"Chemtrails"
The only chemtrail "mystery" is why bloggers have made a "mystery" out of a "non-mystery." It has been a matter of open public record for years now that Congress took action (holding open, public hearings not too many gave a damn about at the time) to attempt to replace the vanishing ozone layer with a replacement.
Perhaps you may want to discuss the ozone replacements the government is using. I'm sure there's room for discussion there.
It is a FACT our government acknowledged global warming years ago and subsequently took action to ameliorate the effects of ozone-depletion, i.e., "chemtrails."
Even the Bush Admin acknowledged global warming as reality. Bush Knows our governmetn is spraying the skies to counter the effects of global warming while denying global warming exists.
Read below:
.r o n
In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.
This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.
It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.
It alsp appears that we 'Chemtrail' investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific umbrella of 'Geoengineering and intentional climate change.'
Chemtrails are just one of the 'mitigations' proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998)
The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: "The projected insufficiency of Kyoto's emission reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia."
"Geoengineering--intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth's climatic systems--may be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory "Marshall Plan" of costly emissions reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory "Manhattan Project" geared toward developing feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences."
"In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]" pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project."
In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.
This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.
It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.
This landmark study; the widespread experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation.
The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft.
Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.
____________________________________________________________________________
The following excerpts detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Evaluating Geoengineering Options
"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail."
"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."
"The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms."
Screening Out Some Sunlight
"Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided below."
Stratospheric Dust
"Although the space dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20 to 40 km are of the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to increase its net reflection of sunlight."
Mass Estimates
"Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm."
"The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models."
Delivery Scenarios
"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.
However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."
"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."
"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."
"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated."
Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach
"Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."
"Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud, which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud cover would be formed every time the number of CCN increased."
Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei
"With Albrecht's assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are present, the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 ¥ 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 ¥ density, and it is assumed that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 ¥ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is 2.7 ¥ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 ¥ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN.
To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient CCN."
"Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use. Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle."
"Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust compounds in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere."
"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted."
"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."
(end of excerpts)
__________________________________________________________
Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:
(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS
(Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates, Seattle, Washington
ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE F. CARRIER, T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan
THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
GORDON H. ORIANS, Professor of Zoology and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York (resigned from panel February 1990)
SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford, England
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, Florida
PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven
PETER BREWER, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific Grove, California
RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth Center, New Haven, Connecticut
DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts
ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan
RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University, New York
JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General Manager, Fluorochemicals Division, E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware
KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Studies, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts
GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and Director, Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy, and Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (resigned from panel October 1990)
GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook
HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson
JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and Applications, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore
BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham
Staff
ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director
DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer
NANCY A. CROWELL, Administrative Specialist
MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papers of special interest to Chemtrail Investigators
Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project - Stanford Environmental Law Journal January - http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen" Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. - http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html
Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation - by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent experiment. Science 243:293299 http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P. Jonas, R. Charlson, H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart, V. Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal, and D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-131. http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P. McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor, 1995: Group report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.htm
Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the radiative forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(D3):55975613. http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3): Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Effects. Report GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories, and paper presented to the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., December 1984.
Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):2627.
Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects of particulates from solid rocket motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research 5(2):7786.
Geoengineering is defined as 'intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment', e.g. by altering climate with the primary intention of reducing undesired climate change caused by human influences. 'Geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate without abating fossil fuel use; for example by placing shields in space to reduce the sunlight incident on the Earth.' (Keith D.W. 1999. Geoengineering, Encyclopedia of Global Change, New York).
In relation to 'geoengineering', the 'Climate Change 2001' report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/176.htm
confirms that it 'includes the possibility of engineering the earth's climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of CO2 could be offset by an increase of 1.5% to 2% in the earth's albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space…. Teller et al. (1997) found that ~107 t of dielectric aerosols of ~100 nm diameter would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by ~1%. They showed that the required mass of a system based on alumina particles would be similar to that of a system based on sulphuric acid aerosol…(They) demonstrate that use of metallic or optically resonant scatterers can, in principle, greatly reduce the required total mass of scattering particles required."
The Truth about Chemtrails- "Geoengineering" Debunked
Nearly two years ago, Wayne Hall made a public challenge to debate his claim that "geoengineering" is a reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wayne Hall It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'. |
Recently I asked him if he was really sincere about finding out the truth regarding his claim, and told him that there is a way to empirically determine if indeed there was such a geoengineering scheme underway as he claims.
He responded by stating that he is ignoring me.
The purpose of this thread is to display facts which tell the truth about his claims. Hall has the option to respond or continue as he wishes, however, the truth is going to come out about "chemtrails" no matter what he does.
Let us examine the claims of Wayne Hall:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wayne Hall "Geoengineering is defined as 'intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment', e.g. by altering climate with the primary intention of reducing undesired climate change caused by human influences. 'Geoengineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil-fuel combustion on the climate without abating fossil fuel use; for example by placing shields in space to reduce the sunlight incident on the Earth.' (Keith D.W. 1999. Geoengineering, Encyclopedia of Global Change, New York).
In relation to 'geoengineering', the 'Climate Change 2001' report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/176.htm confirms that it 'includes the possibility of engineering the earth's climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of CO2 could be offset by an increase of 1.5% to 2% in the earth's albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space…. Teller et al. (1997) found that ~10^7 t of dielectric aerosols of ~100 nm diameter would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by ~1%. They showed that the required mass of a system based on alumina particles would be similar to that of a system based on sulphuric acid aerosol…(They) demonstrate that use of metallic or optically resonant scatterers can, in principle, greatly reduce the required total mass of scattering particles required." http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Hall4.htm " |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wayne Hall "The ‘invisibility’ of geoengineering is perpetuated through official denial. The US Air Force, whose KC-135R and KC-10 tanker planes have become a familiar sight in many different parts of the world as they engage in the daily particulate scattering operations of the ‘sunscreen’ programme, on its official site describes eyewitness accounts of these operations as ‘a hoax that has been around since 1996.’ ‘The Air Force’, it says ‘is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs and has no plans to do so in the future.’ The ‘hoax’ accusation is energetically echoed by the seemingly large numbers of ‘debunkers’ frequenting chemtrail/geoengineering discussion forums, generating considerable confusion, as well as resentment at their characterisation as ‘chemmies’ (a variant on ‘commies’) those who wish to draw attention to the mysterious lines in the sky. Moreover, all elected politicians in the world above the municipal level, if they have heard at all of geoengineering, believe, or profess to believe, the official story that the sunscreen climate mitigation programme is ‘a hoax’." |
In summation, Hall claims that a geoengineering program is:
- "defined as 'intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment', e.g. by altering climate with the primary intention of reducing undesired climate change caused by human influences."
-"it 'includes the possibility of engineering the earth's climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of CO2 could be offset by an increase of 1.5% to 2% in the earth's albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space…. Teller et al. (1997) found that ~10^7 t of dielectric aerosols of ~100 nm diameter would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by ~1%."
- "it is ALREADY being done"
-"KC-135R and KC-10 tanker planes have become a familiar sight in many different parts of the world as they engage in the daily particulate scattering operations of the ‘sunscreen’ programme"
Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board - Bill S517
Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 - (Introduced in Senate)
S 517 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 517
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) BOARD- The term `Board' means the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term `Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.
(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term `weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.
SEC. 4. WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY AND RESEARCH BOARD ESTABLISHED.
(a) IN GENERAL- There is established in the Department of Commerce the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(b) MEMBERSHIP-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, of whom--
(A) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Meteorological Society;
(B) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers;
(C) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Academy of Sciences;
(D) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research of the National Science Foundation;
(E) at least 2 shall be representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
(F) at least 1 shall be a representative of institutions of higher education or research institutes; and
(G) at least 1 shall be a representative of a State that is currently supporting operational weather modification projects.
(2) TENURE- A member of the Board serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.
(3) VACANCIES- Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(b) ADVISORY COMMITTEES- The Board may establish advisory committees to advise the Board and to make recommendations to the Board concerning legislation, policies, administration, research, and other matters.
(c) INITIAL MEETING- Not later than 30 days after the date on which all members of the Board have been appointed, the Board shall hold its first meeting.
(d) MEETINGS- The Board shall meet at the call of the Chair.
(e) QUORUM- A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings.
(f) CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR- The Board shall select a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members.
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE BOARD.
(a) PROMOTION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- In order to assist in expanding the theoretical and practical knowledge of weather modification, the Board shall promote and fund research and development, studies, and investigations with respect to--
(1) improved forecast and decision-making technologies for weather modification operations, including tailored computer workstations and software and new observation systems with remote sensors; and
(2) assessments and evaluations of the efficacy of weather modification, both purposeful (including cloud-seeding operations) and inadvertent (including downwind effects and anthropogenic effects).
(b) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE- Unless the use of the money is restricted or subject to any limitations provided by law, the Board shall use amounts in the Weather Modification Research and Development Fund--
(1) to pay its expenses in the administration of this Act, and
(2) to provide for research and development with respect to weather modifications by grants to, or contracts or cooperative arrangements, with public or private agencies.
(c) REPORT- The Board shall submit to the Secretary biennially a report on its findings and research results.
SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE BOARD.
(a) STUDIES, INVESTIGATIONS, AND HEARINGS- The Board may make any studies or investigations, obtain any information, and hold any hearings necessary or proper to administer or enforce this Act or any rules or orders issued under this Act.
(b) PERSONNEL- The Board may employ, as provided for in appropriations Acts, an Executive Director and other support staff necessary to perform duties and functions under this Act.
(c) COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES- The Board may cooperate with public or private agencies to promote the purposes of this Act.
(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS- The Board may enter into cooperative agreements with the head of any department or agency of the United States, an appropriate official of any State or political subdivision of a State, or an appropriate official of any private or public agency or organization for conducting weather modification activities or cloud-seeding operations.
(e) CONDUCT AND CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The Executive Director, with the approval of the Board, may conduct and may contract for research and development activities relating to the purposes of this section.
SEC. 7. COOPERATION WITH THE WEATHER MODIFICATION OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH BOARD.
The heads of the departments and agencies of the United States and the heads of any other public or private agencies and institutions that receive research funds from the United States shall, to the extent possible, give full support and cooperation to the Board and to initiate independent research and development programs that address weather modifications.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) IN GENERAL- There is established within the Treasury of the United States the Weather Modification Research and Development Fund, which shall consist of amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) or received by the Board under subsection (c).
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to the Board for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2014. Any sums appropriated under this subsection shall remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
(c) GIFTS- The Board may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on October 1, 2005.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Eastman
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: Shawn Mann: Chem Trail Phenomenon Over Western Canadian Skies -- An Independent Informal report
this article argues that chemtrails -- the reader is not aware that the creation of cloud cover is a type of weather modification that redirects air movements by creating higher-than-otherwise air pressure in regions by preventing the warming of the ground which would heat the ground and thereby the air above the ground causing it to rise, the evacuation of this air from the lower regions reducing air pressure -- the chemtrails prevent this heating and so the pressure is higher, putting more push in the equation in that region. This procedure enables parcels of hot or cold, wet or dry air to be moved from one place to another. The target area of the weather modification will not be where the chemclouds are being layed; the target area may be a thousand or more miles away. Anyway, Shawn Mann has clearly shown the intelligent reader that chemtrails are not normal condensation trails. -- Dick Eastman
From: Ardeshir Mehta
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007
Subject: Chem Trail Phenomenon Over Western Canadian Skies
An Independent Informal Report by Shawn Mann
[QUOTE]
Chem Trail Phenomenon Over Western Canadian Skies.
An Independent Informal report
Requesting an Immediate and Candid Study by the Canadian Dept. of Environment And any other Federal bodies with interest or expertise.
To start off in this report I am going to attempt an appeal to the simple common sense and natural curiosity that most people feel when being privy to these visual images that will follow. A persons need to know what is going on in his or her environmental surroundings and why it is happening is just one of a few basic survival instincts that everyone should have. This report is based on just this premis, what are these strange trails being left behind aircraft in the sky and what is their purpose? A simple question that has yet to get any kind of answer, from any government agency, either from this country or any country on the globe for that matter, Why the secrecy?
To begin we'll do some simple observational drills:
Do clouds form in parallel lines directly and behind a moving jet liner that crosses undisturbed over the Alberta skyline?
[photos omitted -- if you are interested ask me and I will forward the article with the chemtrail photos -- most of us have seen chemtrails covering the sky -- also, the author describes them well enough. --DE]
These light wispy clouds that you are seeing running parallel across the sky line and into the REAL cloud formation are what are being called Chem-trails(chemical trails). This phenomenon has been recorded all over the world and I have been personally studying this environmental fiasco for over 4 years now.
This particular photo was taken 3 hours after 2 planes flew overhead.
The next photo is a larger version of the first; please note how the real cloud billows as it grows, and the chem-trails just spread out and dissipate slowly into the atmosphere.
This photo was taken 4 hours after the planes flew overhead,
You can still make out the visible flight paths from the planes within the chemical cloud.
Are the public meant to believe that these very localized clouds(and in this case I use the term clouds very lightly) and cloud formations are in fact natural formations with no harm intended to the people or the their air and environment?
Are we also meant to believe that these formations that appear out of the backside of an airliner or unmarked aircraft to be the exhaust water vapor or what is called a contrail(condensation trail) from the aircraft?
If this is the case as you will see in later photo's the formations have an almost Morse code look to them, with breaks between the formations, it's as if the taps are being turned on and off as the planes fly through the sky.
Are we to believe that if this was a proper contrail form an aircraft that somehow the plane stalled and started again more than once in most cases that I have studied?
The mechanics of a proper exhaust or contrail differ greatly than what is being left in our skies behind these ominous aircraft.
General Observations: How is a CONTRAIL formed?
If one studies the Physics of the vapor trails of aircraft, the basics would seem to be fairly straightforward. In fact, the basics are something we often personally experience, at least in Canada, on every cold winter's day.
On such days, when we breathe out, we can see our breath. It's one of those signs that 'winter is really here'. What causes our breath to become visible? Very simply, it is that our breath is warm and the winter air is cold. Tiny droplets of water vapor condense out of the warm air to form "clouds of visible breath", before the warm air quickly cools and the "clouds" disappear again.
It is a very similar process that is happening about 30,000 feet in the air, when hot exhaust gases from jet engines heat the air. Water droplets condense out of the cooler surrounding air and form a contrail -- an abbreviation of condensation trail. I used to watch aircraft trails when I was a child and I remember seeing how the almost solid-looking lines of "stuff" would slowly fade into wispy curls, then disappear completely.
Looking at more recent aircraft trails, there seems to be a general trend that many of the trails no longer disappear in such a short time period. Indeed, in researching a little into these aircraft trails, I came across an observational study, which was done in 2002, by Amy Foy at Lancaster University (UK) (http://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/hazelrigg/amy/Home.htm). Here, a classification of the type of Aircraft Trails observed was used:
1. "Persistent and Dispersed" (they hang around and spread out).
2. "Persistent and Non-Dispersed" (they hang around but don't spread out).
3. "Non Persistent and-Dispersed" (they don't hang around, but they do spread out).
4. "Non Persistent and Non-Dispersed" (they don't hang around and they don't spread out).
The Lancaster study does not attempt to explain why some trails should be persistent or seen when dispersed, but it does show that someone else has observed these trails enough to se that some of them do persist for more than 5 minutes.
Further Analysis of Formation of Contrails
Before we explore some of the chemistry of the burning of Kerosene (aircraft fuel), let us stop and think for a moment. If, on a cold day, we breathed out, and our clouds of breath hung around for several 10Â’s of seconds or even minutes, would we regard this as unusual?
If aircraft trails are visible for several minutes, there must either be some component in them that is visible when cool or some visible compound must be forming in the atmosphere, following a chemical reaction of some kind. Let us explore this idea.
Kerosene is classed as a "Hydrocarbon" -- it mainly contains alkanes -- which are made up of carbon (approximately 85%) and hydrogen (approximately 12%). There are some other compounds in kerosene which contain nitrogen and sulphur (approximately 1% or 2% each respectively). When Kerosene burns, therefore, it can only form compounds that contain elements that were originally in the Kerosene, or in the air it burns in. Not surprisingly, then, the main compounds that form when Kerosene burns are:
· Carbon Dioxide (the infamous 'greenhouse gas', which we all breathe out)
· Sulphur Dioxide (in small quantities -- a toxic, greenhouse gas, which mixes with water to form acid rain -- sulphurous and sulphuric acid)
· Carbon Monoxide: a toxic, flammable gas, responsible for some deaths which happen when gas heating equipment is faulty.
· Water.
When we look at each of these compounds in turn, we find that they are all colorless. So, when kerosene burns, it would seem that the only visible thing we should see in the sky is the condensation -- which, like our breath, should disappear in a few tens-of-seconds. Indeed, when a jet takes off, we can see that only colorless compounds come out of the back -- all that we see is "hot air". There are no sooty or reflective compounds coming out as the jet races down the runway. Whilst these observations may not be true of all the jet engines that are currently flying, it should be true of all those used on regular flights, otherwise they are faulty.
So, whenever we see a contrail lasting for more than a few 10's of seconds, we should, at the very least, be curious, and wonder what is causing this to happen? When we see a lot of these trails together, we should become very concerned. They should not be there in the first place, but accepting the fact they are, we should realize they are a very visible form of pollution, which few people seem to be paying attention to.
Carnicom's Analysis of Contrail Formation
http://www.carnicom.com/model2.htm
Apr 12 2001
A preliminary model has now been developed which can be used to predict whether contrails will form or not under reported meteorological conditions at flight altitude. Analytical models for contrail prediction appear to be difficult to acquire publicly, and this model is therefore offered for investigative purposes. This is an original development that results from a variety of sources and methods, including unclassified aerographic manuals, meteorological theory, least squares analysis and regression analysis. It is to be interpreted as an empirical model, and it is subject to further refinement depending on the results that are obtained from its use.
The model offered is as follows:
where c = e(151 - alt) / 19. 5
and t = temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude in degrees centigrade
and alt = altitude of the jet aircraft in thousands of feet.
RHmin is the minimum relative humidity (with respect to water per conventional standard) that is required at flight altitude for contrails to form. The contrails referred to are those classically and conventionally defined as condensation trails, i.e., composed of water vapor. A standard atmospheric model is assumed within the development. The model is intended to be used only within the range of 30,000 to 40,000 ft. MSL. The model is quite sensitive to small changes in temperature, and consequently, any errors in temperature.
Commercial flight traffic usually ranges between 35 and 37 thousand feet MSL. A representative case may be considered, therefore, at approximately 36,000 ft. MSL. Standard temperature at 36,000 ft. MSL is approximately -53.5 deg. centigrade.
This model can and will now be evaluated with actual observations in an effort to test it for reliability. Citizens are welcome to submit their own observations for inclusion if they so desire. The value of this model is to identify those meterological conditions which are supportive of conventional contrail formation. Anomalous persistent contrails and subsequent "cloud" decks that result from frequent aerosol operations can also be examined in conjunction with this model.
Contrail formation/dissipation and cloud formation are to be recognized as two separate physical processes resulting from differing conditions and variables for each. It is important that any analysis of these two processes be appropriately and separately understood before any mutual connection is to be made.
A history of observations is available on the aerosol report page.
This model is in addition to that previously developed that predicts contrail dissipation times, as well as a model to predict the distance behind the engines that the contrail is expected to form.
The model presented will be modified, revised or further developed as circumstances require.
This is another photo in a series of photo's that I have taken while these planes fly over head. Note the other 2 trails one is 45 minutes old and the other is 1 ½ hours.
Within this enlarged view of the aircraft you can certainly see something coming out the rear of the plane but the rules to the formula for calculating a contrail seem to not apply to this aircraft however, due to the immediate formation of a trail behind the aircraft rather than the calculated distance that should exist between the air craft and what would or should be the contrail formation. Are we to believe that the upper atmospheric conditions are that sporadic as to affect only some and not all aircraft that fly in our skies?
On this point, should we be made to believe that IF these are just Contrails why do only certain planes leave this trail in it's wake? Why do other similar aircraft cross the sky with no trail left whatsoever? If this was just a simple matter of plane exhaust wouldn't the entire sky be covered with them all day due to the amount of increased air traffic that flies over these same grids on a daily basis? To further expand on the term "grid", all commercial air traffic has specific areas or flight paths that they must adhere to in order to maintain safety and basic rules of the road so to speak. Some of these aircraft appear to be just flying sporadically across the sky at times, turning and twisting as they spray their loads out into the atmosphere, they do not appear to be on any pertinent heading for any major aerodrome but are still in the air with a purpose. To what that purpose is leaves a great suspicion as to what these planes are dumping into our atmosphere and why?
The next couple photo's are just further examples of what is happening in just one little piece of the Alberta sky line, this phenomenon has been happening all over our country and to a greater extent in the USA and Britain long before our skies were being drawn on by this possibly poisonous attack?
Why do I use the word poisonous? Because in some independent studies done in Europe, Britain and the U.S when these strange trail formations appear in the atmosphere shortly after there are foreign substance concentration levels in the atmosphere that alarmingly rise in content, as well as some other substances that have been found to be in the atmosphere but shouldnÂ’t be. Some of these substances that have been found in greater levels are
Most notably:
Barium
Potassium
Calcium
Aluminum
Bacterial
Pathogens (by definition is an infectious biological agent that causes illness in a host)
Examples of which are Mycoplasma(the same bioengineered toxin that was found to be causing up to 45% of the gulf war sickness in the returned veterans)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (is the epitome of an opportunistic pathogen of humans. The bacterium almost never infects uncompromised tissues, yet there is hardly any tissue that it cannot infect if the tissue defenses are compromised in some manner.)
Further Possible Health Effects
Clifford Carnicom, a self-employed Computer Consultant, has published voluminous data at http://www.carnicom.com. His previous employment as a research scientist for the US Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, coupled with his technical background in the fields of advanced mathematics and the physical sciences would seem to give him very strong credentials for undertaking such tasks. This seems to be evident on his Website. His analyses have shown that Chemtrails contain particles of Barium (http://www.carnicom.com/flame1.htm) and that samples of air from Los Angeles, for example, contain increased levels of Potassium and Calcium (http://www.carnicom.com/labtest.htm). Carnicom tries to establish the purpose of the presence of these ions and notes, among other things, the effect of metal ions on human health. Barium, Potassium and Calcium are, in their elemental state, fairly reactive metals, and form compounds easily. Another component of the trails that Carnicom has identified is biological (it grows on agar jelly) -- and resembles human red blood cells (erythrocytes - see http://www.carnicom.com/bio11.htm).
Some people feel that the new and little understood condition of Morgellon's Disease could be linked to Chemtrails -- see http://rense.com/Datapages/morgdat.htm
It has many disturbing characteristics, largely ignored by most people who should take the issue more seriously.
EPA in the United States.
Clifford E Carnicom is perhaps the foremost investigator of the Chemtrailing programme. He has written to the US Environmental Protection Agency on several occasions, and even sent them samples of material he has collected. The EPA simply claims to be "unaware" of any spraying activity, despite the submission of photo, video, and material evidence. Clearly this response is demonstrably inappropriate and does not address the facts.
US Air Force
When Carnicom wrote to the US Air force, via his congressman, an even more brazen response was received: they claimed the issue was all an "Internet Hoax" - this response was again inappropriate and does not address the facts.
US Greenpeace
Carnicom also wrote to the US Greenpeace Organisation, and received this response:
Thank you for contacting Greenpeace for assistance with this problem. While we would like to be able to help you, Greenpeace focuses its resources on global environmental problems including global warming, ancient forest destruction and commercial whaling. Unfortunately, we do not have local chapters that could help you with your situation.
For further assistance, you may want to contact the following organizations which focus specifically on helping people with toxic-related issues:
CENTER FOR HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE.....703-237-2249
CHEMICAL INJURY INFORMATION NETWORK............773 278 4800 x299
If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our Supporter Services at 1-800-326-0959, visit our Web site at http://www.greenpeaceusa.org, or write to us at 564 Mission Street, Box 416, San Francisco, CA 94105.
For a green and peaceful planet,
Supporter Services
Carnicom notes that "None of those sources responded. and that:
The mission statement of Greenpeace is stated as follows on www.greenpeace.org:
"An independent campaigning organization which uses non-violent - creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems for a peaceful future"
Project Cloverleaf
There is some discussion that civilian airlines were involved in a secret project code named "Cloverleaf", which had been in operation for some time, but information about this is difficult to obtain. http://www.carnicom.com/mgr1.htm has some information allegedly supplied by an Airline official, but his identity remains secret, as do a number of details pertaining to the story.
About twenty employees in our office were briefed along with my by two officials from some government agency. They didn't tell us which one. They told us that the government was going to pay our airline, along with others, to release special chemicals from commercial aircraft. When asked what the chemicals were and why we were going to spray them, they told us that information was given on a need-to-know basis and we weren't cleared for it. They then went on to state that the chemicals were harmless, but the program was of such importance that it needed to be done at all costs. When we asked them why didn't they just rig military aircraft to spray these chemicals, they stated that there weren't enough military aircraft available to release chemicals on such a large basis as needs to be done. That's why Project Cloverleaf was initiated, to allow commercial airlines to assist in releasing these chemicals into the atmosphere.
Assorted photos of the phenomenon
These photos were taken in central Alberta during the months of July and Aug 2007
This photo clearly shows a start/ stop type formation
Does this tell us that the plane stalled then started again? Doubtful.
This is the same formation about 30 minutes later
It appeared that due to the upper winds the spray was drifting north towards Edmonton.
The next few Photos are of the same phenomenon in other countries, particularly Britain.
Sept 12/2005 United Kingdom
October 19/2007 Borrowash U.K.
8th August, 2005, 13-04 Embsay, Yorkshire
12th Sept 2005, 09-31, Lake District
The following 2 photos are from a satellite shot of the U.K. Try as I may I could not get access to photos of this over Canada
Satellite pictures of the UK taken on the same day (shown here http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2007035 ) clearly demonstrate the reality of the phenomenon, as seen from space.
I have also included a link to a Video that can be watched, this was recorded just today Oct 19/2007 in the U.K. and clearly demonstrates the oddities of these occurrences, they are nothing random or of natural causes.
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=142&Itemid=50
Note about Trail Length
The photo above begs a simple question. How is it possible for trails to persist for so long that they form long lines? Look at the trail marked in a separate photo.
This trail is 172 pixels long: this means that at 2km per Pixel, the trail is about 364 km long[1]. (A small adjustment may need to be made due to the distances above ground, if the ground resolution is 2km/pixel then at a height of 30,000 feet, the resolution would be maybe 1.9 km per pixel). If we assume it was made by an aircraft similar to a 757 or an Airbus A320, and we assume the plane was traveling at 500 mph for the time the trail was forming, this means that the trail persisted for at least:
364 / (500 * 8/5) = 0.455 hours = 27 minutes!
(and it could be longer, since the satellite photo may have been taken AFTER the trail had formed.)
Reasons Why this is NOT a Contrail Phenomenon
Visibility of Trails on Satellite Photos
The mass of water vapor contained in a standard Contrail would be tiny, and certainly not observable from 150 miles up in space, and yet as Jeff Challender observes, we can see the trails on many satellite photographs, such as these additional ones shown below
Originally from: http://www.weatherwars.info/chemtrails.htm
http://www.projectprove.com/Arts/Chm1/chm1.php
Time of Trail Persistence
Vapor trails from aircraft should NEVER persist for more than about 2 minutes -- even in ideal conditions. This can easily and clearly be demonstrated from the time lapse footage included on the DVD. A chemtrail does not even behave like a cloud formation -- it does not "billow" -- it forms, spreads out and then "fades away".
Irregular Pattern of Appearance
The frequency of appearance of trails does not bear any noticeable relationship to levels of civilian air traffic.
Height of Appearance of Trails
With repeated observation, some chemtrails can be seen at much lower altitudes than any persistent contrails should ever appear at -- this can be observed from the apparent size of the plane in the sky. For example, contrails are normally seen to form when planes are so high in the sky that it is difficult to make out the color or any salient features the aircraft may have. I have observed persistent trails from aircraft perhaps as low as an estimated 15,000 feet, but I have been unable to photograph them at such times.
Number of Trails Seen simultaneously at a Given Time
As demonstrated in the Case Study (see enclosed DVD), it is not possible to have such a high level of civilian or, for that matter, military air traffic (even during an exercise) which would generate the observed number of trails (42 planes flying over a small area in 2½ hours).
Climate Change
Clearly, when we accept the reality of this phenomena and realize the sheer scale of it, ALL serious discussion of the reasons for "Global Warming" is called into question. (All interested people should study carefully NASA data, which indicates all other planets in the solar system are undergoing changes too).
Quite recently, Global Dimming has also been discussed by some people - and I cannot think of a more likely cause than the massive covert Chemtrailing program, which could easily have caused the 22% reduction of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, if the frequently observed increase in haze levels at the horizon are anything to go by.
Difficulties in Accepting this Reality
It is very difficult to accept the reality of this phenomenon -- doing so is an affront to many of our dearly held views. There is also the dark realization, as with many issues like this one, that we could have missed something so obvious going on for so long, when the evidence is right before us. All you need to do, however, is watch the sky for one week (providing it is not completely overcast) -- you will see the trails being laid at some point.
Appeal
It is my belief that this matter should be the subject of serious, honest and dispassionate investigation without recourse to denial of evidence, ridicule, stonewalling or any combination of these things. It demands a most vigorous application of energy and time to uncover the purpose and intended outcome of this secret project – which, as the evidence shows clearly, is real. Anything less than this is tantamount to a contravention of human rights and puts our future at risk. Perhaps readers should bear in mind General Eisenhower's warning, from 1961:
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I also now very much agree with what Martin Luther King once said:
"A time comes when silence is betrayal."
It is at this point I would like to thank the reader for their time and interest into this topic that I have felt compelled to share with you.
And with hope, hard work and some honest help the answers that we seek will find their way to us.
I would also like to thank my contacts for giving me privy to some of their information in order to make this report as thorough as possible and add to the credibility of this issue as a whole.
Thank you.
Shawn Mann
Box 1198
Rimbey, Alberta.
T0C 2J0
403-350-2695 work
403-843-0039 home
[END QUOTE]