Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä

maanantai 7. heinäkuuta 2014

Kemikaalilentoja pysäytetty

Venäläiset sotilasanalyytikot raportoivat, että USAn armeija  "on paniikissa": Intian ja Nigerian ilmavoimat pakottivat alas kaksi ukrainalaista AN-124 lentokonetta, joita operoi USAn ilmavoimat. Koneiden kotikenttä on salaperäinen, giganttinen Diego Garcia Intian Valtamerellä.  Diego Garcia
Raporttien mukaan Kiinan Kansan Vapautusarmeijan Ilmavoimat (China’s People's Liberation Army Air Force ; PLAAF) tiedotti sekä Intian että Nigerian tiedusteluille näistä USAn ilmavoimien operoimista ukrainalaisista koneista, koska oli kasvavassa määrin huolissaan siitä että USA levittää maan ilmakehään bioase-materiaalia (“biological agents”). Eräiden kiinalaisten lähteiden mukaan amerikkalais-eurooppalaiset yrittävät massamurhaa levittämällä H1N1-virusta.
(suom.huom. Jotkut tutkijat pitävät epätodennäköisenä että luonto olisi koskaan kyennyt synnyttämään sika-lintu-virusmutaatiota itse ja että H1N1-virus on laboratoriossa luotu).Ensimmäinen kone pakotettiin alas Intian yllä. Kone oli muuttanut kutsukoodinsa siviilikoodista armeijan koodiksi juuri ennen kuin se oli saapumassa Pakistanin ilmatilaan. Koodin muuntaminen laukaisi välittömän vastareaktion ja IAF pakotti sen alas Mumbaihin. Toisen koneen pakottivat laskeutumaan Nigerian ilmavoimat. Koneen miehistö (ja kone) ovat pidätettyinä.
Raporttien mukaan Intian ja Nigerian tiedustelupalvelut kertovat, että näissä koneissa oli aseistuksen lisäksi tankkeja (nimellisesti koneen jätejärjestelmä, jonka vetoisuus on 45 000 kg. Suom.huom. Melkolailla iso määrä kun tankit kuitenkin tyhjennetään joka lennon jälkeen); erittäin hienostunut järjestelmä, josta tuli siipien ja vakaajan päälle putkistoa. Putkien kautta voidaan lentäessä ajaa ilmaan nanokokoista hiukkasta "sumuna" (aerial-type mist).
USAn raivokkaat vaatimukset Intialle ja Nigerialle koneiden palauttamisesta saivat aikaan sen että Intia vapautti koneen miehistöineen. Nigeriaa jouduttiin "suostuttelemaan väkivalloin" so. eräs heidän öljyputkiensa päälinjoista räjähti. Teosta vastuulliseksi tahoksi epäillään jotakin monista Nigeriassa operoivista, amerikkalaisten tukemista terroristiryhmistä.
USAssa toimiva Sunshine-projekti syytti jo vuonna 2002 USAn armeijaa kemiallisten aseiden kehittelystä.
“JNLWD's [US Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate] secret program is not focusing on highly lethal agents such as VX or sarin. Rather, the emphasis is on "non-lethal" chemical weapons that incapacitate. JNLWD's science advisors define "non-lethal" as resulting in death or permanent injury in 1 in 100 victims.(1) JNLWD's Research Director told a US military magazine "We need something besides tear gas, like calmatives, anesthetic agents, that would put people to sleep or in a good mood." (2) These weapons are intended for use against "potentially hostile civilians", in anti-terrorism operations, counterinsurgency, and other military operations.
The major focus of JNLWD's operation is on the use of drugs as weapons, particularly so-called "calmatives", a military term for mind-altering or sleep inducing chemical weapons.” 
 Translation to Spanish by: Sister Maru Barraza, Mazatlán, Mexico
www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1245.htm
ja sama Bangalore Aviationissa http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/06/volga-dnepr-antonov-124-forced-to-land.html 

Alkuperäisestä vapaasti ja rankasti lyhennellen kääntänyt Riikka Söyring
  • Heinävesi syysku 2010
    Heinävesi syysku 2010
  • Heinävesi syyskuu 2010
    Heinävesi syyskuu 2010
  • Heinävesi syyskuu 2010
    Heinävesi syyskuu 2010
  • Heinävesi syyskuu 2010; iltataivas lentojen jälkeen
    Heinävesi syyskuu 2010; iltataivas lentojen jälkeen
  • Heinävesi syyskuu 2010; iltataivas lentojen jälkeen
    Heinävesi syyskuu 2010; iltataivas lentojen jälkeen
  • Varkaus 011010 klo 15.40
    Varkaus 011010 klo 15.40
  • Varkaus 011010 klo 15.30
    Varkaus 011010 klo 15.30
  • Kemikaalisyksy 26.9 2010 Heinävesi
    Kemikaalisyksy 26.9 2010 Heinäves
  • Pyöreä pyrstö 26.9 2010
    Pyöreä pyrstö 26.9 2010
  • Katson maalaismaisemaa; syyskuu 2010 Heinävesi
    Katson maalaismaisemaa; syyskuu 2010 Heinävesi
  • Tripla Teneriffalle; syyskuu 2010 Heinävesi
    Tripla Teneriffalle; syyskuu 2010 Heinävesi
  • Pyöreä pyrstö taas; Heinävesi 2010
    Pyöreä pyrstö taas; Heinävesi 2010
  • Pystyvanat
    Pystyvanat
  • Pyöreän pyrstön jäljet
    Pyöreän pyrstön jäljet
  • Katson sineen taivaan
    Katson sineen taivaan
  • Varkaus 051010 aamu
    Varkaus 051010 aamu
  • Varkaus 051010 päivä
    Varkaus 051010 päivä
  • Sadevesinäyte, kesäkuu 2010
    Sadevesinäyte, kesäkuu 2010
  • Sadevesinäyte, kesäkuu 2010
    Sadevesinäyte, kesäkuu 2010
  • Tuplajuova 10/2010; valitettavasti kuvassa ei näy kuinka juovat myöhemmin erkanivat toisistaan eli se ei ole varjo
    Tuplajuova 10/2010; valitettavasti kuvassa ei näy kuinka juovat myöhemmin erkanivat toisistaan eli se ei ole varjo
    EU:ssa esitettiin 2007 parlamentissa kysymyksiä kemikaalilennoista -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "10. toukokuuta 2007E-2455/07KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS esittäjä(t): Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) komissiolle  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aihe: Huomion kiinnittäminen lentokoneiden jättämiin vanoihin, jotka eivät enää sisällä ainoastaan vettä, vaan joista muodostuu niiden mahdollisesti sisältämän bariumin, alumiinin ja raudan vuoksi pitkään kestäviä maitomaisia harsoja ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vastaus ------1. Onko komissio tietoinen siitä, että Yhdysvalloissa ja Kanadassa kansalaiset ovat valittaneet vuodesta 1999 lähtien yhä enemmän lentokoneiden jälkeensä jättämistä uudentyyppisistä vanoista, jotka joskus pysyvät taivaalla tuntikausia ja jotka laajenevat paljon enemmän, jolloin muodostuu maitomaisia, kyseisissä maissa ”aerial obscuration” ‑nimisenä ilmiönä tunnettuja harsoja, ja että kyseisessä uudentyyppisessä vanassa on merkillepantavaa etenkin se, miten paljon se poikkeaa suihkumoottorien historian alusta alkaen tunnetuista ohuen ohuista lyhyistä valkoisista viivoista taivaalla, jotka pysyvät näkyvissä enintään 20 minuutin ajan ja jotka muodostuvat vain silloin, kun vesihöyry tiivistyy pölyhiukkasiin matalissa lämpötiloissa ilmankosteuden ollessa suuri (”contrails”)?
    2. Onko komissio tietoinen siitä, että kansalaisten tekemät selvitykset, lentäjien havainnot ja viranomaistahojen antamat tiedotteet antavat yhä selvemmin olettaa, että tässä on kyse lentokoneiden kuivassa ilmassa jälkeensä jättämistä pienhiukkasista, jotka koostuvat bariumista, alumiinista ja raudasta, mitä ilmiötä on alettu kutsua Yhdysvalloissa asiasta käydyssä keskustelussa ”kemikaalivanoiksi” (”chemtrails”)?
    3. Ottaen huomioon, että toisin kuin tavanomaiset vanat ”kemikaalivanat” eivät ole nykyajan ilmailun väistämätön sivutuote, tietääkö komissio, mihin pyritään sillä, että nämä maaperään kuuluvat aineet viedään ehdoin tahdoin maapalloa ympäröivään ilmatilaan? Vaikuttavatko ne myönteisesti sateiden muodostumiseen, televiestintään tai maapallon lämpenemisen torjuntaan?
    4. Missä määrin ”aerial obscuration”‑ ja ”kemikaalivana”‑ilmiötä esiintyy nyt myös Euroopan ilmatilassa, kun pidetään mielessä, että Euroopassakin monet kansalaiset ovat vakuuttuneita siitä, että kyseiset esiintymät ovat yleistymässä ja ovat siitä huolissaan, koska ilmiötä ei tunneta vielä kovin hyvin ja siitä ei ole tiedotettu julkisuudessa? Kenen aloitteesta tämä suihkuttaminen tapahtuu ja kuinka se rahoitetaan?
    5. Tietääkö komissio, onko aineiden levittämisellä ilmaan siihen liitettyjen myönteisten tavoitteiden ohella mahdollisesti myös kielteisiä seurauksia ympäristölle, kansanterveydelle, ilmailulle tai televisiolähetysten vastaanottamiselle?
    6. Miten estetään se, että yksittäiset jäsenvaltiot tai yritykset ryhtyvät sellaisiin yksipuolisiin toimiin, joiden rajat ylittäviä vaikutuksia muut valtiot tai kansalaisjärjestöt saattavat pitää epäsuotuisina? Esiintyykö tässä suhteessa jo nyt toimien koordinointia? Onko EU mukana koordinoinnissa tai odottaako komissio, että EU osallistuu tulevaisuudessa koordinointiin ja mitä tavoitteita komissio aikoo siinä tapauksessa itselleen asettaa?
    Kysymyksen alkukieli: NL Päivitetty viimeksi: 23. toukokuuta 2007" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2007-2455+0+DOC+XML+V0//FI------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aihe kiinnostaa minua, koska olen asunut keskellä metsää lähes kahdeksan vuotta. Ranchimme yli kulkee mm. Joensuun kentän lentoreittejä. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Viimeisten kahden vuoden aikana lennoissa on tapahtunut selviä muutoksia lentojen määrissä, rytmityksessä ja ryhmityksessä. Vai kuinka tavanomaista on, että "lennetään Teneriffalle" kolmen koneen muodostelmissa.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Koneiden jättämät vanat pysyvät nykyään taivaalla tuntikausia, muodostavat yhtyessään jopa pilven näköisiä muodostelmia. Kaupungeissa vietetyssä lapsuudessani koneiden vanat häipyivät vartin sisällä taivaalta. .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Finavialta saatujen tietojen mukaan päästömääräykset Suomessa ovat erittäin tiukat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hiljattain lehdissä uutisoitiin, että Savossa on Suomen huonoin ilmanlaatu (ja Naantalin Kultarannassa paras). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toisaalta taas Tilastokeskuksen mukaan Etelä-Savossa on kolmanneksi vähiten teollisuutta koko Suomessa. Naapurimaakunnissa Pohjois-Karjalassa ja Pohjois-Savossa ei teollisuutta ole juuri sen enempää. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Savon kaupungit ovat pieniä, julkista liikennettä ei oikeastaan ole muualla kuin kaupungeissa. Yksityisautoilua on, pakosta, mutta sitäkin silti vähemmän kuin etelän suurissa kaupungeissa. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mistä ilman huono laatu siis tulee? Onko Savo jokin luonnon oikku, johon tuulee aina Venäjän suunnalta? Tuskin. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taannoin Suomessa uutisoitiin myös, että NASA tekee Suomessa sademäärien ja -laadun mittauksia. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Eräs valpas lukijani ehätti tarkistamaan asiaa, ja kertoi täällä että NASAn omilta sivuilta tästä kuukauden mittaiseksi ilmoitetusta projektista ei löydy mainintaa. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toisaalta taas jo 1970-luvulla laadittiin ja allekirjoitettiin ENMOD, ympäristön ja sään manipuloinnin kieltävä sopimus. Varmuuden vuoksi, huvikseenko vain vai oliko olemassa syitä, jotka tekivät sopimuksen tarpeelliseksi? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Myös USAn kongressi on käsitellyt lakiesitystä HR 2977 IH, joka kieltäisi USAa militarisoimasta avaruutta ja satsaamasta ns. eksoottisiin aseisiin. Eksoottisilla aseilla tarkoitetaan mm. sään manipulointiin käytettäviä aseita, bioaseita ymv. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- En tiedä miksi kemikaalivanalentoja tehdään -teorioita aiheesta on monia- ja kuka niitä rahoittaa mutta se lienee kuitenkin tullut selväksi että niitä tehdään. Asiaan on siis syytä kiinnittää huomiota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------SIIS JO ON PRKL KUN EDES KIRJOITTAMALLA SUORAAN TYÖPÖYDÄLLÄ EI SAA AIKAAN TEKSTIÄ JOKA EI PÖTKÖÖNNY LUKUKELVOTTOMAKSI TALLENNA/JULKAISE-NÄPPÄINTÄ PAINETTAESSA. Taas joutuu vetämään kappaleiden väliin nuo pisteviivat osoittamaan edes jotain jakoa. ------- HERMO MENEE!!!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lisäys: Owning the weather in 2025 http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lisäys2: Council on Foreign Relationsin (CFR) raportti   http://www.cfr.org/project/1364/geoengineering.html   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ISDAC http://acrf-campaign.arm.gov/isdac/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tikkurilan kellotapuli ja liekehtivä taivas http://omakaupunki.hs.fi/paakaupunkiseutu/uutiset/liekehtiva_torni/   

Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare

‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.

 

This article was first published on Global Research on December 12, 2007.
“HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems globally.”

“‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.”

Pdf version of article on Weather Warfare by Michel Chossudovsky, The Ecologist, December 2007 (pdf)
Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.
Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.
Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes: ‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’
In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’
While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.
Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.
The HAARP Programme
Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona, Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas that transmit, through high-frequency radio waves, massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere). Their construction was funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Operated jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. According to its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu , HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site’.

HAARP Program, Alaska


HAARP array of antennas
But Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.
Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.
According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’*
An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions. Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.
HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents, the US Air Force and British Aerospace Systems (BAES).
The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defence giants. The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994. E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a nuclear war’.Subsequently acquired by Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest intelligence contractors in the World. BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research.
The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. The project, according to a July report in Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s Electronic Warfare division. In September it received DARPA’s top award for technical achievement for the design, construction and activation of the HAARP array of antennas.
The HAARP system is fully operational and in many regards dwarfs existing conventional and strategic weapons systems. While there is no firm evidence of its use for military purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP is an integral part of the militarisation of space. One would expect the antennas already to have been subjected to routine testing.
Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Archive of Global Research articles on Weather Warfare

 

Chemtrails outlaw

The government says they don't exist, but Kucinich wants Congress to take action

by Bob Fitrakis Columbus Alive, 24 January 2002
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),  globalresearch.ca ,  6  March 2002
 
CRG's Global Outlook, premiere issue on  "Stop the War" provides detailed documentation on the war and the "Post- September 11 Crisis." Order/subscribe. Consult Table of Contents

The debate surrounding the federal government's alleged weather modification experiments has landed in the U.S. Capitol, thanks to Cleveland Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Representative Kucinich introduced the Space Preservation Act of 2001 on October 2 last year, seeking a "permanent ban on [the] basing of weapons in space."
The bill, HR 2977, specifically outlaws a variety of weapons detailed in the December 6, 2001, Columbus Alive article "Stormy Weather," which exposed allegations of secret government aerial spraying activities. Kucinich's bill explicitly outlaws "chemtrails."
Alive asked Kucinich why he would introduce a bill banning so-called chemtrails when the U.S. government routinely denies such things exist and the U.S. Air Force has routinely called chemtrail sightings "a hoax."
"The truth is there's an entire program in the Department of Defense, 'Vision for 2020,' that's developing these weapons," Kucinich responded. Kucinich says he plans to reintroduce a broader version of the bill later this month. "Plasma, electromagnetics, sonic or ultrasonic weapons [and] laser weapons systems" were among those banned by HR 2977.
Two scientists working at Wright Patterson Air Force Base informed Alive of the ongoing secret experiments, one involving weather modification and the other involving the creation of an aerial antenna using a barium stearate chemical trail. The scientists referred to the work of legendary inventor Nikola Tesla. Before Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (or "Star Wars"), there was Tesla's vision of high-tech space-based warfare and weather modification.
According to Tesla biographer Margaret Cheney, federal agents seized Tesla's papers after his death in 1943. "[At] least one set of Tesla's papers had reached Wright Field [now Wright Patterson Air Force Base]," Cheney wrote. The Aeronautic Systems Division at Wright Patterson admitted it had the Tesla papers but claim they were "destroyed."
However, Tesla's dream is embodied in a glossy brochure titled "Vision for 2020" released by the U.S. Space Command in 1998. The brochure states, "The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance."
The Space Command spells out its purpose pretty plainly: "Dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investment."
There's nothing new here, for those who have been paying attention. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, bluntly stated in his book Between Two Ages, "Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need to be appraised. [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm."
On January 4 this year, Canadian Professor Michel Chossudovsky, of the Center for Research on Globalization at the University of Ottawa, issued a report noting that weapons have the ability to trigger climate changes. "Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the world's climate. In the U.S., the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)," Chossudovsky wrote. "Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction."
Doubters of the military's secret plans should refer to George and Meredith Friedman's The Future of War, Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the 21st Century. The Friedmans, government-touted "arms experts" and favorites of the military-industrial complex, assert that "The American experience of power will rest on the domination of space."
The U.S. Air Force giddily embraced the Friedmans' thesis in the 1996 report "New World Vistas: Air And Space Power For The 21st Century." The Air Force report notes, "In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict."
State University of New York Professor of Journalism Karl Grossman, writing in 1999, revealed how the mainstream corporate press virtually ignores the government's pronouncements while trade journals like Space News, Defense News, Aviation Week, Space Technology and Electronic Engineering Times routinely report on the military-industrial complex's high-tech breakthroughs.
As for chemtrail skeptics, they might want to consult Rutgers University Political Science Professor Leonard Cole's book Clouds of Secrecy: The Army' s Germ Warfare Test Over Populated Areas. Chemtrail deniers are apparently happy with the thought that their beloved paternalistic government would engage in aerial spraying over densely populated areas.
U.S. Representative Marty Sabo, a Democrat from Minnesota, denounced "the secret Army program to spray Minneapolis and other cities with chemicals in the 1950s and '60s," the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported in September 1994. "The idea that the government would use its own citizens as guinea pigs is appalling, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms," Sabo told a House subcommittee investigating the secret spraying, which used fluorescent tracers to mark wind patterns.
As for the Army, it argues that the secret Cold War-era spraying was not "human experimentation" since it didn't target any specific individuals and the zinc cadmium sulfide used was harmless. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists all cadmium compounds as known cancer-causing agents.
Former students of Clinton Elementary in south Minneapolis told an investigating panel from the National Research Council that the Army's secret chemical spraying adversely affected their health, according to the Star Tribune.
Skeptics who continue to insist the government would never be involved in secret aerial spraying, particularly in Ohio, may want to address their questions to the C-130 aircrews from the 910th Airlift Wing stationed at Youngstown's Air Reserve Station. In July 2000, an Air Force press release bragged, "Fifteen service members from military installations in Germany and England were at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, 8-12 May, learning how to use chemicals to destroy the enemy. The seven airmen and eight soldiers learned how to plan, execute and oversee the entire process of applying pesticides by air." The press release said the Youngstown air unit will only be used against "insects with their deadly diseases."
Apparently insects take many forms. During the Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in November 1999, CNN reported that a military air unit with pathogen capacity to induce sickness in humans was deployed against the demonstrators.

Copyright © 2002 Columbus Alive, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted for Fair use only.

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT203A.html

GeoEngineering, Global Climate Disruptions, Chemtrails: “Our Atmosphere is a Massive Physics Lab”

In this video, Dane Wigington gives a presentation in Northern California on the harmful effects of Geoengineering, declaring that this is among the most important issues affecting humanity.
The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs.
This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.

http://GeoEngineeringWatch.org
The debate over whether geoengineering programs are going on is now a moot point.
We have more than enough data to confirm it. We have actual footage showing tankers spraying. The materials showing up on the ground are exactly the same materials mentioned in the numerous geoengineering patents and documents. Visit our website for a list of these government patents and documents.
Our skies today are simply not normal. Upon examination this cannot be denied. They are filled with nanoparticulates of heavy metals. But the skies have been filled with grid patterns for so long now that we are used to them and do not see them anymore. Sadly, the fact is that people do not look up.
To be clear, what we are seeing is not cloud seeding to increase rainfall. These particulates are designed to block the sun and move the jet stream. Dane explains how this is causing the drought and deluge being experienced around the globe.
Our atmosphere is nothing but a massive physics lab to geoengineering scientists who have no concern whatsoever about the consequences to humanity or any living thing, including themselves. The experiments are literally tearing the planet apart and destroying life on earth.
Dane reports, among other things, on:
• Geoengineering related climate disruptions, extreme drought and deluge
• Ozone depletion
• Methane release
• Drastic reduction in arctic sea ice
• Global oxygen content reductions
• Oceans on the brink of collapse
• Massive fish die offs
• 200 species becoming extinct every single day
• A drastic rise in Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Dementia
• Crisis level forest reductions
• The sterilization of soils making it impossible for plants to grow without Monsanto’s aluminum resistant seeds
Dane Wigington presents hard data which reveals what these catastrophic programs have done to our planet to date and what they will do if they are allowed to continue.
Please take the time to watch this video, follow up with some investigation of your own on our site:  http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org, and share this information far and wide.
Dane Wigington
“I began study and research on meteorology and atmospheric change in the late 90′s. After moving to Shasta County Cal. in 2001 and building one of the largest “off grid” solar homes in Northern California, I took notice of the of the sporadic aircraft “trails” and “grid patterns” that were blocking ever increasing amounts of my homes solar charging capacity (sometimes up to 80%).
Subsequent research led me straight to the subjects of SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management). I began lab testing of rain samples on a consistent basis. The skyrocketing toxicity of once pristine rainfall over the Pacific Northwest was shocking. Massive and ever escalating quantities of the exact heavy metals called for in numerous geoengineering patents were present in all samples tested at Northern California’s state certified lab. I witnessed a stark and accelerating tree mortality along with insect and amphibian decline. Years of continuing research have left me with the following conclusion, the threat posed by geoengineering, both immediate and long term, cannot be overstated. I have spent the last decade dedicated to researching and exposing the long list of dire consequences related to the ongoing atmospheric spraying programs.”

Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails IPCC warns policymakers not to stop ‘solar radiation management’

The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:
“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]
“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” (referred to as “AR5”) supercedes the former report published in 2007. [1]  The IPCC’s first Assessment Report was published in 1990.
The discussion in the Summary for Policymakers and in the body of AR5 commends solar radiation management over carbon dioxide removal methods, which are limited in their efficacy on a global scale, yet admits that neither are ideal, and that both geoengineering techniques will have long-term consequences.
“While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the ongoing reality of global geoengineering,” comments Dane Wigington at Geoengineering Watch, “the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.” [2]
Solar radiation management comprises various techniques aimed at reflecting or diverting solar radiation back into space, essentially increasing the planet’s albedo (reflectivity). Many geoengineers, along with the IPCC, prefer solar radiation management methods to carbon dioxide removal as a climate fix, given the planet’s complex carbon feedback loops, and the much cheaper and quicker method of spraying our skies with albedo-enhancing particles.
“Block the sun but continue to spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” is how Eli Kintisch characterizes SRM in his 2010 book, Hack the Planet. [3] In a world run by sanity, we would forego fossil fuels for free and abundant solar energy, coupled with Tesla’s development of free electricity, to meet the world’s energy needs, without destroying our nest by extracting and burning fossil fuels.
Solar radiation management has “three essential characteristics,” notes the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). “It is cheap, fast and imperfect,” [4] Citing geoengineering activist, David Keith, the IRGC explains that by injecting 13,000 tons of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere on a daily basis, they would offset the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This compares to having to remove “225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years.”
Were reason to prevail, we would capture solar energy, not block it; we would shun fossil fuels, not wage ecocidal wars to seize remaining supplies. In today’s world, however, policymakers have diverted billions of dollars into blocking the sun.  Efficient systems cost around $10 billion a year, “well within the budgets of most countries,” notes the IRGC.
In addition to warning policymakers in its Summary that chemtrails must continue, the IPCC also denies that such programs exist. Buried within Chapter 7, the IPCC simply states, “SRM methods are unimplemented and untested.”
It’s an odd statement, given the warning that to stop SRM would heat the planet. Plus, the IPCC admits in AR5:
“New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place.”
One of the programs listed, the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment, covered the Northern Hemisphere, measuring aerosols originating in Asia and crossing the Pacific into North America, then continuing across the continent, across the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe. Headed by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, these flights ran in 2004 and 2006, and reportedly numbered less than four dozen.
INTEX-B_vE_450w
Another “experiment,” the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions project, started in January 2007 and ended in December 2010 – running for a full four years, and included Africa.
In addition to the joint regional projects, several nations also perform similar field trials within their own borders. India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.
India on-ship instruments
Surely, field trials move way beyond “experiments” when they cover continents and cross oceans and are performed over a period of years.
Another inconsistency in AR5 is its discussion of persistent contrails. Despite the dire warning in the Summary urging policymakers to continue with their solar radiation management programs lest the planet’s surface cooks, the body of AR5 sees persistent contrails as responsible for only a very slight increase in radiative forcing (where solar energy is radiated back into space).
Overall, the IPCC has “medium confidence” that these persistent contrails and their induced cirrus clouds do not change surface temperatures on the planet. This contradicts what scientists found during the 3-day grounding of all US planes after 9/11 (except those scooting Saudis out of the country). Ground temperatures increased 2-3 ºC during the absence of contrails, persistent or not.

Citizens’ Initiative to Ban Chemtrails "Proposal to ban aerial spraying of aluminum oxide, barium, sulfur, ..."

Suffolk Co. NY to hear proposal to ban chemtrails

On Dec. 6, New York’s Suffolk County government will hold a public hearing on a proposal to ban aerial spraying of aluminum oxide, barium, sulfur, and other salts into the air over the county without first filing an Environmental Impact Statement with and receiving approval from the county’s Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.
Exempted from the proposed ban are aerosol spraying operations for agriculture, and for lyme disease, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus (WNV), and other disease vector control operations.
The hearing will be held at the Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K. Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive in Riverhead, NY at 2:30 pm.
If the public is able to convince legislators of the risk from such geoengineering operations, the legislation will then be voted on at the Dec. 20th session. Otherwise, the proposed ban will be tabled indefinitely.
Initiated by Cindy Pikoulas and her husband Jim, along with Siobhan Ciresi of Long Island Sky Watch (LISW), with the assistance of chemtrail opponent Rosalind Peterson of Agriculture Defense Coalition, the bill was finalized and proposed by legislator Edward P. Romaine (1st District). (Full text below.)
Involved in Suffolk County government since 1989, Romaine is a fiscal conservative who prioritizes saving farmland and protecting the environment. In August, he organized Long Island’s first countywide farmers market, along with the Long Island Farm Bureau.
Romaine has represented the 1st District (eastern end of Long Island) continuously since 2005. He serves on the Environment, Planning & Agriculture Committee, which voted on Nov. 28 to submit the proposed law banning such aerial spraying to a public hearing.
The Piloulases and Ciresi will speak on Dec. 6 and are urging people to “pack the hearing” to show support for the ban.
“If this proposal becomes law in Suffolk County, Long Island, it would be the first in the nation. It would be a starting point for others to follow,” said LISW in a press release.
“Eventually, our governments would have to investigate why our trees are dying in record numbers; why our waters contain toxic levels of aluminum, barium and strontium; why 90% of us are vitamin D deficient; why our crops are failing; and where all of this crazy weather is coming from.”
Cindy Pikoulas of LISW spoke with New York Sky Watch radio on Nov. 20, when she advised that tree samples from Suffolk show high levels of barium, strontium and aluminum. She is asking Long Islanders to have their water and trees tested for these chemicals in order to build a body of evidence that would spur investigations by health and environment authorities.
In addition to attending the Dec. 6 hearing, Long Islanders can contact their county legislators via http://legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/legislators.html
Are Exemptions Necessary?
Though exempted under the proposed ban, disease vector spraying may be a subterfuge for weather control operations, given the extreme rarity of EEV and WNV. According to the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services:
“Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) is a rare but serious viral disease caused by a virus transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito with more severe symptoms than for West Nile virus. EEE is an arbovirus (short for arthropod-borne, meaning spread by insects). Birds are the source of infection for mosquitoes, which can sometimes transmit the infection to horses, other animals, and, in rare cases, people.
“West Nile Virus (WNV) was first seen in the US in 1999, in the New York City area of Queens. WNV can live in a number of types of birds and is passed bird to bird by certain types of mosquitoes. Occasionally, an infected mosquito will pass the virus to humans or other animals. Most healthy people do not get sick from the virus, but sometimes it may cause symptoms.”
Per the US Geological Survey, two horses caught WNV in 2011 and 12 caught EEE, none of them in Suffolk.  Of humans, 43 contracted WNV in New York State in 2011, four of them in Suffolk County.  Only one person contracted EEE in the entire state.
Of the other vector-borne diseases of concern to health authorities – St Louis Encephalitis, La Crosse Encephalitis, Powassan Virus, and locally-acquired Dengue Fever – no New Yorkers contracted any of them in 2011. (But 40 New Yorkers did contract Dengue Fever when traveling outside the US in 2011.)
Considering that the population of NYS is 19 million, the application of toxic chemicals purportedly to control for such rare vector-borne diseases where only 44 people became ill in 2011 seems absurd.
US health officials admit that Ugandans and Egyptians, where WNV was first discovered, develop a natural immunity before reaching adulthood.  Using toxic chemicals that pollute the environment, leading to cancer and respiratory diseases, instead of allowing humans to develop immunity to such diseases, is an unsustainable and irresponsible control method.
Whether these vector control spray programs are involved in other activities such as solar radiation or rainfall management is uncertain.  But, in addition to the obvious jets laying chemtrails at 30,000 feet, they may be involved in contributing to the high levels of aluminum, barium and strontium found in Suffolk waters and trees.

Below is the full text of Suffolk’s proposed legislation:
WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on [December 6], 2011, a proposed local law entitled, “A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY” now, therefore, be it           
RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows:                       
LOCAL LAW NO. _____-2011, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY                        
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows:
Section 1.  Legislative Intent.
This Legislature hereby finds and determines that Suffolk County is a leader in environmental protection and has several programs to protect soil and groundwater from contamination.                        
This Legislature also finds and determines that air pollution is another environmental issue that can impact the health and safety of County residents and may also contaminate soil and groundwater.                        
This Legislature further finds and determines that concerns have been raised that business and government entities may be discharging polluting chemicals, including barium, sulfur, salts, and aluminum oxide, into the air, which may impact weather and other environmental elements.                        
This Legislature finds that such particulates eventually fall from the atmosphere, exposing the public to these air pollutants and, upon landing, may contaminate soil and water.                                               
This Legislature determines that County residents may be exposed to these chemicals while they are in the atmosphere, which can cause respiratory and other health problems.                        
 This Legislature also finds that, to protect County residents from potential harm, any person who plans to discharge these chemicals into the airspace over Suffolk County should first file an Environmental Impact Statement with and receive approval from the Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.                        
Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County prior to taking such action.
Section 2.  Definitions.  
As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity or business of any kind.
Section 3.  Requirements
Any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk must file a completed environmental impact form, as established in Section 4 of this law, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality and with the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature and receive the approval of the Division of Environmental Quality prior to engaging in such discharge.
Section 4.  Form Established.    
The Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to develop an environmental impact form to be used by persons wishing to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk.  Such form shall require applicants to detail the nature and purpose of their proposed discharge and any potential environmental and/or public health impacts that may result from such discharge.
Section 5.  Exemption.
The requirements set forth in this law shall not apply to any person engaging in aerosol spraying for agricultural or vector control purposes.
Section 6.  Penalties.
A.  Any person who violates any provision of this law shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for an initial violation, with a fine of $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
B.  Any civil penalty may only be assessed by the Commissioner of Health Services following a hearing and opportunity for an alleged violator to be heard.
Section 7.  Rules and Regulations.
The Commissioner of the County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and promulgate such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law. Section 8.  Applicability.                        
This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law.
Section 9.  Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.
Section 10.  SEQRA Determination.
This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection.  The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law.
Section 11.  Effective Date.
This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State.      

Planetary Weapons and Military Weather Modification: Chemtrails, Atmospheric Geoengineering and Environmental Warfare

Originally published by GR on Nov 3, 2013
Developed in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN’s World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just published its Fifth Assessment Report [1] and maintains its silence on military weather modification applications which continue to skew the data.
“Extreme weather and climate events” are linked to climate change while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis.
The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over 70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s warned of government intention to modify the weather.
Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The IPCC’s continuing and absolute silence on such programs is deafening.
With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a weapon. The chapter, “How to Wreck the Environment,” [2] was penned by geophysicist and member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:
“The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.”
The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the then-current state of research:
  • Climate modification;
  • Earthquake generation;
  • Tsunami generation and direction; and
  • Mass behavior control via electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.
The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes detailed in Eli Kintisch’s Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled “The Pursuit of Levers,” explained as “small changes in Earth’s system that can have profound global effects.” [3]
As LBJ’s Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. By seeding clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.
In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published “Background on HAARP,” [4] describing Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s brainchild, the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, as follows:
“It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.”
In 2000, reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr Bertell told The Times of London, “US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” [5]
HAARP’s use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, also triggers earthquakes and volcanoes. [6] Begich quotes Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a conference on terrorism:
“Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.” [7]
Pragmatically, the US wouldn’t be worried about such weapons unless they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all likelihood, already developed them itself.
In “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” which was named the 9th most censored story in 2012 by Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was published. [8] From that report, the IPCC’s co-founder, the World Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007, that:
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” [9]
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must continue or global warming will spike. The 2013 IPCC report states:
“Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence).” [emphasis in original]
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are “unimplemented and untested” is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.

Geoengineering Patents

On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming. [10] By using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be visible, nor would artificial clouds develop.
It’s not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional cirrus cloud formation. Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years later, in 1970. Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar, Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation. The 2013 patent characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally inappropriate for commercial purposes.
For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s “Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies.” [11] Weather Warfare by Jerry Smith also includes an appendix of HAARP-related patents. [12]

A Note on Persistent Contrails

What some see as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today’s jet exhaust.
In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails. From the 1990s on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a “high bypass turbofan” which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect, left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after several hours. This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.
The reason today’s jets now form persistent contrails, explains Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail). But because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail. Today’s cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.
Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical, biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail, depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric temperature. But, later, in 2009, he published the following:
“‘Chemtrails’ theory then, is that ‘normal’ jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas ‘chemtrails’ persist for hours, and therefore are not ‘normal’ and must contain some covert element to make them persist…. Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a ‘conspiracy theory’ scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and ‘global warming.’” [13]
The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:
ragland AL 2013Nov3
The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail. The following image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times. It’s hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly varied where the plane traveled.
chemdots
The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth’s cirrus cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of the planet. [14]
Global distribution of net instantaneous radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere in daily and annual average for present (1992) climatic conditions, analyzed contrail cover, and 0.55-µm optical depth of 0.3 (Minnis et al., 1999).
However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air traffic lanes. Below are two images showing the grid pattern. The first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a normal set of flight lanes.
ChemtrailBAM
This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea, showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
Satellite view of Celebes Sea showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments. Spiders are known to balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. [15]
Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.

Impossible to Regulate?

Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD). The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that none of these agreements cover “national defense” which is how governments are able to avoid the ban.
That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD. In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD. [16] The 193-member Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it’s not too surprising that such programs continue unabated.
Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010 conference by promoting geoengineering options. [17]
On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance Council:
“Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases. A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible.” [18]
In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground with it. This is bad, he stresses, because it will “worsen perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a technocratic means of control.” Going further, he states:
“A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky.”
But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting iron-seeding to coastal waters only. The only element missing in Kintisch’s reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already underway.
Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the “conspiracy theorist” label like a club, without once offering any logical counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water tests.
Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into inconsistencies in government position statements. Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.
Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion, likening it to a terrarium, “an enclosed controlled garden,” leaving the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that should be regulated.

Modifying the Weather for Profit

In related news, the ecocidal giant, Monsanto, just dropped nearly a billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game, buying Climate Corporation. Forbes reports, “The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals.” [19]
Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge? Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
Likewise, how easy would it be for a nation with decades of experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering? With decades of patents providing a history of capabilities, could this entire drama, including “extreme weather events” be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?
Isn’t this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works? Problem→Reaction→Solution (Thesis→Antithesis→Synthesis). In other words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating the public’s reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate demand for the “solution” which was the intended program power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.
Notes:
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” Sept. 2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original Summary is modified in the future): http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf
[2] Nigel Calder, Ed. Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, ‘How to Wreck the Environment,’ available at http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf
[3] Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.
[4] Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, “Background on HAARP,” 1996. Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html
[5] Michel Chossudovsky, “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change,” 4 Jan. 2002. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
[6] Nick Begich. Interview by Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ,” 22 Sept. 2012. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI
[7] William S. Cohen, “Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy,” Sam Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm
[8] Rady Ananda, “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Global Research, 30 July 2010. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369
[9] World Meteorological Organization, “Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1, Appendix C. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[10] Frank G Noppel, et al., (assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). “Method and apparatus for suppressing aeroengine contrails.” Patent No. 8,402,736. 26 March 2013. Available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN/8402736&RS=PN/8402736
[11] Lori Kramer, “Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies, n.d. Available at http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
[12] Jerry Smith, Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.
[13] Jerry Smith, “The Painful Truth About ‘Chemtrails,” Sovereign Mind Magazine: May/June 2009. Available at http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere,” November 2000. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/
[15] Henry Christopher McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II. Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders#/titles
[16] ETC Group, “BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails,” 28 Oct. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
[17] Rady Ananda, “UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club,” 6 Dec. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/
[18] M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” International Risk Governance Council, 2010. Available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
[19] Bruce Upbin, “Monsanto Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million,” 2 Oct. 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/