It happens all over the world without any public approval. In Germany, Italy, the UK, China, America, airplanes are leaving ominous trails across the sky. These aerosol trails contain particles that linger for hours, get dispersed by the wind and eventually falling to earth.
Starting in WWII as a way to manipulate radar systems, the military would spread particle clouds in the sky containing aluminum, metallized glass fibers, or plastic. The particles would give a false echo on radar systems and proved to be perfect cover for airplanes over a battlefield. This program called CHAFF is still being used in American skies without any real explanation as to why.
Now this type of intervention in our stratosphere has been applied to geo-engineering in the form of weather modification. The most publicized event was the 2008 Olympics where the Chinese used chemicals to control rainfall in Beijing and this is happening all over the world without any regard to the leaching of chemicals into the environment.
In Germany a meteorologist has sued the military for chemtrails that he has repeatedly recorded on radar. The trails were so big he said that there must have been tons of particles dropped to create a cloud so huge that seamed to appear instantly on radars. All of those particles fall to the ground and absorbed into the environment.
In the US an Arkansas man recorded planes leaving trails in the sky and collected a sample of particles that floated down afterward. When he gave the sample to a news agency they had it tested and the results showed unusually high levels of Barium.
Mark Ryan a director of the center for disease control says that short term exposure to Barium can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and long term exposure causes blood pressure problems and functions to weaken the immune system.
The Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) wrote in a briefing titled Unilateral Geo-engineering that despite great uncertainty and significant risks such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems geo-engineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system.
The bottom line is that geo-engineering may not work as expected, impose large unintended consequences on climate systems as well as terrestrial ecosystems, and the public is not given a choice on the issue of usage.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsQ2KnIvH0
http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf
http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=chaff+%2B+2009&affiliate=noaa.gov
Comments
Choice?
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008.
It is a "choice" between "acceptance of a massive natural cull" or resorting to a geoengineering scheme. Gee, I wonder what "choice" the generation living then will make?
The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008
Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing
Brad, Thanks for that comment.
It is true what you are saying.
Do we act to solve the problem or just let everyone build more coal plants and increase the pollution exponentially.
I just want a better solution then dumping tons of particles in the sky that you know are going to end up in the water system.
I wrote about a company called Xogen.
Take a look. They offer the choice that I want for my water and energy needs.
Meaning if everyone had that technology we would not need coal plants.
Xogen is what we need to be taking about because you should have that choice also.
Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Energy.
You should double-check your sources. I have been seriously studying the so-called "chemtrails" story for a while, and there is no evidence at all that any wide-scale spreading of chemicals is going on. Chaff and local weather modification systems (cloud seeding) are well known, and no one denies their existance. But they are completely different things, and have nothing to do with global climate control, besides being used only occasionally.
The chemtrails story is definitely a hoax, spread by some individuals who make a living out of selling books, DVD's and other media, or who want to gain political consensus among poorly-informed and easy to deceive people.
One last remark: as far as I know, no German meteorologist ever sued the military. The story is completely different, and the way you reported it demonstrates once again how the whole matter is being intentionally distorted by hoaxers.
To Riccardo Cassinis:
It must be you to double-check your sources. Never heard about an official and now declassified document of US Air Force titled "Weather as a Force Multiplier: owning the weather in 2025"? You should really search for it and you'd read how weather can be manipulated and become a mass destruction weapon. You're totally disinformed or a real debunker...
Max,
of course I know and have read OTW along with dozens of other documents. Stating that something COULD be done (without explaining exactly how) does not mean that it IS being done. You may find on the Internet instructions for building a home-made atomic bomb or a perpetual motion engine, but this doesn't mean that someone has ever built one.
I am not saying that controlling the weather with aircraft-released stuff is unfeasible: I just say that it is not being done right now, because it would be too expensive and because the technology is not ready yet. On the other hand, some of the "alternative" uses of "chemtrails", such as mass mind control, are totally unfeasible and deserve no attention.
On the other hand, there is positive scientific evidence that the vast majority of plumes reported as chemtrails CANNOT be anything else than contrails.
If by "debunker" you mean one who uses his/her scientific knowledge to help other people not to be fooled, yes, I am proud of being one
Hi Riccardo, Thanks for your comment.
It is good to be sceptical about things because sceptics are just looking for more proof.
Debunkers want to disprove something no matter what the evidence.
Look at the 1977 senate hearings were it was confirmed that biological testing was done on 239 populated areas in America between 1949 and 1969.
Go to the NOAA website and search the word CHAFF and you can see there are many reports and chatter about the stuff.
Below is the link to the German meteorologist case I had sited.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsQ2KnIvH0
Hi Max,
Thanks for the information.
Check the link below to see what the council on foreign relations is saying about Geo-engineering.
www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf
Hi Chris, thank you for hosting my comments.
Nothing of what you wrote sounds new to me. A few quick answers:
I am aware of the 1977 senate hearings. But please consider the scale: MKultra was an American project involving a limited number of people. Chemtrails would be a worldwide conspiration with thousands and thousands of aircraft (civil and military), not to mention millions of people involved. A bit hard to keep it secret, don't you think?
Chaff is a well-known radar countermeasure. Has nothing to do with weather modification nor with mind control.
The linked movie is a perfect example of what I wrote earlier. It was produced by the most active Italian hoaxer, and the translations of the interviews were extensively faked. The meteorologist is saying that some dueppel (German for chaff) spread in an unusually wide area. That's all. He is not speaking about chemtrails. You may check www(dot)worldweather.net/news/specials.mv?action=show&id=5947 for what he really thinks.
"i casini di cassinis" sparisci,debunker corrotto
Another thing, which I find amazing, is that chemtrails fans seldom dare telling their names, and prefer anonymous and totally un-motivated insults, as can be seen in the previous message.
Anyway, I don't want to waste time and bandwidth on childish controversies: if anyone wants to raise serious contrails-related matters I will be more than happy to discuss them; otherwise, I certainly have other ways on spending my free time.
After all, I am a scientist (professionally speaking), and, believe it or not, no one is paying me a cent for talking about aircraft trails.
Riccardo, I am glad you are looking at this issue carefully.
Geo-engineering is not a world wide conspiracy but there is a world wide interest in weather modification and many companies that CLAIM they can do it. Is it a good idea to use chemicals to fight a pollution problem? We dont know what the long term affects are to the environment, people, animals, even things like bees, do we risk to make (colony collapse disorder) or worse. Einstein said that if bees die we will soon follow.
You dont need thousands of airplanes to do this stuff either. They have ground based technology like rockets and towers to seed clouds.
Now I offer a solution to pollution Xogen a Canadian company that has patented technology to clean waste water and produce clean burning hydrogen energy at the same time. Instead of putting a band-aid on the problem in the form of weather
modification that we dont know the environmental consequences why dont we try replacing all those coal plants around the world.
Chris,
I have no problems agreeing with most of your statements. I am not at all in favor of a chemical solution to the global warming problem. But some things should be made clear. You just said that geoengineering is NOT a conspiracy. I agree. Researchers are discussing about something that hasn't been done yet. Chemtrails fans instead claim they kept doing it for years. This statement alone makes you a debunker in their minds.
One more thing: I don't know of any ground-based technology for the global warming project. There is Prof. Salter's proposal to use ships, but I know him in person and I can say he is a "dreaming genius", but his ideas aren't usually very practical. What you talk about is cloud seeding, that has completely different purposes (cloud seeding turns clouds into rain, while the geoengineering project aims at creating a reflective layer that would increase the Earth's albedo.
Sorry for not being very clear, but space is limited and English is not my mother tongue
Riccardo, You are right, NOT a conspiracy, just a world wide mistake in the making.
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said it well: "Geo-engineering is creeping onto the agenda because governments seem incapable of standing up to the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby"
For me, the term geo-engineering includes cloud seeding, chaff, or any other foreign substance introduced into the environment for the purpose of affect. Reflecting the sunlight with particles sounds very clever but is actually only temporary and might deplete the ozone that protects the earth all the time. I was reading Bill Gates filed patents for weather modification tech using ships. I cant find the link to the exact tower but here is something that is the same tower idea www.weathermod.com/seeding_equipment.php
I think your opinion can serve knowledge well and I wanted to hear your thoughts about the company www.Xogen.ca
Chris, I don't think it is correct to include all the things you mention into the term "geoengineering", because involved technologies and expected results are very different. Anyway, I fully agree with you that any wide-scale action should be considered only after all other countermeasures have been undertaken. If I see a doctor because I am overweight, he will prescribe drugs only AFTER putting me on a diet, not viceversa.
Re. the Xogen company, I know very little and can't say much. Basically, it seems to me that they found an efficient way for producing clean hydrogen from dirty water. Their process anyway consumes much more energy than it can produce, and I am a bit skeptical about its real convenience. I mean, if the aim is to produce hydrogen to immediately burn it and convert it back into (clean) water, I am afraid that traditional methods are more energy efficient. If the aim is to consume hydrogen elsewhere (in cars) it will be impossible to get the water back.
Riccardo, I am not so sure there is not already a wide scale being used. If you go to NOAA website and search (chaff) or (chaf) there are a LOT of reports. They even make new weather radars with filters for chaff because it is such a problem.
Re: Xogen, Yes the typical electrolysis process requires a lot of amps. Xogen though has a patent process that restricts amps and lets the volts do the work. There unique digital pulse signal uses less electrical current than is predicted by standard laws of electrolysis. That is not fantasy but a patented real viable solution. Clean air, Clean water, Clean energy.
Check the first paragraph of this link. www.xogen.ca/technology.php
Short Xogen Video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXo7CVFI5Sk
Chris,
whether chaff is being used extensively or not (and in my opinion it is not), it only has to do with radar countermeasures and radar testig, and AFAIK it has no known effects on climate or global warming. Surely, it has nothing to do with the chemicals mentioned by the chemtrails fans, such as barium.
Re. Xogen, a second glance at their website made me more suspicious. Increasing voltage and decreasing current doesn't mean anything by itself, because the only interesting parameter is energy, and volts, amps and time are tightly
bound to each other by the indefectible laws of physics. It may be true that a voltage increase yields better efficiency, but the whole process (that includes producing electricity for the electrolysis) will always be less efficient than producing hydrogen directly from natural gas. You may find more information in this not very new but well written report: www(dot)qsinano.com/white_papers/2006_09_15.pdf
Riccardo, Unfortunately something not having any Known effects is of no comfort to me. They are dispersing inorganic particles (aluminum, metalized glass, plastics) in the atmosphere and where do they go?
Re: Xogen: I think nanotechnology is going to be an integral part of the next industrial revolution. Your example is the first instance I have read of it being use in a water fuel cell. Xogen is still revolutionary because it can run on any type of water using low amps. Its digital pulse signal is based on the manipulation of the covalent bonding in water molecules through electrical polarization.
I understand this technology is some what of a pariah but it is going to take intelligent people like you to look at this with an open mind. If it is true the laws of physics explain everything then they can just turn off the LHC right now and go home.
Chris, Personally I am much more concerned about the thousands of tons of chemicals (that have well known harmful effects) produced daily worldwide by car exhausts, manufacturing industries and countless other sources than about a few pounds (yes, this is the order of magnitude) of aluminum foil occasionaly and locally released with chaff.
As far as the Xogen is concerned, I still cannot understand what you are expecting it to do. It is not a source of energy, just a source of clean water. It may be more efficient than other systems, but I cannot see how it would contribute to the energy problem. If you elaborate on this, I will be able to answer more pecisely.
I must however remark that, as I said, "low amps" means nothing by itself, the only meaningful figure being the energy consumption, expressed in Wh/gallon of produced water.
LHC will refine and increment our knowledge, as all scientific research does, but it is very unlikely that our physical laws will prove false in the futu
Great article.
Added to my Sonoma Chemtrails blog.
Riccardo, I agree with you the particles used in weather modification are dwarfed by fossil fuel contaminates, but, weather modification is not the solution. Water is the solution.
The water fracturing process as described by Stan Meyer in the 80's and being revived by Xogen today through his patents is still largely ignored by the scientific community.
What Xogen does now is clean waste water and produce a burnable mixture of hydrogen and oxygen with low current and low residual heat through restricting amps and allowing voltage to do the work.
What Xogen can do with more research and funding is clean water and produce an over unity of oxy-hydrogen. It is easy to be a sceptic for this. Believe nothing, Do nothing.
Here is a link to the Xogen process compared to standard electrolysis.
www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=584
Thanks Cathy. We need more people like you to keep tabs on what these people are doing to our environment!
Chris, I can't understand why you are trying to mix weather modification and Xogen together. They are two completely different things. Re. Xogen, however, it seems to me you are misunderstanding their statements. The document you linked states very clearly that they can perform water electrolysis with higher efficiency than the traditional process. I have no reason for not believing this. As I told you, talking about low amps and high volts doesn't mean much as their product (the power) doesn't change. When you buy a new car, you are not concerned about the torque or the speed of its engine. The only interesting thing is its power. In the document you linked and in everything I could find on the net, however, they honestly claim they are NOT trying to defy the second law of Thermodynamics. In other words, they are not claiming they have attained, or will ever attain, an efficiency greater than one. They know it's impossible. So, why do you keep saying they will eventually do?
Riccardo, Right now Xogen's Water fuel Cell makes about 3 times more gas output using around 1/3 less energy than electrolysis and has low residual heat.
That is with ordinary tap water!
If researched and funded further Xogen could clean waste water and produce its own energy then we don't need weather modification.
You have it almost correct in saying "low amps and high volts doesn't mean much as their product (the power) doesn't change." That is very much the point. Especially if you use the volts (energy potential) to do the work in a circuit.
Water is one of the most incredibly anomalous liquids and potential energy sources. It needs to be studied as such.
CERN's 20 Member States have literately spent billions in collaboration with many scientists to build something as you say to refine an increment of knowledge but still cannot solve the world from polluting itself to death. That is Brilliant.
Chris, pardon me for saying this, but, I am not sure you have the appropriate technical background to discuss this matter. You keep saying two things that are basically wrong. Today's cars require less than one third of the gas they required a few years ago, but this does not mean that we will ever be able to build cars that require no fuel at all. The same applies to Xogen: they claim thay have increased the efficiency of their device. I believe them. They are NOT saying they will ever have a higher-than-one efficiency. You do, and by doing this you are turning their announcement into a hoax.
The second mistake is that hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy vessel, like electricity. It still requires energy to be produced. So, using hydrogen you are not eliminating a pollution source. You are just moving it to somewhere else. This doesn't change much in the pollution problem: the solution lies in the reduction of energy requirements.
Riccardo, We need to set the record straight.
I have talked about Xogen in 2 ways the facts as proven through
Independent Testing and what I believe Xogen could become with proper funding and research.
The Facts are:
* Xogen produces about 3 time more HHO with around 1/3 less power needed as compared to standard electrolysis.
*There is No chemical additive needed
*It uses the same input power and produces the same output gas whether using Environmental Streams or Ordinary Tap Water
*The output gas can power a 1kW Honda generator under 90% load conditions, with very minor modifications
*The technology is manufactured from off-the-shelf components
*It produces low residual heat
*the Xogen technology (restricted amps/ high volts) does not operate within the voltage parameters as defined by Faraday's Law
+ Xogen has made an extremely efficient waste water treatment system in a very small space. (confirmation pending official study results after 2011)
(continued from below)
It is in my opinion that a version of the water fuel cell should and can be retro-fitted Right Now into all existing piston engines to increase mileage by at least 50%.
That is what I call an instant reduction of energy requirements!
With proper funding and research I believe there can be further
advancements such as over unity as described by Stan Meyers and proven through his patents.
Below are links to 3 people who studied water without attached stigma. Inventors Dennis Klein, Stan Meyers, and scientist Martin Chaplin.
They have found amazing things about water.
It seems you have the appropriate technical background but havent really studied water.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-Hg6ntgqI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTfInChIDrc
www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/sitemap.html
Chris, You don't need repeating those facts. I am not contradicting them (not now, at least). I take them for granted. But you are forgetting one very basic fact: the device you call "fuel cell"(*) produces hydrogen, but requires water AND ELECTRICITY to work. In order to produce hydrogen to continuously run your 1KW Honda generator at 90% its rated power, thus producing 900 watts continuous power, you will need to feed the Xogen with much more than 900 watts of electrical power. Some of this power will become heat in the Xogen device, some in the generator's engine and some in the generator itself. There are no other sources of energy in the Xogen process, and you can't escape this. So, if the goal is to produce mechanical power, it would be much wiser to use an electric motor instead. It is simpler, lighter and has a much higher efficiency.
Yes, water has many properties, but (fortunately) it doesn't burn.
(*) Actually, fuel cells are a completely different thing
Riccardo, I call it a "Water fuel cell" because that is the jargon attached to the technology.
You should not take anything for granted especially because you have the ability to demonstrate the water fracturing process yourself. Here is a link to a complete parts list (all common materials) and assembly instructions.
www.waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/MeyerRep.pdf
I agree with you the electric motor is much more efficient, simpler, and lighter than piston engines but we need to work with the cars that people actually own right now (and probably for the next 10 years)
Retro fitting already existing engines can be an immediate solution.
Enough already with this fossil fuel.
Chris, I have a very simple and direct question to ask. Please answer it, and we will be able to continue our discussion. In both diagrams you linked, electrical power is required to operate the device. Additionally, in the first diagram, mechanical power is also required to turn the alternator's shaft. In your hypothetical car, WHERE DOES SUCH POWER COME FROM?
Riccardo Cassinis is a famous hoaxer (disinformer). He is very fond of nanotechnolgy linked to chemtrails. To answer him, it's just a waste of time. He belongs to CICAP (equivalent to CISCOP), a famous committee of hoaxers.
Excellent article.
Riccardo Cassinis is an Associate University Professor of Computer Science and of Robotics, whose research interests have nothing to do with nanotechnologies, nor with "chemtrails", whose existence still has to be proved.
Riccardo Cassinis is not affiliated to CICAP, and has never participated to any of their meetings.
Last, but not least, Riccardo Cassinis is not a coward, and doesn't need to hide behind a nickname to spit offensive statements.
This said, we can resume our discussion.
Riccardo, I do not dispute that power is required to run the device but I am not talking about the standard electrolyzer connected to a cars alternator that uses 25 to 30 amps with a lot of waste heat and requires distilled water with electrolyte.
Xogen which is derived from the Stan Meyer patents has something very different from the above mentioned electrolyzer. It gets 3 times more gas with 1/3 less power low residual heat and there is room for improvement.
In 1834 Faraday published the Laws of Electrolysis using a crude battery and some wires submerged in a beaker of chemicals attached to electrodes. He obviously didn't have the proper circuitry to get the best efficiency from the electrolysis process.
The real point of interest in the relatively uninteresting setup of Stan Meyer's device is his use of high voltage, frequency, polarization, and what he calls water resonance.
Chris, once again, what you write is a good demonstration of how people who don't have the appropriate background can be fooled. 25 to 30 amps @ 12 volts (standard battery voltage) mean 300 to 360 watts. This is barely enough to keep the headlights on (110 watts) and to run a few other services. The power of an average car engine is another order of magnitude: we are talking about peak powers over 100,000 watts for a mid-size car.
So, it's not a matter of producing three times more hydrogen with 1/3 of the power - a technical nonsense by the way: one cannot understand if the claimed efficiency is 3 or 9 times greater, and I think it's being done on purpose. Plus, you should also spend electricity to carry around the water and the Xogen device... another plain nonsense.
On the other hand, you probably know that Stan Meyer was deemed guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and that, although his devices are simple and well-known, no one has ever been able to replicate them. Are you?
Riccardo, You clearly misunderstand and misconstrue what I have written.
In responding to your previous question about power supply for the "device" in my "hypothetical car."
I first stated that the standard Faraday style electrolyzer is going to use about 25 - 30 amps from a cars alternator with a lot of waste heat and needs distilled water with an added electrolyte.
Then I added how a setup like Xogen is considerably more efficient than the Electrolyzer and would even be better if people put some money and research into it. Your explanation about how much electric power a mid-size car uses in total is of absolutely no relevance at this point and only seems to serve your ego.
Electronics World & Wireless World (January 1991)
"Stan Meyers patents were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their
seconded experts and all the claims have been established."
"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as claimed."
h t t p ://merlib.org/mirror/keelynet/energy/meyer1
The Xogen report from TAP was to establish that the Xogen WFC is not utilizing standard electrolysis. In the process they did a comparison of input and output on both methods and found Xogen to be notably more efficient but that was not the primary focus.
I have sent you the plans to make a WFC. Until you build one I don't think you have anything valuable to add to this conversation.
The problem, Chris, is that I can perfectly understand the electrical diagrams you sent me. Can you? I am not sure. Otherwise, you would have noticed that not only they don't do what you claim, but also that they are absolutely naive and were clearly designed by an un-experienced designer.
Much more important, you failed to explain the expected advantages of what you call WFC. This is the true problem. You, and all those who believe that electrolysis-based cars would work, don't understand that, no matter what the efficiency of the process is, it will never be greater than unity, and this means that the WFC will be CONSUMING energy, not PRODUCING it.
Probably you are right. Until you become much more familiar with terms such as efficiency, power, energy, and with the second principle of thermodynamics, there is no basis for continuing this discussion. And, as it is so simple, you are the one who should build and demonstrate one. It's not a matter of ego: it's just a matter of figures
Riccardo, I am starting to believe what people are saying about you.
On the basis of glancing at a diagram you state the WFC does not work as claimed.
You are a real joker and have not offered any usefull information, only negativity.
I can clearly see your ego prevents you from making any real test of the plans given to you.
Riccardo Cassinis is a "famous" italian hoaxer, disinfo-agent. Don't listen to a fellow like this, don't waste your time.
Excellent article.
One year has elapsed since my first comments. No great discovery has been announced. How long shall we still wait? One year? ten? forever?
sparisci bastardissimo debunker!
I can’t believe there are still some ppl that are defending the government and saying that there is no such thing and that what everyone is seeing are simply contrails. That would be a totally plausible explanation if there wasn’t already leaked gov documents outlining how and why they are spraying chemtrails over the air (this does a pretty good job of explaining it.) It’s called the HAARP project, and is built on the concepts of radio frequency radiation that Tesla was getting into before he died/was killed. Apparently, what the planes are releasing are barium salts, which (with the help of microwave energy) can manipulate anything from the weather to varying life forms in the environment. This is also most likely the reason why certain species of birds and fish have been dying recently. If you see planes making a criss coss pattern or contrails that linger for half a day or so when in relatively dry environments, you’re most likely witnessing chemtrails being dispersed. My friend lives in Arizona where it’s extremely dry year around, and just last month he caught a pic on his home security camera a group of planes making a crosshatch type formation (home security chemtrails pics).
The picture of the girl is actually the (in)famous Gask Mask Girl from the 2008 Project Chanology protests.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!