What In The World Are They Spraying?

(CounterCurrents) – What would you say if you were told that airplanes were regularly spraying toxic aerosols in the skies above every major region of the world? That is exactly what a group of protestors were claiming outside of the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting that was held in San Diego from February 18-22. However, inside the convention center was a different story.

Michael J. Murphy
Countercurrents.org
March 4, 2010

The scientists gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various Geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world, all under the guise that the Earth has a man-made global warming problem that can be solved in-part by spraying aerosol aluminum and other particles into the sky to block the sun. When these scientists were asked about the possibility of existing aerosol programs; they stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been implemented to date. A little confused? Why would protestors gather outside of a meeting making claims that world-wide aerosol programs were under way if scientist were only now discussing the possibility of implementing these programs? Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?

Mauro Oliveira, the Webmaster of Geoengineeringwatch.org, was one of the protestors. He claimed that the program for Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG), AKA chemtrails, has been well under way around the world. As a matter of fact, Oliveira stated that witnesses from around the globe claim that heavy aerosol spraying is occurring almost every day over just about every city. He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

Another group of protestors had traveled over 10 hours from a small Shasta County community in Northern California. They became concerned about SAG when many from this community began to see dramatic changes not only in the sky, but also on the ground. Trees were dying, grass was not growing and many farmers were having difficulty getting any crops to grow on their farms. The crisis prompted biologists from the community to take action by testing the soil. The results were shocking. Aluminum, barium and other elements were found to be up to thousands of times higher than normal limits. Such high quantities lead to unhealthy PH levels in the soil which can be deadly to ecological life systems. These shocking results led to additional testing of Lake Shasta with samples from the Pit River arm tributary that tested over 4,610 times the maximum contamination level of aluminum allowed in drinking water in the state of California. Also, peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that bio-available aluminum, now found in huge quantities in rain world-wide, is very harmful to flora and thus the eco-system. Ironically, these are the same substances the scientists are considering implementing in the various potential “future” aerosol spraying campaigns that were being discussed at the meeting.

A large number of other protesters became interested in SAG after experiencing burning eyes, migraine headaches, anxiety, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and other health problems on days that airplanes were allegedly witnessed spraying aerosols in the sky. Deborah Whitman, Founder and President of the non-profit environmental organization Environmental Voices and also Producer of the documentary “Sky Lines” is no stranger to these symptoms. She has been hospitalized over 51 times on what she calls “heavy spraying days”. Whitman has committed her life to helping people who claim to be experiencing similar problems resulting from aerosol spraying and gets calls from all over the U.S. in response to her website and documentary. Her recommended health tips can be found at http://www.environmentalvoices.org. Other indicators that possibly validate the claim that SAG is connected to health problems are the respiratory mortality rate, which has risen from eight on the list of mortality to third in the past five years, and the fact that Alzheimer’s and other illnesses linked to aluminum have continued to rise around the globe at astronomical rates since the inception of the alleged spraying.

The AAAS meeting hosted some of the world’s leading geo-engineering scientists. With years of education and even more experience in their respected fields, the scientists looked at geo-engineering issues from many angles. Workshop subjects ranged from, the effectiveness of geo-engineering to potential problems and even touched upon the issue of ethics. According to independent reporter Stewart Howe of Los Angeles, all of the scientists seemed to be looking for solutions to what they believe is the problem of global warming. Howe stated that the scientists appeared to be carefully weighing both the pros and cons of SAG when presenting potential campaigns to address the man-made global warming theory. Many were actually advocating alternative methods to combat this issue due to the potential risks of SAG that include droughts, ozone depletion, less solar power, decimated weather patterns, military use of technology and other various environmental impacts. Howe said, “after witnessing the aerosol spraying for years, I was surprised by the discourse among scientists.” Stewart went on to say that he believes that most of the scientists attending seemed to be separated from the knowledge of any current SAG deployment. As a matter of fact when asked about current SAG operations, leading geo-engineering scientist Ken Caldiera replied that he was unaware of any current aerosol spraying operations and when prompted to explain the long lingering trails left behind planes, he stated that they are simply normal contrails from jets.

David Keith, another leading scientist and expert in the field of geo-engineering, discussed the well-funded studies that have been conducted to predict potential future risks as well as benefits associated with geo-engineering. Some of the potential benefits include a cooler planet, and the reduction of melting sea ice and rising sea levels. Keith discussed what aerosol particles would be most effective in achieving the stated goals of the SAG program. He went on to say that initially sulfur was considered, however, aluminum is more effective and can be used by adding ten to twenty mega-tons per year into the stratosphere. When asked about health related studies that have been conducted to predict the potential risks of adding the particles in our air, Keith stated that many studies have been completed and indicate few risks. However, when asked specifically about the use of aluminum as an aerosol, he said “we haven’t done anything serious on aluminum, so there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we haven’t looked at.” After the meeting, Keith showed consideration to the protesters by initiating a discussion about the SAG program outside where the protestors were standing. When confronted with concerns about SAG deployment from the group, he went on to say that he shared similar views and is against any deployment until proper research is completed to determine potential risks of aerosol spraying. He also went on to say that he is unaware of any current SAG operations, but, would be willing to look at any scientific proof if presented to him.

As the skies around our world continue to change, there is strong evidence that points toward current deployment of massive aerosol operations. Could it be that scientific data and studies are being used to implement pre-mature full-scale SAG programs with-out the knowledge of the top scientists who are involved with the research? If so, what kind of ethical considerations can we expect from the geo-engineering community in the future? It is hard to believe that the strange white lines in the skies witnessed around the world and the toxic elements found in the soil, water and air are from an unrelated source. We the people, in partnership with the scientific community need to challenge not only the environmental and health risks associated with SAG but also the numerous world-wide allegations about current deployment. It is imperative that we become educated and involved in uncovering the truth of this alleged crime against both nature and humanity. The future of our planet depends on it. As concerns continue to grow around the world about this issue, additional information including meet-up groups can be found on various chemtrail and geo-engineering websites.

3 thoughts on “What In The World Are They Spraying?

  1. Geoengineering Scientist Explains Contrails, Denies “Massive Spraying”
    VIDEO:

    Scientist Alan Robock, Rutgers University, meets with protesters before his scheduled session, “Can Geoengineering Save Us from Global Warming? “. Protesters claim geoengineering is already taking place with chemical spraying (via persistant jet trails also known as “chemtrails”) while Mr. Robock argues they are confused with normal contrails that produce cirrus clouds.

  2. Very important info (repasting from prisonplanet comments):

    “Debunking” attempt by a Victor Holm who made a comment on the same article at http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy240310.htm

    “Mr. Murphy has spun an interesting yarn but little of it is related to science or contrails. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the crust, after oxygen and silicon. The fact that it is showing up in the soils and on solar panels is not surprising. If the form of the aluminum was metallic and not an oxide as occurs in nature would be surprising but Mr. Murphy chooses not to illuminate us on the state of the Al he found. The pH of natural ground water varies between 5.5 and 7.0 and within this range there are no health effects. Some people complain of “hard water” which is typically at a ph of 6.5 to 7.0 but while a nuisance has no health effects nor is it man caused. A more acid ph of less than 6.0 can cause iron deposits in toilets but again it is a nuisance without health effects and natural. I have a hard time believing that the snows at Mt Shasta contained only 61 mg/l Al I would have guessed that that they would contain at least 30,000 mg/l. The EPA does not have a health standard for AL in drinking water; rather they regulate it under a secondary standard based on nuisance. That standard is voluntary and is between 5ug/l and 200ug/l. What Mr. Murphy leaves out is this is soluble Al. The results from Mt Shasta were total Al.

    Barium is much the same story. Barium is the 14th most abundant element. It is ubiquitous in rocks and soils. The amounts reported by Mr. Murphy are well within the normal amounts to be expected.

    Meteorologists have long known that although contrails usually dissipate quickly, if certain temperature and moisture conditions prevail in the upper atmosphere contrails will remain and in fact they will coalesce and become a complete cloud cover. This phenomenon obviously affects solar collectors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studied this phenomenon to determine how it would reduce global warming; they concluded that while it does reduce solar heating the CO2 put into the upper atmosphere by the jet aircraft more than makes up for the reduction so the net effect is more global warming.
    I continue to be amazed how a little science can send people off on such wild goose chases; when just a little more study could convince them that main stream science for all its faults might just be right in the instance.”

    Answer with permission from Dane Wigington:

    There are a number of well informed people and an expert or two that want to respond to incorrect data and assumptions listed by Mr. Victor Holm.
    He mentions ground water PH. This is not the issue. It is rainwater PH that is in question. Rainwater PH falls in specific ranges and all recent tests taken, (by highly qualified biologists) are 10 times plus more alkaline than what should be expected, and what has always been historically. Mr. Victor Holm choses to distract from the articles subject and enters a discussion about “ground water”.
    Next, Mr. Victor Holm mentions aluminum as abundant, he is correct in a global context, though regions vary greatly. Aluminum is not abundant
    in this region, and in any case, it does not exist in the environment in “free form”. It absolutely does not belong in precipitation other than perhaps the most minute trace amounts and even then likely only in an industrial or dusty region. Not in a “highly filtered” boreal forest region where all subject tests were taken.
    Mr. Victor Holm has misquoted Murphy’s data on another critical point. The article clearly states a snow test off the side of Mt. Shasta was
    61,100 ug/l , not 61. Next, Mr. Victor Holm says he would expect the snow should actually be 30,000 ug/l, and apparently this would be normal. I
    challenge Mr. Victor Holm to name his source to confirm that a level of the toxic metal aluminum in precipitation that is 30 times the State of
    California’s recognized MCL, (maximum contaminant level) is normal.
    Mr. Victor Holm implies that since barium is a natural element, it is perfectly normal for our rain and air samples to be full of that.
    Arsenic is a naturally occurring element, should our rain be full of that as well? Does he mention anywhere that there are countless studies
    showing that aluminum and barium are both known to be toxic elements to the human organism if ingested or inhaled? Would not any reasonable
    person be concerned at precipitation tests that show 61,100 ug/l, fully 61 times + the State of California’s MCL for this metal?
    Finally, Mr. Victor Holm goes of on the point that “contrails” can routinely cover the entire sky. If this is so Mr. Victor Holm, why is there
    a massive international dialog among many scientists about the immediate need to fill the skies with 20,000,000 tones of aluminum
    oxide to “form artificial clouds”. I am not mistaken about this statement from the most internationally recognized geo-scientists. I
    attended the international conference in Feb. and I personally heard these statements and saw the graphs and charts covering the albedo
    effects of aluminum. I also heard the most internationally recognized geoscientist, David Keith, say that there have been no studies done
    whatsoever as to the effects on human health, and environmental toxicity of dumping 20,000,000 tones of ultra fine aluminum particles into the atmosphere. There is a mountain of data available on the internet to prove such proposals from the scientific world. Mr. Victor Holm, not once do you even mention the term “geoengineering”. You never
    mention mention that in fact numerous geoengineering patents
    specifically name aluminum and barium as primary ingredients. You never mention that these same patents propose the dispersal of these
    ingredients from aircraft for the express purpose of creating artificial cloud cover.
    Mr. Victor Holm I respectfully ask for your source to prove that 30,000 ug/l of aluminum in precipitation is normal. I would like to know your
    source of data to show that determines soil PH in the Shasta, Siskiyou, County areas should be in the 6.5/7.0 range. Biologists in our area have a very expensive and extensive USDA full soils analysis that says quite otherwise.
    I would like to know exactly where you think the massive amount of metal falling on us is coming from. (An increase of aluminum of as much
    as 50,000% in only four years.) It is not coming from Asia as the California Air Quality Resources Board has studied aerosols from China,
    heavy metals are not amongst them.
    If any truly want to come to intelligent conclusions on this issue, one must do the research, starting with an objective investigation into the subject of geoengineering.

    Reply
    # Sweden Says:
    March 25th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    With permission from Mangels:

    Greetings to all:
    After reading the comment by Mr. Victor Holm, [comment to the identical article by Murphy on http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy240310.htm ] I have concluded that he is a disinformation project specialist with so many errors in his statement he
    has no credibility. Cognitive dissonance at best, indeed, if not paid to debunk. I know folks are hired to do this, but not on this subject yet for
    sure. Maybe.

    The soil referred to in this area is Deetz, #125,126, found on sheet 32 of the Siskiyou soil survey p. 262 which says this soil should test in a pH of 4.5 to 6.0. It was 5.5 eight years ago Our tests by pH papers and soil pH meters are now showing a range of 6.6 to 8.4 for this soil and similar types in gardens and mixed conifer black oak habitat soils from Shasta Lake to Mt
    Shasta to Weed CA. Most commonly, I get about 6.6 to 6.8 in over 150 tests so far, including today’s rain. Quite consistent. The +8 pH’s may be from
    garden ammendments, and I tend to dismiss them as natural soils are always about 6.6-6.8 pH now. As Mr. Wigington says, this is indeed over ten times
    more alkaline than local soils should be.

    Looking at Victor Holms other comments, he is quite uninformed, makes many errors, has took no tests or data himself, and is likely trying to dismiss
    scientific data for financial reasons. A fact will always stand, a fact supports a hypothesis, but an uninformed opinion is only an opinion Mr.
    Victor Holm puts forth. Science does not change until a fact dismisses a theory.
    Until he has a relevant fact, I dismiss his opinion.

    Francis Mangels, retired federal soil conservationist, forester, range and
    wildlife biologist

    Reply
    # Sweden Says:
    March 25th, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    A final note:

    Since many serious proponents of chemtrails are basing their claims on logic and observation it is highly unlikely that they fall prey to the
    phenomena of cognitive dissonance to the same degree as people on “autopilot” i.e. bluntly dismissing it.

    The first category (apart from the gullible) tends to base their conclusions after extensive research of both sides while the second often rejects chemtrails automatically without ever having looked at both arguments – therefore in a sense being even more gullible.

    Hence the second group are much more predisposed for being biased on IRRATIONAL grounds, i.e. without ever having read the scientists who
    believe in chemtrails, and therefore they experience cognitive dissonance (conditioning) on grounds that are very different and much
    less logically justified compared with a group of serious “conspiracy theorists” Therefore they are much more predisposed arguing from a subset of assumptions and beliefs that “this is simply not possible”, i.e. cognitive dissonance.

    And one can argue which group – the establishment or the counter subculture – is most predisposed for selfdeceptions in the following…I
    think the ruling paradigm is much more predisposed for virulently ditching chemtrails than the chemtrails proponents are in trying to adapt observations to assumptions:

    “Creative imagination is likely to find corroborating novel evidence even for the most ‘absurd’ programme, if the search has sufficient
    drive. This look-out for new confirming evidence is perfectly permissible. Scientists dream up phantasies and then pursue a highly selective hunt for new facts which fit these phantasies. This process may be described as ’science creating its own universe’ (as long as one remembers that ‘creating’ here is used in a provocative-idiosyncratic sense). A brilliant school of scholars (backed by a rich society to finance a few well-planned tests) might succeed in pushing any fantastic programme ahead, or alternatively, if so inclined, in overthrowing any arbitrarily chosen pillar of ‘established knowledge’.
    — Imre Lakatos

    The PEOPLE of United States must be vigilant and unite and WAKE UP their fellow countrymen and not succumb to the brainwashing and lullabye go-back-to-sleep techniques by “debunkers” AKA disinformation operators….

Leave a comment