Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

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

U.S. Govt. Admits Chemtrails Are For "Weather Mitigation"

dialogue and research on chemical trails

U.S. Govt. Admits Chemtrails Are For "Weather Mitigation"

Unread postby socrates » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:48 am

{with the merged thread, the adjusted view count is +84}

Those behind the chemtrails are getting desperate to legalize their activities. They are sick of having to be sneaky about it. They are sick of denying the obvious by calling it a hoax. They want to be able to spray the skies at will. So evidently the chemtrails are not legal yet. Why else is there this need for a "WEATHER MITIGATION" law?


Legislation > 2007-2008 (110th Congress) > S. 1807


Bill Status
Introduced: Jul 17, 2007
Sponsor: Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
Status: Introduced
Go to Bill Status Page

Introduced in Senate: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.

screenshot #1

screenshot #2

screenshot #3

screenshot #4

screenshot #5

screenshot #6

screenshot #7

screenshot #8

screenshot #9

screenshot #10
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Don Smith » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:18 am

{on edit: It's strange how Don Smith never separated his paragraphs.}

Another unstated factor in this is that the ground water reserves of the Oglalla Aquifer, ( runs down the center of North America), has been mined to the point that even deep wells are not producing enough water to sustain the corporate farming which dominates U.S. agriculture. When the European farmers took the graaslands of the midwest and converted it to "modern" farming techniques the average well depth in southern Minnesota was around 25 feet.
Today that depth varies, in eastern Kansas wells of 400 feet are common. This shows that millions of years of Pleistocene water have been used in a little more than a century. Corporate agribusiness is unwilling to go to "dry farming" as it is not as profitable, and is subject to the whims of natural precipitaion.
Modern industrial farming relies upon tremendous amounts of petrochemicals and the continued support of a rip-off "subsidy" program, monies which, once again, are taken from the taxpayer and turned over to corporate interests. The recent destruction of the corn market of Mexico was a direct result of U.S. federal dollars artificially lowering the cost of corn in the U.S. This made it possible to flood the market in Mexico with low cost corn, driving millions of small farmers from their lands and into the cities, or to " del Norte".
Now the price of grain has shot up as a direct response to the "oil shortage", and the ones left holding the bag are the consumers and, of course, the now landless farmers of Mexico.
These same farmers are now compelled to farm with genetically mutated seed stock, which will not reproduce viable seeds for a new crop, rather, they must purchase new seeds annually, from the geniuses at Archer Daniel Midlands, Dow Chemical, etc.
The United States, for the first time in it's history is a net food importer. Agriculture is the true basis of wealth in a society, and these events all bode great ill for us in the future.
Don Smith

Unread postby socrates » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:56 pm

Great post as usual, Don.

The simple part of this is that there is the deliberate activity.
I don't think this is all about the uv-b radiation, though that makes the most sense to me for why we are witnessing so much chemtrailing. I screen shot your post agreeing with this and put it up at Chemtrail Central. You're famous now! :P

The striking part of the new bill to me is how they go on a lot about cloud seeding, like this bill isn't that bizarre. But then on closer look, there is the sneaky line thrown in- and for other purposes. Then they segue non-challantly to the climate change problems and the "mitigation." The usual suspects show up too- the NOAA et al.. There are even parts where it is said that the weather mitigation board will be able to contract out their services etc, that the $10,000,000 per year budget doesn't necessarily have to be the true dollar value expended. Maybe some of that $2.3 trillion declared missing on 9/10/01 is being used?

I find it strange that the holes in the ozone layer get next to no press compared to the global warming. But I do think this is beyond just ozone hole remediation. Maybe you are onto something with the agricultural side of this. Hey, you forgot about Monsanto!

Maybe "they" are also trying to destroy the last of the family farmers, so that the evil conglomerates can have even closer to 100% control of farming. One hears a lot about widespread drought. I do lean towards the geoengineering blank check theory along with the uv-b radiation remediation as being the most logical explanations for the magnitude of the operations. Chemtrails are simply being "sprayed" too often to be experimental. There have to be specific reasons for these activities.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Cross-Post from CTC

Unread postby socrates » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:26 pm

I left this one a few minutes ago at Chemtrail Central.
I believe my work is complete for the day. 8)

tenger wrote:Thanks for the information. Being from Texas, Hutchison is one of my senators, I am very interested in learning more about this....I have heard that she has plans to run for Texas Governor in a few years. After I read the bill, I'll respond.

Thanks for the response. I guess I should give credit to chemtrails911.com.

I actually first came across this interesting email exchange between Patrick Minnis and themselves before learning about the new bill. I don't feel a need to comment on this, because the "chemmies" made the #1 point. Why would Minnis with all his resources not be able to come up with his own videos of "contrails" spreading into massive, fake, cloud cover. It was as if he was trying to "invoke authority" with "chemmies." It does seem strange that Minnis would be spending so much time reading chemtrail websites, you know, if this is such a crazy hoax. It's the #1 contradiction that fake debunkers like Jay Reynolds cannot explain.

Patrick Minnis is a Dork Shill


At this humble forum, we have a thread started on the new bill. Feel free to sign up and help out if interested. Peace.

{on edit- sept. 8th, 2008- Tenger posts at the Megasprayer disinfo domain.}

On edit- this was my 420th post. Sorry if this hurts our cause, but I can't resist. Image
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

May41970 found a Good One

Unread postby socrates » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:31 am

Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes
The Telegraph
By Tim Shipman in Washington
last updated October 24th, 2007

Scientists have made a breakthrough in man's desire to control the forces of nature – unveiling plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course, to prevent tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.

The damage done to New Orleans in 2005 has spurred two rival teams of climate experts, in America and Israel, to redouble their efforts to enable people to play God with the weather.

Under one scheme, aircraft would drop soot into the near-freezing cloud at the top of a hurricane, causing it to warm up and so reduce wind speeds. Computer simulations of the forces at work in the most violent storms have shown that even small changes can affect their paths – enabling them to be diverted from major cities....


Last month scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem announced that they had simulated the effect of sowing clouds with microscopic dust to cool the hurricane's base, also weakening it. The dust would attract water but would form droplets too small to fall as rain. Instead, they would rise and evaporate, cooling hot air at the hurricane base.

In findings presented at a conference in Trieste, Italy, the team led by Daniel Rosenfeld demonstrated that dust dropped into the lower part of Hurricane Katrina would have reduced wind speeds and diverted its course.

The MIT team has now hired a professor of risk management to advise on steps necessary to protect themselves from legal action by communities affected if a hurricane is diverted. It is pressing for changes to US law and for an international treaty to settle possible disputes between neighbouring countries....

A link was taken down in which the US military admitted to the enmod techniques.
This link is no longer available:

{on edit- thanks for the wayback machine.}
Code: Select all

Here is all that I can find that is still available.
TTS '97 - Potential Weather Modification Capabilities AF 2025


Precipitation Enhancement
Flood Lines of Communication
Reduce PGM/Recce Effectiveness
Decrease Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Enhancement
Deny Operations
Precipitation Denial
Deny Fresh Water
Induce Drought
Space Weather
Disrupt Communications/Radar
Disable/Destroy Space Assets
Fog and Cloud Removal
Deny Concealment
Increase Vulnerability to PGM/Recce
Detect Hostile Weather Activities

Precipitation Avoidance
Maintain/Improve LOC
Maintain Visibility
Maintain Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Modification
Choose Battlespace Environment
Space Weather
Improve Communication Reliability
Intercept Enemy Transmissions
Revitalize Space Assets
Fog and Cloud Generation
Increase Concealment
Fog and Cloud Removal
Maintain Airfield Operations
Enhance PGM Effectiveness
Defend Against Enemy Capabilities

---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
“From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed” above.

“Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.”

The above table and quotes are from ‘Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,' Chapter 15, Volume 3, AF 2025
************************************************** ********* *


TTS '97 - Treaty Issues


The U. N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification, which went into effect 5 October 1978, applies only to “widespread, long-lasting or severe” environmental modifications.
Local, non-permanent changes, such as precipitation enhancement, hail suppression
Since 1978 the official Air Force position has been that weather modification had little utility or military payoff as a weapon of war.
The official Air Force position needs to be reevaluated:
In the light of 19 years of scientific advances
In the light of advanced weapon systems which are more environmentally sensitive
To prepare against technological surprise

Previous slide Next slide Back to the first slide View Graphic Version

---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Air University's SPACECAST 2020 contains a section on Counterforce Weather Control for force enhancement which identifies the necessary prerequisites

“Atmospheric scientists have pursued terrestrial weather modification in earnest since the 1940s, but have made little progress because of scientific, legal, and social concerns, as well as certain controls at various government levels. Using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage, or injure another state are prohibited. However, space presents us with a new arena, technology provides new opportunities, and our conception of future capabilities compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic.”

“The difficulty, cost, and risk of developing a weather control system for military applications are extremely high. However, the potential benefits for national security

I could only retrieve one picture from the Italian chemtrails forum which they had copied. Anything that looks good has to be copied from now on or else the fascists in power will just delete it at some point.


They don't play fair. Once we figure things out, they take down the links.
There were other ones. I remember one that talked about using black carbon for weather modification.
Thankfully, at least some of it has survived the censorship.

Chemtrails are real. I no longer have any doubts. Not one.

This is an open message to all in the military. Stop being fascist pigs and start enforcing the constitution.
You know the part where it says we the people? You can't all be gutless pigs, can you?
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Environmental Modification Techniques Screenshots

Unread postby socrates » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:41 pm

From the wayback machine link added above:



















User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

The House Version

Unread postby socrates » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:32 pm

H.R. 3445: Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2007

Bill Status
Introduced: Aug 3, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Udall [D-CO]
Status: Introduced
Go to Bill Status Page

You are viewing the following version of this bill:

Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.

Text of Legislation
HR 3445 IH


1st Session

H. R. 3445

To establish the Weather Mitigation Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.


August 3, 2007

Mr. UDALL of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology


To establish the Weather Mitigation 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,


This Act may be cited as the `Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2007'.


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 research and development.


In this Act:

(1) BOARD- The term `Board' means the Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board.

(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term `Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Weather Mitigation 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 MITIGATION- The term `weather mitigation' 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. Examples include rain enhancement, snowpack augmentation, and hail suppression.


(a) In General- There is established in the Department of Commerce the Weather Mitigation 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 mitigation 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.


(a) Promotion of Research and Development- In order to assist in expanding the theoretical and practical knowledge of weather mitigation, the Board shall promote and fund research and development, studies, and investigations with respect to--

(1) improved forecast and decisionmaking technologies for weather mitigation operations, including tailored computer workstations and software and new observation systems with remote sensors; and

(2) assessments and evaluations of the efficacy of weather mitigation, 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 Mitigation 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 mitigation by grants to, or contracts or cooperative arrangements with, public or private agencies.

(c) Report- The Board shall submit to the Secretary of Commerce biennially a report on its findings and research results.


(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 mitigation 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 purpose described in section 2.


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 mitigations.


(a) In General- There is established within the Treasury of the United States the Weather Mitigation 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 are authorized to be appropriated to the Board for the purposes of carrying out this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015. 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.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Chemtrails Are About Controlling The Atmosphere

Unread postby socrates » Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:54 am

No way are chemtrails just about blocking out uv-b rays. They are mostly about controlling the weather. We are going through a transition period between how chemtrails have been astroturfed as being a hoax towards the day when they are openly acknowledged as real. When that day arrives, and it is probably soon, the trails will not be mentioned. There won't be much coverage on it. We may hear of such and such storm being successfully controlled due to some weather modification program. There are social and legal implications to the chemtrailing. If and when a climate change weather modification bill becomes law, that is when more stories will emerge, more propaganda. Since climate change is now said to be a national security issue, that is how the program is being held from public perusal. If people can read between the lines and connect dots, they can understand exactly what chemtrails are about.

National Academy of Sciences

Date: 11/10/2005
Session: 109th Congress (First Session)
Witness(es): Michael Garstang
Credentials: Professor, University of Virginia and Chair, Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, The National Academies
Chamber: Senate
Committee: Disaster Prevention and Prediction Subcommittee and Science and Space Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate
Subject: Establishing A Weather Modification Operations and Research Board


Statement of

Michael Garstang, Ph.D.
Professor, University of Virginia
Chair, Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council
The National Academies

before the

Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction
Subcommittee on Science and Space
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Michael Garstang, and I am a Distinguished Emeritus Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. I’m a fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and have served on numerous AMS committees. I was also the chair of the 2003 National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research. The National Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology.

This afternoon I will give you a brief summary of the status of weather modification research, as described in our NRC report, the major uncertainties that exist, and convey the committee’s conclusions and recommendations. We will also provide an Executive Summary of the report which lists the key findings and recommendations in greater detail.

Efforts to minimize harmful weather impacts go back far in time. In the last 30 years, significant evidence has accumulated that human activities unintentionally affect the weather on scales ranging from local to global. Many of the same fundamental principles underlie both intentional and unintentional weather modification. Yet during this 30-year time period, there has been a progressive decline in weather modification research. Research support related to weather modification in the United States had dropped to less than $0.5M per year in 1999 from a high of $20M in the late 1970s. During the same period, there have been significant advances in technology. This has greatly improved our ability to observe, understand, and predict the weather. These advances, however, have not been either collectively or persistently applied to the problem of weather modification.

This decline in research is likely the result of a combination of factors, including early overly-optimistic claims, unrealistic expectations, and failure to provide scientifically demonstrable successes. But despite these limitations, and because of considerable pressures resulting from drought, hail, floods, and storm damage, private and state agencies actually spend significant resources on attempts to modify the weather. In 2001, there were 66 operational weather modification programs in 10 states and much more activity overseas.

How do we overcome this disparity between our willingness to attempt to modify weather and our reluctance to fund research to understand such activities? The 2003 National Academies committee that I chaired was charged to provide an updated assessment of the current state and the future of weather modification research, from new technologies to advances in numerical modeling and operations. A summary of our report is included in my written testimony. In my comments, I want to focus on our conclusions and recommendations.

First, with a few exceptions, the committee concluded that there still is no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts. In some instances encouraging results have been observed, but this evidence has not been subjected to adequate testing.

Second, despite this lack of proof, the committee concluded that scientific understanding has progressed on many fronts. For instance, there have been substantial improvements in the ice-nucleating capabilities of new seeding materials. Also, new technologies such as satellite imagery are giving us tools to better understand the microphysical processes that lead to precipitation, and these advances, in time can help focus and optimize weather modification research.

Third, the committee stated that if progress in establishing our capability to modify the weather is to be made, intellectual and technical resources must be brought to bear on the key uncertainties that hamper progress. For example, there are critical gaps in our understanding of the complex chain of physical processes that lead to rain, snow, and hail.

Finally, and most importantly, the committee called for the establishment of a coordinated national program of weather modification research designed to reduce these and other key uncertainties. The program should consist of a sustained research effort that uses a balanced approach of modeling, laboratory studies, and field measurements. Instead of focusing on near-term operational applications of weather modification, the program should address fundamental research questions. It should take full advantage of recent related research and advances in observational, computational, and statistical technologies, by:

• Capitalizing on new remote and in situ observational tools to carry out exploratory and confirmatory experiments in a variety of cloud and storm systems;

• Improving model treatment of cloud and precipitation physics;

• Improving the use of current computational and data assimilation methods; and

• Capitalizing on existing field facilities and developing partnerships among research groups and select operational programs.

In the committee’s opinion, it is premature to initiate large-scale operational weather modification programs. However, a great opportunity exists to coordinate research efforts to address the fundamental questions that will lead to credible scientific results. Focused investigation of atmospheric processes, coupled with technological applications, will advance understanding and bring many unexpected benefits and results. In time, this research will place us in a position to determine whether, how, and to what extent weather and weather systems can be modified.


The NRC Committee emphasizes that weather modification should be viewed as a fundamental and legitimate element of atmospheric and environmental science. Owing to the growing demand for fresh water, the increasing levels of damage and loss of life resulting from severe weather, the undertaking of operational activities without the guidance of a careful scientific foundation, and the reality of inadvertent atmospheric changes, the scientific community now has the opportunity, challenge, and responsibility to assess the potential efficacy and value of intentional weather modification technologies.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittees might have.










User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

H.R. 3445

Unread postby NatureisMad » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:07 am

Well, I finished reading the full text of that bill:

H.R. 3445: Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2007

And I can hardly believe what I just freaking read. Well, it looks like they're trying to bring it into "law" for sure. There is such a total disconnect between our "elected officials" and the real people out there that it is maddening (to say the least). Downright sad for all of us, really. These jerk-off politicians don't even consult the people out there working in the real world about what "laws" they write & what they entail.
The way these "laws" are written is completely ridiculous. Probably written by damned lawyers, the wording is really tricky, wide-reaching, & vague. Enough to cover their asses in every aspect of this crazy, worldwide, atmospheric tampering, it appears. And what the heck is this "Mitigation" word? Mitigate what? Hail? Rain? Yeah, right. The English vocabulary is so vast that the writers of these "bills" are obviously verbal acrobats, utilizing any word that can be construed in any way they damn well choose.

One particular part I am more baffled by than the other baffling parts: Section 6, part (D):
(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 mitigation activities or cloud-seeding operations.

What the heck does this really mean? Does it mean that the U.S.A. is/can be/will be "working" with literally any other peoples/agencies/countries? Does it mean other countries all in cooperation with each other? Ha!

My blood is really boiling after reading another one of these *%$#@*&^ things. I'm real disappointed in Mr. Udall for not only participating but sponsoring this piece of crap. But it's nothing new, I suppose, is it? I mean, these things have been surfacing steadily for the last few years now (much posted right here on this website).
The perpetrators of this tampering & destruction of mother nature must be starting to realize that people are waking up & questioning the B.S. that they have been fed for years now. And that they cannot hide this for very much longer.
Boy, oh boy. If only we had more time to interact with this twisted, dysfunctional monster that is our political process. Then, maybe, communication could exist between the politicians & the ordinary people.

Socrates, as you mentioned, maybe we should pressure Rep. Udall if you haven't been doing so already. Let me know some points to include if I write, call, etc. him/his office. Because I am so sick of these atmospheric jerk-offs just doing whatever the hell they want to without any consulting of the people. Their arrogance and disrespect is astonishing. Something must change.
Born into...& trying to survive this science fiction world
User avatar
solid chemmie
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:55 am
Location: Colorado

Unread postby socrates » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:27 pm

So you can see why I titled this thread so dramatically. You seem to have had the same reaction. This bill and the Senate version sound more like chemtrails than the previous failed attempts.

If it's cloud seeding for hail and drought, etc., I thought that was already legal.

Mitigation doesn't necessarily mean taking "corrective" actions. I have read mitigation before where it meant, e.g. with greenhouse gas emissions, that we could cut back use {mitigate}, as we tried to move towards renewable, clean energies. Germany is moving towards the wide use of solar panels. If you look at the German Newscast thread, there's been an update. It appears that chemtrails are being discussed much more there within their population than with ours. Last year when I learned of Germany leaning towards solar energy as a solution, I wondered how the chemtrails might ruin such plans. There is always hope. We went from monarchies to democracies. We can go from this military/corporate nutjobbery to a dignified way of life. People are essentially good. I sincerely believe this.

But the way mitigation is defined in these bills, people have to check it out for themselves. It so sounds like chemtrails.

And yes, good call with the wiggle room factor and the stench of lawyers. Maybe someday, one of us gets some freedom of information materials which can pinpoint the activities taking place now. It's ******** that nobodies like us are supposed to figure this out. Where are the reporters and decent academics who would have the know-how to crack this case? I wrote to a bunch of meteorologists in Boston. Not one of them wrote back. Not even with a ******** explanation.

I was just thinking of that one thread we had called emails and form letters or something. Maybe we can try to get some letters published. The internet is probably easy enough. Maybe we could get a standard letter with the basic info of the bills, some choice quotes, and then here's the key, we never use the word chemtrails.

I'm not saying I have a direct line to Jeff Ferrell, but in our correspondence, we were in agreement that the word chemtrails wasn't working, and that there is that kooky factor getting in the way. I'm trying not to put words in his mouth. But I wouldn't give up just yet on him with this story.

Personally, everything I've done has been on the internet and with talking with people on the streets and in fact, everywhere I can without appearing obsessed. I got the word chemtrails into Rosie O'Donnell's head.

Yes, we should try things like that, try to contact these politicians. But it can't be about two or three or twenty or how many of us are out here on the net talking chemtrails. We need hundreds and thousands of people to write these letters. We need hundreds of thousands and then millions to get the word out that there is widespread, illegal, "weather mitigation" happening right now.

Chemtrails are real. This is not too difficult to prove to anybody who is honest. If they didn't "spray" so often, they might have gotten away with it.
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