Thursday 11 August 2011
My reply email from Air Traffic control. Regarding a chemtrail.
I will start by showing some of the photos taken on the day.
To let you know we do live on a flight parth for all commercial aircraft coming into Adelaide. Also daily we have commercial aircraft like " Qantas" flying from Melbourne " East" to Perth "West" at a average height of 35,000 feet..
The following is a email I received from Airservices Australia who are a Governing corporation that handle all Air Traffic control in Australia.
I wrote to them enquiring information on a chemtrail that we [ Wife ] saw on 15 September 2010 being dumped right over us. The plane was spotted coming from a Westerly direction and heading S/E direction flying a low altitude.
The chemtrail lasted in the sky for around 3hrs while spreading a finally covering the sky in a grey mist.
Dear Mr B.........
Thank you for your inquiry. Please accept my apologies for the delays in responding.
Aircraft regularly overfly Adelaide at high altitudes and at times may leave 'contrails' as described. Depending on atmospheric conditions, these can last for a few seconds or minutes, or be visible for several hours.
[ Gary ] I have never seen a contrail last for several hours !!.
While we are not able to identify the particular aircraft responsible for the contrail you witnessed on 15 September based on the information provided, the flight route described is not unusual.
[ Gary ] “Not able to identify the particular aircraft”. According to your web site you handle all Air Traffic control. Which means according to my understanding you should be able to identify all aircraft in the air space.
International flights between Perth and destinations in South-East Asia may overfly Adelaide as airlines look to take advantage of favourable winds at high levels before turning north.
“Airlines look to take advantage of favourable winds at high levels before turning north”
[ Gary ] Why would you fly from Perth head s/e past Adelaide do a u-turn fly North if you were heading for South East Asia with no stops in between.
In addition, some long haul flights between the Middle East and airports on the Australian east coast also fly over Adelaide.
These flights occur on a daily basis, but in most conditions would be invisible to an observer on the ground due to the height at which the aircraft is flying.
I trust this information assists with your inquiry.
Regards
Matt Wardell Senior Adviser External Communication Corporate and International Affairs.
Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam
As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don’t like this stuff getting out).
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society 6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
§ 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
(e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
Australia's backing for geo-engineering cops international criticism
High-level international discussions are focussing on the threats of a more direct form of climate intervention – 'geo-engineering'. The UN's Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice recently recommended a formal moratorium on carrying out geo-engineering experiments.
But in March this year, the Victorian government was the sole 'strategic partner' and major sponsor of a heavily promoted conference devoted to advancing geo-engineering. The 'Asilomar' conference represented a huge practical and public relations push by geo-engineering proponents to give the controversial sector a veneer of respectability.
So why did the Victorian government not only provide $250,000 in funding to be the sole 'strategic partner' of the conference, but also commit to advocate for the conference recommendations – sight unseen? There are already international perceptions that Australia is not serious about reducing greenhouse emissions. Efforts at Copenhagen to negotiate climate agreements that favoured Australian industry at the expense of rigorous emissions reduction provoked strong criticism from other delegates. Now, given the parlous state of international negotiations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a significant concern is that unproven geo-engineering techno-fixes will be used as a smokescreen for inaction.
Geo-engineering, or large-scale intentional climate manipulation, remains an untested, largely hypothetical and high-risk new sector. Many eminent scientists are sceptical that sending small mirrors into outer space, pumping sulphate nanoparticles into the stratosphere or triggering giant algal blooms in the ocean, will really save us from dangerous climate change. Some suggest that the unintended consequences could be catastrophic.
Nonetheless, there are no shortage of techno-optimists and entrepreneurs willing to bet they can find a quick techno-fix to climate change. In May, the London Times newspaper revealed that a team of scientists and engineers funded by billionaire Bill Gates are planning to carry out a 10,000 square kilometre 'cloud-whitening' experiment. If it goes ahead, this 'cloud-bleaching' experiment would be the largest known geo-engineering field trial to date.
At present, there are few rules or restrictions on carrying out geo-engineering experiments, irrespective of their ecological risk. A 2008 meeting of 191 nations at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity supported a de facto moratorium on ocean fertilisation (which Australia, Brazil and China opposed until the last minute). However this has been poorly policed. There are no restrictions on atmospheric manipulation.
Serious scientific concern exists about the ecological and social risks of geo-engineering experiments gone wrong – disruption to regional rainfall and weather patterns, acidified oceans and soils, depletion of the ozone layer, crop failure and population displacement. Geo-engineering is also vulnerable to misuse by self-interested actors for commercial, political or military purposes.
Fossil fuel proponents are already trying to use geo-engineering as a reason to postpone measures to cut emissions and are doing their best to win government supporters, especially among those nations dependent on emission-intensive industries. So at a time when scientists are trying hard to regain momentum for international action to reduce emissions, efforts by the Victorian government to promote geo-engineering are particularly unhelpful.
The Victorian government has taken action to drive investment in renewable energy. Yet recent analysis by Green Energy Markets, commissioned by Environment Victoria, found that renewables still contribute only 5.4% to Victoria's electricity generation – up less than 1% from 2000 − while 91.5% comes from burning coal. Over the past decade, Victoria's carbon emissions from burning brown coal have grown by nearly 10%.
Hazelwood, one of the dirtiest power stations in the industrialised world, was due to be decommissioned last year. The Brumby government extended its operation for another 20 years. Worse, the government supports building more coal-fired plants. Documents leaked last year also revealed that some in state Cabinet want to establish a brown coal export market.
At the same time as Victoria is considering an expansion of its dirty brown coal sector, and while renewables are languishing, the state's sponsorship of the high profile geo-engineering meeting is a very bad look.
Obama’s Plan To “Geo-Engineer” The Planet Mirrors CFR Policy Documents
The Obama administration’s announcement that it is to consider radical planetary “geo-engineering”, such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”, exactly mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.
Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming.
The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”
Such ideas exactly mirror those put forth by the CFR in previous years.
In briefing notes (PDF) published in May 2008 from the CFR’s Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the elite internationalist group lays out the exact same radical ideas now being touted by the Obama administration.
The following excerpts are taken from the document:
Geoengineering Strategies
Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:
1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.
[…]
Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).
Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.
Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols.
The CFR’s geo-engineering research program is directed by David G. Victor a Professor at Stanford Law School and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also involved are M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering, Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.
In an article entitled The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming? published in this month’s Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s monthly magazine, the directors once again lay out their ideas for planetary terraforming, calling for a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions.
Obama’s push toward a so called “cap and trade” carbon taxation program is also a direct descendant of Victor et al’s CFR policy formation.
A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from 1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically states that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy for global warming” is the implementation of a global Carbon Tax.
The memo also pedantically explains how the perceived fear of global warming can be used to sell to Americans what is essentially a tax on air:
“While taxing tea pales in comparison to taxing air as a perceived government affront, the clear benefits of a taxation policy to combat global warming might convince even the descendents of our tax-resistant Founding Fathers.”
The tentative announcement by the Obama administration of the existence of geoengineering research programs is a first step toward introducing the idea to the wider public.
However, as we highlighted in our master article yesterday, geo-engineering is undoubtedly already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to terraform the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
Further Research: Here is an extremely valuable file folder containing 8 PDFs, all published by the CFR, and all concerning their Geo-Engineering Program
Scientists Admit Chemtrails Are Creating Artificial Clouds
Scientists now admit that emissions from aircraft are forming artificial clouds that block out the sun, precisely what geoengineering advocates like top eugenicist and White House science advisor John P. Holdren have called for, but the article tries to insinuate that the effect is caused by natural “vapours,” when in reality it can be attributed to chemtrails that contain substances harmful to humans.
“The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 30C. This causes water vapour emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails,” writes Oliver Tree for the Daily Mail.
“Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine, an expert in clouds, said that those formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”
“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.”
The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.
Of course, this is no natural phenomenon as the article claims. Ten years ago, contrails from jet aircraft disappeared within minutes, yet apparently we are led to believe that the same substance is now causing the trails to linger for hours and form into clouds. This is impossible without something within the substance having been changed.
Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced.
In reality, chemtrails are the consequence of the agenda to geoengineer the earth in the name of combating climate change, a science vehemently backed by people like John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience advocated poisoning the water supply to involuntarily sterilize humans as part of a “planetary regime” that would control every aspect of our existence. The fact that such eugenicists are now in control of geoengineering programs that will have a direct impact on our health is alarming.
Geoengineering programs have also been promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations, which is one of the main steering committees behind the implementation of global governance.
A recent report issued by the UK government also calls for the UN to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
Discussion of geoengineering technology is often framed as a future consideration, yet governments are already conducting such programs at an advanced stage.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.
One of ARM’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”.
Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”
The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”
U.S. government scientists are already bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers
DR HOROWITZ INTERVIEW ON CHEMTRAILS
Dr. Horowitz is an internationally acclaimed authority on public health with a Masters Degree in Public Health and Behavorial Sciences from Harvard and a Masters Degree in Health Ed from Tufts. He has served on the faculties of several universities including Harvard and Tufts. Dr. Horowitz, author of several best sellers.
DR. LEONARD HOROWITZ INTERVIEW ON CHEMTRAILS
REDDEN: What about the current controversy over chemtrails - the theory that airplanes are spraying the population with some kind of chemical or biological weapon. As I understand it, a number of researchers believe that many of the contrails in the skies these days are not the normal contrails formed by high-flying jets, but are actually trails of chemical or biological agents which spread out and then fall on the earth.
HOROWITZ: ... I believe the chemtrails are responsible for a chemical intoxication of the public, which would then cause a general immune suppression, low grade to high grade, depending on exposure. An immune dysfunction, which would then allow people to become susceptible to opportunistic infections, such as mycoplasma and other opportunistic infections.
REDDEN: So you believe that high-flying planes are, in fact, spraying something on the population, that the theory is real?
HOROWITZ: There's no question that it's real. There's no doubt about that. I first began to investigate chemtrails when some were sprayed over my home in Northern Idaho. I found out from one of the chief toxologists at the CDC that Ethlyne Dibromide was being added to the jet fuel. Now EDB is a known human chemical carcinogen that was removed from unleaded gas because of it's cancer causing effects. Now suddenly it has appeared in the jet fuel that apparently high-altitude military aircraft are emitting.
REDDEN: Why has ethylene dibromide been added to jet fuel?
HOROWITZ: When you examine who owns the fuel, who are the fuel company directors, suddenly you enter into the realm of the Rockefeller family, the royal families, Standard Oil and British Petroleum. And what are their other agendas? ... documents show that historically, they have funded eugenics, genocide, depopulation, family planning...
HOROWITZ: You're looking at decision-makers who have, for whatever reasons, decided to put this toxic waste into jet fuels for human exposure, what ultimately's going to be human exposure. And it just so happens that these same people have put a lot of money into reducing world populations...,
REDDEN: As I understand it, this [chemtrails] is not just an American epidemic, but it's gone across Europe.
HOROWITZ: That's right. I've got colleagues over there, I've got colleagues in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Toronto, British Columbia all reporting the same bizarre seeding of the atmosphere. It's horrible. What is going on is just despicable.
REDDEN: One reason I'm interested in this subject is, I personally know three people who had the exact same thing happen to them. First they came down with flu-like symptoms which didn't go away. Then the doctor said their flu had developed into a bacterial infection. Then they were all gi...
REDDEN: Then they were all given a brand new antibiotic they had never taken before and they all had serious allergic reactions. What happened to them?
HOROWITZ: OK, what you're looking at with this upper respiratory infection is that it is a multi-factoral illness. It's associated with a variety of chemical and biological co-factors. Just like with AIDS, it's not the AIDS virus that ultimately kills, it's co-factor microbes such as the mycoplasma. What you have could be described as an ideal Russian biological cocktail. And I suppose it's called a Russian biological cocktail because the Americans most likely invented it.
What they determined would be the best biological chemical warfare approach was a combination of chemicals and biologicals, so that it would be very difficult to diagnose and then treat the illnesses.
REDDEN: A point of clarification. Are You saying that the fungus is working with the chemtrails and the antibiotic to make people sick?
HOROWITZ: Exactly. And you've got somebody who's going to be chronically ill. And in the contemporary warfare arena, where experts in biological chemical warfare convene and discuss the ways that are ideal to conduct warfare today, to really take an enemy out, you don't want to kill the people. You want to produce people who are chronically ill and become dependent on the state and totally sap the resources of the country
HOW TO TEST YOUR WATER
The very best time to sample is after several days of visible stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering (white lines criss-crossing the sky; lines that turn into clouds).If you test on a day that didn't come AFTER trails, your samples will not contain a geo-engineering sample.
Secondly, testing is really easy and really cheap. Our lab, Basic Lab. in Redding California, charges 21 dollars per element.
RAIN AND SNOW
1- If you can get brand new, never used mason jars, all the better. But CLEAN used jars and lids will work.
2- Place as many of these into the rain, snow as possible (you can pour all their contents into one jar...its hard to get a full sample using one jar to catch but a bunch does the trick).
NOTE: When transferring from one container to another, IT IS CRITICAL TO RE-SUSPEND the sample...shake the jar with the lid on, or stir with a sterilized instrument. Aternatively, you can 'back and forth' the samples, allowing a little "fall" to create enough turbulence to re-suspend any contaminents that may be stuck to the glass.
3- Keep your sampling jars AWAY FROM roofs, trees, plants, your dog....anything that can drop contaminents into the jar...clear open sky above the testing jar. Rainwater collected froma metal roof will give you a metals reading....no good.
4- Get all your samples into one jar (see "NOTE" above), seal with the lid and ring and place into refrigerator. Its imperative that this sample now go onto the lab as soon as possible. We usually collect and take the sample no later than the next morning.
5- Take the sample to your local lab, use a lab that tests 'well water'...they are certified and this is easy for them. Call them first, make sure you have the right lab. You ARE NOT looking for something like a 'well analysis'...which is pretty expensive...you just want to test a rain sample, in a sterile mason jar for specific metals.
6- Tell them to test for aluminum at least, preferably aluminum and barium. Add onto that Strontium and all the rest if you feel rich today. If you have financial means we suggest that you test the full spectrum of reported metals (you will need to research this a little, try dontchemtrailmebro.com), including sulpher hexaflouride, magneseum and titanium.
SURFACE WATER
Surface water tests have the highest numbers and will really freak you out when you get the results.
If you are testing a pond, then the only thing different is how you collect the sample. The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water....the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment.
You will need to put the lid on underwater before you lift the jar off the bottom and out of the water....thats it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)