Smart Dust? We wanted to also point out that these Morgellons fibers may actually be nano-technology sprayed by aerosol planes to conduct a darker program on human beings. According to the white paper study - Hit ‘Em Where It Hurts, Strategic Attack in 2025, they’re spraying swarms of microsensors that will embed into the flesh of hard targets and float around in soft target environments receiving and transmitting information.Text : Ground-based platforms in 2025 rely heavily on micromechanics and nanotechnology to shrink platforms to microscopic sizes. These platforms could be inserted via human agents, through water or food supplies, or through aerial seeding operations using UAVs. Microsensors thinner than human hairs could transmit data to the Delphi database via UAV or satellite relay.
One meterologist actually tells viewers what he was told about how spraying powdered metals and chaff messes up his forecasts. The area in Florida he references on the map, is near a military aerial training region. So, are they spraying rural test areas with microsensors and its turning up Morgellons?
UAV’s are important to this program, they interact with aerosol jets spraying the fibers (microsensors) bring in HAARP and then I guess there’s no where to hide. Wait, what about a mountainous region in Afghanistan?
We’ve also watched Army/Air Force commercials designed to recruit UAV pilots, who sit behind monitors with joysticks. Seriously, a story came out last month stating how UAV pilots were falling asleep at the monitors from being overworked. Heavily armed predator drones are flying around with soldiers asleep at the controls.
Source: Newyorkskywatch.com
Jeff,
The unusual phenomena being described here -- and at various Chemtrail/Aerosol Activity Boards -- is being called by different names. 'Aerosol polymer filaments and webs' (Mike Castle @Rense). Chemtrail fibers; microfilaments; 'sky-webs''; chemtrail fall-out; electrostatic filaments; CT particulates; perhaps even 'Morgellon's'. "I like the term 'fibrils' as it implies a synthesized microfiber with conductive properties." (Moondog @ Carnicom).
A magnifying glass or reading glasses may help if your vision isn't really sharp. But, if they are present, you can't miss them.
What natural hygienists, raw foodists and mucusless diet advocates have known all along is that heating food to over 120 degrees Fahrenheit destroys enzymes. These enzymes in raw foods are essential for proper assimilation of key nutrients. Bodies whose cells are oxygenated, hydrated, detoxified and supplied with the proper nutrients do not become "safe havens" for heavy metals, parasites, fungi and the strange nanotechnology that is designed to multiply in such terrain.References for further research:
1. "Whistle blower contacts IAHF with
inside info on chemtrails: How to detox and protect ourselves"
www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5138
2. The Cure For All Diseases by Hulda
Regehr Clark, Ph.D., N.D. (1995)
3. Doctor Christopher’s Newsletter and
Continuing Education Service, "Black Walnut, Juglans Nigra", Volume 5, No. 7.
Christopher Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 412, Springville, Utah 84663.
4. "Clay: The Healing Underground" by Julie Christ, M. Ac., The Idaho
Observer, February 2005. See www.acupla.net
5. Alternatives for the
Health-Conscious Individual, December 2008, pp. 139-142. www.drdavidwilliams.com
The following is an article which give clear explanations about the uproarious mystification produced by professional debunkers on the "Clouds of the world" and "A colour guide to the clouds" monographies. Analyzing and reading them we discovered a lot of anomalies and many types of counterfeiting: torn and stuck pages, a particular page in which the text is set on a single sheet section (someone made use of adhesive tape on it), no references to the relative humidity parameters, the suspicious insistence regarding the persistence of contrails (phenomenon that N.A.S.A. did recently formulate) and, besides, there are no bibliographic references about condensation's phenomenon. Let's not forget that in English, formerly, the planes' trails were indicated by using the term "wake" and not "contrail". Logically it is obvious that each single picture of those counterfeited pages are not contrails but chemtrails' snapshots added to the fake and replaced pages. It isn't always possible to tell the true from the false but in this case lots of incongruities leave us more than doubtful.
"Clouds of the world", published in the U.S. (in 1972), represent the imperative evidence for debunkers on the subject of "contrails" phenomenon. According to their assertions, condensation is a frequent phenomenon and it is proved by this book. But it is pretty evident that all the copies existing on the Web have been counterfeited! Who did it? What for? We can just imagine that someone would like to rewrite and alter the science.
Who's the first person to introduce and make use of this book? Epoxynous from contrailscience.com. Who are the first people that use the link to this book on the Focus forum and Paolo Attivissimo posts? Exactly those Italian debunkers which leave comments on the contrailscience.com website. Who is the owner of it? It is not possible to get this information. We only note that its owner is anonymous and that several part of the websites' texts refers to our articles and videos posted on Tanker Enemy's blog. So the fact that Epoxynous is, as matter of fact, an Italian debunker and that "Clouds of the world" and "A colour guide to clouds" (even this volume is shown by him on his you-tube channel) were counterfeited by one or more Italian debunkers is a well-founded supposition. In fact we ask ourselves the reason, why, a anglo-saxon site's webmaster should be worried for our Italian articles, video, pictures and declarations and tries to confute them? Isn't possible that people and services coming from our country are hidden behind the aforesaid site?
Fantasies? Rash conclusions? We don't think so. If truth be told when we take a look to the three graphics of page number 127 (from "Clouds of the world") we observe a curious detail: unity of measurement is expressed in meters instead of feet! We bear in mind to everyone that the "Britannic Imperial System" was used from United Kingdom, United States and Australia till 1995.
And that's not the end of it! When in this book there are references to the trails shadows it is used a very recent term: "distrail". This is a brand-new expression and not even on Etymonline.com is possible to find it. So it's manifest that this word, coming from N.A.S.A. theories, cannot be part of a book printed in the 1972! Even the "cloud" idiom, used to define condensation trails is very modern expression of this century.
Epoxynous in this video shows "A colour of clouds" pages and even if he pays attention not to put on view compromising strangeness of which we're writing about, he let anyone see a page that indubitably was added after the volume's publishing. In fact everyone can see some glue signs and the particular wavy effect of the liquid glue on the sheet is the evidence! Everyone can check this: try to do it and you'll see!
In all probability these falsifications occurred later than we declared the non-existence of documents with reference to contrails sooner than 1990. Perhaps Epoxynous would like to appear as a foreign debunker but our articles and videos attract his attention in the well-known Italian debunker's way.Translation by Mr X
Objectively Erik Meijer has greater margins for action. Working inside the uncompleted institutions of the European Union, a citizen of one of the two nations that delivered the death blow to the first attempt to impose a politically unacceptable “constitution” on the European peoples, leading member of an ex-Maoist political grouping now able to field twenty-five deputies in the Dutch parliament, with one foot in such would-be institutionally pioneering milieux as the Social Forums, Meijer could take advantage of the political abdication of the European Commission, and the European political class generally, on this terrible subject. He could turn it to the benefit not only of the European Parliament but also of the citizens’ movements seeking a voice inside and outside the Social Forums. Not to mention of European integration generally. He could be a hero.
So let’s look at his questions:
10 May 2007
E-2455/07
WRITTEN QUESTION by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
Subject: Aircraft condensation trails which no longer only contain water but cause persistent milky veils, possibly due to the presence of barium, aluminium and iron
1. Is the Commission aware that, since 1999, members of the public in Canada and the USA have been complaining about the growing presence in the air of aircraft condensation trails of a new type, which sometimes persist for hours and which spread far more widely than in the past, creating milky veils which are dubbed ‘aerial obscuration’, and that the new type has particularly come to people’s attention because it is so different from the short, pencil-thin white contrails which have been a familiar sight ever since jet engines came into use and which remain visible for 20 minutes at most and can only be produced if steam condenses on dust particles due to low temperatures and high humidity?
2. Is the Commission aware that investigations by these complainants, observations by pilots and statements by government bodies increasingly suggest that what is happening is that aircraft are emitting into dry air small particles consisting of barium, aluminium and iron, a phenomenon which in public debate in America has come to be known as chemtrails?
3. Unlike contrails, chemtrails are not an inevitable by-product of modern aviation. Does the Commission know, therefore, what is the purpose of artificially emitting these Earth-derived substances into the Earth’s atmosphere? Does it help to cause rain, benefit telecommunications or combat climate change?
4. To what extent are aerial obscuration and chemtrails now also being employed in the air over Europe , bearing in mind that many people here too are now convinced that the phenomenon is becoming increasingly common and are becoming concerned about the fact that little is so far known about it and there is no public information on the subject? Who initiates this spraying and how is it funded?
5. Apart from the intended benefits of emitting substances into the air, is the Commission aware of any possible disadvantages it may have for the environment, public health, aviation and TV reception?
6. What is being done to prevent individual European states or businesses from taking measures unilaterally whose cross-border impact other States or citizens' organisations may regard as undesirable? Is coordination already taking place with regard to this? Is the EU playing a part in it, or does the Commission anticipate a future role, and what are the Commission's objectives in this connection?
Combating Climate Change
To start with the question of whether the spraying helps to combat climate change.. This subject of climate change is so central to public discussion today that one might imagine anything with a bearing on it would be given similar high-profile treatment. Not so with “chemtrails”. Extraordinary efforts are made to try to persuade the public, against all the dictates of common sense, that what are being seen in the sky all over the world are just the condensation trails we have been familiar with since the beginning of jet-propelled flight.
It can be demonstrated that they are not but it is also worth pointing out that all such demonstrations are countered not only by the official denials but also by the arguments of single-minded and often fanatical internet “debunkers” of varying levels of expertise. Though less known to the general public, these “chemtrails debunkers” are no less relentless than their “climate change sceptic” big brothers.. But their contrails vs chemtrails argument (an argument probably best avoided) is conducted against a backdrop of undeniable official proposals for the use of aircraft to “mitigate” the effects of climate change, with documented corresponding existence of the relevant patents. “Geoengineering” schemes of this kind were proposed in a major study of the American Academy of Sciences in 1992. They are the subject of matter-of-fact references in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. The panel’s 2001 report informs us that geoengineering: ‘includes the possibility of engineering the earth’s climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of carbon dioxide could be offset by an increase of 1.5% to 2% in the earth’s albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space ….Teller et al. (1997) found that ~10 billion tons of dielectric aerosols of ~100 nm diameter would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by ~1%. They showed that the required mass of a system based on alumina particles would be similar to that of a system based on sulphuric acid aerosol.…(They) demonstrate that use of metallic or optically resonant scatterers can, in principle, greatly reduce the total mass of scattering particles required.”
All this “geoengineering” aspect of the climate change problem is systematically avoided by the climate change mass movement that has grown up in recent years. The denial extends through every level of the movement from former US vice-president Al Gore down to the demonstrators who recently held their Camp for Climate Action at Heathrow Airport near London . It appears to be a structural component of the movement as intrinsic to it as nuclear weapons danger-mongering was to the anti-nuclear movement of the Cold War period (which now has the appearance of an eclipsed predecessor).
There is a peculiar cohabitation of poker-faced denial among scientists and politicians with a neurotic media discussion of geoengineering in pseudo-light-hearted “science fiction” mode (just look at what these mad scientists are up to). Virtually all relevant scientists go along with the denial. To give just one recent example of the thousands that could be cited: in response to a request for information on geoengineering from Greek journalist Aliki Stefanou, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution said: “I used to work in a nuclear weapons lab and we were trying to get money to do geoengineering research. I think if money was available for this purpose, we would have been able to obtain some. The fact was that there was no money available.” When Aliki Stefanou asked Caldeira whether, if and when proposed aerosol spraying programmes came to be implemented, he thought they would, and/or should, be implemented secretly or publicly, he said: “I think that nearly all research should be public and certainly all geoengineering research should be public. Secrets corrode democracy.”
Not an inevitable by-product of modern aviation
In his parliamentary questions Meijer makes the good point that that chemtrails “are not an inevitable by-product of modern aviation”. In the mid-90s Dan Bodansky was one of the key writers discussing this from the perspective of international law. Bodansky wrote: “The fact that geoengineering is an intentional activity with global effects raises the issue of who should decide whether to proceed. Should all countries be able to participate in decision making since all will be affected and there will be both positive and negative impacts? Also, how should liability and compensation for damages be addressed?” Because no easy answers to these questions seem to have been forthcoming, and because, as Bodansky put it: “existing international legal norms are… unlikely to be a reliable guide to how the international community will react if geoengineering schemes are seriously proposed” what seems to have happened is that a decision was made to “play it by ear”, to proceed with implementation of large-scale aerosol spraying and sort out the legality problem “later”. Until such times as programmes can be legal, they “do not exist”.
Any political system embarking on this road is asking for trouble because the question arises of how the transition to this “later” legitimation or normalization will be handled. “The rule of law” is a powerful ideological component of present-day “advanced” societies. Is it possible to make a transition from government by deceit to government through laws?
One method that can be tried, and is evidently being tried, is to allow the passage of time, and generational change, to bring about the hoped-for normalization. There is much discussion on the Internet of this aspect of “chemtrails”: NASA enlists children in “Contrails Count-a-Thon” campaigns. Journalistic justifications, in “science-fiction” mode, proliferate. Children grow up habituated to such discussions, and to the phenomenon itself, in their real-life experience, in films, in advertising. Even in schoolbooks, such as the book mentioned by Will Thomas - published by Centre Point Learning Science and entitled “Solutions for Global Warming”, which informs schoolchildren that “Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen”. (“Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?”)
There have been serious attempts at legalization of one form of geoengineering, namely weather modification, by politicians whose motives are anything but oppositional. In 2005 US Senator Kate Bailey Hutchinson proposed a “Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act”. It did not eventuate finally because “the legal and liability issues pertaining to weather modification, and the potential adverse consequences on life, property, and water resource availability resulting from weather modification activities, must be considered fully before the U.S. Government could take responsibility” (for admitting that it is actually engaged in any such activities).
Environmental Repercussions of Aircraft Emissions
So yes, chemtrails are not “an inevitable by-product of modern aviation”. If one plans to make use of aircraft emissions for geoengineering purposes, how then can one secure the support, or at least toleration, of the more militant sections of the community, those least likely to be persuadable that massive planetary-wide particle pollution to increase the “albedo” (reflectivity”) of the earth’s atmosphere and reduce levels of incoming sunlight, is a defensible option?
One answer might be to start a campaign on the environmental repercussions of aircraft emissions. As a participant in the mid-90s in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to establish a branch of Friends of the Earth in Greece, I can confirm that at more or less the same time that large-scale aerosol spraying operations appear to have got under way around the globe, Friends of the Earth, internationally, embarked on what then looked like an impossible campaign to fight commercial aviation.
Over a decade later the campaign has made more progress than seemed likely then. And the anti-aircraft campaigners have a very radical image. Take this quotation from a public speech by Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth in Britain : “Aviation is a rogue sector and its environmental impact is out of control. Climate change is the most urgent challenge facing humanity and yet aviation policy is doing the opposite of what is needed.” Or take this quotation from Guardian journalist George Monbiot: “The growth in aviation and the need to address climate change cannot be reconciled. In common with all other sectors, aviation’s contribution to global warming must be reduced in the UK by some 87% if we are to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures. Given that the likely possible efficiencies are small and tend to counteract each other, an 87% cut in emissions requires not only that growth stops, but that most of the aeroplanes flying today be grounded…
This means the end of distant foreign holidays, unless you are prepared to take a long time getting there. It means that business meetings must take place over the internet or by means of video conferences. It means that transcontinental journeys must be made by train or coach. It means that journeys around the world must be reserved for visiting the people you love, and that they will require both slow travel and the saving up of carbon rations. It means the end of shopping trips to New York, parties in Ibiza, second homes in Tuscany and, most painfully for me, political meetings in Porto Alegre - unless you believe that these activities are worth the sacrifice of the biosphere and the lives of the poor.”
The extreme radicalism of this rhetoric could easily lead one to lose sight of the fact that its subversive potential is much inferior to that of Erik Meijer’s politely framed questions in the European Parliament. Ignoring factors of intentionality versus non-intentionality of aircraft emissions, the militant anti-aviation declarations effectively deflect attention not only from the illegality of what may be surmised to be present governmental activities, but also from the whole logic of geoengineering and thus from its appropriateness or inappropriateness as a solution to climate change.
Sometimes the anti-aviation rhetoric can even look suspiciously like collusion in the manufacture of divide-and-rule scenarios, of incitement and provocation of global warming “sceptics” and contrarians through the articulation of extremely radical conclusions and proposals without correspondingly radical and comprehensive theoretical justification. One gets the contrarians foaming at the mouth, along with a ready-made mass constituency of frequent flyers to back them up, without oneself putting forward the clinching and unanswerable arguments (which certainly exist) that might silence the baying mob one has helped to create.
In a characteristic article by the Australian contrarian journalist Andrew Bolt, Monbiot is bracketed together with the Australian academic Tim Flannery as examples of “hairshirt warming cultists” who should, because of their views on climate change, be banned from travelling by air. But what does Tim Flannery say about aviation? “Transport accounts for around a third of global carbon dioxide emissions. Transport by land and sea can easily be powered in ways that emit less carbon dioxide and the technologies to achieve this either already exist or are on the horizon. Air transport, however, is fast growing and not likely to be fuelled by anything but fossil fuels. Thankfully, jet contrails contribute to global dimming, so it may be just as well that the jets keep flying long after wind-powered and solar-powered ships and compressed-air cars monopolize surface transport” (Tim Flannery: The Weather Makers, pp. 282-283)
Flannery, in other words, implicitly if not openly, a supporter of “chemtrails” and of geoengineering. It is not necessary to enter into a discussion of which of the two – Flannery or Monbiot - is more or less of a hypocrite or has more or less inadequate or one-sided views. Both of them present a powerful analysis of climate change and then subvert it by choosing to tell less than the whole story. By doing this they leave open a loophole for the debunkers and the “sceptics” to present them both as “Chicken Littles”. Flannery is bold or deluded enough to support geoengineering and/or “chemtrails” as a hypothetical future prospect. But he will not embrace it as a present reality to which he gives his informed consent.. Monbiot is in even deeper denial about the evident present reality of “chemtrails”. Both engage in sterile arguments with contrarians and debunkers instead of initiating the dialogue that SHOULD be being heard by the public: their dialogue with each other about the acceptability or unacceptability of geoengineering, and even more specifically about whether aircraft emissions have a warming (Monbiot) or a cooling (Flannery) effect. The Europarliamentarian Erik Meijer could be a catalyst for such a dialogue, but so far no-one gives any sign of knowing about his questions, or the European Commission’s “answer” to them.
