Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrails Are Deliberate

dialogue and research on chemical trails

Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrails Are Deliberate

Unread postby socrates » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:29 pm

{on edit: I now believe that Rosalind Peterson is a big problem. Basically, she is a big time hypocrite tying herself into tinfoil. She is tied in with people denying anthropogenic global warming or even worse, she seems to be just one more fool insinuating that global warming is caused by chemtrails. She also appears to be mixing up contrails with chemtrails. I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS EXPLAINED THINGS LIKE THEY REALLY ARE.}

That's paraphrasing what she said. You can hear that at the beginning. Also, later on she explains how the Discovery Channel gave the bait and switch with their show on chemtrails. She was given the impression that samples would be taken from chemplumes for testing but never were. I also found some other chemtrail videos from Austria, Bavaria, and Sweden.

{Disclaimer: This was done by The Alex Jones Show. I do not condone or agree with a lot from Alex Jones. But I do realise there are people we can reach. Perhaps we can turn the tables and become left wooing right. What I mean is, most people despite being ideological will accept evident truths. I am posting this interview in the main chemtrails section, because unless I can be shown good reason not to trust Rosalind Peterson, I believe she has been an upstanding leader for us doing the best she can. I do not think everyone is a fake.

Plus sometimes people can end up believing disinfo that got fed to them. I for one made plenty of mistakes when I first got started. Will Thomas' association with the Deep Sky Hoax along with his confusing of stratospheric geoengineering plans with tropospheric chemtrailing makes him someone who cannot be trusted. He was also knee-deep in the Terry Stewart hoax. Alex Jones puts on a bad act making "conspiracy theorists" look like nutjobs. Those who deny man-made global warming and climate change also make me weary. It's ludicrous to deny increases in severe weather due to anthropogenic influenced climate change.

I'm not trying to shove my findings down people's throats, but I sincerely believe the global warming debunkers and those who froth about the new world order, mind control, depopulation and who use other conspiracy jargon are bad for the cause. I am also not completely dismissing chemtrails as being somewhat part of environmental modification techniques. Yet, I do believe that chemtrails as weather warfare is far away from the truth. Those who deny climate change have forced themselves into corners as to coming up with realistic theories for why chemtrailing is so prevalent.

Chemtrails are real. Chemtrails as portrayed on the internet are not.}

Rosalind Peterson on the Alex Jones Show:"Chemtrails" pt1

Rosalind Peterson on the Alex Jones Show:"Chemtrails" pt2

ct´s over austria by astartica
sun 20.01.2008 - trail watching over austria/bavaria

chemtrails north Bavaria 11Feb08 from 14.28 onwards, english by prosepp
it kept on being an interesting and surprising day

Angel Eyes by the Swedish group Chemtrailswe posted by Puttrixtrp

Chemtrails in Sweden, Stockholm, Sundbyberg
Micke Adle drums Patrik Svedlund guitar, bas Anders Moberg vocals. Photos by Peter Hedin.

Last edited by socrates on Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: trying to fix youtube code
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Chemtrails To Be Discussed Tonight On KTVU-TV News2 Oakland

Unread postby socrates » Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:15 pm

I got some kind of mass mailing thing from Rosalind Peterson. I had sent her a few questions about her stance on global warming as regards to Arizona Skywatch. Nothing yet on that. I hope Rosalind is for real and making progress on exposing the chemtrail programs.


July 2008 (Update) by Rosalind Peterson

UPCOMING TELEVISION PROGRAM KTVU-TV 2 Jack London Square, Oakland, California

Part of this story will air on Channel 2, KTVU Oakland/San Francisco/San Jose:

Monday: July 28, 2008, on our Ten o’clock Television News.

John Fowler, Health and Science Editor for KTVU-TV (Channel 2), visited Rosalind Peterson at her home in Mendocino County, Northern California, and filmed a segment for his program on Experimental Weather Modification.

Prepare yourself for more water shortages, floods, droughts, and a sharp decline in food supplies in the United States when Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445, that were introduced on July 17, 2007, are voted into law in 2008. These identical bills, titled: “Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2007”, are moving forward at a rapid rate in Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Please note that these bills were not referred to Committees on Agriculture, Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Agency, or Forestry, and that you were not invited to debate the merits of these bills by your elected representatives.

“It is the purpose of this act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather mitigation policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather mitigation and research.” The Board of Directors will be comprised of eleven members and only one member shall be a representative of the Department of Agriculture. There are no members of the public to be appointed to this Board, no EPA representatives, no Natural Resources or Forestry representatives, and there are no provisions for county, state, public, or agricultural oversight of these programs prior to implementation.

Experimental Weather Modification (or “mitigation” which is not defined in these bills), can affect all of us by reducing water supplies and changing agricultural crop production cycles (micro-climates), while reducing crop production and water availability. Since most experimental weather modification programs use chemicals released into the atmosphere the public could be subjected to increasingly toxic or unknown substances that could have negative effects on agricultural, drinking water supplies, crops, and trees. If the weather is changed in one location it may have severe adverse consequences in another region, county or state. And who is going to decide the type of weather modification experimentation, who it will benefit, and who will suffer the negative consequences of these actions? And will one state or region “steals” the rain or snow that would normally go to another state by using these “weather modification schemes” as is happening from current weather modification programs?

Many current and ongoing weather modification programs (50+ listed by NOAA each year-note the ones listed in this bill), are already changing the climate in many regions of the United States. Since most Americans have not been made aware of these programs it is easy to blame severe climate disturbances on “global warming theories” or climate change. These events are causing an overwhelming urge to “mitigate” current weather problems with increased weather modification experimentation, instead of examining local micro-climate changes that are caused by current and ongoing programs. It would be easier to stop these experimental programs than to add new programs without a clear understanding of current and future synergistic effects.

Senate Bill 1807 does not address these issues but intends to implement more experimental weather modification programs without a national debate or public oversight. Terry Krauss, Project Manager for North Dakota based Weather Modification, Inc., owns a large fleet of aircraft and conducts cloud seeding projects in more than a dozen countries around the world. Many private companies, universities, and government agencies modify the weather in the United States, and in other countries. These programs could clearly be negatively affecting the weather in the United States and exacerbating global climate change.

The December 2005 Popular Science Magazine discussed a plan to use an oil slick to stop hurricanes without noting the adverse environmental impacts of the oil used to cover the ocean. Popular Science also noted that a private company, Dyn-O-Mat had been conducting “…early trials. In July 2001, Dyn-O-Mat engineers dumped 8,000 pounds of their Dyn-O-Mat Gel (capable of absorbing 4,000 tons of water), over a small thunderstorm near the Florida coast. Within minutes the storm disappeared from Doppler weather radar…” When this toxic secret chemical drops into the ocean or over land what are the environmental effects? Who is studying what happens to marine life, crops, soils, and drinking water supplies when this chemical mixes with rainfall on the ground?

According to Popular Science “…Dyn-O-Mat’s founder and CEO, has already arranged to lease a specially rigged 747 “supertanker” to conduct trials on actual hurricanes. Meanwhile, he has assembled an all-star team of scientists and labs at Florida State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NOAA, and elsewhere to begin running computer models that analyze the gel’s effect on larger storms…’We already know the gel works’, says Cordani…’Now we need to figure out how much to use and where to put it’…” Could hurricane and other experiments be causing drought in Georgia and other states in 2007? Since the public is not informed, and Congress has no oversight powers, the public is being kept in the dark about dates and results of these experiments leaving many unanswered questions.

Alaska and other areas across the United States are beginning to feel the impacts of climate change. Enormous changes are being seen in the declining health of native plant and tree communities in many areas across. Climate shifts are being recorded everywhere. In the last few years abnormal rainfall and droughts have been occurring on a more dramatic basis and few are asking questions about current and ongoing experimental weather modification programs that may be exacerbating these problems.

The answer seems to be that these bills will just be passed to “mitigate” (no definition of this word in the bill), current problems. If we are creating these problems with current weather modification endeavors then how can we correct this problem by adding more programs? Wouldn’t it be better to account for all of the experimental weather modification programs, and atmospheric heating and testing programs, and study their synergistic effects, affects on trees, micro-climates, and agriculture before deciding to implement more experimental weather modification programs? If these programs change growing seasons, disrupt photosynthesis, and interrupt the pollination process, crop losses could be substantial, exacerbating economic agriculture instability.

A Weather Damage Modification Program conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, according to this bill, does not evaluate the negative impacts to agriculture, water supplies, or micro-climates in counties or states surrounding experimental weather modification programs. Thus, their models are flawed. U.S. Senate Bill 1807, Section 4 – Definition (3) declares that “…investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature…” will be turned into “…practical applications for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, material and processes”. Does this include toxic chemicals or atmospheric heating and testing experiment chemicals?”

NASA noted in an October 2005 newsletter that increasingly persistent contrails forming man-made clouds and haze are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to note that: “…Any increase in global cloud cover will contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate. Likewise, any change in Earth’s climate may have effects on natural resources…” U.S. Senate Bill 1807 does not address this issue or issues regarding Global Dimming (NOVA PBS 2006), or consider them in any models. Thus, the bill has built-in flaws.

Weather modification companies, private corporations, scientists, and universities are lobbying hard for this bill to pass because they see our tax dollars going to them for these projects until at least the year 2017, prescribed in this bill. No doubt amendments will be submitted by private corporations to elected officials as part of their Congressional lobbying efforts. The public is not invited to attend or be represented in any manner.

Priorities in the bill are funding, training and support for scientists, participation in international efforts, and research and development. Note that research related to potential adverse affects of weather mitigation is also in this bill but the bill does not specify agriculture, micro-climate damage, crop losses, drought or flood inducement, or chemical toxicity from these types of experimental weather modification programs. Our micro-climates and food production (the livelihoods of thousands of people who are in the agriculture business) are to be used as guinea pigs without warming, prior notification, public oversight or input. And if crops our damaged, our grasslands in drought or floods, who is responsible for these disasters when they are man-made by experimental weather modification (mitigation), programs? The agriculture industry will suffer staggering losses and food prices will skyrocket due to these losses, food shortages will increase…while we import more and more contaminated food from countries like China. This bill does not protect the public.

The bill will require a description of “…any potential adverse consequences on life, property, or water resource availability form weather mitigation efforts, and any suggested means of mitigation or reducing such consequences if such efforts are undertaken…” However, we have over sixty-six current and ongoing programs, why won’t they be assessed first to address environmental and agriculture problems well in advance of any additional experiments? The bill does not state that any public hearings will be held in advance of any experiments or that the public will be notified when these programs are to take place or what means of mitigation for adverse consequences will be in place. In addition, this bill does not address compensation for losses due to this experimentation nor does it mandate that the public will be advised of these programs in advance of their implementation.

Since the first report on this bill is not due until January 31st, in the second calendar year following the date of the enactment of this Act, but if passed, this plan will be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This means a huge gap where no public oversight, congressional oversight, public debate and hearings, or any other method of oversight will be required. And with the public excluded from any participation to protect water, agriculture, forest, natural resources, and other public interests from questionable experiments, the programs will be implemented without proper protection for these interests.

Atmospheric experiments, the Alaska H.A.A.R.P. program, military experiments on weather modification, like those being undertaken at Eglin Air Force Base (Florida), and elsewhere, are not listed as being part of this bill. In 2004, The Science Channel, for a special television program titled “Owing the Weather”, conducted an interview with J. Gregory Glenn, a Research Scientist at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida, where “…Air Force weapons researchers and nano particles specialists are conducting weather control experiments…” Thus, the public will be subject to these experiments with no Congressional or public oversight. And your local insurance company and other private corporations will continue “mitigating” for private profit at your expense.

We know today, and most weather modification companies will tell you, that weather modification works. They can’t always control the results but we do know they work, may have unintended consequences, or have been used in other ways. In the 2004, Science Channel Program “Owning the Weather”, are the following statements on “Project Popeye”: “…Though they had denied it for more than seven years (until Seymour Hersh of the New York Times broke the story), the U.S. Military had been using weather modification as a weapon in Vietnam and Laos. Starting in 1966, the United States Air Force had made over 2,600 top-secret cloud seeding flights. Codenamed “Project Popeye”, this clandestine operation attempted to turn key enemy transport roads to mud, rendering them impassable…As a result of the uproar over Project Popeye, on the 10th of December 1976; the United Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 3172. It explicitly banned the use of weather modification in warfare…” Other U.S. hurricane clouds seeding projects have also been classified, until years later, due to the devastating results of these experiments and fear of lawsuits.

Now, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and Congressman Mark Udall (Colorado), have reintroduced similar bills for passage this year. Once again it is time to act to protect our natural resources, our soil, water, agricultural micro-climates, and crops from unknown types of weather modification experimentation. In addition, they have ignored addressing issues raised in a December 13, 2005, letter to Senator Hutchison from John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C. which states in part: “…there is a host of issues—including liability, foreign policy, and national security concerns…that arose in the past and should be adequately considered before the U.S. government undertakes the coordinated national research program this legislation would require…” These include but are not limited to “…Department of Justice on legal issues, with the Department of State on foreign policy implications, with the Department of Defense and State on national security implications, and with pertinent research agencies to consider the reasons the U.S. Government previously halted its work in this area…”

Mr. Marburger’s letter went on to define some local, political and legal ramifications, national Security Implications, and Research issues which included: 1) Weather modification may promote rain in one area to the detriment of another; 2) These legal and liability issues pertaining to weather modification (now mitigation), and the potential adverse consequences on life, property, and water resource availability resulting from weather modification activities, must be considered fully before the U.S. government could take responsibility for this new research program: 3) Given Global weather patterns, whether one country “owns” its weather so as to assert intra-border control with extra-border consequences, must be considered under present international conventions…”

Senator Hutchison and Congressman Udall did not address any to these issues in the text of their legislation. Thus, it is believed that they both ignored the issues not only brought forward by the public but by the Office of Science and Technology. Also missing from this bill are references to various U.S. Patents that discuss weather modification methods through the use of atmospheric chemicals, ionospheric modification and testing, how satellites can be used to change the weather, and space based weather modification satellites. The range of patents and geoengineering schemes to modify the weather are staggering in number and scope. And this bill does not address any of these issues or the myriad of geoengineering schemes now in use or proposed for the future that will modify our weather.

In addition, two climate security act shams, U.S. Senate Bills S2191 and S3036, were debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate between June 2-6, 2008. Senators Boxer and Lieberman will be bringing this legislation forward, in the near future, once they have the sixty votes needed pass either one of them. California Senators Boxer and Senator Lieberman are the driving forces behind these Climate Security Act shams and California Senate Feinstein is supporting this legislation along with Senators McCain and Clinton. Hidden inside these bills are unregulated weather mitigation programs and legislation that will lower water standards in our Clean Water Act to allow a highly polluting underground carbon sequestration program. (Don’t be fooled by the “Cap & Trade” slogan attached to these bills. It just means that the American taxpayers will pay taxes to set up an unregulated private corporation called the, “Climate Change Credit Corporation”, that is designed to sell bogus credits to polluters in an unregulated money market scheme so that polluters can pollute more in the future.)

STOP U.S. Senate Bills S2191 & S3036

Climate Security Act Shams

By Rosalind Peterson

July 1, 2008

Published by NewsWithViews.com


Note: A new experimental weather modification is to be initiated in Southern California this fall to place more snow and rainfall in the San Gabriel Mountain area to benefit only a few special interests. Rainfall and normal weather patterns are needed to supply watersheds and agriculture crop production in surrounding areas. This huge program will disrupt normal weather patterns and rainfall distribution over thousands of square miles and could cause a major drought over the California’s Central Valley, our food breadbasket. This program could also negatively impact rainfall and climate in the State of Arizona. This experimental weather modification programs needs to be re-considered, as to detrimental impacts, before being implemented.


Please contact all of your elected local, state and federal officials to stop these bills and action in their present form. These bills need to have appropriate agriculture and public oversight, with public hearings included, prior to any more experimental projects. We need a national dialogue on this subject before more experimentation takes place. Concerned grassroots citizens are involved in this educational protest movement to protect agriculture from unwise experimental weather modification programs. “We, the people, simply will not accept this reckless experimenting on our weather and are fighting the passage of this bill in order to protect agricultural crop production and our water supplies.”


Contact: E-Mail: [email protected]"

By Rosalind Peterson

First Published by: newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm November 2, 2007

Marie Gunther - Guest & Program Producer will interview Rosalind Peterson – Experimental Weather Modification & Atmospheric Heating Testing Programs – Climate Change – Agriculture

(Man-Made Clouds & Weather)
THURSDAY - AUGUST 6, 2008: 6 A.M. PACIFIC Time Zone

ThePowerHour.com or ThePowerHour.org

ThePowerHour with Joyce & Dave" is a three-hour syndicated radio broadcast
Monday through Friday, 7-10 AM CST. Listen Live at ThePowerHour.org, ThePowerHour.com or GCNLive.com

(Please note the Public Announcement that trails my sign-off - Your show (with us) will air nine more times in the following 24 hours for anyone, anywhere in the world, can go and listen to it again and again. In other words, all three hours of our broadcast continually replays every three hours.)

Associated Reference Articles and Links to Government Documents and Current U.S. Legislation:

1, “Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act”

U.S. House Bill 3345 Full Text: govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3445

U.S. Senate Bill 1807 Full Text: govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1807

2, Other Related Articles: newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalindA.htm

3, NOAA Project StormFury 20-Year History:


4, asp.bnl.gov

5, usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-12-19-wyoming-cloud-seeding_x.htm

6, asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p8.pdf

7, Weather Modification, Inc. Home page, Atmospheric Research, Aircraft Modification, and Cloud Seeding Website: weathermod.com/index.php

(WMI February 2007 Discovery Channel Program: Krauss: “…The demands for fresh water are increasing. People think nothing of drilling wells and extracting ground water. Well, now we are trying to use modern technology to extract water that goes unused in this river of water vapor that is passing over us each second of the day. A lot of people don’t realize that California has been conducting wintertime cloud seeding for almost fifty years to supply the increasing demand for water (and power) in California…”

Krauss speaks WMI just using unused water vapor. However, that water vapor would have a final destination as rain or snow somewhere else, in another county or state, if not artificially interfered with by chemicals. When you deliberately put more snow in the Wyoming mountains (December 2005-February 2006), you deprive another area of the rain or moisture that would normally fall in other areas. Thus, more snow in the Wyoming mountains may cause drought in surrounding counties or states. What legal right do we have to modify the weather and deprive other areas of that so-called “unused water vapor” that could alleviate droughts or keep our agriculture micro-climates intact?

(Also note that weather modification companies have a financial investment in promoting experimental weather modification programs and would see nothing wrong with implementing those programs.)

8, NOVA “Dimming the Sun” April 2006:

9, Global Dimming: bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

10, November 20, 2006: “NASA plans to block out the Sun”


11, May 3, 2006: “Blocking Out the Sun” californiaskywatch.com/global_warming/index.html

Peterson – Could the H.A.A.R.P. Project in Alaska, NOAA, DOE, NASA, Air Force, Department of Defense, etc., be the reason for climate changes that have been escalating since the late 1980s, when the funds and technology allowed for the escalation of atmospheric heating and testing programs like NASA’s TMA Night Cloud tests using trimethylaluminum or the advanced testing of military weapons systems like star wars?

12, NASA’s Night Clouds Atmospheric Testing Program: science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/20jun_TMAclouds.htm

13, U.S. Weather Modification Patents & Weather Modification Method:


14, Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth's weather-1998:


15, Weather modification by artificial satellites 1999


16, Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process 1977


17, Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water 1994


18, Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere 1987


* Bridget Conroy, from Arizona, and Rosalind Peterson, from California, are co-founders of the Agriculture Defense Coalition. They joined together in October 2005, to fight a similar experimental weather modification bill that was introduced in 2005. Thanks to their dedication and hard work in bringing this to the public’s attention, organizing rallies, with lots of help from local individuals and groups in several states, many people across the United States contacted their elected representatives, and these bills were not passed in 2006 or 2007. They have mobilized again to fight this new threat to agriculture and natural resources.

Information on Carbon Trading: “Cap & Trade Money Market Schemes”

1, Communities for a Better Environment Fall 2006 Newsletter: Richard Drury’s article: “Pollution Trading: We Don’t Buy it” Excellent Article on the “Pollution Shell Game”.

2, Los Angeles Times April 1, 2007 “Carbon Trading Won’t Work”


3, newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind2.htm Cap & Trade Article Part I

4, newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind3.htm Cap & Trade Article Part II

5, sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Defense

According to Source Watch this group has “…evolved into George Bush's favorite environmental group…”

6, govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-3036
U.S. Senate Bill 3036 Text

7, U.S. Senate Bill 2191 Text

8, U.S. EPA Information

Information on Experimental Weather Modification Bills:

9, newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm

Contact your elected officials and defeat these two bills experimental weather modification bills from passage in 2008. U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 brought to you with compliments from Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

10, In a speech (June 5, 2008),on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator Salazar of Colorado, spoke of the drought which has decimated his state in the last two years. The Senator blamed global warming as the cause of these problems without realizing that the Colorado drought started at the same time a massive experimental weather modification scheme was initiated in Wyoming. It is easy to blame global warming for all of our problems rather than look at the experiments we are conducting on ourselves with more than 50 experimental weather modification programs ongoing in the United States (according to NOAA records).

NOAA - Current Weather Modification Programs – How are they linked to current weather problems and agriculture declines due to the disruption of local micro-climates?

11, NOAA 2005 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs.

pdf link

{on edit, for some reason these next two links are busting up the margins. Copy and paste as one link despite the space if you want to check it out.}

12, NOAA 2006 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs


13, NOAA 2007 Listing of Experimental Weather Modification Programs


14, Honey Bee Decline Articles & Documents



Whereas, agricultural crop and tree health could be adversely impacted by climate change produced by experimental weather modification programs, atmospheric heating and testing programs, and increasing air pollution from the chemicals used in those programs;

Whereas, a wide variety of trees and other vegetation are showing signs of declining health or have died out;

Whereas, honey bee and wild pollinator populations are in steep decline;

Whereas, tree and plant decline is creating a serious fire hazard in many areas across the United States and which may adversely impact local weather, rainfall totals, and local water supplies;

Whereas, global dimming, climate change, Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation, and air pollution are increasing;

Whereas, persistent jet contrails are changing our weather, exacerbating global warming (NASA), and jet fuel emissions are polluting our air while depleting beneficial atmospheric ozone levels;

Whereas, global dimming and persistent jet contrails, that produce man-made clouds, may decrease photosynthesis thereby reducing crop production;

Whereas, there are currently over fifty known experimental weather modification programs currently being used across the United States without any studies to determine the synergistic effects of those programs or their affect upon, regional micro-climates, agricultural crops and water supplies;

Therefore, we the undersigned demand to know what effects these current experimental, military, public, and private weather modification programs are having on human health, agriculture crops, trees, climate, and drinking water supplies.

Therefore, we the undersigned, demand to know how atmospheric heating and testing programs are changing our weather, polluting our air, and abnormally moving the jet stream;

Therefore, we the undersigned, request that our local, county, state and federal representatives take action to curb the unrestrained, experimental weather modification programs and atmospheric heating and testing programs that are proliferating, without any public oversight, in order to protect agriculture, trees, watersheds, and our water supplies. And we urge our U.S. Senators & Representatives to defeat U.S. Senate Bills #1807, #2191, #3036 – U.S. House Bill HR 3445.

Printed Name Printed Address Telephone # Signature Date

*RETURN TO: Rosalind Peterson, Agriculture Defense Coalition, Post Office Box 499, Redwood Valley, California 95470 (707) 485-7520
E-Mail: [email protected]"
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Rosalind Peterson: The Chemtrails Are Deliberate

Unread postby socrates » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:21 pm

For someone who has made a big stink out of the word chemtrails, Rosalind Peterson is reeking of tinfoil herself. She has revamped her home page. It looks a lot better. But it is too slanted towards making chemtrails appear as contrails. Her website is making it seem that weather modification programs are real, and some are even classified. Yet, she seems to be saying that those are only a part of the fake clouds. Maybe I am missing something here. But she is starting to reek like Chem11, another person who portrayed himself as an expert on chemtrails only to stab us all in the back by becoming a debunker.

This is the only forum that has fully explained chemtrails and which has outed all the fakes and useful idiots doing damage to the possibility that chemtrails will be exposed and stopped.

Why is she posting with Devvy Kid or whoever that person is? Why is she being the ultimate hypocrite? This is how the chemtrails are kooky script operates. On the surface, some will make it seem that they are aware of all the ********, but then they show that was only a bait and switch.

People can check out her website and the other one. Feel free to add your voices. Or continue to be spineless mutes. It's your choice. But yeah, this is the only chemtrail website that is fully honest and/or not deliberately tied into convolution. I have explained the convolution. These others act as if it doesn't exist. People Like Peterson act like it does exist, but then they become affiliated with it. WTF ROSALIND?


By Rosalind Peterson
September 6, 2008
What meteorologists and the media are not telling you

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will provide to anyone that requests the list, a copy of experimental weather modification programs ongoing (as well as historical), in the United States. This list is not complete due to the fact that many experimental weather modification programs are “classified top secret” by the U.S. military. These experimental programs are unregulated and are not subject to oversight by anyone. In addition, the public, ranchers, watershed supervisors, forestry, the Environmental Protection Agency, states, agriculture food producers, fish and game agencies, local counties, and anyone else that depends upon the weather, are usually not notified in advance of these programs being initiated.

NOAA has, under its umbrella, the National Weather Service (NWS). If the NWS is notified about these experimental weather programs, they rarely put this information into their state and local weather forecasts, leaving the public to believe that their weather is “normal” or that “extreme and other weather events” are caused by climate change or “global warming.” The NWS provides weather information to local, county, and state meteorologists who then use this information to add to local weather forecasts in the area where you live, but most neglect to advise the public about these modification programs.

The National Weather Service uses weather models in their forecasting. These models are based on data which is collected from a variety of sources and historical information. There is just one glitch.

Their models may not include at least two factors: 1) Experimental weather modification programs, and 2) Climate changes, based on NASA studies and research. (NASA noted in an October 2005, newsletter that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into man-made clouds that are”…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…” NASA goes on to state that “…any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth’s cloudiness, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources…”) Thus, state and local forecasts may be wrong, in many instances, because they don’t take into consideration these two factors which can dramatically change your state, county or local weather.

Since the late 1980s, these experimental weather modification programs have grown in scope and sophistication. The public has been denied access to this information, in most cases, and weather modification has usually not been reported by the media except on rare occasions.

The local weather forecasters usually don’t report on these weather modification programs, on the results of those programs, when giving local and regional forecasts. Many may not even be aware of these programs or may have been told not to report on them. This means that most weather forecasters are not giving the public the true facts about the weather they are experiencing as a result of these programs. Those meteorologists that know about these experimental weather modification programs and don’t report them in advance, during or after these events, are denying the public critical information, especially to those who depend upon the weather to grow the crops we depend upon for food, drinking water supplies, and tree health......

You need to be clearer Rosalind. You need to spell out exactly the differences between chemtrails, contrails, and weather modification programs. On the one hand, you do put out a lot of food for thought. Yet, on the other, your inability to clearly articulate wtf is going on creates enigmas.

NASA Contrails Presentation Begs Some Questions
By Rosalind Peterson
While searching the NASA website on July 31, 2008, I found a link to David Duda's (Hampton University/NASA LaRC), PowerPoint presentation on 'Contrails' (no date provided for presentation). View the PowerPoint presentation | View as PDF

The presentation provides pictures of interest and information on contrails. This presentation does not answer critical questions about persistent jet contrails but it does provide the following information:

1. "…Contrails have been around for a long time! They were first described in the scientific literature in 1919…"
Since no jet engines were in existence in 1919, this means that contrails must have been formed by smoke.

2. "…During World War II, contrails sometimes littered the skies during aerial combat…"
This statement is true but the contrails would have been created by smoke and other sky obscurants used during WWII. It should be noted that there were only a handful of jet engines in small experimental aircraft at that time in England and Germany. These jets were not used in combat as far as can be determined by extensive historical research.

3. "…Persistent contrails occasionally cover large areas. Like cirrus clouds, contrails contribute to global warming…"
We currently estimate that contrails add an additional 0.5 to 5 percent warming to the greenhouse gas effect…” Water vapor is a green house gas.

4. "By 2050, the warming due to contrails may be 2.5 to 25 percent of the current greenhouse gas warming…"
Why aren't we curtailing all jets leaving persistent jet contrails now in order to eliminate this threat to climate change? No answer to this question in the presentation. If we are serious about reducing global warming why isn't this issue addressed at the state or federal level, especially in California?

5. This presentation fails to discuss the climate change produced by persistent jet contrails when they turn into white haze and man-made clouds. NASA noted in an October 2005, newsletter that increasingly persistent contrails may turn into manmade clouds that are:
" …trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…" NASA goes on to state that " …Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in Earth's climate. Contrails, especially persistent contrails, represent a human-caused increase in the Earth's cloudiness, and are likely to be affecting climate and ultimately our natural resources…"

6. The pictures in this presentation are also of interest. There is only one date 2002 on a satellite picture in the entire power point presentation. Thus, there is no way to date this presentation or the pictures as no credits are given for them.

7. This power point presentation does not provide information on why jet contrails, produced by jet engines, have only persisted in their present form since the late 1980s.

8. This presentation addresses contrails in a general manner which includes smoke and other types of contrails produced for air shows and skywriting. It also mixes propeller engine and jet engine contrails. The discussion by NASA and other entities should be on the type of persistent jet contrails which persist and exacerbate global warming, produce white haze and man-made clouds. These are the ones which may negatively impact agriculture production and change our climate.

9. Duda asks "What are contrails" and defines other terms pertaining to contrails: " …Also known as Vapor Trails, Jet Trails, 'Chemtrails'…"
This is limited contrail information and does not address the problems they create.


Yeah, I'm mad. I feel I have nothing to lose. I'm sick of seeing this kind of ********.

From her homepage:
Contrails in the Media

A Change in the Weather

KTVU 2 News July 29 2008: In this special report, John Fowler looks at growing trend of meteorological manipulation Watch

Toxic Sky?

KNBC4 News in Los Angeles investigates the 'jet contrail' phenomenon and the Weather Modification Bill.

Part 1 aired May 23, 2006.

Rosalind Peterson is interviewed by Paul Moyer as he reports: Is the government manipulating the weather?

Part 2 of the series aired November 2006.

Scientist, Gregory Benford (a geoengineering proponent), stated some of his views in 'Toxic Sky?'. Professor Benford also attended behind-closed-door presentations on climate 'mitigation'. Take a look

PBS Nova: Dimming the Sun

Jet contrailsPBS NOVA asks, "Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?" See The Contrail Effect
BBC: Global Dimming

BBC Horizon cautions that some viewers may find this documentary disturbing as it examines the power of what scientists call 'Global Dimming'.

The Weather Channel segment on contrails. Watch video (Source: NASA Pathfinder Contrails Studies Requires Windows Media Player)
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests