I think the "chemtrail "phenomenon is most likely caused by the extremely high amount of water vapor being produced by the extremely high amount of air traffic we have had over the last twenty or thirty years. I noticed that they pretty much disappeared right after 911, and gradually returned over the next few weeks, although I don't watch the sky all that closely, normally, especially when it's cloudy, as it almost always is from November till March here.

I've looked at the chemtrails with a good set of binoculars, and they are definitely coming out of the engines, not some spray nozxzle..

I suggest that, since most commercial airlines fly in the 25-35000 foot altitude range (at least that's what the pilots tell me when I'm airborne, the presence or absence of cirrus clouds may not always be correlative, since many of our jetliners travel THROUGH the toposhpere, where most clouds occur (including cirrus clouds), into the lower layers of the stratosphere, where there are rarely any clouds at all. (all this according to my climatological studies, which were done in 1966) My point being, there could be cirrus clouds in the toposphere, which would likely correlate to "chemtrails" produced by jets which are flying AT THAT ALTITUDE, but not correlate to jets flying at their cruising altitiude.

Interesting topic, everyone, but one which seems to bring out incredible degrees of paranoia in some.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

Guys, John of NZ points out that water vapor needs a change in temperature to form into ice. This is true. However, when water vapor changes to ice (or to liquid, for that matter), there is an accompanying change in temperature, automatically. It's called the "latent heat of evaporation" (vapor to liquid or liquid to vapor) or the "latent heat of fusion (liquid to ice, or ice to liquid) If water vapor changes directly to ice, the amount of heat released (or removed if going from ice to vapor) is the total of the latent heat of evaporation plus the latent heat of fusion.

The atmospheric conditions in either the troposphere or the stratosphere are largely independent of the conditions you experience in your back yard, Gilly, so it doesn't mean anything at all that you see these "chemtrails" during cloudy, clear, warm, or cold days.

Doreen, isn't it possible (or likely?) that the "chemtrails" are being generated by airplanes which are passing through the troposphere during the first, or last, part of their flights? And that the planes with "regular" contrails are the ones which are at their cruising altitudes (above the troposphere, in the stratosphere?

BTW, not that I don't trust YOU, but anyone can change any digital photo to make it look like contrails, or chemtrails, with no way for us (no way for ME, at least) to know that the photos had been doctored. So all the "proof" on the web lacks scientific standing.

But I HAVE seen these strange "chemtrails". Many times. For over twenty years, already. how many times to we need spraying, before we are 1)dead, 2)zombified,3)protected from anthrax, or 4) all of the above?

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

One last observation, and i've gotta go to work!

Here in Orygun, I see these "chemtrails", and they are almost always running more or less due north and south. I've been able to "follow" them while driving from Washington state all the way home in Southern Orygun on occassion, and I've seen what APPEARS to be the same set of lines down in various parts of northern, central, and southern coastal california, again running north and south. I BELIEVE that they are mostly commercial airlines, which run from Seattle to San Diego, with some stops along the way at many different airports, which might be why they would be at different altitudes (some are long distance, some are short hops, which stay lower)

Does anyone know what type of airplane is bright pink? I was once tracking all these flights, a year or two ago, and describing the various types of jets to a friend. Most the planes were silver and shining in the late afternoon sunlight, but two or three, in a bout an hour, were bright pink!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

JOJ, I must 'fess up' I have likely been partly responsible for some of the north south chemtrails over the state with the Irish name since I have frequently travelled to Europe via LAX. Let me guess that pink airliners are either painted pink (maybe red 747s of Richard Branson's Virgin airline, or what about Braniff, they went through a phase of gaudy colour schemes) or coloured pink by some effect of the rays of a setting sun just like we sometimes see pink (ish) clouds

I an not sure that regular condensation trails are all or even partly products of combustion. My guess is that there are areas of water vapour below freezing point and the passage of the aircraft causes a change of pressure that in turn causes a change in temperature allowing the transition to ice crystals to occur. No doubt there is an official explanation of how trails are created.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 26, 2002.

Okay, referring to my previous post. According to the experts condensation trails are indeed largely associated with combustion.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 26, 2002.

Joe, it is possible that the atmospheric changes may have something to do with this-HOWEVER, please explain the grid paterrns. Also, what direction are the prevailing winds where you live? Here, the trails are laid predominately(this is the operative, because they are north south many times as well) east/west and the prevailing winds are from the south south east.

I agree with John regarding the pink aircraft, although I might throw in some of the smaller western state airlines as candidates as well.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 26, 2002.

The air space of continental USA is criss-crossed with regular air routes and I suggest this explains the grid patterns, in fact I suggest the grid patterns are indicators AGAINST 'chemtrails'. Surely any methodical process of spraying an area would be 'up and back' or 'round and around' until the job was done?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 26, 2002.

John, sorry, but that doesn't hold water....in liquid or gas form;). There are corridors, but they are not lined up in 'x' patterns. Generally all short distance airline travel follows the I roads. There is not a grid layed out over the entire country at what appears to be close to one mile distances.(ahhhh, but wait!) This one mile thing just hit me. That is how the land has been surveyed in the majority of the country. In 640 acre sections, 1x1 mile square. hmm.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 26, 2002.

Doreen, I regret I have no knowledge of 'I' roads but whatever they are if the air routes follow them it is probably because they are going to the same place. Short distance air travel is generally at a lower level where condensation trails are less likely to be formed. The pictures I have seen appear to be to be high altitude flights. I have managed to find an image of an air navigation chart in the Joliet area, this particular chart is for flights about FL180, or about 18,000ft.

john@cnd.co.nz), January 28, 2002.

Sorry, something went wrong, I will try again... Doreen, I regret I have no knowledge of 'I' roads but whatever they are if the air routes follow them it is probably because they are going to the same place. Short distance air travel is generally at a lower level where condensation trails are less likely to be formed. The pictures I have seen appear to be to be high altitude flights. I have managed to find an image of an air navigation chart in the Joliet area, this particular chart is for flights about FL180, or about 18,000ft.

High level air navigation chart

You will note how the routes are arranged according to the ground navigation aides and the airports. Although it may be the practice nowadays to fly aircraft on close spaced parallel routes it is not something I have experienced and I suspect parallel condensation trails at the same altitude are caused by the earlier trails being blown down wind between the passing of each aircraft. Lets say the aircraft are 10 minutes apart and the wind at that altitude is 30knots, thats about 5nautical mile spacing between trails. Aircraft dont of course all fly at the same altitude so you might see two trails appearing very close together but actually, say 5000feet, or almost a mile apart. Likewise when the trails cross they could be a mile or more apart but this would not be evident to an observer on the ground. On the balance I still tend to think grid patterns and 'X' patterns are more indicative of a busy commercial air space than any methodical spraying procedure. If I see a picture where the whole sky is covered in a pattern like my mother's gingham table cloth or even one with more than two or three parallel tracks then maybe I would begin to change my mind.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 28, 2002.

Doreen, I can only speak for the "chemtrails" I have seen here on the west coast. Here, the series of parallel lines are CLEARLY the result of the planes flying right over my house, more or less, and the upper air currents moving them gradually eastwards. You can see it, if you watch the planes, and the "chemtrails" for a few minutes. Each jet leaves a fairly skinny exhaust trail, which gets wider and wider as time passes, and as it moves east.

Since we have no east/west flights, there are no parallel lines running east and west.

However, I would surmise that if the wind were from the south southeast, and there were planes flying both east/west and norht/south, the result would be a grid pattern. The southern component of the wind would carry the east/west planes' chemtrails towards the north, and the eastern component would carry the north/south planes' chemtrails towards the west.

However, I would also point out that the wind direction and speed at high altitudes is generally not the same as it is down where we are observing the wind.

One last question, Doreen. Why do you say that he grids are set up with lines that are about a mile apart? How can you possibly know how far apart the lines are? Remember; you are on the ground, and the planes are way up in the sky.

Observation: there are no chemtrails in the sky today. At least not rigtht now. It's partly cloudy. I didn't see any planes at all, either. This, however, may be because it's cold outside, and I didn't stay long enough to listen for, or happen to see any. I'm all wet with persperation from chainsawing all morning, and into the afternoon, or I'd maybe sit outside for a few minutes looking for jets. Too old, too cold, oh well!

By the way, if it is necessary to lay out all these chemtrails in a grid pattern, why do they only have north south chemtrails here, and no east west chemtrails??

I thought of Braniff for the pink planes, but someone told me that company doesn't exist any more! I'm pretty sure it's not the sunset coloring them; perhaps it is some small company. I'm going to start looking closer at airplanes when I'm at the airports.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 28, 2002.

It seems they are approximately 1 mile apart because when they are putting them down very heavily there are usually two or three jets that run staggered, like the formation motorcycles maintain when riding together. They appear very close to each other, but 1 mile in jets is pretty close...it's a guess at best: also, the first day I saw them really heavily, I counted them as I drove home from work being directly under them and there were 6 or 7 running e-w and I drive straight north 6 miles. There's my "deduction" if you will...like I said, a guess.

John, sorry, an "I" road is an interstate highway. They are the largest roads traversing our country and their names all begin with "I", like I-90, I-35, etc.

Guess what? I heard this bill was rewritten and all mention of these stranger technologies were removed. Haven't checked yet, but maybe someone has more time than I do??? Double shifts this week.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), January 29, 2002.

Well Doreen, to be frank I just don't know but much of what is presented as evidence is easily explained as something else. If you see aircraft in formation is it possible to see if they are airliners or fighter types? Of course the aerial tankers are versions of airliners so seeing airliner types will prove nothing but if they are fighter types then I suggest they can be discounted.

Although it may be asking a bit much to identify aircraft from 5 to 10 miles away if the aircraft has a delta shape I would say it is almost certainly a fighter type as I am unaware of any delta shaped airliners except the Anglo/French Concorde.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 29, 2002.


1974 US Navy Chemtrail Patent! What Have They Achieved Since Then?

7-18-00 This is a highly-interesting US Navy patent. In the 25 years since this patent was granted, one can only wonder at the advances and refinements have evolved from this patented delivery system and technology of creating/spraying chemtrails in the skies above. * Note the small particulate sizes cited: from .03 to 4.5 microns * As the Summary says: "Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention..." And, at the end of the patent: "Other type powder compositions (read: bio/chem agents) can also be used..." "Obviously, many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described." * In other words, and to repeat: in the quarter century since this particular patent was granted, unlimited other applications and delivery modalities/refinements would be expected to emanate from this early technology. * Note: The "other patents that reference this patent" are all blank when clicked...their information is 'not available.' Thanks to Chuck Gode in Portland for alerting us to this patent data...an important clue in the burgeoning chemtrail mystery. -JR link Inventor(s): Werle; Donald K. , Hillside, IL Kasparas; Romas , Riverside, IL Katz; Sidney , Chicago, IL Applicant(s): The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC News, Profiles, Stocks and More about this company Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 12, 1975 / July 22, 1974 Application Number: US1974000490610 IPC Class: B64D 1/16; Class: Current: 244/136; 040/213; 116/214; 241/005; Original: 244/136; 040/213; 116/114.F; 241/005; Field of Search: 244/136 040/213 241/5,29 222/3;4 239/171 116/28 R,114 R,114 F,114 N,124 R,124 B,124 C Legal Status: Gazette date Code Description (remarks) List all possible codes for US Aug. 12, 1975 A Patent -- July 22, 1974 AE Application data -- Abstract Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material. Attorney, Agent, or Firm: Sciascia; Richard S.; St. Amand; Joseph M.; Primary/Assistant Examiners: Blix; Trygve M.; Kelmachter; Barry L. U.S. References: Show the 1 patent that references this one Patent Issued Inventor(s) Title US1619183* 3 /1927 Bradner et al. US2045865* 6 /1936 Morey US2591988* 4 /1952 Willcox US3531310 9 /1970 Goodspeed et al. PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED METAL OXIDE PIGMENT USR0015771* 2 /1924 Savage * some details unavailable

CLAIMS: 1. Contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight material, comprising: a. an aerodynamic housing; b. a jet tube means passing through said housing, said tube means having an inlet at a forward end of said housing and an exhaust at a rearward end thereof; c. a powder storage means in said housing; d. a deagglomeration means also in said housing; e. means connecting said powder storage means with said deagglomeration means for feeding radiation scattering powder from said powder storage means to said deagglomeration means; f. the output of said deagglomeration means dispensing directly into said jet tube means for exhausting deagglomerated powder particles into the atmosphere to form a contrail; and h. means for controlling the flow of said powder from said storage means to said deagglomeration means. 2. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said jet tube means is a ram air jet tube. 3. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein an upstream deflector baffle is provided at the output of said deagglomeration means into said jet tube means to produce a venturi effect for minimizing back pressure on said powder feeding means. 4. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said deagglomerator means comprises: a. means for subjecting powder particles from said powder storage means to a hammering action to aerate and precondition the powder; and b. a jet mill means to further deagglomerate the powder into separate particles. 5. Apparatus as in claim 4 wherein pressurized gas means is provided for operating said deagglomeration means. 6. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder particles are titanium dioxide pigment having a median particle size of about 0.3 microns. 7. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder particles have a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica thereon to minimize interparticle cohesive forces. 8. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein the formulation of said powder consists of 85% by weight of TiO2 pigment of approximately 0.3 micron media particle size, 10% by weight of colloidal silica of 0.007 micron primary particle size, and 5% by weight of silica gel having an average particle size of 4.5 microns. 9. The method of producing a light radiation scattering contrail, comprising: a. surface treating light scattering powder particles to minimize interparticle cohesive forces; b. deagglomerating said powder particles in two stages prior to dispensing into a jet tube by subjecting said powder particles to a hammering action in the first stage to aerate and precondition the powder, and by passing said powder through a jet mill in the second stage to further deagglomerate the powder; c. dispensing the deagglomerated powder from the jet mill directly into a jet tube for exhausting said powder into the atmosphere, thus forming a contrail. 10. A method as in claim 9 wherein said light scattering powder particles is titanium dioxide pigment. 11. A method as in claim 9 wherein said powder particles are treated with a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica to minimize interparticle cohesive forces. 12. A method as in claim 11 wherein said treated powder particles are further protected with a silica gel powder. Background/Summary: BACKGROUND The present invention relates to method and apparatus for contrail generation and the like. An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly. SUMMARY The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose. The powder contail generator is normally carried on an aircraft in a pod containing a ram air tube and powder feed hopper. Powder particles, surface treated to minimize interparticle cohesive forces are fed from the hopper to a deagglomerator and then to the ram air tube for dispensing as separate single particles to produce a contrail having maximum visibility for a given weight material. Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawing. Drawing Descriptions: DESCRIPTION OF DRAWING FIG. 1 is a schematic sectional side-view of a powder contrail generator of the present invention. DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT The powder contail generator in pod 10, shown in FIG. 1, is provided with a powder feed hopper 12 positioned in the center section of the pod and which feeds a powder 13 to a deagglomerator 14 by means of screw conveyors 16 across the bottom of the hopper. The deagglomerator 14 produces two stages of action. In the first stage of deagglomeration, a shaft 18 having projecting radial rods 19 in compartment 20 is rotated by an air motor 21, or other suitable drive means. The shaft 18 is rotated at about 10,000 rpm, for example. As powder 13 descends through the first stage compartment 20 of the deagglomeration chamber, the hammering action of rotating rods 19 serves to aerate and precondition the powder before the second stage of deagglomeration takes place in the jet mill section 22. In the jet mill 22, a plurality of radial jets 24 (e.g., six 0.050 inch diamter radial jets) direct nitrogen gas (at e.g., 120 psig) inward to provide energy for further deagglomeration of the powder. The N2, or other suitable gas, is provided from storage tanks 25 and 26, for example, in the pod. The jet mill 22 operates in a similar manner to commercial fluid energy mills except that there is no provision for recirculation of oversize particles. Tests with the deagglomerator show that at a feed rate of approximately 11/2 lb/min, treated titanium dioxide powder pigment is effectively dispersed as single particles with very few agglomerates evident. The nitrogen gas stored in cylinder tanks 25 and 26 is charged to 1800 psig, for example. Two stages of pressure reduction, for example, by pressure reduction valves 28 and 29, bring the final delivery pressure at the radial jets 24 and to the air motor 21 to approximately 120 psig. A solenoid valve 30 on the 120 psig line is connected in parallel with the electric motor 32 which operates the powder feeder screws 16 for simultaneous starting and running of the powder feed, the air motor and the jet mill deagglomerator. Air enters ram air tube 34 at its entrance 35 and the exhaust from the jet mill deagglomerator passes directly into the ram air tube. At the deagglomerator exhaust 36 into ram air tube 34, an upstream deflector baffle 38 produces a venturi effect which minimizes back pressure on the powder feed system. The powder is then jetted from the exhaust end 40 of the ram air tube to produce a contrail. A pressure equalization tube, not shown, can be used to connect the top of the closed hopper 12 to the deagglomeration chamber 14. A butterfly valve could be provided at the powder hopper outlet 39 to completely isolate and seal off the powder supply when not in use. Powder 13 could then be stored in hopper 12 for several weeks, without danger of picking up excessive moisture, and still be adequately dispensed. Preparation of the light scatter powder 13 is of a critical importance to production of a powder "contrail" having maximum visibility for a given weight of material. It is essential that the pigment powder particles be dispensed as separate single particles rather than as agglomerates of two or more particles. The powder treatment produces the most easily dispersed powder through the use of surface treatments which minimize interparticle cohesive forces. Titanium dioxide pigment was selected as the primary light scattering material because of its highly efficient light scattering ability and commercially available pigment grades. Titanium dioxide pigment (e.g., DuPont R--931) with a median particle size of about 0.3µ has a high bulk density and is not readily aerosolizable as a submicron cloud without the consumption of a large amount of deagglomeration energy. In order to reduce the energy requirement for deagglomeration, the TiO2 powder is specially treated with a hydrophobic colloidal silica which coats and separates the individual TiO2 pigment particles. The extremely fine particulate nature (0.007µ primary particle size) of Cobot S--101 Silanox grade, for example, of colloidal silica minimizes the amount needed to coat and separate the TiO2 particles, and the hydrophobic surface minimizes the affinity of the powder for absorbtion of moisture from the atmosphere. Adsorbed moisture in powders causes liquid bridges at interparticle contacts and it then becomes necessary to overcome the adsorbed-liquid surface tension forces as well as the weaker Van der Waals' forces before the particles can be separated. The Silanox treated titanium dioxide pigment is further protected from the deleterious effects of adsorbed moisture by incorporation of silica gel. The silica gel preferentially adsorbs water vapor that the powder may be exposed to after drying and before use. The silica gel used is a powder product, such as Syloid 65 from the W. R Grace and Co., Davison Chemical Division, and has an average particle size about 4.5µ and a large capacity for moisture at low humidities. A typical powder composition used is shown in Table 1. This formulation was blended intimately with a Patterson-Kelley Co. twin shell dry LB-model LB--2161 with intensifier. Batches of 1500 g were blended for 15 min. each and packaged in 5-lb cans. The bulk density of the blended powder is 0.22 g/cc. Since deagglomeration is facilitated by having the powder bone dry, the powder should be predried before sealing the cans. In view of long periods (e.g., about 4 months) between powder preparation and use it is found preferable to spread the powder in a thin layer in an open container and place in a 400°F over two days before planned usage. The powder is removed and placed in the hopper about 2 hours before use. Table 1 _______________________ CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight _______________________ TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3µ Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007µ Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5µ ______________________ Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator. Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described.

MainPage http://www.rense.com

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), January 29, 2002.

The Chemtrail Crisis - An Overview and Update By Amy Worthington The Idaho Observer http:www.proliberty.com 4-26-1

It is no secret that America's military-industrial megalith is secretly altering earth's atmosphere in frightening ways. Huge numbers of aircraft are now kept aloft to create "clouds" with ultra- tiny, ionized metallic particles. HAARP-generated microwave pulses are continually used to heat and agitate the ionosphere. Synthetically-manufactured chem-clouds desiccate the air and very effectively block the sun. The principles of this grotesque aerosol project are spelled out in a number of U.S patents. In 1974, persons associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) obtained patent US3813875 for using barium to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere. In 1991, Hughes Aircraft Company obtained patent US5003186, a method for seeding the greenhouse gas layer with tiny particles which include "oxides of metal , e.g., aluminum oxide." The patent states that one proposed solution to global warming was "to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude....." The 1996 Air Force document titled Weather as a Force Multiplier, declares, "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...." By 1998, this policy became rudely conspicuous. Blue skies have become a rarity. Demoralized citizens have become increasingly ill and angered, not only by the aerosol project itself, but by the arrogance of those who do whatever they please, the consequences be damned. Intrepid chemtrail investigator Clifford Carnicom, despite having his life threatened and his phone continually tapped, has compiled data showing that the atmosphere to be radically altered toward the alkaline. This indicates the abnormal presence of barium salts. Using spectroscopy and pH tests to prove his hypothesis, Carnicom warned that his findings have "major implications for both the chemistry and biology of the nation and the globe." Carnicom also shrewdly discovered that in 1997, U.S. officials altered national visibility standards, indicating anticipation of an aircraft aerosol operation to be conducted over large geographic regions. The old visibility standard of 40 miles has been reduced to 10 miles. And climatic archive data shows that visibility BELOW 10 miles is now a regular occurrence, in major contrast to the norm only four years ago. In January CBS News reported on bizarre geo-engineering experiments proposed for global warming reduction. The report confirmed that one of the methods advocated by physicist Edward Teller is to fill the atmosphere with metallic particles to "scatter away 1 or 2% of the sunlight...the sooner the better." Last December, a Canadian citizen complaining to his local air authority about sky-muck over Victoria, British Columbia, was told by that authority that the chemtrail formations were the result of a joint U.S. and Canadian military exercise. His explanation was caught on audio tape and played for radio listeners all over the Western Hemisphere. (We have not yet heard whether this uniquely candid official has been boiled in oil). Also recently, an FAA official confirmed in a taped interview with freelance radio reporter S. T. Brendt that he was told on four occasions in March to re-route commercial air traffic to accommodate a huge military aerial operation over the northeastern seaboard. Radio talk show host Whitley Strieber recently carried on his web site an unconfirmed report that a group of former military officers used a private jet to obtain a sample of aerosol material being emitted by a military cargo aircraft. Laboratory tests on that sample reportedly confirmed that the effluent contained both aluminum and barium. Unfortunately, aluminum and barium are toxic to humans. Hapless populations sprayed continually with these substances are bound to exhibit symptoms of neurological damage and chronic illness. The toxic effects of barium are confirmed by a 1992 Department of Health and Human Services publication. It states that barium can cause breathing difficulties, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, muscles weakness, swelling of the brain, as well as damage to the liver, kidney, heart and spleen. Barium was reportedly used by the U.S. as a weapon in the Gulf War to make the enemy weak and ill. Aluminum is toxic to the nervous system and deleterious to the brain. Its effects on human health were recently illustrated when Canadians in Espanola, Ontario, reported mass illness after low- flying U.S. jets strafed their town with condensation trails containing aluminum coated fibers (chaff). Investigators found area rainwater contained seven times the allowable limit for aluminum exposure, as people complained of neck pain, breathing problems, headaches, burning eyes and dry coughs. While the military "bombs" populated areas with microscopic pollution particles, the Environmental Protection Agency warns of health dangers from breathing such particles. Just last year, EPA cited major studies which found that even moderate air pollution can trigger sudden death by changing heart rhythm in people with existing cardiac problems. "For air pollution to have such a substantial impact on public health and have it show up consistently is remarkable, " said an EPA official quoted by the Los Angeles Times. While EPA wags its finger at industrial pollution, it consistently denies any knowledge of chemtrail pollution, despite the agency's furtive monitoring of chemtrail web sites where photographic reports of such pollution is constantly updated. Chemtrails and the illness that invariably accompanies heavy spray campaigns. Thus far, congressional Reps answer angry inquiries with canned recitations that chemtrails are nothing but contrails that form when hot jet exhaust mixes with atmospheric air of low vapor pressure and temperature. These Con-cowards also invariably report that NOAA, the Air Force and the Department of Health and Human Services deny knowledge and responsibility for unusual aerosol activity. Such official prevarication only adds to public frustration and mistrust. And it certainly confirms widespread suspicion that government officials are lying whenever they move their mouths. All of this is the "good" news. Next month, we will examine evidence of an even more sinister component of the international aerosol campaign--that of non-consensual and very dangerous BIOLOGICAL testing now being conducted on the public at large. Meantime, stay tuned to: www.carnicom.com; www.rense.com; and www.chemtrailcentral.com.

All I know is when they are doing it here when it is raining hard, we get a clear goo, similar to slug guts or napalm dappled on our vehicles, and they are parked in the wide open with no trees around.

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), January 29, 2002.

Laura, you apparentely obtained these very official (and hence hard to read) documents from a site that also offers news of various scientific matters including, crop circles, UFOs (several), "zero point energy".

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 30, 2002.

John, the patents would be very easy to verify for someone who had the time and motivation, which I don't because I don't NEED convincing. What would yo consider to be enough proof to convince you? The chemtrail technology has been around for decades and their excuses have been "improved aeriall cropdusting" and "better firefighting techniques," event though I haven't seen this kind of improvement in borade applications.

We live in an area that has a lot of Air Force and Navy experimental programs going on and it is common for them to lie to us when it affect civilians. My home is a landmark for military air maneuvers and a commercial flight path, so chemtrails are easy to differentiate from contrails--when the sky is clear. Those of us with retired high security military folks in our families kinda know the score a little better than most.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, explain what this clear jelly/goo is on my cars if it is not coming out of the planes flying over? It only happens when there is heavy rain and the planes are flying low and slow. My cars are parked on an aircraft fueling pad at a depcommissioned Naval Air Station and this stuff is coming from the air. It seems to me that coloidal silica dropped in the kind of rain we have would produce this substance.

Anyway John, what kind of proof do you need?

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), January 30, 2002.

There is an online Patent Office site for checking patents, who will be the first to check this one out? Existence of a patent does not prove that the technology works or if it is put into practice.

I get stuff on my car too, there is something like 'coloidal copper' splats that occur when I drive down a certain street. Clearly something sinister is going on as I just can't accept the explanation that it is simply drips from the overhead trolley wires. Also splats of some honey-like substance which I am told is bumble-bee guts but should I accept that?

Laura, I need proof of chemtrails just like I need proof of Santa Clause. I see him in department stores each year, I understand he has a telephone number and even answers e-mails. Every year there are new goodies in my stocking but am I convinced? I dont think so and I doubt that I would be even if I saw sooty boot prints on our carpet.

Chemtrails though they are something different, maybe they are what you say and just as soon as I see proof I will review my attitude towards them, meanwhile why dont you ask your knowledgeable family members?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), January 30, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ