Ahrcanum

Posted in Ahrcanum, Secrets, Lies, & Truth | Tagged Ahrcanum, chemtrail, chemtrails, contrail, geoengineering, mysky, Weather, weather modification | 31 Comments

31 Responses

1. on March 2, 2013 at 3:31 pm Ed Darrell

   Richard, can you explain why, if these chemicals are intended to affect people, most of the “spraying” is done in unpopulated areas of the nation? You find these things over rural California, over Kansas, over Montana, over New Mexico — but rarely over New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago. Major cities with major populations and major airports tend to get left out.

   Why is that? Are chemtrails designed to put mind control on the deer and the antelope, and the trees and grasses?

   
   
2. on March 2, 2013 at 3:28 pm Ed Darrell

   Shoulda had working blockquotes:

   Ther is no denying it, and you can tell me all day long that I’m seeing things and I’ll have to agree< I am. CHEMTRAILS IN THE SKY! LOL

   Yes, H2O is a chemical.

   That doesn’t make a claim for chemtrails any less foolish.

   
   
3. on March 2, 2013 at 3:27 pm Ed Darrell

   You are obviously intelligent and well versed, but, when people start throwing Greek Salad all over the place it make you wonder,Why So Defensive?

   I offer some quick facts, real stuff from real scientists, and you come unglued.

   Obviously, I hit a nerve. Why are you so defensive?

   I merely offered a quick (perhaps more thorough than you wanted) explanation of natural phenomena.

   What is it you have against nature? Against science?

   This is a distraction from mundane daily life.

   We don’t need pointless distractions that slander good scientists and other good people, sow suspicion, and get the science wrong. There are enough skullduggers around already.

   No, it’s not innocent fun to tell whopping lies.

   Say what you want about Chemtrails, Think what you want about them, They are real, everybody see’s them, they are all over the place, and they Are, a new phenomenum, otherwise nobody would be talking about them and this thread would noit exist.

   Yeah. Water vapor, exhaust from airplane engines.

   There’s a lot more coming from automobiles, but it’s rarely cold enough to make it visible.

   If you’re going to worry, worry about auto exhaust. It’s much more unhealthy, much more abundant, and much tougher to do something about.

   You’re seeing water vapor. Pretending it’s something else is bizarre, and destructive when it gets believed by paranoids.

   Now are they a government plot to kill off the population?Or Geo-Engineering?or some kind of Mind Controlling Nano-bots? Who knows?

   It’s water vapor. It’s what happens when we combust petroleum-based fuels. It’s the exhaust of that combustion.

   Government plot? No, not more than the government tries to promote economic activity. Geo-engineering? Unintentionally, but only so far as water vapor alters sunlight and clouds.

   Here’s a question for you: Of all the cloud content on Earth, how much of it is water vapor from jets, and how much water vapor that got there naturally?

   I gave you links to some of the best science on the topic. Your ignoring the facts is your choice. The Constitution gives you a right to believe foolish things. You have no right to spout them and expect others to buy in, nor do you have a right not to be challenged in foolishness.

   What I do know is you can see one plane flying one direction and its trail dissapates quickly and another flying the oppisite direction and its trail stays in the air all day and into the next.

   You could look it up, but the FAA tries to maintain a few thousand feet separation between jets flying in different directions — jet lanes. In a thousand feet elevation, the temperature can change dramatically enough that one jet will leave visible contrails, and the other won’t.

   You seem oblivious to the fact that both jets emit about the same amount of water vapor, their exhaust is roughly equivalent. Temperature means you can see the exhaust of one, and not the other.

   Government plot? No, the government does not control the temperature of the air.

   Ther is no denying it, and you can tell me all day long that I’m seeing things and I’ll have to agree< I am. CHEMTRAILS IN THE SKY! LOL

   Yes, H2O is a chemical.

   That doesn’t make a claim for chemtrails any less foolish.

   
   
4. on March 2, 2013 at 7:19 am Richard

   Ed,
   I didn’t mean to make it sound so personal and apologize for offense,Sincerely.
   Sites like this are a distraction and a form of entertainment.They give people a chance to vent or tell what they’ve seen and considered starnge or crazy.
   There are Four kinds of people in the world:1) People who will believe anything 2)People who will believe nothing 3) people who will only believe what they see with thier own eyes and 4) people who refuse to believe anything, even that and try to rationalize everything, even when there is no rational explaination.
   There is no way to tell if someone says they are a rocket scientist and they have the explaination for this or that, I could tell you that I’m Elvis re-incarnated
   This is the internet you can say whatever you want here and there is no accountability.
   Take it easy!! Relax!
   Truth is always stranger than fiction!
   Anyone who believes that our leaders are benevolant people who only have our best interest at heart, is delusional.Their are things going on every day that affect you and I and we have no idea what they are.Thats why they have closed door meetings every day at the Whitehouse.
   I am not putting Republicans above Democrats or Demacrats over Repulicans.
   Their all politicians trying to get re=elected and most from what I’ve seen are quite capable of lying right to my face even when they have said the exact oppisite 2 days before.
   You are obviously intelligent and well versed, but, when people start throwing Greek Salad all over the place it make you wonder,Why So Defensive?
   This is a distraction from mundane daily life.
   Say what you want about Chemtrails, Think what you want about them, They are real, everybody see’s them, they are all over the place, and they Are, a new phenomenum, otherwise nobody would be talking about them and this thread would noit exist.
   Now are they a government plot to kill off the population?Or Geo-Engineering?or some kind of Mind Controlling Nano-bots? Who knows? What I do know is you can see one plane flying one direction and its trail dissapates quickly and another flying the oppisite direction and its trail stays in the air all day and into the next.Ther is no denying it, and you can tell me all day long that I’m seeing things and I’ll have to agree< I am. CHEMTRAILS IN THE SKY! LOL

   
   
5. on February 21, 2013 at 2:09 am Ed Darrell

   And, look at this report from the April 2010 meeting:

   Experts at AAAS Forum Explore Controversial Geoengineering Ideas for Cooling the Planet

   With nations incapable so far of taking drastic steps to cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, many scientists and policy specialists have started talking more openly about geoengineering, the deliberate manipulation of the environment to reverse the effects of climate change.

   For them, geoengineering may be “a bad idea whose time has come,” said Eli Kintisch, a reporter for Science, at a AAAS forum on the topic.

   Whether deploying sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere as an artificial sun shade to cool the planet or creating huge blooms of algae in the world’s oceans to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, techniques once considered fanciful speculation now are being seriously debated.
   [PHOTOGRAPH] Eli Kintisch

   Eli Kintisch
   [PHOTOGRAPH] Daniel Sarewitz

   Daniel Sarewitz

   Kintisch, who has written a new book on climate engineering, “Hack the Planet” (Wiley, 2010), was co-moderator of the 20 April forum on the science and policy implications of the topic. The event was organized by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology, and Sustainability.

   Panelists agreed there are many uncertainties about any attempts to tinker with the climate. But Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, said the existence of “irreducible uncertainties” should not be the determinant on whether to pursue geoengineering. Science is quite good at characterizing uncertainties, he said, although reducing them will be extremely difficult, given the complex dynamics of the climate system.

   “The uncertainty is going to need to be managed in a way that is politically smart, and that means inclusive discussions from a very early stage,” said Sarewitz, who is on a bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) task force on geoengineering. While he emphasized that he was not speaking for the task force, Sarewitz said there does seem to be a consensus in the group that research on geoengineering would not be a “moral hazard” that diminishes the commitment to sharply and rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

   According to the NCEP, one of the goals of the task force is to develop a clear definition of geoengineering that policy makers can use. Most definitions include solar radiation management techniques, such as use of aerosol particles to increase Earth’s albedo, or reflectivity, and carbon dioxide removal techniques aimed at reducing the concentrations of greenhouse gases.

   Blocking sunlight can, in theory, be done quite cheaply and quickly using a fleet of airplanes to deploy sulfate particles in the upper atmosphere. But scientists caution there could be unpredictable impacts of planet-wide efforts to manipulate the climate. “There will be unintended consequences,” Sarewitz said, “but there are unintended consequences about any interventions in natural and social systems.”
   [PHOTOGRAPH] Michael MacCracken

   Michael MacCracken

   Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs at the Climate Institute, said mitigation strategies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and adaptation strategies, such as moving key business centers away from coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels, needs to precede any large-scale efforts to geoengineer the climate.

   “Mitigation has to come first,” MacCracken said. “We have to reduce emissions.”

   Mitigation can include steps such as improving energy efficiency, capturing and storing carbon dioxide at sources such as power plants, and using non-carbon energy sources. If the world were to continue producing eight to 10 billion tons of carbon emissions each year, he said, it would be largely fruitless to remove, say, 1 billion tons a year by seeding the world’s oceans with iron particles to induce carbon-ingesting algae blooms.

   MacCracken, who helped organize a recent conference of 175 participants from 15 nations to discuss voluntary rules to govern research on geoengineering, said that any efforts to manipulate the climate might focus initially on seeking to reduce regional impacts rather than ambitious attempts to bring down the global average temperature by a degree or two.

   The seasonal melting of sea ice in the Arctic has been accelerating, MacCracken said, and steps to induce cooling in the atmosphere over the Arctic might be the sort of limited climate-engineering that could try to reverse harmful regional impacts. Another limited option, he said, would be trying to change the track or intensity of storms that can result from climate change. He noted that the Department of Homeland Security is supporting research on mechanisms—such as seeding storm clouds with particles to induce rainfall—that could cause tropical storms and hurricanes to weaken before they reach land.

   “I think if you were going to start it [geoengineering], you would start by going after some pretty focused, specific objective and then figure out which of the number of technologies that you have you might be able to apply,” MacCracken said. He cautioned that researchers still need to do much more to understand the possible impacts and worst-case scenarios involving climate engineering. “You’re really going to have to make this an international research program,” he said.

   Sarewitz said governance procedures for geoengineering should evolve at the same time as the scientific research proceeds. Any institutions that attempt to tinker with the climate will need a “hard-headed focus on maintaining public trust,” he said. If there is a lack of transparency and openness, he added, “it will be extremely difficult to manage politically.”

   A second panel grappled with some of the policy questions surrounding geoengineering and climate change. Lee Lane, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-director of the AEI Geoengineering Project, argued that it makes the best sense economically to pursue a three-pronged strategy: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; adaptation to the impacts of global warming; and use of engineering methods to reduce solar radiation and cool the planet.

   With very little chance of an effective international regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next several decades, Lane said, it is essential “to think more seriously about climate engineering.” But some of the same domestic political dynamics in democracies that make control of greenhouse gas emissions difficult also will “check or restrain any rapid movement to climate engineering,” he said.

   Still, Lane mentioned steps that can help prepare the political groundwork for any future efforts to engineer the climate. He recommended that the executive branch establish an entity, separate from the White House science adviser’s office, to manage federal research and development on geoengineering.

   “Before we get involved in figuring out how to manage international coordination of climate engineering, there needs to be some place in the U.S. government to think through what U.S. national interests with respect to climate engineering really are,” Lane said.

   On the global scale, he called for a middle ground between unilateral action by a single nation and an effort to get universal participation in a geoengineering regime. He suggested that representatives from 10 to 15 powerful countries with adequate finances and technical capability could serve as a governing body for future efforts to engineer the climate.

   “We really need a regime that will have the best chance of going forward responsibly and carefully,” Lane said. With too many players, he said, the process can easily bog down, much as has happened in the long international effort to mandate reductions in greenhouse gases.
   [PHOTOGRAPH] Juliet Eilperin

   Juliet Eilperin

   It remains unclear whether a global effort on climate engineering will ever occur. In the United States, the realities of dealing with climate change in a fractured political environment suggest how difficult it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, much less take more controversial steps toward climate engineering. While the House passed a climate bill last year with a complex cap-and-trade system for limiting the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, the prospects for a Senate bill are much less certain.

   Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) have been trying to salvage a bill, but Juliet Eilperin, a national environmental writer for The Washington Post, told the AAAS forum that the prospects for congressional passage of a climate bill this year still looks like “an outside bank shot.”

   Earl Lane

   28 April 2010

   
   
6. on February 21, 2013 at 2:04 am Ed Darrell

   Richard: Take a look at this press release — go to the AAAS site to see the videos. This stuff isn’t secret, and the video you offer rather misreports what was going on.

   Try this one instead:

   Author and Historian Questions Whether “Fixing the Sky” Can Address Climate Change

   Amid concerns about global climate change, many scientists now support serious research on manipulating the climate by methods such as pumping sunlight-reflecting particles into the atmosphere. But proposed technological “fixes” for the sky are not new, according to historian James Rodger Fleming of Colby College.

   For well over a century, scientists, military officials, and charlatans have tinkered with schemes to control weather and climate, Fleming told a AAAS audience, and the checkered history of such pursuits offers a cautionary tale to those who back what is now being called “geoengineering.”

   “There are a lot of historical precedents” aimed at “fixing the sky,” Fleming said. But the results have been decidedly mixed, he said, and raise questions about the wisdom of pursuing such proposals to counter-act the effects of global climate change.
   [PHOTOGRAPH] James Rodger Fleming

   James Rodger Fleming

   Fleming spoke at a 7 October seminar co-sponsored by the AAAS Archives, the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships program, and the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s Center for Contemporary History and Policy. His new book, “Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control,” was published in September by Columbia University Press. Fleming did much of the research for the book while he was a AAAS Roger Revelle Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in 2006-2007.

   Almost from the beginning, Fleming said, Americans have been intrigued by notions of improving the weather. Early settlers were puzzled by harsh winters (they had expected orange groves and spice plants, Fleming said) and spoke of trying to make it better. In the 1840s, James Espy, the first meteorologist employed by the United States government, proposed using massive fires as artificial volcanoes to trigger regular rains along the eastern seaboard and improve the health of the region.

   Scientists in the United States and elsewhere had been mulling large-scale weather modification efforts well before the recent concerns about global warming. During the 1950s, Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir—who did cloud-seeding experiments in an effort to control a hurricane off the Atlantic coast—talked grandly of seeding clouds over the entire Pacific basin to control storms. He also talked of turning the arid Southwest into fertile farmland. In the 1960s, the Russians actively sought to engineer an ice-free Arctic Ocean.
   [ILLUSTRATION] The cover of ‘Fixing the Sky’ [Book cover image courtesy of Columbia University Press]

   [Book cover image courtesy of Columbia University Press]

   In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. military seeded clouds over South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with silver iodide in an effort to create rains that would disrupt movement of North Vietnamese troops and materiel.

   And in the 1990s, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that naval guns could be used to shoot sunlight-blocking sulfates into the upper atmosphere as a cheaper way to reduce global temperatures than trying to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity.

   But Fleming said some scientists also recognized that there could be unintended consequences from geoengineering, including tensions between nations that had the capability to tinker with the weather and those that did not. Computer pioneer John von Neumann, even as he sought a perfect weather forecasting machine, warned in 1955 against climate control as a thoroughly “abnormal” industry.

   Fleming said today’s proponents of geoengineering for climate control need to look beyond the technical details of proposals. He argues, as he put it in his book, for “the relevance of history, the foolishness of quick fixes, and the need to follow a ‘middle course’ of expedited moderation in aerial matters, seeking neither to control the sky nor to diminish the importance of the environmental problems we face.”

   Fleming called his book his “first attempt at a tragic-comedy,” an account of both humorous and threatening efforts to control the environment. He said that the military has long had an interest in climate engineering. The Army medical service funded meteorologist James Espy, he noted, and the U.S. Army Signal Office served as the United States’ first national weather service.

   During the Cold War, an Air Force general famously quipped: “If you control the weather, you can control the world.” U.S. Weather Bureau scientist Harry Wexler concluded in the 1960s that a nation with hostile intent could devastate the earth’s protective ozone layer using a “bomb” containing bromine or chlorine.

   U.S. and Soviet scientists actually undertook what Fleming considers geoengineering experiments during the Cold War when they detonated atomic and hydrogen bombs in space. The intent was to seed the outer atmosphere with electrons and show that electromagnetic pulses from the blasts could disrupt enemy communications a half a world away.

   View the video of James Rodger Fleming’s 7 October talk on geoengineering.

   According to Fleming, physicist James Van Allen—who won fame for discovering the belts of charged particles surrounding the Earth that now bear his name—joined the secret military program to study the effects of detonating H-bombs in space, although he later regretted his involvement.

   Fleming cautioned that attempts to engineer the climate by putting reflecting aerosols or other substances into the stratosphere can bring unknown side effects, including the possibility of shutting down the Indian monsoon season and affecting food production in Asia.

   There are also scientists who have urged caution, of course. Fleming noted a series of questions from Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock, who has opposed even small-scale technology deployments until scientists ensure that adverse consequences can be avoided. Among Robock’s objections: Once begun, can we ever stop the use of geoengineering? Who has the moral right to do it? Will it undermine steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

   “My goal is not to form public policy or tell the Pentagon what to do or to tell the National Academy how to think, but to have a place at the table and to have something to say” when finally invited to the table, Fleming said. He said there is a need for “applied humanities” as a way to broaden the conversation about geoengineering. “We need to have a lot of people talking from international, intergenerational, and interdisciplinary perspectives,” Fleming said.

   A large-scale, technocratic, one-size-fits-all approach to geoengineering, he said, “is certainly not supportable.” He called for a middle path that emphasizes continued computer modeling and research “indoors” on potential geoengineering schemes while also emphasizing steps to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to climate changes as they occur. He asked for “a richer conversation than a technocrat saying, ‘I’ve got a great idea, let’s try this.’”

   As Fleming writes in his book: “Like the pseudoscientific rainmakers of yore, today’s aspiring climate engineers wildly exaggerate what is possible and scarcely consider the political or ethical implications of attempting to manage the world’s climate—with potential consequences far greater than any of their predecessors were ever likely to face.”

   
   
7. on February 21, 2013 at 1:49 am Ed Darrell

   I post this in reply.

   To my post, I gather. Fair. You’re complaining I’m not taking this issue seriously.

   But I am. As I noted, I post after decades of study of these things. I cite the science, I point to scientific explanations.

   While you post in reply, you do not reply to the science explanations I offer.

   They are valid. They don’t get discussed here because people who, on faith, claim science is running amok, do not know how to respond to serious evidence and real science. These are not issues faith. Chemtrails shouldn’t be a religion.

   Just want to be clear.

   Our Government is capable of doing all sorts of sordid things in what it considers our best interest.

   You’re preaching to a well-educated, ordained choir. I led the Washington, D.C., effort to get compensation for the Utah Downwinders, people who were radiated by fallout from our own atmospheric nuclear testing. I have walked the ground, I have visited the graves; I’ve been warned off at midnight by the Pentagon operatives who thought Orrin Hatch was anti-nuclear. I’ve sat in the hospitals with people dying of radiogenic cancers. I’ve seen the secret reports that were supposed to be destroyed, etc., etc., etc.

   I staffed the Senate Labor Committee’s investigation of Building 100; I staffed the investigations of Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan. I staffed the investigations of the National Cancer Institute and a dozen others. I’ve seen stuff the government did that would curl your calloused toes and graying and balding hair.

   Let me tell you, in each and every case where we have uncovered government wrong-doing, it was people working for the government who blew the whistle. They came forward with the records that exposed the problems.

   Each and every case.

   Let me also tell you that in almost all of those cases, there was no intent by the government to do anything that was harmful to the nation, especially not to overthrow democratic institutions or subvert the government.

   Tough protections against those earlier misjudgments and errors have been put into place. If someone in the government wanted to run an experiment that involved blanketing huge swaths of Americans with harmful or behavior- or health-changing chemicals, there are protocols to follow that guarantee it doesn’t happen, just out of sheer bureaucracy. In my experience, there can be no massive conspiracies of the sort alleged here because most people are too patriotic, and at some point such a conspiracy requires the hiring and trusting of good patriots, who blow the whistle.

   Yes, the government is capable of doing bad stuff. We’re one day past the anniversary of the order issued by FDR’s administration to incarcerate tens of thousands of citizens who were thought to be, potentially, sympathetic to the nation that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. I’d like to think we learn from our mistakes. President Reagan apologized (too late), and President Clinton apologized and signed the law that paid reparations; Sen Daniel Inouye was one of those incarcerated, but he went on to win the Congressional Medal of Honor fighting to defend the nation that incarcerated him and his family, in that same war.

   Go figure. We are a nation of patriots. Do not every be afflicted by so much hubris that you think others do not carry in their hearts the same red-white-&-blue blood that you do, nor that it courses any slower or cooler than it does in your veins.

   Your fellow citizens are not trying to turn you into zombies.

   There was a school of thought, that when they tested the first Nuclear Weapon it might set the atmospher on fire,They did it anyway.

   Careful calculations showed that Trinity could not do that. The concentration of fissionable material was far, far too slight. But they raised the question, and they thoroughly worked it out before they tested the bomb. They were not reckless, nor did they fail to consider potential harms to innocent civilians. The tests were conducted far away from other people.

   The same question arose, with more urgency, with the atmospheric testing of the first thermonuclear weapons, the hydrogen bombs. This was thought to be a greater danger because the atmosphere contains a lot more hydrogen, which is the ultimate fuel in a hydrogen bomb. But again, the calculations showed that the hydrogen was not heavy enough (the bombs used deuterium, or heavy hydrogen), nor in great enough concentrations, and besides, it was bound up in water, and would not sustain a fusion reaction. They were right. Again, they were not reckless, nor did they fail to consider potential harms to innocent civilians.

   This may come as some surprise to you, but there is a panel convened regularly, still, to consider such issues with regard to nuclear and sub-atomic particle research — if I recall correctly, under the aegis of the National Science Foundation (which has been advising presidents since Lincoln, with roots back to advice offered to John Adams), the American Physical Society (which is a private group), and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which is also private, and the National Research Council. It’s been quite interesting during the search for the Higgs particle, because of the possibility of creating little black holes. Would they grow and swallow the planet? Turns out they don’t — but these scientists raised the issue first, and thoroughly checked it out before doing anything.

   Now, there was a massive goof on one of the tests on Bikini, and the yield was about 15 megatons instead of 5 megatons (IIRC), which blew away a lot of the monitoring stuff and dramatically radiated the place much more than planned — but that accident had enough safety features that even the men on the island in the bunker that nearly turned into an oven, got away without radiation sickness (and lived 50+ years to tell the tale).

   The Trinity test was done in pursuit of stopping the German quest for the same weapon. I do not doubt in any way that, had the Nazis gotten an atomic bomb, London would not be with us today, and we might all be speaking German.

   But again, there were patriots running those programs, people who did not want to harm anyone unnecessarily — people who were pacifists and who pleaded with Truman not to use the weapons on the Japaneses out of a sense of fairness.

   Screw ups? I can probably explain in detail more than you’ve ever thought about, at the Marysville, Utah uranium mine, at the Navajo reservation uranium mine and mill, at Oak Ridge at the cascades, at Los Alamos (everyone should have read Dick Feynman’s biographies, and know very well the security issues Feynman detailed as well as the spying of Klaus Fuchs). Yes, there were screw ups way beyond what you know.

   These people are still patriots, not wishing to hurt you.

   They injected pregnant woman with Radioactive Material to see what effects it might have on Fetuses,

   You’ve short-handed that one so much I don’t recognize it. Yes, we also used to have fluoroscopes in shoe shops to check out the fit of children’s shoes. Dr. C. Everett Koop led the campaign against those cancer machines, in the 1950s.

   Lots of screw ups. Lots of patriots exposing them.

   The United States is engaged in Bio Weaponry research, right now, and have been for years.

   Look up Skull Valley and the Tooele Army Depot. I staffed those hearings, too. Yes, I know. And those programs have been exposed and amended, and the weapons destroyed.

   Do you really think they want us to know?

   I don’t think there is a secret program to do you harm that could be kept secret. I don’t think there is a program designed to experiment on unwilling and uninformed human participants.

   As for chemtrails, there are too many people who would have to be involved to keep it secret, especially if every contrail were to contain something harmful and secret. If you doubt me, let me show you the bars where the airplane mechanics from Boeing drink, and I’ll let you accuse them of harming you. Or the bars in Tulsa where the American Airlines mechanics take care of their airplanes, or the old TWA facility in Kansas City, or the United facilities in Denver and Houston, or . . .

   Do you know many airplane mechanics? Still about 50% of them are veterans. The really radical patriots are the non-vets who feel they were deprived of the opportunity to work on the coolest jet planes. They work on those planes to protect you, not to harm you.

   Let me repeat: Airplane mechanics, more patriotic than average Americans and many veterans, work on airplanes to protect you, not to harm you.

   If you have that kind of Mentality your living under the right administration.

   We survived Reagan and W — those are the administrations you’d need to worry about. Reagan’s group tried to roll back the protections against research on human subjects, but the researchers balked.

   If you have the kind of mentality that is hubristic enough to think you’re a lot better than every other patriot, then I wouldn’t expect you ever to understand.

   I also should warn you: Don’t go drinking with the airplane mechanics. If you accused them, they’d disabuse you of your hubris, but probably in a painful way.

   It Is our duty to question our elected officials and hold them accountable, in order to prevent further attrocities against humanity.

   It’s also our duties as citizens to be sure we’re not asking silly questions, or questions that have already been answered well, or questions that can’t be answered, or questions for which we refuse to accept any answer.

   Do you have a degree in meteorology? Surveys show meteorologists are among the most “skeptical” of the near science groups — TV and radio guys stand against global warming about 45% to 40%.

   In other words, they’re nuts and they’re into conspiracies. And they don’t support the chemtrails stuff.

   We also have a duty as citizens to make sure our government works — it is, after all, We the People. It is our duty not to be gullible and gum up the works so that things cannot get done, so that innocents get tarred as evil.

   I gave you the meteorology of the recently-noted cloud and contrails phenomenon. You haven’t offered any rebuttal except to impugn our government. If you expect me to take you seriously, you’ll need better.

   I know when and where our government has lied. Chemtrails is neither that place or time.

   Global warming is something that has never been proven, however it hasn’t stoppped some among our elected officials to do anything thery think they can get away with to combat it.

   Climate change is solid theory, and sadly, it’s the best explanation for the rapidly accelerating warming we’re seeing around the world. Not “proven?”

   Gravity isn’t proven either. You don’t have science to disprove gravity theory, though, and anything you have against global warming is probably weaker than what you have against gravity.

   The Climate Councel onGlobal Warming outright lied and invented Data to push their agenda.

   Right. And who told you that? Martians? The same aliens who pump gas into your bedroom at night? (“Climate Council on Global Warming? I can’t find that group, but let’s assume you’ve made an innocent mistake. There are groups studying climate change and warming. They don’t lie as a practice, they don’t invent data.)

   There have been five serious investigations into whether key scientists in global warming have reported false data — they were cleared five times.

   In any case, not even the warming “skeptics” go with the chemtrails stuff.

   They are separate issues, except that I find, way too often, people without the science or reasoning chops to understand warming, also don’t understand how water vapor from airplane engines makes clouds. Next you’ll tell me Darwin was an atheist (he wasn’t), wrong about evolution theory (wrong — we know evolution theory much better than we know gravity theory), and that whooping cough vaccinations will make children into zombies or something.

   I don’t find it a virtue or a feature that you reject science and reason in more than one area. I see an unfortunate trend that does not improve your credibility with me.

   It almost sounds to me like your working for them, the way you casually dismiss any attempt to expose what might be a cover up, that might have catastrophic affects on our health.Aluminum particals and other chemicals can cause a lot of health issues

   Sir, your false accusations are even more groundless than your skepticism in science. I offered an explanation for sun dogs and intermittent contrails.

   You see fact and reason in science as a conspiracy?

   Tell your physician. She, or he, will want to know.

   Got a better explanation that doesn’t involve accusing millions of Americans of a lack of patriotism?

   No, I didn’t think so. That’s why you didn’t offer any alternative to the simple meteorology I offered before.

   I’m happy to discuss, with people who can discuss rationally. You’ve offered a long ramble, one that involves impugning the motives and actions of millions of patriotic Americans and thousands of honest scientists — and you’ve offered not a whit of a reason why the simple science I offered does not cover the topic completely.

   That syndrome may be described somewhere in the bowels of the American Psychological Association’s list of mind issues, but it’s not a result of chemicals from airplanes.

   
   
8. on February 20, 2013 at 5:34 pm Richard

   I post this in reply.Our Government is capable of doing all sorts of sordid things in what it considers our best interest.
   There was a school of thought, that when they tested the first Nuclear Weapon it might set the atmospher on fire,They did it anyway.
   They injected pregnant woman with Radioactive Material to see what effects it might have on Fetuses,The United States is engaged in Bio Weaponry research, right now, and have been for years.
   Do you really think they want us to know?
   If you have that kind of Mentality your living under the right administration.It Is our duty to question our elected officials and hold them accountable, in order to prevent further attrocities against humanity.
   Global warming is something that has never been proven, however it hasn’t stoppped some among our elected officials to do anything thery think they can get away with to combat it. The Climate Councel onGlobal Warming outright lied and invented Data to push their agenda.
   It almost sounds to me like your working for them, the way you casually dismiss any attempt to expose what might be a cover up, that might have catastrophic affects on our health.Aluminum particals and other chemicals can cause a lot of health issues.

   
   
9. on February 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm Richard

   
   
10. on February 20, 2013 at 1:30 pm Ed Darrell

    Here’s a good site that explains how contrails drift and offer “seeds” to form clouds: http://docweather.com/2/show/40/

    See esp. Figure 1

    
    
11. on February 20, 2013 at 1:26 pm Ed Darrell

    The other day my daughter and I were driving along when I noticed a little cloud out all by itself.It was glittering like a rainbow. My daughter thought it was pretty but I didn’t think so. I have never seen anything like that in my life.It was a sunny day and it was not a raincloud.

    Look for photos of sundogs. It’s a common phenomenon, especially in the often-cloudless skies of the American west (are you west of the Mississippi?)

    Temperatures drop dramatically with an increase in altitude. Often what looks to us to be clear air is close to saturated with water, even without a cloud, considering the temperature. Minor disturbances in temperatures, or a stirring of the wind, can cause clouds to form spontaneously, even small ones.

    Often these clouds provide vapor that is immediately frozen into tiny ice particles. Either snow or ice will offer a rainbow effect when the sun shines through it. We call these glittering events “sundogs.”

    Sundogs often get confused as flying objects. They are not uncommon at all. See more, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog

    Then yesterday I saw a jet streaking across the sky and it was leaving an intermitten trail behind it.It if was a contrail it should have left a consistant trail. It appeared that whatever it was spraying had a clog in the supply line.
    They are spraying something!!!

    What could cause an intermittent condensation trail? Jets at jet-lane altitudes are required by the FAA to maintain a consistent altitude. But the atmosphere is a fluid. Just as waves develop on water, sometimes there are waves in the atmosphere at the line between two different levels differentiated by temperature, or speed, or humidity. If you’ve flown commercially much, you’re familiar with the pilots’ warning passengers that the aircraft is coming into “choppy air.”

    All that means is that the aircraft is going to be hitting some of those waves in the air.

    If there is a temperature difference, just at the dew point, when the aircraft is in the colder air, it will leave a contrail. When it hits a slightly warmer wave, there is no contrail.

    What you saw was an airplane flying through waves in the atmosphere, waves of different temperature, probably the upper one just below the dew point, and the lower one just above the dew point. When the airplane was in the cooler air, it left contrails. When it was in the warmer air, it didn’t.

    It was spraying exhaust, which is water vapor, mostly, when combustion is good.

    
    
12. on February 20, 2013 at 6:35 am Richard

    The other day my daughter and I were driving along when I noticed a little cloud out all by itself.It was glittering like a rainbow.
    My daughter thought it was pretty but I didn’t think so.I have never seen anything like that in my life.It was a sunny day and it was not a raincloud.
    Then yesterday I saw a jet streaking across the sky and it was leaving an intermitten trail behind it.It if was a contrail it should have left a consistant trail.
    Ity appeared that whatever it was spraying had a clog in the supply line.
    They are spraying something!!!

    
    
13. on November 22, 2012 at 4:19 am Ed Darrell

    Great — still, I’d prefer to see a reference to an authoritative source, or at least links to them from your stuff.

    Thanks.

    
    
14. on November 22, 2012 at 4:18 am Ed Darrell

    Water vapor sometimes stays up, sometimes comes down — but there is always vapor in the air. Gravity only brings it down when it precipitates — otherwise it stays up.

    Where does rainwater fall? Are you seriously asking that question?

    And yes, the pollution from coal-fired power plants falls into our waterways, into our drinking water, on plants, on fields, and on livestock. That’s why we work so hard to limit air pollution.

    Do you really want clean air? Write your Congressman and tell her or him to vote to keep the EPA fighting to clean the air.

    Thank you.

    
    
15. on November 21, 2012 at 10:14 pm Lissakrhumanelife

    When those ‘chemical trails’ are in the sky. Where do you think it goes? Up. Or Down? Gravity brings it down. Then where does it go? In our waterways. Drinking systems. Plants. Fields of crops which enters our livestock (food). Your body, clothing, home and in the air–we breath this air.

    
    
16. on November 21, 2012 at 10:12 pm Lissakrhumanelife

    Read — then read the last page… note ‘May God Help Us All.’

    I am Lissa. And Ed, as a literal life-long researcher, I wouldn’t nor couldn’t make these kind of things up.
    It’s just too darn sad. Mind you, this is going on all over the world.

    Don’t take my word or so many others on this serious issue even after reading the above document. Rather, next time you go out. Look-up and I mean really, really look at that blue sky and tell me it doesn’t look dirty. Off color. Than watch as their spraying X Marks the spot and define to me what it is they’re doing.

    Do your research. It took me a long time till I realized professionals from all over the world including govt whistleblowers were and are telling the truth.

    Read other’s authentic documents like the above. Than think. Later… decide.

    Peace

    
    
17. on November 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm Ed Darrell

    Oops, I erred: There is some barium used in jet fuel: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-24.pdf

    
    
18. on November 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm Ed Darrell

    That’s not a good research source. It’s a page of baffle gab put up by some person named “Lissa.”

    Would you know her?

    
    
19. on November 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm Ed Darrell

    1. Contrails don’t just fade away, if it’s cold enough. Their contribution to cloud formation is a topic of meteorology studies for the past 60 years.

    2. The tests the government confessed to making were biological tests — bacteria, usually — and running them through jet engines would chemically alter them, and kill them. Jets at cruising altitude can’t work. There was nothing in those hearings about using jet combustion to spread chemicals.

    3. Barium contamination in the air most often comes from coal mining and burning in coal-fired power plants. You can capture some if you put out a plate coated with Vaseline, or if you use distilled water in a bucket exposed for a week or four. That’s a common pollutant measuring tactic. Barium from coal would be much greater than barium from jet-fuel.

    Does this guy live anywhere near a coal-fired powerplant?

    
    
20. on November 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm Lissakrhumanelife

    http://theintelhub.com/2011/03/30/secret-presidential-chemtrail-budget-uncovered-exceeds-billions-to-spray-populations-like-roaches/

    
    
21. on November 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm Lissakrhumanelife

    Let’s go straight to hard evidence; the Source:

    Debate with them and Congress.

    
    
22. on November 21, 2012 at 5:04 pm Lissakrhumanelife

    http://lissakr11humanelife.wordpress.com/chemtrails-dod-directives-allow-for-chemtial-toxic-dumping-on-us-and-abroad/

    
    Chemtrails dump toxins, chemicals on human-kind and might be considered under a DOD Directive 5240.1-R: Human Testing on U.S. Persons used on ‘US Citizens in America and abroad as human subjects.‘ Chemtrails create electric charges. See Why and What in the World are they Spraying and think electronic charges, titanium, barium aluminum.

    If your human. You’re a subject.

    
    
23. on November 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm Ed Darrell

    What on Earth are they Spraying.

    Water vapor. It’s the exhaust from jets. Nothing else.

    Why on Earth are they Spraying:

    Fish gotta swim, planes gotta fly.

    
    
24. on November 21, 2012 at 8:49 am Lissakrhumanelife

    Reblogged this on USA COINTELPRO VICTIM OF THE PATRIOT ACT.

    
    
25. on November 21, 2012 at 8:44 am Lissakrhumanelife

    
    
26. on November 21, 2012 at 8:44 am Lissakrhumanelife

    Good site.

    Naysayers/Trolls/Shills tell them to the late- Ex-FBI Great TED GUNDERSON And the rest of the FBI whom surely respect him (700-800 under him)

    What on Earth are they Spraying
    Why on Earth are they Spraying: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=YouTube+What+Are+They+Spraying&mid=7CA22233CC7F37509B5B7CA22233CC7F37509B5B&view=detail&FORM=VIRE4

    
    
27. on November 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm ahrcanum

    All we know is that it was unusually warm and a sunny day was obscured by jet trails.

    
    
28. on November 11, 2012 at 9:00 pm MANOMACHINE (@MANOMACHINE)

    LOL Ed Darrell,reading your comments,i find highly amusing & extremely entertaining,but as a former speechwriter,im somehow disappointed in your limited vocabulary,but great stuff ! LOL

    
    
29. on November 11, 2012 at 7:10 pm Ed Darrell

    Same kid runs the chemtrails hoax.

    
    
30. on November 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm MANOMACHINE (@MANOMACHINE)

    DHMO is a Hoax by a 14 yr Old ,run on Rockefeller Foundation Cash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

    
    
31. on November 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm Ed Darrell

    The chemical there is a combination produced by combustion, hydrogen and oxygen in a compound sometimes known as dihydrogen monoxide. It kills several thousands of people every year, and it’s so prevalent now that it comes in human mother’s milk, in rather high concentrations.

    You should, perhaps, look it up.

    Here: http://www.dhmo.org/

    
    

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ