Holy cow (fart). I'm setting aside time later today to go through everything and watch the videos.
Unbekoming -- you write the BEST consolidations of complex topics that I've yet seen! I mean that truly. The way you provide overviews, summations, and deep-dives with links, and get straight to the point is beyond excellent. Your work helps immensely in that it can be easily shared, and get others to consume the information. THANK YOU!
They don’t change the climate, and they can’t. They only change local weather. Which is a crime against humanity, anyway.
Climate is a total sum of a number of natural factors which determines the overall existence of the Earth. It is a product of thousands years of changes in weather and other environmental factors.
We don’t really know what climate is or in what climate we live - because our memory span is completely negligible. Reliable environmental measurements (temp, pressure, humidity, etc.) started about 1950s. “Reliable” means really recorded, not that you can rely one them in making any conclusions. Instruments were funny at that time, operators even more so, and nobody really cared. Which directly produced or contributed to the climate hoax.
What kind of weather was before 1950s? We have no idea. The so called scientists who make backward predictions for the whole Earth based on a single 2-inch drill in a few random spots are even funnier than the folks who attempted finding weather after WW2.
Are they changing weather? Yes. It is no secret, they have been doing it on a large scale for about 40 years, going totally crazy in recent time.
It is a crime against humanity because local deliberate changes in weather affect the whole Earth in a way that is absolutely unpredictable.
Excellent comment. This whole climate nonsense would end immediately, if only the plebeians could grasp the basics; the most fundamental of which is that the earth doesn't have a global climate, ergo there cannot be a global climate "crisis" , "breakdown", "boiling" (add b*ll**** word of choice).
Yes, there are climatic zones but even within a so called zone, the "climate" will vary. Here in London our "climate" is very different to that of our northern neighbour, Scotland and we are a very small island compared to say, the US.
By employing agnotoligical techniques, the tyrannical hierarchy has successfully brainwashed the global population, to wit: local weather events are now automatically conflated with and attributed to the "climate crisis". Given the imprimatur by their overlords, both the high and lowbrow gleefully recite, yes recite the hogwash flavoured word salad of their overlords. Any other explanation is considered verboten.
A little tip from James Corbett. Use the 'magic words' when researching this topic. A search for "chemtrails" will get you Snopes, FactCheck, Reuters and other Ministry of Truth falsehoods. A search for "stratospheric aerosols" or similar will unlock patents, papers, military regimens, stratospheric spraying companies, chemicals and an inexhaustible rabbit hole.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for complying all the required and needed information in one place that is easy to share. I’ve been screaming from the rooftops since 2016 and most pass me off as a crack head, but I have seen an increase in the number of people who have finally opened their eyes. All you gotta do is Look Up and have common sense.
I had heard of chem trails and had dismissed it, like most asleep people I didn't even look into it...
Even took a photo once as two trails made an "X" in the clear blue sky and I thought how unusual (still not thinking of Chem trails)...
But lately, due to waking up in the covid scam, I've been looking up noticing... Still not knowing much at all about Chem trails and saying to people that I meet "I don't know much about Chem trails" but... It IS ODD how trails sit in the sky and not disappear like a contrail should...
I'd shot some video testing a new camera and tripod a few years ago, and interestingly, without knowing or noticing what I filmed... I now note on the same day, filmed an aircraft with a normal contrail... A stream behind it which basically disappeared two or three lengths behind the jet... Then another not five minutes later, thick white Chem trail that just sat there...
I watch first three minutes so far of that movie documentary you posted and wow ... I've seen exactly this...
Switching on an off...
I have a good view over my city, and each blue sky afternoon over come the planes, no contrail, they approach the hills of the city, on comes the Chem trail... They get to the coast it switches off...
Once there was two trails, super short trails over the north Metro and one over the south Metro... Turned on at coast and off at the hills, like synchronised trails... I saw this again the other day too...
I'm assuming this is for the weather and other nefarious purposes (but will read your article and watch this doco, much more to learn, but just wanted to comment and thank you for supplying the information I had been wanting!)...
The only bit of info I have (if it helps) is that the rainmaking control act is in force in Victoria (Australia)... Someone posted this in another forum and I found it interesting that it is active!
I have no doubt that last February’s weather event in Orange County California was seeded either intentionally or the result of the abundance of particulate in the atmosphere as a result of the massive aerial spraying campaigns here:
The weather plus toxins like agent orange. Many of our military are on disability (if they survived) from being sprayed with that. It killed foliage plus people. So many atrocities are committed by government.
Excellent comprehensive post on "climate change" (or whatever the new fad is) and geoengineering, a keeper for future reference. Max Igan is right - many governments everywhere are no longer valid.
I agree with all of you. This is a post that needs to looks at and shared. I am tired of the chemtrails that I see on a regular basis. I am frustrated that when you try to explain this to others, some think you are crazy.
Thank you! I also have to save the article to watch all of the videos. One of those HAARP installations is in Alaska. Those who are living in Alaska know that the weather tweaking has been hard for a while now. Gray skies, extreme rain or significantly heavier snowfall has been happening for about 6 years (childhood friends live there). Michigan now has constant chemtrails, gray skies (just enough to prevent crops to grow properly), strange swings in violent storms. Watching lightening going sideways in the skies for the first time in my lifetime.
Wow, I'm so glad you finally got to this. Although I took the vaccine/public health red pill over 2 decades ago, this is one topic I have remained very skeptical of. I have an engineering background, and some experience working in the airline industry. I have also read a lot of material you posted and debated it with others who fully buy into it.
I still do not. The fact that documentary is still on YouTube should be one important item to note. You have obviously spent a ton of time on this stack, and I will do the same in a series of responses. I will have to re-watch/read it again and that will take time, but I will take notes and go through it systematically.
I will first state my background which is a degree and license in Systems Design Engineering, which includes courses in mechanical, electrical and computer engineering. I have worked in the software industry for several decades across a large variety of industries which include airlines. With respect to airlines, I worked on software related to operations which is highly cost sensitive. I have also done extensive research into plane crashes.
I will start with my executive summary and then slowly post more detail as I work through your assertions:
I will start with what we agree on:
- Do governments spray stuff in the sky? Yes.
- Do they do it to influence and control the weather? Yes.
- Do they lie about it to the public? Yes.
- Have they been doing it for a long time? Yes.
- Do they have other weather modification technology? Yes.
- Is the origin of this technology military? Yes.
I am going to treat chemtrails and HAARP as two separate topics, because the claims about them and their mechanisms of deployment and intent are quite distinct.
I will state my bias up front. I do not find Dane Wigington a credible source of facts. He is clearly very determined and knowledgeable, but based on my own knowledge, I also know he easily mixes up fact with speculation and does so in a very non transparent manner. He speaks definitively, when he only has circumstantial evidence but makes it sound like he has definitive proof. Whenever I catch someone doing that, I simply can't take their word for anything, even if they are right about a lot of things.
Next thing about Wigington is the fact that both he and you state "He has a background in solar energy". That means very little when it comes to climate change because it is non specific. If I am an electrician and install light switches by day, I could claim I'm in the energy business. It means nothing, and the fact that he's listed as a licensed contractor, I can only assume he knows how to install solar panels, aim them, and make sure the installation doesn't cause roof leaks.
His multi-decades of research I respect.
What I agree with Wigington about:
- The climate scientists absolutely have proposed on record (in the mid 2010's and earlier) bad shit crazy ideas about spraying chemicals in the atmosphere to block the sun
- When I say bat-shit crazy, they acted like folks in public health academics with zero consideration to likely unintended side effects.
What I have a major disagreement with is that there is a systematic effort to have commercial airliners spray chemicals for the purposes of creating clouds and polluting the soil. I disagree with the assertion that when you look up and see trails from planes that they are mostly chemtrails. My assertion is that there is no credible evidence to substantiate those claims nor is there is even a plausible reason airlines would knowingly participate in this.
Here is the evidence that leads me to my high level reasoning:
- are we finding pollution in the soil and air -- Yes. I do not doubt that, but how does anyone know that is coming from planes? We've had toxic pollution in our air and soil since the industrial revolution, so how is finding toxins in rainwater proof that it comes from planes? It is not.
- there is absolutely no way the human eye or a photo/video can differentiate a contrail from a "chemtrail" at 20K feet.
- after decades of trails in the sky there is not a single whistleblower who can confirm the distribution of chemicals from a commercial airliner. Not one.
- Commercial weather modification -- which certainly exists -- sprays chemical into clouds (vs 20K feet of clear sky) with a completely different purpose -- to create precipitation. In fact, insurance companies hire low flying planes with spray nozzles to seed clouds, create precipitation to reduce the size of hail (not make it bigger).
The most damning evidence against the idea most of the trails we see up in the sky is that Jet fuel composition was changed in the 1990's. The regulators worldwide, consolidated on a single jet fuel for all aircraft including military aircraft. The new composition resulted dirtier exhaust from commercial airliners, required the changing of military jet engines to handle the extra soot, and as a result creates more contrails -- since a contrail is ice forming around an exhaust particle.
You really have to watch this video because it really knocks the credibility of Dale IMO.
This explains both the increase in number of trails, and the increase in the size of them over the decades, since the new engines and fuel was rolled out over a series of decades before it was completed.
Now, this does have an effect, because contrails cool the earth during the day and heat it at night. We know this from some brilliant studies done after 9/11 when for the first time in decades there were no trails for a couple of days.
I am really disappointed that Wigington has no discussion on this very important fact anywhere on his site, in his video, or in any interviews I've seen. I saw this discussed in extensive detail by another climate change activist, who IMO is far more credible than Dale. I need to track down the reference but I will do so.
Dr Exley -- who has done more study on the health effects of aluminum on life on earth -- did a bit of cursory investigation into the idea that planes were spraying aluminum, but found no evidence to support it. He is also infinitely more credible and rigorous than Dale IMO.
Now I will start to go into the details and post slowly over a period of days.
I am remembering now why I so disliked "The Dimming"
First, the Opening:
- I can't stand arguments that use inference based on Patents. As someone who is very familiar with the patent process, it is about making money, not about inventions. If someone wants to keep a secret, you never patent it because the purpose of a patent is to protect financial interests in an invention by making it public and forcing everyone else to license it from you. A patent application does not mean the idea is feasible, let alone ever actualized. This turned me off right at the start of the documentary. If you want to keep a secret, you keep something unique as a trade secret. Companies do it all the time.
- Our first introduction to "proof" is the high bypass jet engine. He makes the following definitive claim:
"90% of the air that moves through this engine is non combusted, this engine by design is nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under rare and extreme circumstances."
I'll be frank, this is utter nonsense. First, air in jets is never combusted, jet fuel is combusted. A zero bypass jet engine, moves 100% of the air through the combustion chamber and high bypass jets a much smaller percentage. That is the only part of his statement that is even remotely accurate.
High bypass engines are able to accelerate more air than older engines and more thrust per unit of fuel, but they still mix air and fuel and combust it. The heated air is then combined with the bypass air into the nozzle to accelerate the air. All of the jets produce heat, thrust, exhaust and air pressure changes.
Contrails are not only produced by condensation (water content in the fuel which is the same fuel whether it is low or high bypass) but more dominantly from ice crystalizing around the tiny particles in the exhaust. As I noted earlier, modern jet fuel is more sooty (more particles) than the fuel used in the 1970's and prior so we would expect to see more contrails not less from these new engines and fuel.
Now, we're only at 2:46 seconds and from my perspective, Wigington has completely blown all his technical credibility with his first "proof".
His next "proof" is footage of aircraft flying at altitude with "nozzles" except the video goes to aircraft on the ground and shows "nozzles" that look exactly like pitot tubes. Pitot tubes are used all over the aircraft to detect changes in air pressure. They are essential sensors that allow the plane computers to automatically to adjust to changes in pressure and keep the plane doing what the pilot wants it to do. There is not evidence in the video of any nozzles on commercial aircraft. I would absolutely expect these sensor to be on surfaces behind the engine.
Next we see a video of a trail stopping and starting in the sky. The implication that nozzle spray is turning on and off. If we go back to how contrails are formed, it is entirely dependent on the conditions of the air the plane is flying through, and the amount of exhaust coming out of the engines. His argument assumes that the air at 20K feet or more is completely homogenous in moisture content, pressure and temperature. That is a very bad assumption, as is the assumption that the aircraft exhaust didn't change. The length of time that a real contrail will last or even form is highly dependent on the atmospheric conditions by definition. We know from commercial flying that air pockets of different environmental conditions occur all over the place and it is not even remotely close to homogenous. In order for this video evidence to be proof of anything requires an analysis of the conditions that specific plane was flying through at the time. Anything less is pure conjecture.
It is utterly inconceivable that Dane claims "that is the end of the argument". Seriously?
I have no disagreements on military testing of weather modification. It is well established in the 50's and 60's the air force did tests to try and alter both the intensity and path of hurricanes, but they abandoned this because they could not achieve any meaningful control. I am certain they dropped chemicals at different heights to find dispersion patterns, in the best case to determine where nuclear fallout, or bioweapons release would travel and land. I would be shocked if they didn't do this.
These agreed upon facts have no bearing on the trails we see in the sky coming from commercial air traffic.
Next he goes into official pitches and military plans to control weather. Again, military folks PLAN and PITCH all sorts of things all the time. I am old enough to remember Ronald Reagon's "Star Wars" plans to have satellite based lasers to shoot down ICBMs coming from Russia. It turned out those ideas needed to stay in the movies because they could not practically get realized for any reasonable cost. An idea is not proof of implementation. I am certain the military would absolutely weaponize the weather if they could.
Next claims of proof: Accusations by world leaders. Seriously? I know of some weapons of mass destruction too.
I honestly can't understand how an accusation by conflicting world parties in a rhetorical sphere is considered proof of anything other than verbal claims. Yes, cloud seeding can happen, but it doesn't involve flying planes at altitude. It involves spraying low altitude clouds and it changes precipitation in the low double digit percentages at best. How many non human factors affect climate? More than you and I can count. How can Ahmadinejad prove that it was human factors causing a drought without accounting for all those factors first? It's the same type of nonsense claim being made that our CO2 output is causing climate change.
Next we go into evidence of study and the bat shit crazy proposals. No argument there. It seems like the climate scientists community jumped the shark in the 2010's.
At 7:00 minutes we seem to get into real science, but sadly way too fast. They found the same elements in the air as they did on the ground? Shocker. We know a dust storm can kick dust up that high from the ground and have it travel a whole continent away. Same with forest fire smoke. What does that measurement actually mean? Nothing, certainly nothing they talked about in the video. Where is the detail? Did they measure inside a contrail and find a higher concentration of toxins compared to what is known to be in the jet fuel. Jet fuel does have a bunch of stuff in it. It is sooty and dirty. They provide no proof any extra material in the exhaust clouds. The fact that they brush over the important evidence so quickly is suspicious IMO.
At ~14:00 we seem to get to the heart of the matter of Dale's expertise. His solar power uptake was affected. "It is not possible for condensation to block at times 60-70%, even 80% of my solar power uptake."
But wait, clouds are condensation, and they can easily block 90% of your solar power uptake. In fact, I've just lived through the longest winter of overcast weather in a long time. That's all condensation.
"It became clear to me that the contrails coming out of some of the aircraft from the air force base were not normal looking".
This argument I've never understood. The method of creating a contrail or a chemtrail are effectively the same. They would both create a visible cloud and it would disperse according to the air patterns where it was released. How would you tell the difference by looking at it?
They show strange looking trails with vortex like shapes. Have you ever seen the vortexes created by some commercial jetliners after they fly through clouds? And they're not all the same, it is highly dependent on the type of aircraft.
This is well known fact by any pilot. Flying through the wake turbulence of certain planes, even long after it has passed, can be cause a lot of injury in a passenger plane and if it happens near the ground, can cause crashes. These photos prove nothing. But they sure make a good video.
At 43 minutes they talk about attempts to sample the air, but they're using a Cessna, which couldn't go to the height that the trails were emitted at. They then claim the clouds dropped over 10000 feet later in the day? Huh? How do they know it was the same clouds? The video they showed sure didn't look like any trails. They looked like clouds with a super thick cloud layer below it. This isn't good science and it certainly isn't definitive. I applaud the attempt.
Now, he goes into HAARP, which is a whole different topic. Next post.
I appreciate you doing this, it will be a valuable contribution to the discussion. I will wait until you are complete with your posts, so I can read and digest them at which point I will likely revert with more questions.
Figuring out true from untrue in this subject is especially important to me. It connects with so many other issues.
I've run out of my weekend now, and I have a really busy week at work, so I won't likely get to much more detail for a while. I skimmed the rest of the The Dimming and it seems to be a mish mash of environmental issues including cell phone radiation. I actually think that plain old pollution, microplastics, estrogen in the water, fluoride, aluminum pollution and even microwave radiation from wireless devices are far more dangerous than the trails in the sky. I also think those are definitive problems, not speculative. The fact that we have cut down 90% of the forests in North America is a massive geo-engineering exercise. I think Land use is the bigger eco problem, not CO2 etc. That's what I have for now.
If you have specific parts or questions, let me know. There are so many claims made, it could take a lifetime to investigate each one of them with the detail it deserves. I picked what I consider to be the most blatant errors, which makes me question much of what is being sold in the documentary.
I agree. Figuring out what is true and untrue is important to me. I have the same issue with all the theories surrounding 9/11 collapses. I have not seen convincing evidence of DEWs but I've read about tons of theories and compelling narratives none of which have passed the occams razor test for me.
While I'm finishing up, I suggest watching the video I linked with Jim Lee. I'm pretty sure he isn't saying all the trails you see in the sky are Chem trails and like I said, he's far more credible and has real facts and far better investigative information than Dale.
If we've decided Dale is not credible a lot of what is on his page needs to be inspected with a fine toothed comb.
Indeed, it is a good observation. That is another reason I am suspicious of the "look up in the sky, see all these planes spraying you" narrative. It has been on facebook and social media and youtube for a long long time (years and years), and yet, all they do is fact check it and leave it uncensored.
That to me, is the best indication it is useful for generating fear, division, distraction, and they don't see it as a threat -- because it's not accurate and it acts to undermine the credibility of those that promote it, which will prevent people from looking at other real problems that do exist related to it.
We know for sure the planes are spraying exhaust, like they always have. Just like any other motorized vehicle. Way up at 20K+ feet, that happens to create clouds given the sooty fuel we've been using for a few decades.
Truth is a tricky binary word.
From Twitter "The Ethical Skeptic", one of my favourite posters:
Always be aware of when you are dealing with the delusion of the second paradigm.
Fact checkers, trolls, fake skeptics, authorities, censors, science communicators, explainers, and the religious - all wallow ethically inside the second paradigm."
Two innate personal positions exist regarding truth:
1. Truth is a seldom-attained state of inference, derived from deductive logical calculus, inside the prosecution of a criticial path of probative questions. Truth is not a destination, nor is it in any way related to me personally.
2. Truth is an object which exists inside my perception and possession. My objective is to use all available means to secure agreement on this from others."
------
I think we would all do well to remember this, myself included.
"These particles are then manipulated with extraordinarily powerful radiofrequency microwave transmissions, transmissions that can heat the upper layers of the atmosphere, like the ionosphere. That are used to create pressure zones which steer upper level wind currents, which then steer weather systems."
While he's speaking about this, he's showing a photo of SBX, Sea-based X band Radar. X band radar operates in the frequency range of 7-11 GHz. Microwave ovens that are designed to heat water operate at ~2.4GHz (same as Wifi and bluetooth). Not sure how 7 GHz is going to heat the atmosphere at all, since military radar wants to travel far and not heat the atmosphere at all. Does he provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the military radar (used to track missiles and aircraft) can heat the atmosphere or even heat aluminum or those other metals? I have never seen such evidence.
Now, let's get to HAARP. It was designed as an ionosphere heater, but it doesn't use microwave frequencies. Microwave frequencies operate between 1-300 GHz where HAARP operates with much longer wavelengths in the 2.8-10MHz bands. That is why when you look at HAARP antenna arrays, they are very different looking from let's say cell tower transmitters (which are microwave based frequencies).
Again, Wigington sounds like he knows what he is talking about, but it's literally techno-babble in this section -- much like his discussion of high bypass jet engines.
Despite my interest in meteorology, I am not an expert, but I can't find any readily available information that indicates that disturbances in the ionosphere can affect weather systems which exist much lower in the Troposphere. He talks about raising pressure in the ionosphere, but it's mostly electromagnetic effects going on up there. The stuff they do in the ionosphere with HAARP messes with communications (i.e. radiofrequency waves).
There is some info about magnetic storms from space manipulating temperature at the poles, but that has nothing to do with pressure affecting weather systems.
He then quotes a US Military expert on biology talking about RF waves?
So HAARP in alaska has been operating for decades now, and a lot of the experiments are public because it's a University. All I see in this video is very old theories being discussed. Nothing operational, not even remotely.
I am certainly open to HAARP being able to do something WRT weather, or the military, but there I have yet to see any hard evidence of what that is.
I didn't read this article which is so "unbekoming" of me (couldn't resist) because I first noticed chemtrails in 1988. I have been investigating for 22 years now, since I got my first computer. To be frank I'm kinda a know-it-all on the topic. No one and I mean no one believed me when I told them what was in the sky. Back in the good old days I used a legal pad to write down sites of interest. Two pages equals 44 sites, all gone in no time. Gone are Press TV, Radio Islam, Serendipity, All about Chemtrails and major Eastern news sites. I now mark my calendar when we have a sunny day, not a couple hours but the whole day. I mark it when we have a blue sky and for how long. It's been 15 years since I have seen stars. I have not been able to have a veggie garden in 5 years when previously I did which shows exactly how the spraying has been ramped up. As for my calendar, I can tell you it's 1day, maybe2 or no days per month for the weather that used to exist prior to 1988. My records show a maximum of 24 beautiful days a year. If we're lucky
The 3D clouds are a category by themselves, I forgot to mention. Max of 2x's per month, sometimes 3. It's a sight to behold. And then the newly invented cloud formations (that I never fail to recognize) glide in ever so insidiously and destroy what God gave us in less than an hour. One can easily make the case that the non-existent Covid virus was really chemtrails connected to WiFi/5G due to the nano-particulates dropping all over us. It is a forgone conclusion that these chemtrails are causing all sorts of respiratory distress, that is then labeled, again, as Covid. A Mobius strip if ever I've seen one.
Yup. Having watched The Dimming last year only confirmed what I already sensed and to an extent researched myself. The reality shock is watching it happen in the sky in real time. I've lost count of the number of clear skies I've seen getting covered in chemical trails that last most of the day and dissipate into a haze. The question remains, what are we going to do about it?
Holy cow (fart). I'm setting aside time later today to go through everything and watch the videos.
Unbekoming -- you write the BEST consolidations of complex topics that I've yet seen! I mean that truly. The way you provide overviews, summations, and deep-dives with links, and get straight to the point is beyond excellent. Your work helps immensely in that it can be easily shared, and get others to consume the information. THANK YOU!
I couldn't agree with you more, Kelli, about Unbekoming!
Absolutely agree.
Thank you Kelli 🙏
No worries.
They don’t change the climate, and they can’t. They only change local weather. Which is a crime against humanity, anyway.
Climate is a total sum of a number of natural factors which determines the overall existence of the Earth. It is a product of thousands years of changes in weather and other environmental factors.
We don’t really know what climate is or in what climate we live - because our memory span is completely negligible. Reliable environmental measurements (temp, pressure, humidity, etc.) started about 1950s. “Reliable” means really recorded, not that you can rely one them in making any conclusions. Instruments were funny at that time, operators even more so, and nobody really cared. Which directly produced or contributed to the climate hoax.
What kind of weather was before 1950s? We have no idea. The so called scientists who make backward predictions for the whole Earth based on a single 2-inch drill in a few random spots are even funnier than the folks who attempted finding weather after WW2.
Are they changing weather? Yes. It is no secret, they have been doing it on a large scale for about 40 years, going totally crazy in recent time.
It is a crime against humanity because local deliberate changes in weather affect the whole Earth in a way that is absolutely unpredictable.
Why?
Read here: https://thepathishere.substack.com/p/you-cannot-change-climate
Excellent comment. This whole climate nonsense would end immediately, if only the plebeians could grasp the basics; the most fundamental of which is that the earth doesn't have a global climate, ergo there cannot be a global climate "crisis" , "breakdown", "boiling" (add b*ll**** word of choice).
Yes, there are climatic zones but even within a so called zone, the "climate" will vary. Here in London our "climate" is very different to that of our northern neighbour, Scotland and we are a very small island compared to say, the US.
By employing agnotoligical techniques, the tyrannical hierarchy has successfully brainwashed the global population, to wit: local weather events are now automatically conflated with and attributed to the "climate crisis". Given the imprimatur by their overlords, both the high and lowbrow gleefully recite, yes recite the hogwash flavoured word salad of their overlords. Any other explanation is considered verboten.
I am sick of it!
Exactly - the Earth does not have one common Earth climate.
We (common folks) do not understand it because our teachers in schools didn’t have this understanding.
Thank you for a great enlightening emphasis on this aspect.
Yes!! And loved the "hogwash flavoured word salad". Sounds like something you'd order at a woke dinner party.
".....at a woke dinner party." 🤣🤣💯
Fantastic, Dan. Thank you.
It's great to hear that you like it. Thank you.
A little tip from James Corbett. Use the 'magic words' when researching this topic. A search for "chemtrails" will get you Snopes, FactCheck, Reuters and other Ministry of Truth falsehoods. A search for "stratospheric aerosols" or similar will unlock patents, papers, military regimens, stratospheric spraying companies, chemicals and an inexhaustible rabbit hole.
Elana Freeland and Stephanie Senneff are amazing researchers and writers.
Your substack is appreciated. It’s scary when the scales fall off and you can see the evildoing all around.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for complying all the required and needed information in one place that is easy to share. I’ve been screaming from the rooftops since 2016 and most pass me off as a crack head, but I have seen an increase in the number of people who have finally opened their eyes. All you gotta do is Look Up and have common sense.
Saving this article too thank you...
I had heard of chem trails and had dismissed it, like most asleep people I didn't even look into it...
Even took a photo once as two trails made an "X" in the clear blue sky and I thought how unusual (still not thinking of Chem trails)...
But lately, due to waking up in the covid scam, I've been looking up noticing... Still not knowing much at all about Chem trails and saying to people that I meet "I don't know much about Chem trails" but... It IS ODD how trails sit in the sky and not disappear like a contrail should...
I'd shot some video testing a new camera and tripod a few years ago, and interestingly, without knowing or noticing what I filmed... I now note on the same day, filmed an aircraft with a normal contrail... A stream behind it which basically disappeared two or three lengths behind the jet... Then another not five minutes later, thick white Chem trail that just sat there...
I watch first three minutes so far of that movie documentary you posted and wow ... I've seen exactly this...
Switching on an off...
I have a good view over my city, and each blue sky afternoon over come the planes, no contrail, they approach the hills of the city, on comes the Chem trail... They get to the coast it switches off...
Once there was two trails, super short trails over the north Metro and one over the south Metro... Turned on at coast and off at the hills, like synchronised trails... I saw this again the other day too...
I'm assuming this is for the weather and other nefarious purposes (but will read your article and watch this doco, much more to learn, but just wanted to comment and thank you for supplying the information I had been wanting!)...
The only bit of info I have (if it helps) is that the rainmaking control act is in force in Victoria (Australia)... Someone posted this in another forum and I found it interesting that it is active!
https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/rain-making-control-act-1967/016
Thanks for the link Steve.
Anyone who thinks dots on the weather radar are normal….
Normal weather is a solid Nike like swoop.
Not blasted apart by Frequency Towers and Engineering.
My dad was a Captain for a major airline, flew in WW11. He confirmed. Those trails are not contrails.
Contrails, (which BTW are very rare now, engine design eliminated them) contrails disappear immediately. They don’t hang in the sky, spreading out.
I’ve been railing against this engineering for over a decade.
The chemical compounds in the spray are poisonous and Flammable.
Hence, why fires burn so much hotter.
Trees are being smothered by this crap, dying off.
Geoengineering is killing our planet. And too many look at their phones.
Don’t know what real clouds look like. And don’t notice all the streaks in TV shows or movies.
The globalist have indoctrinated the masses into not noticing our demise. Blaming Climate Change they cause.
This pisses me off to no end, yet the lithium sprayed, have caused such an apathetic populace.
Gawd knows what is next for our planet, in that spray.
Biden just took Gates money to dim the sky permanently.
If we don’t have a massive clean out of this filth in DC our planet will be decimated.
We will be destroyed.
Animals killed off.
No pets.
All under the sophistry of Climate Change and Pandemics.
Both of which The DOD funds , with our tax dollars.
The frequency of sprays where I am in upstate NY has increased significantly. They must need to kill us faster.
I used to live in Baldwinsville. Terrible heavy spraying. & I moved 4 years ago.
The skies were beautiful as a kid up in Cato - Meridian area. I don’t know how the corn & soybeans can grow in the constant white web cloud cover
I have no doubt that last February’s weather event in Orange County California was seeded either intentionally or the result of the abundance of particulate in the atmosphere as a result of the massive aerial spraying campaigns here:
https://kitten.substack.com/p/monster-storm
https://kitten.substack.com/p/kitten-asks-is-this-is-normal
I’m in OC too.
Weather was manipulated in Vietnam.
It’s been going on for decades.
Think cloud seeding is healthy?
The weather plus toxins like agent orange. Many of our military are on disability (if they survived) from being sprayed with that. It killed foliage plus people. So many atrocities are committed by government.
Excellent comprehensive post on "climate change" (or whatever the new fad is) and geoengineering, a keeper for future reference. Max Igan is right - many governments everywhere are no longer valid.
I agree with all of you. This is a post that needs to looks at and shared. I am tired of the chemtrails that I see on a regular basis. I am frustrated that when you try to explain this to others, some think you are crazy.
Thank you! I also have to save the article to watch all of the videos. One of those HAARP installations is in Alaska. Those who are living in Alaska know that the weather tweaking has been hard for a while now. Gray skies, extreme rain or significantly heavier snowfall has been happening for about 6 years (childhood friends live there). Michigan now has constant chemtrails, gray skies (just enough to prevent crops to grow properly), strange swings in violent storms. Watching lightening going sideways in the skies for the first time in my lifetime.
Wow, I'm so glad you finally got to this. Although I took the vaccine/public health red pill over 2 decades ago, this is one topic I have remained very skeptical of. I have an engineering background, and some experience working in the airline industry. I have also read a lot of material you posted and debated it with others who fully buy into it.
I still do not. The fact that documentary is still on YouTube should be one important item to note. You have obviously spent a ton of time on this stack, and I will do the same in a series of responses. I will have to re-watch/read it again and that will take time, but I will take notes and go through it systematically.
I will first state my background which is a degree and license in Systems Design Engineering, which includes courses in mechanical, electrical and computer engineering. I have worked in the software industry for several decades across a large variety of industries which include airlines. With respect to airlines, I worked on software related to operations which is highly cost sensitive. I have also done extensive research into plane crashes.
I will start with my executive summary and then slowly post more detail as I work through your assertions:
I will start with what we agree on:
- Do governments spray stuff in the sky? Yes.
- Do they do it to influence and control the weather? Yes.
- Do they lie about it to the public? Yes.
- Have they been doing it for a long time? Yes.
- Do they have other weather modification technology? Yes.
- Is the origin of this technology military? Yes.
I am going to treat chemtrails and HAARP as two separate topics, because the claims about them and their mechanisms of deployment and intent are quite distinct.
I will state my bias up front. I do not find Dane Wigington a credible source of facts. He is clearly very determined and knowledgeable, but based on my own knowledge, I also know he easily mixes up fact with speculation and does so in a very non transparent manner. He speaks definitively, when he only has circumstantial evidence but makes it sound like he has definitive proof. Whenever I catch someone doing that, I simply can't take their word for anything, even if they are right about a lot of things.
Next thing about Wigington is the fact that both he and you state "He has a background in solar energy". That means very little when it comes to climate change because it is non specific. If I am an electrician and install light switches by day, I could claim I'm in the energy business. It means nothing, and the fact that he's listed as a licensed contractor, I can only assume he knows how to install solar panels, aim them, and make sure the installation doesn't cause roof leaks.
His multi-decades of research I respect.
What I agree with Wigington about:
- The climate scientists absolutely have proposed on record (in the mid 2010's and earlier) bad shit crazy ideas about spraying chemicals in the atmosphere to block the sun
- When I say bat-shit crazy, they acted like folks in public health academics with zero consideration to likely unintended side effects.
What I have a major disagreement with is that there is a systematic effort to have commercial airliners spray chemicals for the purposes of creating clouds and polluting the soil. I disagree with the assertion that when you look up and see trails from planes that they are mostly chemtrails. My assertion is that there is no credible evidence to substantiate those claims nor is there is even a plausible reason airlines would knowingly participate in this.
Here is the evidence that leads me to my high level reasoning:
- are we finding pollution in the soil and air -- Yes. I do not doubt that, but how does anyone know that is coming from planes? We've had toxic pollution in our air and soil since the industrial revolution, so how is finding toxins in rainwater proof that it comes from planes? It is not.
- there is absolutely no way the human eye or a photo/video can differentiate a contrail from a "chemtrail" at 20K feet.
- after decades of trails in the sky there is not a single whistleblower who can confirm the distribution of chemicals from a commercial airliner. Not one.
- Commercial weather modification -- which certainly exists -- sprays chemical into clouds (vs 20K feet of clear sky) with a completely different purpose -- to create precipitation. In fact, insurance companies hire low flying planes with spray nozzles to seed clouds, create precipitation to reduce the size of hail (not make it bigger).
The most damning evidence against the idea most of the trails we see up in the sky is that Jet fuel composition was changed in the 1990's. The regulators worldwide, consolidated on a single jet fuel for all aircraft including military aircraft. The new composition resulted dirtier exhaust from commercial airliners, required the changing of military jet engines to handle the extra soot, and as a result creates more contrails -- since a contrail is ice forming around an exhaust particle.
edit: found it. https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/jim-lee-of-climateviewer-joins-reinette?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR1Sez7rtuYPb1NLEcA51YbcPAcAk67QcK2KeU1oDmtSMAOhqdjyN3fGiKw
You really have to watch this video because it really knocks the credibility of Dale IMO.
This explains both the increase in number of trails, and the increase in the size of them over the decades, since the new engines and fuel was rolled out over a series of decades before it was completed.
Now, this does have an effect, because contrails cool the earth during the day and heat it at night. We know this from some brilliant studies done after 9/11 when for the first time in decades there were no trails for a couple of days.
I am really disappointed that Wigington has no discussion on this very important fact anywhere on his site, in his video, or in any interviews I've seen. I saw this discussed in extensive detail by another climate change activist, who IMO is far more credible than Dale. I need to track down the reference but I will do so.
Dr Exley -- who has done more study on the health effects of aluminum on life on earth -- did a bit of cursory investigation into the idea that planes were spraying aluminum, but found no evidence to support it. He is also infinitely more credible and rigorous than Dale IMO.
Now I will start to go into the details and post slowly over a period of days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am remembering now why I so disliked "The Dimming"
First, the Opening:
- I can't stand arguments that use inference based on Patents. As someone who is very familiar with the patent process, it is about making money, not about inventions. If someone wants to keep a secret, you never patent it because the purpose of a patent is to protect financial interests in an invention by making it public and forcing everyone else to license it from you. A patent application does not mean the idea is feasible, let alone ever actualized. This turned me off right at the start of the documentary. If you want to keep a secret, you keep something unique as a trade secret. Companies do it all the time.
- Our first introduction to "proof" is the high bypass jet engine. He makes the following definitive claim:
"90% of the air that moves through this engine is non combusted, this engine by design is nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under rare and extreme circumstances."
I'll be frank, this is utter nonsense. First, air in jets is never combusted, jet fuel is combusted. A zero bypass jet engine, moves 100% of the air through the combustion chamber and high bypass jets a much smaller percentage. That is the only part of his statement that is even remotely accurate.
High bypass engines are able to accelerate more air than older engines and more thrust per unit of fuel, but they still mix air and fuel and combust it. The heated air is then combined with the bypass air into the nozzle to accelerate the air. All of the jets produce heat, thrust, exhaust and air pressure changes.
Contrails are not only produced by condensation (water content in the fuel which is the same fuel whether it is low or high bypass) but more dominantly from ice crystalizing around the tiny particles in the exhaust. As I noted earlier, modern jet fuel is more sooty (more particles) than the fuel used in the 1970's and prior so we would expect to see more contrails not less from these new engines and fuel.
Now, we're only at 2:46 seconds and from my perspective, Wigington has completely blown all his technical credibility with his first "proof".
His next "proof" is footage of aircraft flying at altitude with "nozzles" except the video goes to aircraft on the ground and shows "nozzles" that look exactly like pitot tubes. Pitot tubes are used all over the aircraft to detect changes in air pressure. They are essential sensors that allow the plane computers to automatically to adjust to changes in pressure and keep the plane doing what the pilot wants it to do. There is not evidence in the video of any nozzles on commercial aircraft. I would absolutely expect these sensor to be on surfaces behind the engine.
Next we see a video of a trail stopping and starting in the sky. The implication that nozzle spray is turning on and off. If we go back to how contrails are formed, it is entirely dependent on the conditions of the air the plane is flying through, and the amount of exhaust coming out of the engines. His argument assumes that the air at 20K feet or more is completely homogenous in moisture content, pressure and temperature. That is a very bad assumption, as is the assumption that the aircraft exhaust didn't change. The length of time that a real contrail will last or even form is highly dependent on the atmospheric conditions by definition. We know from commercial flying that air pockets of different environmental conditions occur all over the place and it is not even remotely close to homogenous. In order for this video evidence to be proof of anything requires an analysis of the conditions that specific plane was flying through at the time. Anything less is pure conjecture.
It is utterly inconceivable that Dane claims "that is the end of the argument". Seriously?
I have no disagreements on military testing of weather modification. It is well established in the 50's and 60's the air force did tests to try and alter both the intensity and path of hurricanes, but they abandoned this because they could not achieve any meaningful control. I am certain they dropped chemicals at different heights to find dispersion patterns, in the best case to determine where nuclear fallout, or bioweapons release would travel and land. I would be shocked if they didn't do this.
These agreed upon facts have no bearing on the trails we see in the sky coming from commercial air traffic.
Next he goes into official pitches and military plans to control weather. Again, military folks PLAN and PITCH all sorts of things all the time. I am old enough to remember Ronald Reagon's "Star Wars" plans to have satellite based lasers to shoot down ICBMs coming from Russia. It turned out those ideas needed to stay in the movies because they could not practically get realized for any reasonable cost. An idea is not proof of implementation. I am certain the military would absolutely weaponize the weather if they could.
Next claims of proof: Accusations by world leaders. Seriously? I know of some weapons of mass destruction too.
I honestly can't understand how an accusation by conflicting world parties in a rhetorical sphere is considered proof of anything other than verbal claims. Yes, cloud seeding can happen, but it doesn't involve flying planes at altitude. It involves spraying low altitude clouds and it changes precipitation in the low double digit percentages at best. How many non human factors affect climate? More than you and I can count. How can Ahmadinejad prove that it was human factors causing a drought without accounting for all those factors first? It's the same type of nonsense claim being made that our CO2 output is causing climate change.
Next we go into evidence of study and the bat shit crazy proposals. No argument there. It seems like the climate scientists community jumped the shark in the 2010's.
At 7:00 minutes we seem to get into real science, but sadly way too fast. They found the same elements in the air as they did on the ground? Shocker. We know a dust storm can kick dust up that high from the ground and have it travel a whole continent away. Same with forest fire smoke. What does that measurement actually mean? Nothing, certainly nothing they talked about in the video. Where is the detail? Did they measure inside a contrail and find a higher concentration of toxins compared to what is known to be in the jet fuel. Jet fuel does have a bunch of stuff in it. It is sooty and dirty. They provide no proof any extra material in the exhaust clouds. The fact that they brush over the important evidence so quickly is suspicious IMO.
At ~14:00 we seem to get to the heart of the matter of Dale's expertise. His solar power uptake was affected. "It is not possible for condensation to block at times 60-70%, even 80% of my solar power uptake."
But wait, clouds are condensation, and they can easily block 90% of your solar power uptake. In fact, I've just lived through the longest winter of overcast weather in a long time. That's all condensation.
"It became clear to me that the contrails coming out of some of the aircraft from the air force base were not normal looking".
This argument I've never understood. The method of creating a contrail or a chemtrail are effectively the same. They would both create a visible cloud and it would disperse according to the air patterns where it was released. How would you tell the difference by looking at it?
They show strange looking trails with vortex like shapes. Have you ever seen the vortexes created by some commercial jetliners after they fly through clouds? And they're not all the same, it is highly dependent on the type of aircraft.
Here is a great photo showing wake turbulence: http://www.boldmethod.com/images/pages/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/wake-turbulence/wake-757-nocredit.jpg
This is well known fact by any pilot. Flying through the wake turbulence of certain planes, even long after it has passed, can be cause a lot of injury in a passenger plane and if it happens near the ground, can cause crashes. These photos prove nothing. But they sure make a good video.
At 43 minutes they talk about attempts to sample the air, but they're using a Cessna, which couldn't go to the height that the trails were emitted at. They then claim the clouds dropped over 10000 feet later in the day? Huh? How do they know it was the same clouds? The video they showed sure didn't look like any trails. They looked like clouds with a super thick cloud layer below it. This isn't good science and it certainly isn't definitive. I applaud the attempt.
Now, he goes into HAARP, which is a whole different topic. Next post.
Thank you George.
I appreciate you doing this, it will be a valuable contribution to the discussion. I will wait until you are complete with your posts, so I can read and digest them at which point I will likely revert with more questions.
Figuring out true from untrue in this subject is especially important to me. It connects with so many other issues.
I've run out of my weekend now, and I have a really busy week at work, so I won't likely get to much more detail for a while. I skimmed the rest of the The Dimming and it seems to be a mish mash of environmental issues including cell phone radiation. I actually think that plain old pollution, microplastics, estrogen in the water, fluoride, aluminum pollution and even microwave radiation from wireless devices are far more dangerous than the trails in the sky. I also think those are definitive problems, not speculative. The fact that we have cut down 90% of the forests in North America is a massive geo-engineering exercise. I think Land use is the bigger eco problem, not CO2 etc. That's what I have for now.
If you have specific parts or questions, let me know. There are so many claims made, it could take a lifetime to investigate each one of them with the detail it deserves. I picked what I consider to be the most blatant errors, which makes me question much of what is being sold in the documentary.
I agree. Figuring out what is true and untrue is important to me. I have the same issue with all the theories surrounding 9/11 collapses. I have not seen convincing evidence of DEWs but I've read about tons of theories and compelling narratives none of which have passed the occams razor test for me.
While I'm finishing up, I suggest watching the video I linked with Jim Lee. I'm pretty sure he isn't saying all the trails you see in the sky are Chem trails and like I said, he's far more credible and has real facts and far better investigative information than Dale.
If we've decided Dale is not credible a lot of what is on his page needs to be inspected with a fine toothed comb.
George; I don't know anything about jets. But, I suspect you are telling the Truth!
However, Social "Truths" are not always the same as Scientific Truths.
This is part of an ongoing battle, where conspiracy theory and misdirection can be used as a tool to create a climate of fear?
Indeed, it is a good observation. That is another reason I am suspicious of the "look up in the sky, see all these planes spraying you" narrative. It has been on facebook and social media and youtube for a long long time (years and years), and yet, all they do is fact check it and leave it uncensored.
That to me, is the best indication it is useful for generating fear, division, distraction, and they don't see it as a threat -- because it's not accurate and it acts to undermine the credibility of those that promote it, which will prevent people from looking at other real problems that do exist related to it.
We know for sure the planes are spraying exhaust, like they always have. Just like any other motorized vehicle. Way up at 20K+ feet, that happens to create clouds given the sooty fuel we've been using for a few decades.
Truth is a tricky binary word.
From Twitter "The Ethical Skeptic", one of my favourite posters:
https://x.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1743869921036022053?s=20
"What is Truth?
Always be aware of when you are dealing with the delusion of the second paradigm.
Fact checkers, trolls, fake skeptics, authorities, censors, science communicators, explainers, and the religious - all wallow ethically inside the second paradigm."
Two innate personal positions exist regarding truth:
1. Truth is a seldom-attained state of inference, derived from deductive logical calculus, inside the prosecution of a criticial path of probative questions. Truth is not a destination, nor is it in any way related to me personally.
2. Truth is an object which exists inside my perception and possession. My objective is to use all available means to secure agreement on this from others."
------
I think we would all do well to remember this, myself included.
Part 3 -- HAARP and radiofrequencies
"These particles are then manipulated with extraordinarily powerful radiofrequency microwave transmissions, transmissions that can heat the upper layers of the atmosphere, like the ionosphere. That are used to create pressure zones which steer upper level wind currents, which then steer weather systems."
While he's speaking about this, he's showing a photo of SBX, Sea-based X band Radar. X band radar operates in the frequency range of 7-11 GHz. Microwave ovens that are designed to heat water operate at ~2.4GHz (same as Wifi and bluetooth). Not sure how 7 GHz is going to heat the atmosphere at all, since military radar wants to travel far and not heat the atmosphere at all. Does he provide a single piece of evidence to suggest the military radar (used to track missiles and aircraft) can heat the atmosphere or even heat aluminum or those other metals? I have never seen such evidence.
Now, let's get to HAARP. It was designed as an ionosphere heater, but it doesn't use microwave frequencies. Microwave frequencies operate between 1-300 GHz where HAARP operates with much longer wavelengths in the 2.8-10MHz bands. That is why when you look at HAARP antenna arrays, they are very different looking from let's say cell tower transmitters (which are microwave based frequencies).
Again, Wigington sounds like he knows what he is talking about, but it's literally techno-babble in this section -- much like his discussion of high bypass jet engines.
Despite my interest in meteorology, I am not an expert, but I can't find any readily available information that indicates that disturbances in the ionosphere can affect weather systems which exist much lower in the Troposphere. He talks about raising pressure in the ionosphere, but it's mostly electromagnetic effects going on up there. The stuff they do in the ionosphere with HAARP messes with communications (i.e. radiofrequency waves).
There is some info about magnetic storms from space manipulating temperature at the poles, but that has nothing to do with pressure affecting weather systems.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JA014029
He then quotes a US Military expert on biology talking about RF waves?
So HAARP in alaska has been operating for decades now, and a lot of the experiments are public because it's a University. All I see in this video is very old theories being discussed. Nothing operational, not even remotely.
I am certainly open to HAARP being able to do something WRT weather, or the military, but there I have yet to see any hard evidence of what that is.
I didn't read this article which is so "unbekoming" of me (couldn't resist) because I first noticed chemtrails in 1988. I have been investigating for 22 years now, since I got my first computer. To be frank I'm kinda a know-it-all on the topic. No one and I mean no one believed me when I told them what was in the sky. Back in the good old days I used a legal pad to write down sites of interest. Two pages equals 44 sites, all gone in no time. Gone are Press TV, Radio Islam, Serendipity, All about Chemtrails and major Eastern news sites. I now mark my calendar when we have a sunny day, not a couple hours but the whole day. I mark it when we have a blue sky and for how long. It's been 15 years since I have seen stars. I have not been able to have a veggie garden in 5 years when previously I did which shows exactly how the spraying has been ramped up. As for my calendar, I can tell you it's 1day, maybe2 or no days per month for the weather that used to exist prior to 1988. My records show a maximum of 24 beautiful days a year. If we're lucky
Damn. Lost my prior comment.
How many days of actual fluffing 3 D clouds do you get? A rare sight.
Remember the game of looking for animals in them. Can’t do it in these chemical clouds.
Too many looking at their phones, whilst walking the dog, out with the kids.
I doubt anyone would forget their phone in the Hot Car like they do children or pets…….
The 3D clouds are a category by themselves, I forgot to mention. Max of 2x's per month, sometimes 3. It's a sight to behold. And then the newly invented cloud formations (that I never fail to recognize) glide in ever so insidiously and destroy what God gave us in less than an hour. One can easily make the case that the non-existent Covid virus was really chemtrails connected to WiFi/5G due to the nano-particulates dropping all over us. It is a forgone conclusion that these chemtrails are causing all sorts of respiratory distress, that is then labeled, again, as Covid. A Mobius strip if ever I've seen one.
Yup. Having watched The Dimming last year only confirmed what I already sensed and to an extent researched myself. The reality shock is watching it happen in the sky in real time. I've lost count of the number of clear skies I've seen getting covered in chemical trails that last most of the day and dissipate into a haze. The question remains, what are we going to do about it?