If you search for “chemtrails” in Wikipedia, you won’t find an entry on chemtrails. Instead, you are directed to the entry, “Chemtrail conspiracy theory,” which begins:
The chemtrail conspiracy theory is based on the erroneous belief that long-lasting condensation trails are “chemtrails” consisting of chemical or biological agents left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public.
According to HR 2977, since Congress, in section 102(a) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), states that it “is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind,” the purpose of HR 2977 is:
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
To that end, Section 3 of HR 2977 states:
The President shall–
(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and
(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.
Among the space-based weapons that HR 2977 wants the United States to ban and remove are “exotic weapons systems” that include chemtrails. Section 7 (2) of HR 2977 states:
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as–
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
(C) The term “exotic weapons systems” includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.
So-called conspiracy theorists have been conservative in their “paranoia”. As listed above, chemtrails are not the only “exotic weapons systems” that HR 2977 seeks to ban and remove. There are others that are even more lethal, including:
Psychotronic weapons that manipulate human behavior with the use of subliminal, either sound or visual, messages.
Tectonic weapons that induce earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or other seismic events.
Introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) nearly 18 years ago on October 2, 2001, HR 2977 has no co-sponsors. Not one.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. On April 19, 2002, the Department of Defense gave the bill an “unfavorable executive comment,” which effectively killed the bill (see “Actions“).
It is said that in 2002, Rep. Kucinich told Columbus Alive, a free news weekly serving Columbus, Ohio, that they should speak to the Pentagon regarding an “‘ongoing program’ called ‘Vision for 2020’” which was “X-files stuff.” Kucinich claimed that the U.S. Space Command has specific plans for the complete “dominance” and weaponization of space under a program called “Joint Vision for 2020.” A search for “Dennis Kucinich” on Columbus Alive, however, yielded no such article.
But the United States Space Command indeed does have a publication called Vision For 2020. For the full text, click here.
In the video below, a chemtrails pilot speaks out (h/t Maziel):
A recent article in New York Times Magazine of April 18, 2017, asks if it’s O.K. “to tinker with the environment to fight climate change”.
Tinkering with the environment is another way of saying “weather modification“.
The NYT article by Jon Gertner describes Harvard professor David Keith’s proposal of a continuous “solar engineering” project to slow down global warming, at a cost of $1 billion a year, by flying ten Gulfstream jets around the world, spraying 25,000 tons of liquid sulphur gas. The gas will condense into airborne particles that scatter sunlight and so reduce global warming. Keith argues such a project is technologically feasible, but is concerned, as he puts it, about “the ethics about messing with nature.”
What neither Keith nor reporter Gertner seems to know (or pretend they don’t know) is that the U.S. government has been engaged in “tinkering with the environment” or weather modification since 1953, as revealed in a recently uncovered 784-page U.S. Senate report, Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: May 1978).
Here are some highlights from that report:
(1) The U.S. government has been doing weather modification since 1953(p. v of Weather Modification):
In a letter addressed to Dr. Norman A. Beckman, Acting Director, Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Sen. James B. Pearson wrote: “weather modification projects have been operational for nearly 25 yearsand have been shown to have significant potential for preventing, diverting, moderating, or ameliorating the adverse effects of such weather related disasters and hazards”. Pearson’s “greatest concern” is “regarding the lack of a coordinated Federal weather modification policy and a coordinated and comprehensive program for weather modification research and development.” It is that concern that prompted Sen. Pearson to ask the Congressional Research Service to prepare the Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential report.
Note: James Pearson was a U.S. senator (R-Kansas) from 1962 to 1978. He introduced and sponsored senate bill S.3383 “National Weather Modification Policy Act”. Written into Public Law 94-490 on October 13, 1976, S.3383 authorized a member of the cabinet to “negotiate an International agreement concerning the peaceful uses of weather modification”.
(2) Definition of weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” p. xix):
“Weather modification is generally considered to be the deliberate effort to improve atmospheric conditions for beneficial human purposes—to augment water supplies through enhanced precipitation or to reduce economic losses, property damages, and deaths through mitigation of adverse effects of hail, lightning, fog, and severe storms.”
(3) Modern, scientific methods of weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xix-xx):
The modern period in weather modification began in 1946 with cloud seeding using dry ice, then silver iodide.
Beginning in the 1950s, there were projects to alter severe storm effects. Commercial weather modifiers also began.
By 1978 when the Senate report was published, weather modification included cold fog clearing; “primitive” efforts to abate severe storms and hurricanes; increase winter snowpack by seeding clouds in the mountains on the U.S. west coast and in Israel to enhance precipitation by as much as 15% over “natural” rainfall; opening holes (via seeding) in wintertime cloud layers in northeast U.S. so as to increase sunshine and decrease energy consumption; and experiments to suppress lightning by seeding thunderstorms.
(4) U.S. government involvement in weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxi-xxvi):
“For over 30 years both legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government have been involved in a number of aspects of weather modification.”
Since 1947, more than 110 weather modification bills and resolutions have been introduced in Congress — for research support, operations, grants, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, international concerns, and using weather modification as a weapon. Some of the bills became laws.
Total funding for Federal weather modification research reached a high point of $20 million in fiscal year 1976, falling to $17 million in fiscal year 1978.
While each federal government agency conducts its own weather modification research, the National Science Foundation is the lead agency. The NSF and the Departments of Interior and Commerce account for the largest weather modification programs.
State governments, universities, private institutions and commercial entities (e.g., airlines) also conduct their own weather modification projects, mostly to increase precipitation, suppression of hail or dispersal of fog.
(5) Global warming from human behaviors that may inadvertently cause weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxi):
“Modification processes may also be initiated or triggered inadvertently rather than purposefully, and the possibility exists that society may be changing the climate through its own actions by pushing on certain leverage points. Inadvertently, man is already causing measurable variations on the local scale. Artificial climatic effects have been observed and documented on local and regional scales, particularly in and downwind of heavily populated industrial areas where waste heat, particulate pollution and altered ground surface characteristics are primarily responsible for the perceived climate modification. The climate in and near large cities, for example, is warmer, the daily range of temperature is less, and annual precipitation is greater than if the cities had never been built. Although not verifiable at present, the time may not be far off when human activities will result in measurable large-scale changes in weather and climate of more than passing significance. It is important to appreciate the fact that the role of man at this global level is still controversial, and existing models of the general circulation are not yet capable of testing the effects in a conclusive manner. Nevertheless, a growing fraction of current evidence does point to the possibility of unprecedented impact on the global climate by human activities ….”
(6) Weather modification is international (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxvii):
While the U.S. is the leader in weather modification research and operations, other countries conduct weather modification as well, but not all governments report that they do.
The largest country outside of U.S. was the Soviet Union.
Other major weather modification countries are Canada, Israel, Mexico, China.
(7) Weather modification is controversial and has opposition (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxvii):
“Weather modification is often controversial, and both formal and informal opposition groups have been organized in various sections of the country. Reasons for such opposition are varied and are based on both real and perceived adverse consequences from weather modification. Sometimes with little or no rational basis there are charges by these groups that otherwise unexplained and usually unpleasant weather-related events are linked to cloud seeding. There are also cases where some farmers are economically disadvantagedthrough receiving more, or less than optimum rainfall for their particular crops, when artificial inducement of such conditions may have indeed been planned to benefit those growing different crops with different moisture requirements.“
(8) Weather modification as a weapon of war(from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xix, xxviii):
“Not all weather modification activities, however, have been or can be designed to benefit everyone, and some intentional operations have been used, or are perceived to have been used, as a weapon of war to impede the mobility or tactical readiness of an enemy.”
The U.S. used weather modification as a weapon of war in Vietnam: “attempts were made to impede traffic by increasing rainfall during the monsoon season.”
Expect weather warfare between nations in the future.
There have been international efforts to ensure peaceful use of weather modification.
“Because atmospheric processes operate independent of national borders, weather modification is inherently of international concern…. Whereas domestic weather modification law is confused
and unsettled, international law in this area is barely in the formative stage. In time, ramifications of weather modification may lead to major international controversy.“
(9) Weather modification will have unintended ecological effects (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp.xxix-xxx):
“Economically significant weather modification activities will have an eventual ecological effect, though appearance of that effect may be hidden or delayed…. Deliberate weather modification, such as precipitation augmentation, is likely to have a greater ecological impact in semi-arid regions than in humid ones.”
How big does the climate engineering elephant in the room need to be before it can no longer be hidden in plain site? How much more historical proof do we need of the ongoing climate engineering/weather warfare before the denial of the masses crumbles? When will populations around the globe bring to justice all those responsible for the ongoing and rapidly worsening worldwide weather warfare assault?
And so, the next time you’re mocked and called a “conspiracy theorist” because you bring up chemtrails or HAARP or California’s peculiar historic 100-year drought, show them this post. They are the ones in denial, not us.