Here is the story from the viewpoint of the CBC in Vancouver.
January 27, 2009
Here is the story from the viewpoint of the CBC in Vancouver.
January 24, 2009
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.
January 23, 2009
I read and observed with much interest the recent micro-photo's sent to me by Kim Weber of the Polymer filaments recovered off the South Oregon Coast. This same group of photo's and article appeared on your web-site.
You are accurate in the comments regarding Clifford Carnicom's study and investigation of these materials. I have also been looking at this strange aerosolized filament technology for about three years. What I have found, after receiving samples retrieved around Seattle, WA., is a cationic reaction polymer that has an unidentified bio-active material within it. My first opinion is that this is the biological control agents released by the Federal DEA to destroy and further control marijuana growing across the United States and certain portions of Canada. We have found that these bio-control agents are genetically mutated fungal forms that have been mutated with viruses and they purportedly find and kill any plants containing THC, the active ingredient.
However, this is a different story of how Big Gov can launch a control agent into the Environment and now the entire clandestine DEA technical effort to control certain substances and drugs,appears to be headed the same direction as that of Jurassic Park..The Movie..recall the ending? Out of control...they didn't expect these mutated monsters to reproduce! Trillions of Fussarium/virus mutated spores fill the air we breathe and secrete a powerful mico-toxin. Associative with Reactive Airway Disease?
The aerosol polymer filaments and webs are a different story, though, based on our limited research. We can never seem to collect enough samples to actually conduct thourough and complete organic/inorganic analyses and the assessment of thebiological section.
We do know that these polymers are of a crystalline morphology, are very friable and break into millions of small fragments in the atmosphere, are inhaled and in some cases are bio-active causing serious skin lesions and diseases when absorbed into the skin. The filaments are lyophillic or are oil soluble (upper epidermis oils melt the polymer fragments and are absorbed into the skin). We have clearly identified the US Air Forces polymer technology used in UV Radiation Mitigation strategies. The use of encapsulated Ultra-Violet Absorbers, Mannin and other organic compounds to absorb UV or reflect radiation have been found in US Patents.
These were provided to the writer by an associate whom was given the US Patent Numbers of the specific technology used, by individuals employed by the US Air Force National Atmospheric Lab at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio (street slang "The Tesla Center") These individuals have been verified to exist. We have viewed the US Patents assigned to Mil Industrial Complex Corporations working as Federally approved Contractors. Hughes Aircraft Corporation is also very involved in the development and articulation, experimentation and deployments of some of these technologies.
Another example in the observation of polymers and filaments deployments are the ChemTrails that appear to be "dashes" in the jet-trails pattern. Much like lines-on-the-road, ticked. These are thought to be the separate, individual reaction-injections of a cationic polymer system that has been mixed in a cannister and immediately ejected into the atmosphere using a venture' eduction spinneret nozzle. The reaction occurs in-situ in the airborne phase. The "cloud-like" dashes are the spent reaction products, until the cannister is empty and then another cannister is prepared (this would be the clear-air space between the dashes). Many commercial US Patents are available for viewing this research.
An example is in California and the utilization of a cationic reaction polymer containing heavy-metal yellow-chromate for highway line-painting. I have actually seen this machine spray the lines. Uniquely, cationic polymers have an extremely high capacity for use of heavy -metals. They don't coagulate due to catalysis. This is fundamentally the opinion of many professional researchers in the ChemTrails debacle that Barium and Aluminum, Cadmium, Selenium and Thorium can be easily sprayed into the atmosphere, are chemically stable and reflect UV and may carry a specific electronic charge. This is the model aerosolized platform.
I could continue this review, however, I will allow you and possibly your readers to digest some this first.
I cannot comment on the Martian connection, however.
My background is that of a Professional Chemist, specifically a Polymer Chemist.
R. Mike Castle Columbus, Ohio
Read original article here
January 20, 2009
But whatever they end up being called (personally, I lean towards 'CT-UV fibrils' -- has a nice ring), they are REAL and OBSERVABLE.
See for yourself -- it's simple...
These CHEMTRAIL/AEROSOL/ UV/ FIBRIL/ FILAMENTS are very easy to observe under the right conditions.
To actually WITNESS these filaments covering you, and your children, your pets, your home, your plates, your pillow and your possessions can be very shocking.
They are all over us.
They are floating in the air.
They are entwined in all that extra 'dust' you have been wiping up lately throughout your home...and the 'dust' on your car.
They are clogging your A/C and furnace filters.
They are landing on your food between the plate and your mouth.
We are all wearing them, eating them, drinking them, breathing them...
And they are virtually INVISIBLE -- EXCEPT under ultraviolet light.
In mid-April, 2000, Djebemon, a respected poster at Clifford Carnicom's Chemtrail Board -- since renamed the Aerosol Operations Board (links below) -- discovered that there were THOUSANDS of tiny 'particles' or 'filaments' on his hair, clothing, skin, carpet and walls. These transparent 'filaments' are about three times thinner than a human hair or pet hair, about 0.5-3 mm long, and are virtually INVISIBLE in normal light -- even if you are staring right at them.
However ... under UV 'blacklight', they fluoresce with a blue glow.
This caused quite a stir for several months, and a lot of material got added to his original topic, which is now ( 7-31-03) 10 pages long.
"EUREKA!" (I think I've found it...in black lite? :
It has been especially notable that no debunkers came forward to contest our findings (and 2000 was a record year for debunking attempts!)
But then, after the initial shock subsided, we got used to it, we bought our air filtration units, and attention turned elsewhere. (It is really unpleasant to live daily with the realization that part of life is way out of our control.)
But the filaments never went away. They are still here, in even heavier concentrations.
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.
You need to have one simple tool. Get an 18" long fluorescent tube-type ultraviolet / blacklight that comes in a plug-in fixture -- they are sold at stores like Walmart and Radio Shack for about $19.99 - $24.99. (I bought an 18" GE brand one in the bulbs section at our local Walmart and a Radio Shack one. Both work well.) The cheaper smaller fluorescent tubes, the 60 watt screw-in bulb types and the UV battery light units do not work for this purpose. You really need to get the 18" long tube light -- there is something more effective about the wavelength it emits.
Put on a dark cotton knit shirt (like a T-shirt), wear it around awhile (including outdoors), then go in a dark room -- it should be DARK! -- turn on the UV light, and look...
You are looking for tiny filaments about 1/3 the diameter of a hair in a range of sizes from about 1/32 "-1". They glow bright blue. If they are around, you will see them almost instantly.
You may be astonished to find them ALL OVER -- your skin. your rug, your mirrors (they seem 'attracted' to mirrors!)... They're in the air, swirling and floating on the slightest air currents. Check your hair -- it is exposed outdoors -- it can 'host' hundreds! Your clothes can glow like galaxies of miniature stars are on them. 'Dust' on every flat surface in your home can be filled with them.
Some wave and squirm, almost as if they're alive.
If you have children, check their hair, eyebrows and exposed skin. (Finding 'strange' material on your child tends to accelerate one's questing processes...)
The first time I saw them, I immediately thought they were lint -- there were far too many of them everywhere -- they HAD to be lint! Or pet hair. Or acrylic fibers from the wall-to-wall carpet...
(Such D-E-N-I-A-L! It was just too overwhelming!)
Some of what you'll see IS simple lint.
But these mystery filaments are NOT lint.
NOT carpet fiber.
NOT pet hair.
Pet hair doesn't glow under UV light. Nor carpet fiber. Check it out.
Yes, lint can certainly glow under UV. Fiberfill strands can glow. And some detergents contain optical brighteners that fluoresce.
But these CT-UV fibrils are NOT lint.
First of all, you can SEE lint on your clothes. You CANNOT see these filaments in regular light EVEN if you are looking right at them. Catch one with tweezers under UV light, keep a firm grip, and turn on the room light. It 'vanishes'! Turn the room light off, turn the UV on, and it's still there.
Secondly, there were a lot of people in the 1970's who owned UV lights of this type for illuminating posters and creating a party mood. No one from that era claims to remember this material.
Thirdly, to quickly and permanently dispel the 'lint theory', all you need is a microscope. (A decent hobby or toy store has ones adequate for this -- around $30.)
Pick up a known piece of lint, thread or carpet fiber with tweezers and put it on a clean microscope slide. Look at it under 20x or 40x magnification. Note the twisted fibers -- they look like rope. These are solid (not translucent), dusty-looking, and have bushy ends.
Now pick up a suspected 'CT-UV fallout' filament with tweezers and put it on a clean microscope slide. (You want to choose a very slender one about 1/3 -1/2' long that seems responsive to movement. This will make sense when you start really looking at them.) Look at it under 20-40x magnification. They are transparent/translucent. They seem to made of some sort of prismatic flat filament that twists -- extruded looking, about 1/3- 1/5 the diameter of a human hair laid side-by-side -- obviously NOT fiberous. Even to a layman's eye, they look 'manufactured'. And , what are these BARBS on them -- like sharp raspberry thorns? Spaced apart -- engineered looking -- explains why they cling so tenaciously...
And... what are those intermittent clumps or beads or crystals of material embedded along the strand?
After you see them magnified, you will NOT want to breathe them, or ingest them in any form. But, THERE IS NO CHOICE!
(Asthma is at record rates. Any relation?)
Once you are used to seeing them under the UV light, they can be easily found on mirrors, where they are also visible under direct sunlight without a UV light. (Try a bathroom mirror that gets strong direct sunlight. ) Many get stuck to the glass, but part of them often sticks out as a transparent waving filament. It can be spooky to watch them with a magnifying glass, because they will move in response to a finger, as if they are attracted to flesh... like a blindly seeking parasitic worm. (Uggh.)
You can 'play' with them. Pick one up with tweezers and note how 'clingy' it is and how almost LIVE it seems as it twists and squirms. It can grip your finger. No one is claiming that they are alive -- their movement could be due to electrostatic forces, or microcurrents of air caused by warm flesh -- but it is still deeply unsettling.
Careful searching can turn up a small menagerie of weird variants: short fluorescent orange ones; 2mm long microfilaments that are half blue, half yellow under UV light; some longer filaments that are mottled blue and orange under UV light and very motion reactive; 4mm long filaments that are blue with green ends; a mottled orange one with blue streaks (that seemed to twist and squirm to avoid the tweezers...); and a tiny blue one with neon green ends.
(They disturb me because they imply sophisticated engineering.)
We don't know what they are, or what they are for... but we did get a pretty good idea of where they are coming from.
With a few days of observation, it was clearly established that these 'microfilaments' are coming from the air outside. This can be proven by checking a clean dark cloth with a blacklight, then placing it outdoors for several hours or days, then bringing it in and checking it again with the blacklight.
They seem especially prevalent during rain. They cling more, and that doesn't make sense, because if they were affected by static electricity, wouldn't they be less attracting in damp air, not more? Yet, we will be covered with 'fresh' ones after coming in from the rain. It's the best collection time. I use tweezers and 35mm plastic film containers.
No one posting at Carnicom seems to have access to a photography microscope. We hope that someone with access to such will post some photomicrographs.
Manufactured, flattish, extruded, barbed, thorned, translucent, electroreactive filaments virtually invisible EXCEPT under long-tube ultraviolet light.
And, using a blacklight , we each can probably pick at least one hundred off our skin, hair and clothes .
Source, composition and purpose still completely unknown (by us citizens, anyhow.)
It's even worse than first 'discovering' chemtrails in 'your' sky, isn't it? The shock, the violation, the questions...
(And the same sheeple who can't 'see' chemtrails, can't seem to 'see' these either...)
This is a true frontier of scientific observation -- a mystery to us non-security-cleared/non-pharmecutical insider/non-military types -- so come add your own observations. Seldom has there been an opportunity to break new ground like this -- in your own home...
Especially needed are scientists -- biochemists, polymer chemists, microbiologists, asthma and respiratory condition researchers, people with access to powerful microscopes and testing facilities, etc. -- to join in the grassroots efforts to solve this mystery.
NEWEST UPDATED RESEARCH by professional polymer chemist R. Mike Castle
Chemtrails -- Bio-Active Crystalline Cationic Polymers
Read original article on Rense.com
January 12, 2009
Pay attention to non persistent and brief chemtrails that can appear as contrails. At low altitude we cannot see contrails, so, if you see a non persistent trail, this is a chemtrail like persistent chemtrails.
January 06, 2009
I began researching information for this column in hopes of finding an "antidote" to the chemtrail emergency (see pages 11-14). I must admit that I, too, was beginning to think that Morgellon’s and other chemtrail-induced illnesses could affect any warm-blooded human or animal on the planet and there was nothing we could do about it. As I was reading new material and reviewing information from my files, I found myself coming full circle to the teachings of my mentor, Dr. John R. Christopher, often referred to as the "father of American herbology. I now know that the wisdom of Dr. Christopher and his students, such as Dr. Richard Schulze, is just as applicable today in the world of "nanobots" and weaponized parasites, molds and fungi as it was when the world wasn’t so scientifically sinister.
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.
It really goes beyond that brief lesson in physiology. Our bodies are also electric with energy meridians running throughout our body that are linked bioenergetically to our endocrine glands and vital organs in a very real physical sense. These meridians are often blocked by our lifestyle choices, including negative emotions and thoughts. Getting clear about who you are as a spiritual being and your unique service work now actually becomes paramount if you want to survive the intense depopulation agenda being foisted upon us at lightning speed.
What should spiritual beings do? Live as close to nature as possible. If this is not possible, create a living space that surrounds you and your family with plant life, sprouting trays, and a vegetarian pet, giving you regular opportunities to share your appreciation of and love for the life forms existing in your space. This is essential to not only healing ourselves but our planet and God’s creations. I love what Arthur and Fiona Cristian in Australia had to say about chemtrails and surviving the "end times plagues" these chemtrails are foreshadowing.
They gave four basic recommendations at the end of an important chemtrail expose sent out by John Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF, www.iahf.com) that are posted to the website www.loveforlife.com.au:
With our own personal experiences we feel you only need to do the following to remove all chemtrail nasties from your body.
• Become a full on living/raw food eater - Stop cooking food and water and stop consuming meat, dairy and all other processed food and drink.
• Take MMS, the "Miracle Mineral Supplement" (see Back to Basics, Sept 2008.) A simple and effective way to oxygenate your body, MMS helps rid the body of parasites and fungi while relieving bad habits and "cravings."
• Take a quality liquid mineral supplement. (I would add that you should take a quality form of colloidal silver daily – one with an ionic or small micron size of silver.)
• Start growing all your food organically as soon as possible.
The Cristians warn people that they will likely feel really sick for a spell as their bodies detoxify. It is important to understand that these temporary sick spells are called "healing crises." When healing any chronic condition God and Nature’s way, it is important to understand Dr. Constantine Herring’s law of cure: "All [healing] starts from within out; from the head down and in the reverse order as the symptoms have appeared."
For instance, if you suppressed an ear infection with immuno-suppressive drugs sometime in your past, you will experience an intense ear ache for a few hours as part of your body’s detoxification process.
How to protect yourself by doing cleanses
As a result of researching the very real danger posed by chemtrails (see following four pages), Hammell recommends doing herbal cleanses on a regular basis in order to keep the nano particles in the chemtrails from being able to assemble in the body so that you can’t be microchipped from the inside and (thereby mind-controlled) and to purge your body of the parasites and heavy metals in the chemtrails.
The three cleanses that should be done on a regular basis are a parasite/colon cleanse, kidney cleanse, and gallbladder/liver cleanse. There is not a "one size fits all" protocol for everyone to follow when it comes to doing herbal cleanses for the simple reason that there are thousands of people with every imaginable health situation. There are basic guidelines, however. It’s up to you whether or not you consult with a naturopath or medical doctor when doing these cleanses (if you have any serious health problem, consulting with a health professional is strongly recommended).
If you have access to the Internet, a good place to start is at CureZone.com/cleanse where Dr. Hulda Clark’s protocols for the above-mentioned three cleanses are posted. We have also detailed colon cleansing, parasite and gallbladder flushes in past "Back to Basics" columns that can easily be accessed via The Idaho Observer website. Another excellent source of information on these three basic cleanses is in Dr. Richard Schultze’s newsletters posted at www.HerbDoc.com. For a complete catalog of his superb products that make these cleanses "easy," call 800-HerbDoc.
In our radiation-saturated world, many people test positive for parasites and overgrowths of candida albicans. As a result of our bodies being bombarded with microwaves, iodine deficiencies are now the "norm" as well as deficiencies in all the "alkaline" minerals. It is important to do these cleanses in a space that is not close to celltowers or saturated with radiation from cordless DECT phones, microwave ovens or household use of cellphones. Being constantly exposed to microwaves weakens the body’s ability to purge itself of heavy metals and other toxins that provide the perfect environment for parasites and fungi.
The three herbs that are used for doing a parasite flush in conjunction with a colon cleanse are black walnut leaves or hulls, wormwood and cloves. Raw garlic is also recommended. It is worth noting that black walnut trees—the leaves, the hulls and the inner bark—contain an organic and, therefore, highly assimilable form of iodine (32 micrograms per pound according to Dr. Christopher). Clinical experimentation in the 1960s has shown that the ellagic acid in black walnuts affords an ideal protective antidote to electrical shock, accidental electrocution and lightning mishaps [See "Preliminary Pharmacology of Ellagic Acid from Juglans nigra (Black Walnut)"; Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 57:1731, October 1968].
Black walnut is best known as a powerful vermifuge, used specifically in the treatment of ringworm, tape worm and other intestinal parasites. It has also been used as an effective treatment for tuberculosis, lupus, diphtheria, syphilis, herpes, tonsillitis, eczema and all manner of skin rashes and abscesses.
In India and Pakistan the oil of black walnut is used to treat leprosy. Dr. Christopher gained fame in the U.S. Army during WWII for his treatment of an "incurable" case of impetigo at Fort Lewis in Washington state using black walnut tincture externally. According to Dr. Christopher, black walnut is a miracle worker when used externally in cases of scrofula, impetigo, eczema, acne, dandruff, boils, and shingles. The tincture is also an excellent first aid, antiseptic remedy for wounds. Black walnut has also been used successfully in the treatment of poisonous snake and insect bites.
Detoxification involves taking a substance internally that mobilizes or attaches to the toxins needing removal from the body, and then making sure the substance along with the toxins are eliminated efficiently.
One of the most under-estimated means of removing heavy metals and other poisons from the body is the use of clay, both internally and externally.
The list of healing properties attributed to clay happens to be nearly identical to those of black walnut. Clay has a negative electrical attraction for particles that are positively charged. Most toxic poisons and pathogens are positively charged. This is why toxins are irresistibly drawn towards the clay.
Clay is composed of flat, microscopic, square-shaped "flakes." Laid edge-to-edge, one gram of these particles has the surface area of around 800 square meters or about 10 football fields. The greater the surface area, the greater is its power to pick up positively charged particles.
Calcium bentonite, also known as "montmorillonite," is the most popular clay for use internally in North America, although there are many different clays throughout the world that have the same therapeutic properties. Acupuncturist Julie Christ wrote the following in her article, Clay—The Healing Underground: "Bentonite attracts and neutralizes poisons in the intestinal tract. It can eliminate food allergies, food poisoning, mucus colitis, spastic colitis, viral infections, stomach flu, and parasites (parasites are unable to reproduce in the presence of clay). There is virtually no digestive disease that clay will not treat. It enriches and balances blood. It absorbs radiation (think cell phones, microwaves, x-rays, TVs and irradiated food, for starters). It has been used for alcoholism, arthritis, cataracts, diabetic neuropathy, pain treatment, open wounds, diarrhea, hemorrhoids, stomach ulcers, animal and poisonous insect bites, acne, anemia, in fact, the list of uses is too long for this article. It was used during the Balkan war of 1910 to reduce mortality from cholera among the soldiers from 60 to three percent." According to Dr. David G. Williams, researchers at Arizona State University found that certain clays killed several forms of pathogenic bacteria, including staphylococcus aureus (staph), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), penicillin-resistant S. aureus (PRSA) and E. coli. The number of infections and deaths attributed to MRSA has risen dramatically in the U.S., much higher than cases of and deaths attributed to AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, influenza and tuberculosis (see related article this page).
Clay baths. The results people experience using this method are phenomenal and definitely worth the money when it comes to getting metals and other chemicals out of your body. It takes a few baths to have the full effect but after the first successful bath, you will likely be "hooked" and want to share this method with others. Twelve specific clay baths, each bath enhanced with herbs designed to pull out particular contaminant(s) needing removal, are available at www.magneticclay.com
Ionic Foot baths and Foot pads. This is a fairly innovative way of pulling out heavy metals and other toxins through the feet. Many practitioners who use the foot baths in their offices recommend drinking a lot of water afterwards followed by ionic mineral supplementation. There are numerous fabulous testimonies with these baths, though lab analysis of the water after treatments is rare. The foot pad method works on the same principle of pulling out metals/toxins through the feet; this method being fairly effortless since one applies the pads to the soles of their feet when they go to bed at night.
A testimonial at www.bodypurenow.com is by a dentist who claims the following toxins came out of his body through his feet—mercury, isopropyl alcohol, benzene, nickel, asbestos, dimethylaminoazobenzene and PCBs. This same website offers a free analysis of the toxins in used foot pads that are purchased from them.
CAUTION. One Internet blogger advises caution when eliminating heavy metals, parasites and fungi—specifically for those who are experiencing Morgellon’s disease or suspect that the nanotechnology has been in them for years and has likely become integrated into their biological system. She claims her advise comes from " personal experience."
References for further research:
1. "Whistle blower contacts IAHF with
inside info on chemtrails: How to detox and protect ourselves"
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
January 04, 2009
"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.
In this article we'll see that Italian people are involved in tampering the above-mentioned volume.
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.
On the last page of this book we can notice a label put by some librarian on the which it is printed: "pages missing: 125". What does it mean? What we can observe by turning over the pages is that page 125 is filled of chemical trails pictures passed off as contrails and that on this page we don't find 125 and any number printed. Why? Was the original page removed and substituted with a fake one? In addition pages 127, 128 and 129 are mended with numerous pieces of adhesive tape. Is it normal?
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.
Subsequently it's comprehensible that the "Clouds of the world" monograph was manipulated by following N.A.S.A. ideological dictates that now are spread by C.I.C.A.P. to give explanation about chemtrails.
Another particularity is that there are no references to the relative humidity parameters! Is it mistake or a premeditated omission? Sorry to say there are other surprises and concerns the other book "A colour guide to clouds" printed in 1963: this volume has the same evident and clumsy tampering of "Clouds of the world" and it is used exactly like it, as it was a bible, by Epoxynous from contrailscience.com and Italian debunkers (Riccardo Cassinis alias nonnob, axlman, scie-nziato, Michele Galloni alias hanmar, acarsterminator alias Michele "Attivissimo" etc.) which promptly pass news to Paolo Attivissimo (C.I.C.A.P. member).
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
Submission in the European Parliament of written questions on “chemtrails” by Dutch Socialist deputy Erik Meijer will be seen as a positive development by some activists. Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new phase in the years-long saga of this aerosol-spraying activity, and of the stigmatized opposition to it?. (See the present writer’s: “Climate Change Jekylls and Hydes”). Meijer’s written questions, under the heading “Aircraft condensation trails which no longer only contain water but cause persistent milky veils, possibly due to the presence of barium and aluminium”, are not the first such submission to have been tabled in a European legislature: in 2005 the Democratic Left deputies Italo Sandi and Piero Ruzzante raised similar questions in the Italian Parliament. More recently their political associates Asimina Xirotiri and Fotis Kouvelis did the same in Greece . But faced with the stereotyped and uninformative responses such questions receive from official spokespersons, the reaction of parliamentarians is to become discouraged - or at any rate inactive and inaccessible - perhaps not perceiving what they should do next and for that reason reluctant to have too much contact with citizens still pressing them for action and/or answers, whom they are obliged to confront “with empty hands”.
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
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.
Another example of shriekingly radical climate change discussion on bogus foundations is provided by the 2005 BBC Horizon documentary on Global Dimming.. Focusing on the phenomenon of declining levels of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface in recent years, (between the 1950s and the early 1990s the level of solar energy reaching the earth's surface dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, almost 30% in Russia, 16% in parts of the British Isles) the programme again studiously avoids mention of geoengineering, attributing the rise in aerosol levels in the earth’s atmosphere, with subsequent global dimming, to some unspecified “air pollution” from industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels, including in aviation.
“Perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming” says the programme script “is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect….. it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought..”
The strongest warning in the programme on the implications of global dimming (including perhaps the clearest, though still veiled, hints on the factor of deliberate intervention, or “geoengineering”) comes from the climate scientist Peter Cox: “If we carry on pumping out particles it will have terrible impact on human health, I mean particles are involved in all sorts of respiratory diseases…. If you, if you fiddle with the, the balance of the planet, the radiative balance of the planet, you affect all sorts of circulation patterns like monsoons….. it will be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to cancel out the greenhouse effect just by carrying on pumping out particles, even if it wasn't for the fact that particles are damaging for human health.”
The programme relies heavily for its effect on the proposition that “dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia , home to half the world's population.” “What came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa , and afflicted 50 million more. But this could be just of taste of what Global Dimming has in store.”
The climate modeller Gavin Schmidt, in no way a climate change “sceptic”, queried the plausibility of this thesis, saying that: “The argument that (global dimming) would lead to huge re-assessments of future global warming, that it was linked very clearly to the famines in Ethiopia, in the 1980s, with the implication that worse is to come, is horribly premature. The suggested ‘doubling’ of the rate of warming in the future compared to even the most extreme scenario developed by IPCC is highly exaggerated. Supposed consequences such as the drying up of the Amazon Basin , melting of Greenland, and a North African climate regime coming to the UK , are simply extrapolations built upon these exaggerations. Whether these conclusions are actually a fair summary of what the scientists quoted in the program wanted to say is unknown. However, while these extreme notions might make good television, they do a disservice to the science.”
Most of the scientists who appeared on the programme proved willing to discuss its style and content and most expressed similar, though more nuanced, objections. Beate Liepert said that “during the research process for the documentary I repeatedly raised my concerns about linking the indirect effect and the Sahel drought.” Graham Farquar said: “The program was not scripted in the way that I would have done. But I guess that you'd have to say that if I scripted it, only my mother would have watched it.” David Travis said: “I believe the Horizons show on global dimming was definitely over-produced and over-dramatized. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Without such effects much of the younger audience would likely have lost interest half-way through and the sort of discussions that are going on now would probably not be happening. I did however find myself feeling uncomfortable in spots where statements seemed a bit too bold without sufficient evidence to back them up (even one of my own!). Leo Rotstayn said: I agree that some of the words in the Global Dimming documentary were alarmist. It screened in Australia a few weeks ago, with some changes to the voice over to make it a little less alarmist. It seems to have had a strong impact on many people who saw it, and I have mixed feelings about whether it is justified to be slightly ‘alarmist’ in order to get a strong message across. After all, if I had written the documentary, complete with caveats and qualifications, it would have put most of the viewers to sleep! On the other hand, as a professional scientist, I feel that it is important to be as accurate as possible.”
In a message to Gavin Schmidt, the programme’s producer David Sington said: “I want to refute the notion that Peter Cox, or any other scientist taking part in this or in any other of the films I have made, was "mugged" with trick questions and made to seem to say things he does not believe. …. Dr Schmidt's suggestion is a serious libel (tantamount to accusing a scientist of falsifying his or her data). “The Horizon film” he concluded “was seen by 3.5 million viewers (representing about 7% of the adult population of the UK ) and that copies were requested by the Prime Minister's office. The issues it discussed are being actively debated in Britain .”
From the communications of a number of individuals on both sides of the “climate change” debate it is clear that following the screening of the programme to such a large audience, David Sington was deluged with e-mails from British people concerned about “chemtrails” and/or geoengineering. It is equally clear that he was absolutely determined to keep his distance from the “conspiracy theorists”, even boasting about this to a climate change contrarian who wrote to him to complain about the Global Dimming programme’s sensationalism and “bias”. Having taken receipt of Sington’s ingratiating reply, the contrarian then leaked their private correspondence onto the Internet. Sington could not have been pleased about this. Could he have avoided all these problems by making a different documentary: less sensationalistic, more truthful, more adequate?
Erik Meijer’s questions in the European Parliament were answered on behalf of the Commission by Environmental Commissioner Stavros Dimas. A Greek conservative politician with a Wall Street and World Bank background, Dimas has nevertheless, in particular through his standing feud with Enterprise and Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, acquired a reputation of being relatively sympathetic to the objectives of the environmental movement. In one of his first speeches to the European Parliament as Environmental Commissioner he identified his policy priorities as climate change, biodiversity, public health and sustainability. The Greens and the left-wing GUE/NGL (Erik Meijer’s grouping) opposed his appointment, calling him “incompetent”, but the Greens later changed position and in recent years they have co-operated with Dimas on environmental issues.
In December 2004 at UN climate change talks in Buenos Aires Dimas attempted to negotiate a new system of mandatory emissions reductions to follow the expiration of the initial Kyoto targets in 2012. This brought him into head-on conflict with the U.S. government. Dimas is on record as saying “the fight against climate change is much more than a battle. It is a world war that will last many years.” In 2006 he launched a high-profile campaign for including aviation in the European Union emissions trading scheme.
Let us examine Commissioner Dimas’ answers to Erik Meijer:
To Meijer’s first question of whether the Commission is aware of the questions the public is asking, Dimas replied: “The Commission is aware of claims that such trends and phenomena exist. However, the Commission is not aware of any evidence substantiating such claims. The extent to which aircraft condensation trails form and the speed at which they disappear are in the first instance determined by pressure, temperature, and the relative humidity of a given flight level. Fuel and combustion properties and the overall propulsive efficiency may also have an impact. Any changes or trends in the extent to which contrails are reported to remain visible and develop into more widespread clouds may thus be due to factors such as changes in
- meteorological conditions
- traffic volumes
- jet-engine efficiency”
To the second question about the content of what were being called “chemtrails” , Dimas replied: “The Commission is aware of such claims but is not aware of any evidence that particles of barium, aluminium or iron are being emitted, deliberately or not, by aircraft.”
To the third question of whether the spraying helps to cause rain, benefit telecommunications or combat climate change, the reply was: “No. It cannot be precluded that the release of such particles might affect precipitation and climate change, but as indicated above the Commission is not aware of any evidence that such releases take place.”
To the fourth question on whether “chemtrails” are now being employed in Europe the reply was: “The Commission is not aware of any evidence that such methods are being employed in Europe .”
To the fifth question on possible disadvantages of the spraying, the Commissioner replied: “None of the substances referred to are hazardous per se, but some effects on environment and public health can not be ruled out if large scale releases to the air occurred.”
To the sixth question on whether the European Union is co-ordinating action to prevent unilateral actions with cross-border impact, Stavros Dimas said: “The Commission is not aware of any evidence suggesting that there is any reason to act.”
Rosalind Peterson’s comments
So far the only comments available on Dimas’ reply to Erik Meijer are those made by the Californian farm activist Rosalind Peterson. Arguably the most effective “realpolitiker” amongst the chemtrails opponents, Peterson has adopted a tactic of avoiding the term “chemtrail” and ignoring distinctions between “accidental” airline emissions and the “deliberate” use of aircraft emissions for geoengineering purposes. What this amounts to of course is ignoring the most likely reasons for the strategy of avoidance and deceit practised by governments. But it is a tactic that appears to have paid off, insofar as Rosalind Peterson has been invited to speak in September 2007 to a United Nations meeting of Non-Governmental Organizations in New York. This makes her the only chemtrails activist to have received anything approaching this degree of recognition.