Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

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

Chemtrail Proof

dialogue and research on chemical trails

New Article: An Update

Unread postby socrates » Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:44 am

It looks like Wigington might become a force for the chemtrails awareness movement. Maybe the chemtrailing has slown down lately, because it's simply too obvious? Maybe slow it down, so the chatter slows down, so people forget again that specific aircraft are deliberately tampering with the upper troposphere?

{on edit: I just read this. The county sin't going to do squat. They simply forwarded some dvd's to state authorities expressing these concerns. One of the concerned citizens mentioned is a scientist. That is a good sign. You can tell he is pissed off at the tinfoil by association concerning chemtrails. Anyway, the county seems to have put the nix on any plans to test any air, soil, and air samples. We need Mark Cuban or Ted Turner to take on our cause. Those guys definitely never get silenced.

another edit: One guy said it would cost a million dollars to do the proper tests. This is ultimately where the Ferrell report hits the dead end with their evidence being a water jug left on a truck. Seriously, rich guys like Cuban, Turner, if anyone knows Oprah Winfrey, tell her to expose the chemtrails. Thanks in advance. :? Seriously, who out there can round up the funds and will power needed to finally get the chemtrails stopped completely?

last edit: I was reading through the comments from this new one. They are very interesting. I haven't read the first story comments or those from the Democratic Underground yet. The struggle continues. 8) }


Board to forward contrail fears
Supervisors listen to concerned residents, send DVD to officials

Kimberly Ross, Record Searchlight
Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Residents who suspect plane contrails are showering harmful metal particulates on Shasta County made their plea for local testing Tuesday, but instead their concerns will be sent to state and federal officials.

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, acting as the county's Air Pollution Control Board, heard from 13 speakers at their Tuesday meeting. About 40 people attended.

Residents who addressed the board said they've recorded high levels of metals like aluminum, barium and strontium in various parts of the county. They fear a public health threat from the contrails, which some call "chemtrails."

Several said they resent being dubbed "conspiracy theorists," including Francis Mangels, a retired biological scientist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service.

"I don't want to be labeled with a bunch of wild-eyed hippies. I am a scientist. The duty of a scientist is to call to attention the potential dangers to society," he said.

Some speakers said testing would cost the county about $21 per test. Mangels said after the meeting that he estimates a study would cost the county a couple thousand dollars.

Resource Management Director Russ Mull told the board it could approve adequate testing of contrails' effects, which he estimated would cost $500,000 to $1 million.

But "jelly jar" experiments aren't enough to be scientifically acceptable and exclude external contaminates, he said.

“If you want to take samples out in your backyard by your swing set that can’t be used for anything, that’s probably going to cost you 20 to 30 bucks,” he said.

Furthermore, Mull said state and federal agencies already are aware of fears about jet contrails, and those agencies would be the ones to watch for dangers.

“The state of California has a standard response that they give” to the issue, which it doesn’t consider a threat, he said.

During the meeting, Dane Wigington made a presentation and showed a news report KTVU aired recently in the San Francisco Bay area. It discussed cloud seeding and weather modification and included an interview with a Pacific Gas and Electric Co. meteorologist.

Reached by phone later Tuesday, PG&E’s supervising meteorologist Byron Marler said there is no connection between the contrails issue and the cloud seeding conducted every winter along the Sierra Nevada range by PG&E, water districts and irrigation districts.

“I would not say that (metals claimed in contrails) is a founded concern, but you can read about it on the Internet,” he said.

Cloud seeding technology was discovered in the late 1940s and PG&E has used it since the early ’50s, he said.

Although aircraft sometimes are used, PG&E uses burning devices on stands 8 to 10 feet tall to release silver iodide in a solution of acetone into the air. The devices affect the area around Lassen Peak and southeast to Lake Almanor.

The outdoor-barbecue-sized propane burners are used for 30 to 50 days a year, from Nov. 1 to May 31, and only during snowstorms, Marler said. The goal is to encourage more snow and build up the annual snowpack, he said.

The process doesn’t form a contrail, nor does it release the heavy metals some Shasta County residents are concerned about, Marler said.

After Tuesday’s meeting, Wigington called Mull’s high-dollar estimate “ridiculous.”

He thinks it was the main reason the air pollution board gave little or no consideration Tuesday to conducting air, soil or water tests, he said.

“I think they did what they could, based on an absolute lie,” said Wigington, a 46-year-old renewable energy consultant from Bella Vista.

Instead, board members voted 4-0 to send DVD copies of Tuesday’s videotaped meeting to state and federal agencies to illustrate the concerns of some residents. Chairwoman Linda Hartman was absent.

Supervisor Mark Cibula had asked that the issue be put on the agenda at the request of its proponents, but said in Tuesday’s meeting that he didn’t think it warranted further action, such as in a letter supporting testing.

“I don’t think we’re in a position to state advocacy,” he said.

Reporter Kimberly Ross can be reached at 225-8339 or at [email protected].
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:08 pm

The comments got really crazy for the first article. The paid disinfo is everywhere.

I don't care what the trolls keep repeating. I nailed the fact that a chemtrails are kooky script has been and still is in effect. They know it, and the good readers know it.

It is not normal to link to Rense, Alex Jones, Chemtrail Central, Flocco, and many others. It is not normal to be a "conspiracy theorist." This is astroturfing. Most of the people hanging out on "conspiracy" boards are fakes.

This is not a conspiracy theory board. Chemtrails have been proven as real.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Good Chemtrail Time Lapse video

Unread postby Lophofo » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:32 pm

Check it out:


Open Letter To Climate and/or Atmosphere Scientists - M.Karr

Unread postby Isard » Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:12 am

Hi people,

My first post in the new version :D
A very good open letter from a guy "Marcus Karr". Don't know anything about him.


Article posted Jul 18 2007, 8:59 AM
Category: Science/Technology
Source: Marcus Karr Print

Open Letter To Climate and/or Atmosphere Scientists
Marcus Karr

Dear Climate and/or Atmosphere Scientist,

The heated debate on global warming seems to be cooling down, as, after a review of the relevant factors - including 'increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases'; 'global changes to land surface, such as deforestation' and urban heat islands; 'increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols' (1); and even some ideas that seem to be out in space, such as cosmic rays and variations in sun activity (2) - a consensus seems to have been reached that increased carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions are the primary determining factor (3). It is the opinion of this author that such a consensus is premature, owing to the fact that not all the evidence has been submitted.

Certain advanced nations have been purposefully tampering with the atmosphere for some time now. Half a century ago their method of choice was the use of atomic weapons (4), but since then their arsenal has grown in sophistication to include the 'injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams'. In a 1996 US Air Force review of the subject, it was emphasized that 'many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally' (5).

The abstract from the proceedings of a 1990 conference held on 'Ionospheric Modification and Its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems' noted lamentably that 'interest in the [upper atmosphere] has been focused on identifying and quantifying the limitations it imposes on [military] systems, rather than on ways it might be altered, or controlled' (ed.: all italics in this paper are mine). Nevertheless, the authors go on to say that 'A variety of [atmospheric] modification techniques are being investigated, both ground- and space-based, to increase or decrease existing ionization or to create independent artificial plasmas. These techniques include high power radio waves, lasers, particle beams, and chemical releases' (6).

The Air Force review mentioned above referred to such 'independent artificial plasmas' as the 'creation of an artificial ionosphere'. One of the papers submitted to the 1990 conference - focusing on 'Theoretical and experimental research on the creation, maintenance, and control of artificial layers of ionization in the 50 to 90 km altitude range' - discusses the use of 'artificial ionospheric mirrors' (AIM) in terms of 'a specific technical approach, the use of ground-based, very high power, RF waves to breakdown the atmosphere' (7).

We find one stated purpose for creating an artificial ionosphere in the patent for artificial ionospheric mirrors (8), which reads:

In the past, the technique of using the ionosphere as a mirror to reflect radio waves, or RF energy, has given Ham Radio operators the ability to send transmissions over long distances. This technique has also provided radar systems the ability to look 'over the horizon'. Variations and fluctuations in the ionosphere, however, can render the effectiveness of such communications uncertain. Thus, the desirability of creating controllable plasma layers in the atmosphere...has been recognized.

The patent outlines quite clearly the means by which artificial ionospheres are created:

3. An apparatus for generating an AIM comprising:

(a) a phased array heater antenna which is focused at an altitude to cause an avalanche ionization area to be created in the atmosphere

There are not many 'phased array heater antennas' in the world, and those few have attracted some controversy - perhaps you know which I am talking about - so I am not going mention them here by name.

If you remember from the Air Force review I quoted above, atmospheric modification has been achieved by means of 'injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams'. I have said a word about 'heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation', and now I would like to briefly mention the purposeful 'injection of chemical vapors'.

A 1990 Stanford University paper entitled 'Overview of Ionospheric Modification from Space Platforms' discusses 'non-electromagnetic methods of modifying...the terrestrial ionosphere' (9). The abstract goes on:

Of these [methods], the most well-understood is the direct injection of chemical vapors into the ambient medium. ... Modification to the ionosphere can last for up to hours from [barium] injections. Other vapors have also been released, including water vapor, SF 6 and more noxious gases, in successful efforts to alter the chemistry of the ionosphere.

In addition to the Stanford paper, a 1979 University of Alaska study entitled 'Chemical releases in the ionosphere' reported that 'Development of the thermite barium release technique enabled observation of both neutral and ion motions, the latter leading rather directly to determination of ionospheric electric fields' (10).

At this point the skeptic inside you might object that these releases were made into the upper reaches of the atmosphere, in near space, where, it seems, there is not much effect on the climate-determining processes of the lower atmosphere. However, given the existence of an artificial ionosphere in the 50 km to 90 km altitude range, it appears likely that barium and other chemical releases should be made rather closer to home, for the purposes of 'altering the chemistry' and 'determining the electric fields' of said artificial ionosphere.

Finally I would like to pose some obvious questions, which I am not qualified to answer but on which perhaps you may be able to shed some light.

1. What is the effect of an artificial ionosphere on climate and the weather?

2. What is the effect of deliberate chemical releases of barium 'and more noxious gases' into the atmosphere, on climate and the weather?

3. What is the effect of 'electromagnetic radiation and particle beams', on climate and the weather?

4. Are said effects likely to be negligible - that is, unworthy of study - in the study of climate and the weather?

5. If said effects are in fact not negligible, then why have these factors not been scrutinized or addressed?


Marcus Karr

Concerned citizen of the United States


Works Cited

1. Attribution of Recent Climate Change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributio ... ate_change

2. Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo ... bdusamatov

3. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


4. Operation Argus


Starfish Prime


5. Concept of Operations, from Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025; United States Air Force, 1996

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/ ... 3c15-4.htm

6. Conference Proceedings on Ionospheric Modification and Its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems Held in Bergen, Norway on 28-31 May 1990; Advisory Group For Aerospace Research And Development Neuilly-Sur-Seine (France)

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge ... =ADA239823

7. Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors (AIM). A: Concept and issues; Kossey, Paul A., et. al; AGARD, Ionospheric Modification and its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems pg. 11; 1990

{on edit: broken link}

8. Patent No. 5041834, issued 1991


9. Overview of Ionospheric Modification from Space Platforms; Banks, Peter; 1990

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=ge ... =ADP006512

10. Chemical Releases in the Ionosphere; Davis T N; Rep. Prog. Phys.; 1979

User avatar
truth warrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Uruguay

Re: Spanish Show on Chemtrails

Unread postby socrates » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:20 pm

I'm gonna ask Isard to translate some of this show for us. It looks like it was a serious attempt. I hope so. The station's name is Cuatro. At first glance, this seems like anything but a kooky presentation.

Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Spanish Show on Chemtrails

Unread postby Isard » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:38 pm

socrates wrote:I'm gonna ask Isard to translate some of this show for us. It looks like it was a serious attempt. I hope so. The station's name is Cuatro. At first glance, this seems like anything but a kooky presentation.

Hi Socrates,

I regret to say that the "Cuarto Milenio" TV show, is full of kooky (as you often say) and crazy ideas. They devote one part of the program (it is a weekly show, about midnight), to show pictures (sent by spectators) where "ghosts" and "spirits" appear while there "was nothing visible" according to the person who took the pic. :lol:

A very common issue is, of course, UFOs, including unclassified material of spanish intelligence about it, "witnesses" :roll: , etc.

I still was in Spain when the chemtrails show was emmited. Trust me, picturing chemtrails in "Cuarto Milenio" is just as bad as having Alex Jones "on our side" :cry:

User avatar
truth warrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Uruguay

Re: Chemtrail Proof

Unread postby socrates » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:56 pm

Thanks Isard. I think the #1 reason I have been attacked is because I did investigate the deliberate portrayal of chemtrails as being kooky. I apologise to the readers that this thread turned out to be more about chemtrail disinfo than proof. I'm trying to figure out the source behind a lot of the disinfo. I think we are on the right track. No way would there be all this disinfo, if chemtrails were contrails. Hey Isard, I want to thank you for sticking through the tough times here, despite English not being your language.

I admit I am fairly tired waiting for the forum to pick up. Disinfo elements certainly did a number on me. Yet, if someone like yourself can understand how the disinfo works, then there is hope that there are lurkers out there who will join our efforts. Hey, I just found a classic from the past. I've never seen this one available before. This may or may not have to do with chemtrails. My hunch is that over the years the powers that be have realised that they better be more careful with what they are putting into the sky. So perhaps they got busted a long time ago like this and stopped putting whatever it was they used back then into the chemtrail stew. Check it out.

{From Unsolved Mysteries}

CHEMTRAILS Poison Rains Infect Small Town
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
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