Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

[Kate Magdalena Willens]

If Geoengineeringwatch.org got something wrong then they did. I'm not prepared to argue about it, nor trade barbs. So he got the acronym for HAARP wrong. Does that change its reality? Or the reality that our skies are now charged to carry its waves for all sorts of evil intents?

If you or anyone else is not of the belief that our skies are being trashed, then that's up to you. I'm not about to change your mind, nor is it my intent. My intent is simply to raise awareness about what I know is definitely occurring, not make good on anyone's info. I can vouch though for Clifford Carnicom's info, because I work with him, and I know he has the highest integrity of anyone I have ever known. Everyone has to come to their own decision on this issue.

Also, not sure what you are doing throwing metabunk's stuff around because metabunk is a paid shill, one of those I mentioned who is paid to put out crap to take people off the trail.

I put up links because I think they give more facts, faster. Also because if a person cannot be civil in their comment, then they don't deserve my reply.

oh good, this one's back. Link trading time again??
....

[kpage9]

Soon, if we're lucky, Kate will let us in on the secret of Morgellons: how a few of us have little filaments made of heavy metals growing out of our bodies...the result of aerosol spraying in our skies. And how "geoengineers" are all about impoverishing regular folk and making them have fewer babies, and enriching themselves fabulously and secretly. And then how Facebook had it in for her and changed her photo...

I'm sorry. I really don't like it when someone devotes their time and energy to digging up dirt on another person, but I must confess to being morbidly fascinated with this, what borders on mass thought disorder. It's not quite delusion (except for the Morgellons).

Somehow the name "Carnicon" sounds like a description...

If Geoengineeringwatch.org got something wrong then they did. ...

[Alex]

Not sure if you thought about this before your opening post Kate, but sorry if you thought the word 'conscious' in the wacco motto meant that people here tended to have open minds and make sure they look thoroughly and objectively at all evidence before spewing hard conclusions about controversial concepts that threaten their view of reality comfort zone.

Good thing they generally don't klll the messenger as much anymore. Many people realizing the world was round got themselves killed for 300 years for pointing to the evidence before acknowledgement had wound it's way into society.

I think it's very interesting that you work with Cliff. I have been aware of his very in depth research and documentation of the chemtrails subject for many, many years since the beginning and have great respect for him and his work. It appears he is one of the few in the field of controversial subjects who is meticulous about backing up his theories with evidence and data and laying all his findings on the table. Would you agree?

One of my questions has always been, because those propagating the spray cannot separate themselves or their cronies from the effects, how do they the view the fact that the various concoctions from chemical to nano are really also being sprayed on themselves/and the world they live in and their own future generations?

I know there are numerous specific agendas in place, as well as ongoing experimentation for future application. What is your opinion of what some of the already being implemented agendas are? Have you also found that any of the agendas are benevolent and addressing what they regard as undisclosable threats?

I would invite you to dinner if you don't want any further digital bullets, but I thank you for your boldness and fortitude to refuse to cower or deny something you know.

[Scott McKeown]

Nobody in this forum should be personally attacked for offering an idea for discussion (as long as it’s not blatantly racist or hateful). We can tolerate differing views. And, at the same time, if a claim is made with little or no solid evidence to back it up then there should also be an openness to having that claim challenged (in a non-personalized way).

I believe it’s important to keep an open mind and to be willing to look at evidence offered. And if someone makes a claim about something that is extremely scary (or most might say outlandish) then I also think there is an intellectual burden to provide at least some credible and solid evidence.

I’ve researched the chemtrails issue a fair amount and have yet to find any evidence I consider to be credible, including the shoddy “soil samples” argument that has been roundly discredited. Yet, I’m still willing to keep looking at new information that’s offered up, keeping mindful that sources and methodologies matter.

Thus, I decided to try one of the links offered in an earlier posting on this thread. I chose at random a video link, and since it was an hour-long talk I randomly fast forwarded a bit into the video to check it out. At the spot I landed on the speaker in the video, who appears to have no expertise in the field of atmospherics, was claiming that the difference between condensation vapor trails (contrails) and chemtrails was that contrails evaporate quickly while chemtrails spread out to form thin clouds, and that contrails don’t do that.

You can view this claim starting around the 4:00 mark here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzW5Kb8u0Og

I decided to try to confirm this claim that contrails can’t form cirrus clouds but evaporate quickly and so did a bit of quick research. I soon found that it is universally accepted among atmospheric scientists that jet condensation vapor trails can and often do spread out wide to form a thin layer of clouds.

Among the sources I found was a scientific paper written by Peter Kuhn of the Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Laboratory at the Environmental Science Services Administration in Boulder, CO and which was published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, linked here:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...O%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Here is an excerpt:

“The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet”

And here’s the thing: this scientific paper was written in 1970, long before the issue of chemtrails arose. One can easily find literally hundreds of confirming scientific views on this. The phenomenon has been observed going back to WWII.

So what is one to think? My totally random sampling of the information presented revealed that the speaker in the video has an appalling lack of knowledge and clearly has no idea what she is talking about. Or otherwise is outright lying. I didn’t bother to click on any of the other links or watch the rest of the video as all credibility was instantly lost.

I suppose one can make the argument (and I suppose many do) that all of the hundreds if not thousands of atmospheric scientists who have spent their entire careers studying these things going back many decades are all part of an elaborate Government conspiracy, or have all been coerced by fear to lie. But that is where you loose me.

Condensation vapor trails from jets are clearly having an effect on the atmosphere and could likely be affecting the climate in some way. And there is no argument that there is occasional cloud seeding happening in some regions, and probably a few other occasional experiments of various kinds happening here and there. But that is a long way from what chemtrails proponents are claiming.

If one were to simply say this is my belief but I have no real evidence to back it up, that too is valid and there is no violation of intellectual integrity to be challenged.

There is some irony here in that while this discussion is going on we are openly and brazenly polluting the atmosphere with carbon which is heading us toward the end of civilization as we know it.

In the meantime, I’ll be keeping an open mind.

Scott

[podfish]

Not sure if you thought about this before your opening post Kate, but sorry if you thought the word 'conscious' in the wacco motto meant that people here tended to have open minds and make sure they look thoroughly and objectively at all evidence before spewing hard conclusions about controversial concepts that threaten their view of reality comfort zone.

thanks, Scott, for a substantive response. All I got is a wisecrack about gee, who does this post refer to?

'course, I don't accept the characterization as described here, despite my accepting residence in the comfortable zone with a few other Waccos. I think that the comfort zone's a pretty reality-oriented place, actually. and though I think I'm quite open-minded, apparently so do the people I think are too eagerly accepting weak arguments that support their own worldview.

I was reading something earlier today, regarding the frequency of arguments with studies being tossed from two opposing points of view, where the author pointed out that the next stage of the discussion should be to start analyzing the qualities of the studies, rather than heaping them into piles to see which is largest. Scott's small sample may not be statistically valid, but it would save us more casually interested folks a lot of time if someone pooled the harder-to-refute studies together. Also, remember the adage about proof-of-absence vs. absence-of-proof. No, the other one. You'd think (well, again, maybe not you) that someone behind this conspiracy would slip in a way that leaves obvious irrefutable traces, eliminating the need to make weak or provably spurious arguments, like the cirrus-sheet claim Scott mentions.

[Dixon]

...arguments with studies being tossed from two opposing points of view, where the author pointed out that the next stage of the discussion should be to start analyzing the qualities of the studies, rather than heaping them into piles to see which is largest.

Ideally you do both. First you find out (from some trusted source with real expertise on the specific subject and no obvious conflicts of interest), which of the studies were properly designed, conducted, and interpreted, then you find out what the consensus among those studies is, if any. What we often see is people proffering whatever studies support their bias and ignoring the others. If there are 87 good studies contradicting the results of their favorite three studies, they don't want to know it. If you point out that the proponderance of the evidence doesn't support their position, be ready to duck.

[Kate Magdalena Willens]

Dear Alexia,
How kind of you to write. This is certainly feeling like being a lamb among wolves, or casting pearls before swine. For some reason my email didn't give me your post.

I'm so glad you are familiar with Clifford's impeccable work. Your question is one everyone raises, and it is a good one. According to Clifford who's background is in geodesy at the DoD, this program has 7 different levels of application. These are:


1. Modification and control of weather and the environment
2. Electromagnetic operations
3. Military operations
4. Biological operations
5. Planetary and geophysical change
6. Sophisticated surveillance systems
7. Ionic disturbance detection

Clifford was astounded when, in viewing an environmental sample of aerosol fallout, he found dessicated erythrocytes (red blood cells). What were biological organisms doing in such fallout? He found this repeatedly in continued examination of fallout. This put him on the track of biological manipulation. He has since isolated the the bioengineered organism which self-replicates, producing filaments which is now in our food and water supply, as well as our air. For those interested in viewing on film the production of these filaments, they may now do so by going to his site, and viewing the current papers. I do not pretend to know why the devils concocting this crap are poisoning their own children. Clearly their view of the future of life on earth -- the synthetic timeline -- as Laura Eisenhower and others have referred to it --- involves manipulation not only of our food supply, but of the eaters of that supply. Us, and all mammalian life. But this reality is too frightening for the deniers of the obvious as the nose on our faces changes in our skies. To them, the simple notion that "contrails persist because of changes in the atmosphere" suffices. And yet, they consider themselves geniuses, and even warned me to stay off of this subject because they are simply too intelligent!

Anyone that is sensitive to nature, to the skies, to light, anyone that observes can find "proof" of the heinous reality of this program. Anyone that prefers denial can find proof of that also in the work of metabunk, or any of the other phony "contrail" science intentionally put out to catch those who are not willing to put in the time to do serious research, because they find the notion of such a program preposterous. It certainly is that. But so was 9/11. Anyone that does serious investigation into 9/11 and into the Kennedy assassination, is aware that our government has, in fact, turned against its own people.

Thank you again Alexia. Best wishes, Kate

...I think it's very interesting that you work with Cliff. I have been aware of his very in depth research and documentation of the chemtrails subject for many, many years since the beginning and have great respect for him and his work. ...

[kpage9]

I keep thinking about the title of the first post--with "unbiased" in quotes. shoulda paid attention.

kathy

My post to this forum was for the purpose of finding others who also are aware of what is taking place in our skies, not to convince anyone who already has their mind made up because they know better, and who ridicule anyone who thinks differently. ...

[podfish]

for those who still are curious about the pull of this issue, here's yet another link. But this one is interesting because it addresses what is to me the most interesting part of the whole subject: where do these things (chemtrails, morgellons, 911-truthers, etc) come from and what kind of world do the believers live in, where these issues resonate more than the 'mainstream' ones like corporate control of our political system, or the disfunction of our medical and other social services? How did these subjects catch their attention to such a degree? I suppose this counts as a link to a debunker, but it's really a history:

http://swallowingthecamel.wordpress....mtrail-events/

[Kate Magdalena Willens]

This was sent to me anonymously by a knowledgable and concerned citizen. I am posting it accordingly.

"Ive been monitoring this forum and Ive been waiting for the perfect time to have people go out and look up-As of 10:00am May 7th 2014 there were no visible contrails or chemtrails in the sky despite certain aircraft passing-

then suddenly, if you look above the Cloverdale area, 4 4-engine white kc135 fly over along strange vectors none along the same route- now the "contrails are spreading slowly across the sky-

This is a "marking" of the area for further spraying all afternoon (skies were clear for the last few days).

If you pay close attention, you'll see weather events magnified in the eastern half of the country as this zone above Sonoma County is the right place to draw in weather that would otherwise go to far North."

[podfish]

This was sent to me anonymously...

If you pay close attention, you'll see weather events magnified in the eastern half of the country as this zone above Sonoma County is the right place to draw in weather that would otherwise go to far North."

thanks for the start of a concrete prediction. I'm not sure why it has to be anonymous... but anyway, can you explain "magnified weather events" a bit more? And how to tell it's not what was going to happen anyway? Sounds like you're trying to address the request for evidence-based claims. Accurate predictions, especially when they're of unlikely events, really are the best way to convince people.

and not to move the goalposts when we've just started - but weather modification is the least controversial part of the chemtrail claims. Mind control is at the other end, at least to me, but claims of poisoning are also unlikely to us skeptics. A fulfilled prediction of unexpected hospital admissions would be much more compelling evidence than a rainstorm, for example.

[Kate Magdalena Willens]

The operation is multi-leveled as I explained in a prior post; weather modification is part of the goal. That is why we are in a drought. I will have to wait to hear from the expert who asked me to post. Best advice however is to watch the sky. Watch the feathered and gauzy cloudlike substance move to cover and whiten our sky.

...and not to move the goalposts when we've just started - but weather modification is the least controversial part of the chemtrail claims. Mind control is at the other end, at least to me, but claims of poisoning are also unlikely to us skeptics. A fulfilled prediction of unexpected hospital admissions would be much more compelling evidence than a rainstorm, for example.

[Scott McKeown]

My hope is that we can do without all the insults at each other. It really degrades the quality of the conversation. (Admittedly, I can't say I have a perfect record with this myself.) By either calling people "chicken littles" on one side, or "deniers" on the other, the use of pejorative language to describe those who advocate a different position ("pearls before swine", etc.) isn't particularly helpful.

On either extreme there are entrenched belief systems that lash out when one's worldview is challenged. There is a middle position of being open minded and using critical thinking skills to evaluate the quality of evidence objectively. (There is also a difference between having some healthy skepticism about a particular issue, which allows for some open mindedness and honest inquiry, and being a "skeptic" who tends to have knee-jerk negative reactions about all such things and to not be so open minded.)

People offering up information for review, and also those who honestly evaluate the quality of that information, don't deserve to be attacked with insults. It is not a personal attack to critique evidence presented. Nor is it even a direct response to the intent of a posting of evidence, even if that intent is not to convince anyone. There is no need to get defensive. It is simply commenting on the quality of information that has been presented to this community.

I'm not looking for "proof" (a term I didn't use and is too high a bar anyway) but I am looking for quality, gold-standard evidence. Dixon pointed to the kind of information I think most of us are looking for. It's not that information put out by amateur advocates has no value, as it can serve to raise questions. But to really change the paradigm of what we know collectively to be true it needs to be at a higher standard.

I see information offered that is from writers, former politicians, biased advocates, etc. -- all non-experts in the field. For example, in one of the titles of new evidence presented I see: "Don't confuse this with contrails. Those are harmless condensation trails that are only visible for a few seconds. On the other hand chemtrails are clouds of chemicals." The source: a former town mayor from Belgium. Does being a former mayor qualify one as a reliable source? Atmospheric science (for many decades -- see my previous posting) tells us that is just flat wrong. Am I being a close-minded "denier" by questioning such evidence? According to his bio, Clifford Carnicom is a computer consultant and bookkeeping specialist with degrees in surveying and forest engineering and with no significant background in any directly relevant field.

I'm just finding it difficult to take this stuff seriously.

For those of us in the middle who seek high quality information and want to know that truth, can anyone offer up any serious scientific paper, or gold-standard study, or ANYTHING done by serious atmospheric scientists, or ANY reputable, non-biased scientific institution, or scientific body, or academic institution, or scientific publication or journal that supports the existence of chemtrails? It would be appreciated. For me, YouTube videos by amateurs talking about something outside their immediate field of expertise, or by ex-politicians, or websites created by advocate organizations and bloggers just don't carry much weight. With those we get things like, "condensation trails are only visible for a few seconds".

I hope I won't now be called a close-minded denier for asking for such a thing.

Scott

[jbox]

The operation is multi-leveled as I explained in a prior post; weather modification is part of the goal. That is why we are in a drought. I will have to wait to hear from the expert who asked me to post. Best advice however is to watch the sky. Watch the feathered and gauzy cloudlike substance move to cover and whiten our sky.

Gee Kate, when you told me you weren't going to waste your time with wacco, I thought we had seen the last of you, but maybe your asbestos pants are on fire. Why don't you tell us about all the other conspiracy theories you hold to be God's truth? Ya know, like Bush planned 911, the Rothchilds, Trilateral commission, bigfoot. But chemtrails (lol) have been put to rest here a while back. I'm gonna call on Jay Reynolds to set us straight again. Before I do why not post that laughable link debunking Reynolds.

[Kate Magdalena Willens]

Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson admitting to "Chemtrail" Aerosols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cxX...g&noredirect=1

[Scott McKeown]

Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson admitting to "Chemtrail" Aerosols:

Really? Ted Gunderson of all people? You're disappointing me here.

From Ted Gunderson's Wikipedia page:

In a 1995 conference in Dallas, Gunderson warned about the proliferation of secret Satanic groups, and the danger posed by the New World Order, a shadow government that would be controlling the US government.^[10] He also claimed that a "slave auction" in which children were sold to men in turbans had been held in Las Vegas, that four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year, and that the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was carried out by the US government.^[10] Gunderson believed that in the US there is a secret widespread network of groups who kidnap children and infants, and subject them to Satanic ritual abuse and subsequent human sacrifice.^[11][12]

It gets much worse if you Google him.

Scott

[Barry]

...I suppose this counts as a link to a debunker, but it's really a history:

http://swallowingthecamel.wordpress....mtrail-events/

This is a good link and correlates with our independently researched article:

The Unsavory Origins of Chemtrails (by Peggy Day)

Our article was written from an objective place, with no agenda or prior point of view, and was a surprise to Peggy.

I look forward to Kate's reply.

[podfish]

This .. correlates with our independently researched article:
The Unsavory Origins of Chemtrails (by Peggy Day)

How funny! totally forgot that post; I'm even in the list of commentors following it! see, that's why I'm not writing my own posts with lots of marshalled facts and references - I sure couldn't do it from memory so the burden of research gets big quick. I'll stick with generic commentary on the quality of argument. That's reliant on a different set of brain functions. Opinion pieces vs. journalism, maybe...

[Scott McKeown]

...you might actually take the time to examine Mr. Carnicom's research as I have said repeatedly. If you keep asking for serious examples of research but only go to the fourth minute of a video posted, then it is your loss. Here is the link once again:

http://www.carnicominstitute.org/htm...s_by_date.html

Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.

But we are now going round and round. There is the claim that only chemtrails can spread out to form clouds as being the best evidence of the existence of chemtrails. But we know that regular jet contrails do that, as documented in legitimate scientific research and observation going back to at least 1970, really back to WWII.

The Carnicom "Institute" is obviously just that one guy. By looking at his "studies" it is clear he is an amateur working alone and he does not come close to following scientific protocols. The Carnicom website is all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons" which are engineered filaments of some sort being intentionally sprayed on the population to make people sick.

From Wikipedia about Morgellons:

Morgellons (also called Morgellons disease or Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao^[1] in which sufferers have the delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, but in reality no such things are present.^[2]

We're now in Ted Gunderson territory here.

Anyone that sticks their neck out on this issue is either disappeared, or has their career ruined, and reputation tarnished,

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is and has been an unbelievably massive and complicated Government (or shadow government or whatever) conspiracy going back at least 40 years that has successfully silenced all atmospheric scientists and other experts in the field from telling the truth out of fear of being disappeared or having their careers ruined.

Whenever I've gone down the chemtrails rabbit hole, this is the kind of stuff I find at the bottom.

I think I'll go back up to the surface for some air.

Scott

[theindependenteye]

>>> Please bear in mind: this is a clandestine operation. You are not going to find peer reviewed gold standard articles. Anyone that sticks their neck out on this issue is either disappeared, or has their career ruined, and reputation tarnished, as is obvious from my simple plea to raise awareness. You will need to do your own observing and serious research. No one is going to hand you the evidence clearly because clear evidence as far as a criminal operation is not going to be had.

I have no opinion pro or con about chemtrails, as I don't anticipate having the capacity of shooting down planes. But please think about the implications of this thread of the argument. If all qualified scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals are either in the pay of dark forces or under threat of being disappeared, then it should be evident, if we accept this premise, that climate change is a vast hoax, likewise the spread of carcinogens, the extinction of species, the dangers of air pollution or acidification of the oceans ... add your own hoax to the mix. The Koch brothers will bless this logic.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[Scott McKeown]

Darknet -- Sonoma County Division -- Level 51 Clearance Only

Shadow Government operations confidential memo

From: Agent Mordon, Supervising Agent, Darknet Sebastopol office

To: Agent Fhtagn, Supervising Agent, Darknet Santa Rosa office

Agent Fhtagn,

A reminder to be vigilant against any more leaks of these confidential memos. That leak last year to that goddamn West County hippie bulletin board got me transferred for six months to the Rohnert Park field office. What a wasteland! Swear to God I would have rather been transferred up to the H.A.A.R.P field office. Plus I had to endure the ribbing of the guys down at Regional that it was the worst leak since Gunderson leaked the info about our Satanic human sacrifice rituals in NYC. Jesus, remember how long it took to get that program back on track?

A couple of things:

Item 1: I've been asked by Central to relay to you that we'll shortly be receiving our shipment of Morgellons version 9.6 to administer in our Sonoma County aerosol spray-over operations. But this time be sure your agents are more careful! That stunt that Agent Slyther pulled at Agent Gormor's disappearance party with that pinata full of Morgellons was not funny. Christ, it took us three days to cycle all the agents through the decontamination chambers.

Anyway, this new shit is serious. Central won't tell me crap but I've heard that the new bio-nano bots in these puppies migrate up and lodge in your frontal cortex. It's about some new generation of mind control. Those boys over in Central Lab are some sick motherfuckers, even for me! We'll be receiving the times our agents are to be confined in the bunkers during fly-overs.

By the way, today some "citizens" noticed some of our spraying up near Cloverdale and it got onto that damn internet forum. Can you please tell your guys to be a bit less enthusiastic?

Item 2: It's that time of year again when we all regional field offices need to "inform" all the freshly minted atmospheric scientists who are about to begin their careers of their real mission. This year it's your turn to manage that process in our region. I did it two years ago, remember?

Actually, it's sort of fun. You get to watch these young scientists' spirits being crushed when they realize they are now being forced to spend their entire lives and careers covering up for our aerosol program, or otherwise they and they're entire families will...disappear. A "conference" of these young upcoming atmospheric scientists has been set up and they'll all be there. All you need to do is show up with your team and do the standard procedure.

But please try to minimize any resistances because we all know how messy disappearances can get. Central really frowns on us having to do any "wet" work. Besides, Darknet has had a perfect record of suppressing all dissent with all generations of atmospheric scientists for over 40 years. Not even one internet leak! You don't want to be the one agent who blows our perfect record. It would make all of us look bad. But no pressure.

You've got to come over sometime for some Pliney the Younger. I've got an untapped keg of it at the house. Ah, the advantages of being on the dark side. By the way, hats off to you for whatever that shit was that you put in Carrillo's Pliney the Elder beers. No pants! Brilliant. We have our fun.

Agent Mordon out

[iPragmatist]

Scott...not for nothing, but the US government DID have a part in the Oklahoma City bombing. You either don't pay attention to much of the real news, or you have a terrible memory. I watched that morning when the 'bomb' went off, and the initial news casts reported and showed that there were two bomb disposal trucks and crews that showed up right after the bombing, and the news teams reported that these teams were there because there were two more bombs located IN the building that hadn't gone off. After they diffused the bombs, the bombs were loaded onto the trucks, the trucks left, and the 'official' story of the bombing changed to a bomb outside the building. If you look at the photos, you can see clearly the debris came OUTWARD from the building, which was a clear sign the bomb was INSIDE the building when it went off. A woman just outside the doors of the Murrah building, supposedly in between McVeigh's truck and the Murrah building, was blown all the way across the street, past where McVeigh's truck supposedly was, and survived.

No way would that have happened if the bomb went off as the 'official' story was true. And....please account for the fact that none of the ATF agents, who had an office there, went to work that morning....as well, find initial news crews in helicopters that flew above the Murrah building right after the bomb supposedly went off. There are no marks on the ground from any bomb from McVeigh's truck, yet later in the broadcast, the Feds put down a scaffolding to cover the massive hole left from the truck bomb. You are incredibly ignorant, or don't pay attention. Let me guess...you believe the official stories of 911, the Sandy Hook shootings, et al? I'd listen to the openmindedness of Gunderson any day of the week rather than yours. And you quote wikipedia for crying out loud? That is about as left leaning and fascist as you can get. You, sir, need to look outside the box and question your own reality. You don't state any of your credentials as being righteous enough to criticise Gunderson and others I see you bash. Why not enlighten us on what makes you more believable than people who have spent decades of their lives presenting real proof of their claims, whereas you just sit here as an armchair quarterback, showing nothing but ignorance and an insolent attitude?

Really? Ted Gunderson of all people? You're disappointing me here.

From Ted Gunderson's Wikipedia page:

In a 1995 conference in Dallas, Gunderson warned about the proliferation of secret Satanic groups, and the danger posed by the New World Order, a shadow government that would be controlling the US government.^[10] He also claimed that a "slave auction" in which children were sold to men in turbans had been held in Las Vegas, that four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year, and that the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was carried out by the US government.^[10] Gunderson believed that in the US there is a secret widespread network of groups who kidnap children and infants, and subject them to Satanic ritual abuse and subsequent human sacrifice.^[11][12]

It gets much worse if you Google him.

Scott

[Gus diZerega]

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, then home of Boeing's largest factory outside Seattle, many other aircraft manufacturers, and a very large air base. Large jets overhead were a part of daily life beginning in the 1950s. (I am 66.) So were contrails, some of which rapidly disappeared and some of which lingered for a long time and some of which spread out. It all depended on atmospheric conditions. Much later while flying in a passenger jet I watch another jet fly below me. In what appeared to be a few feet behind the wing tips the contrails could be seen forming. There is nothing strange about them at all- they look the same now as when I was growing up.

These phenomena are so high that were they used to spread anything at all, there is no telling where whatever it was will come down. There are many easier ways to spread stuff, ways that are far more able to target a specific place or group. Given that the contrails are visually the same as they were many decades ago, that passengers can see them forming behind planes rather than expelled from some secret tank on them, that such a conspiracy must involve many people over many years, and their very inexact ability to target anything smaller than planet earth, I admit I haven't studied the conspiracy theories behind them in any depth.

I learned from my time as a young man growing up in a right wing area that conspiracy theorists can make almost anything at all appear connected to a conspiracy- as when the Gambles of the movie Thrive finally connected today's conspiracies to the Bavarian Illumaniti. We are very good at finding patterns and very bad at evaluating their reality. My point is not that there are no conspiracies, it is that they should be our last resort for actual things happening with actual verifiable consequences that stupidity and error and ego cannot account for. I even wrote an account of one involving the Kochs ( http://dizerega.com/2013/10/08/the-k...can-democracy/ ) - so I am not simply a debunker. But we need to keep our feet on the ground here.

And the PDF link does not work.

- Gus

[iPragmatist]

Scott...time for another round from this post. Your quote "But we know that regular jet contrails do that, as documented in legitimate scientific research and observation going back to at least 1970, really back to WWII." Pray tell what legitimate research you speak of....might that be information from the same military and government that has lied to you and me and the rest of the world for decades now? I'm sincerely interested in reading things you can reference, provided it doesn't come from wikipedia (god forbid man) or any military or similar organization that has a vested interest in lying to cover certain things they don't want us to know.

Again, I quote you "The Carnicom "Institute" is obviously just that one guy. By looking at his "studies" it is clear he is an amateur working alone and he does not come close to following scientific protocols. The Carnicom website is all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons" which are engineered filaments of some sort being intentionally sprayed on the population to make people sick." An amateur he isn't, and working alone he doesn't, and following protocols he does. He has attained an IRB designation (Institutional Review Board) from the US government HHS, and that affords him with a hell of a lot of credibility within the government and medical establishments for the work he engages in tirelessly. And the website isn't all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons"....blah blah blah. Clifford Carnicom has an immense amount of integrity, and believes in helping others. He's based his life on that, and doesn't benefit financially from the work he does. I guarantee if you sat down with him and had a conversation, you'd have a completely different view of him, what he does and the incredible empathy he has for those who truly DO have Morgellons. You can stick your head in the sand.....that's what all people do who can't deal with the truth. I have my own proof of what I believe....it is blatantly obvious you and people like you choose a side of an argument, and defend that side regardless of the data that is presented to you. That is ignorance, plain and simple. I've read every single paper Carnicom has written, and studied it all. You can't even begin to tell me he's some amateur solo guy who is a hack trying to drum up hysteria about something called Morgellons. What I can tell you is he is a friend of mine, and he'd destroy you if you tried to debate him on any matter related to what you espouse knowing anything about.

Your simplistic view of the world speaks volumes about you. Those of us who work diligently trying to stop the things we are discussing will benefit you if we're successful in stopping what is happening, which conveniently sucks for us but will benefit people like you if we're successful. If you can't deal with reality, then you are wasting your and other peoples' time here acting like you know anything. We have our proof for what we are fighting to stop. Doesn't sound like you have much, other than wikipedia, which is kindergarten for google. You need stop posting here making accusations and offensive remarks....you appear to be an incredibly unenlightened and surface dwelling character. That makes your need to come up for air an easy task.

Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.

But we are now going round and round....

[iPragmatist]

Gus...contrails are so rare, odds are most people have never seen one. You want to get into your understanding of the conditions for contrails...be our guest. The conditions involve altitude, temp ranges and relative humidity ranges, all within fairly specific measurements. Add to that today's jet engines are designed to not produce 'contrails'....I am 54 and can say, even having lived literally right behind Griffis Air Force Base in Rome NY all my life and sitting at the end of the runway all the time, NEVER saw a contrail. EVER. You imply that you don't necessarily debunk all things...that is admirable. What you might want to research, or enlighten us all on research you've done on, the military weapons aspect to chemtrails. Your statement that "There are many easier ways to spread stuff, ways that are far more able to target a specific place or group" doesn't seem to have a deep understanding of the military applications of the trails. With all due respect, that is probably the most pressing issue related to the chemtrails. Tesla understood many things that most people find hard to understand, even being spoonfed information. The power of using the ionosphere as an amplifier should be enough to make all of us quake in our boots. The reasons behind the chemtrails aren't to benefit mankind, rather the reasons are quite nefarious.

Thanks for the post. You are open minded and pragmatic. That is admirable and respected.

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, then home of Boeing's largest factory outside Seattle, many other aircraft manufacturers, and a very large air base....

[Gus diZerega]

You say they are rare and I saw them so often that in high school I wondered how we could have Westerns anymore because the contrail;s would give away that they were not in the past. I'll, go with my memories. We have more and more jets and so more and more contrails, but there are pics from WWII of high altitude bombers leaving them, behind.

Here is a picture from WWII and a discussion of some simple aspects of the issue.
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/deception5.html

Here are more pictures and more discussion.
http://depletedcranium.com/the-realities-of-contrails/

Here is a google page of more images of contrails mostly in WWII:
https://www.google.com/search?site=i...23.tegZbbrLy-0

Maybe Griffith had different weather conditions- I saw them all the time. So much so that I did not like them because I liked 'unsullied' skies. In fact I often wondered how future 'Western' movies could be made because the damn contrails would be over head, giving the game away.

I see no reason to do research on the 'military' applications of contrails because I can imagine none worth the while and my research agenda is very very full. I just finished one book and am working on another. Time is limited and I research what I think will pan out. Here is why I do not bother with 'chemtrails':

They are a stupid way to spread pathogens because they cannot be targeted and a stupid way to spread anything else with other than a world-wide intent- which means those spreading them will also be exposed. I have yet to see an argument as to why anyone want to poison/sicken/lkill those close to them, their families and friends. I have yet to see an argument that people on air bases and in airports would not ever report that planes were being loaded with secret cargoes to spread in the sky. A principle behind conspiracies is that the more there are who are in on it the harder it will be to keep it secret. A lot of people would need to be in on it, and for a considerable length of time.

I know that the military has tested spreading germs from the air and other ways. This is immoral but makes sense from the perspective of American militarists. But these efforts were not from contrails that are so high up there is no telling where the germs will land. Further, they were exposed.

I think the evidence for Bigfoot is MUCH stronger than the evidence that contrails are 'chemtrails.'

Gus...contrails are so rare, odds are most people have never seen one. ....

[TyrannyNews]

Mr. McKeown,

My personal friendship with Clifford Carnicom is such that I am compelled to respond to your description of Clifford. You might be surprised to learn that he's very much like you and just wants to bring people together to form a shared vision and purpose.

I think your description falls short of being overly negative, but rather I would describe it as less than glowing. Which, I don't understand given how much everyone here seems to encourage harmony.

If your criticism is directed more towards the quality and overall value of the work he does, then I hope you'll understand that merely suggesting he does not adhere to scientific protocol isn't going to motivate people to ignore his findings. No, I'm afraid that for anyone to view a researcher negatively these days requires that they be found fudging data, forging data, playing favorites with studies or accepting funding for and engaging in research that is clearly intent on harming humans. Even better, if they are known to fabricate evidence in criminal cases where life sentences were imposed that would be worthy of criticism.

My gut tells me that you're someone who deeply respects the work of experts and their opinions. I can assume as well that you see the importance of authority, especially in a world in which so many people fall prey to different thinking. One can grasp the enormity of the problem by simply noting the ever-growing number of specific psychological conditions within the spectrum of mental health being identified with no end in sight. Dare I admit that the experts now identify these conditions present in the majority of the population? Obviously, there's a need to moderate the free exchange of ideas taking place on the Internet and elsewhere. This is ongoing and unregulated. Before long, there won't be enough of us left to act as the moderators or "transitioners" we too could succumb to mental illness.

This is partly why I look back on certain decisions made by men far more perceptive and brave than myself, and appreciate what they've done to head off this epidemic of thinking. For example, elimination of the trivium and quadrivium and critical thinking itself from our school curriculum has helped somewhat. But, it wasn't enough. When those masterful giants of industry were faced with the post-war abundance of manufacturing facilities geared for bomb making with phosphates at its core, they were decisive in finding a way to continue use of phosphate as a replacement for soap. All of these great decisions were made by great men who received great educations and possessed impeccable credentials.

Getting back to your views of Clifford Carnicom, I wonder if you have similar views of other maverick thinkers? I'm referring to people who aren't satisfied to (or are incapable of) staying within the lines set forth for scientific pursuit. One example that comes to mind is the notorious charlatan, Buckminster Fuller. Clearly he was a man backed by the aristocracy in that he was twice ushered into Harvard, only to be expelled both times. So, his status as an "expert" or "professional" had to be based solely on his actions, his character and the products of his labor. That was all the more difficult, as he then entered the field of "futurism." Not exactly a field with many established protocols. Even still, I have a soft spot for the guy even though I know nothing about him and yet find myself willing to soft-slander him.

Now, on to more important points for anyone else reading this. Clifford and fellow researchers at the institute have identified a characteristic of the biological form they've been studying all along. That being that it begins first as a bacteria-like organism. Sadly, that led very quickly to the discovery that all 3 biological domains are host to it, plant, animal and human alike. Anyone who cares to look can observe it for themselves by examining their blood at high magnification. Although many cells look fine, a huge number will be deformed by the bacteria, which derives energy from Iron I theorize.

The term now used to identify this unclassified biology is "Cross Domain Bacteria." Without knowing for sure exactly the process, I'll just say that the smaller bacteria-like form then grows to become what some will experience as filament-like structures of incredible strength and resilience. There's no doubt about it all being synthetic. No doubt that samples of it have been obtained from the fallout of skies obscured by persistent contrails. However, that is no indication of the extent of distribution or even of any spraying let alone help us to know why it's being done. I'll leave that speculation to Mr. McKeown.

B C-ing U

Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.
...

[Scott McKeown]

You either don't pay attention to much of the real news, or you have a terrible memory.

I

I'd listen to the openmindedness of Gunderson any day of the week rather than yours. And you quote wikipedia for crying out loud? That is about as left leaning and fascist as you can get. You, sir, need to look outside the box and question your own reality. You don't state any of your credentials as being righteous enough to criticise Gunderson and others I see you bash. Why not enlighten us on what makes you more believable than people who have spent decades of their lives presenting real proof of their claims, whereas you just sit here as an armchair quarterback, showing nothing but ignorance and an insolent attitude?

I

You can stick your head in the sand.....that's what all people do who can't deal with the truth. I have my own proof of what I believe....it is blatantly obvious you and people like you choose a side of an argument, and defend that side regardless of the data that is presented to you. That is ignorance, plain and simple.

...Your simplistic view of the world speaks volumes about you.

...If you can't deal with reality, then you are wasting your and other peoples' time here acting like you know anything.

...You need stop posting here making accusations and offensive remarks....you appear to be an incredibly unenlightened and surface dwelling character. That makes your need to come up for air an easy task.

My goodness. Such invective! Such anger!

It appears your panties have gotten all in a bunch because I apparently challenged your worldview.

I notice you joined this forum yesterday and are hiding behind a fake name. Do you have the courage to tell us who you really are?

Although we may disagree, I respect people like Kate Willems who is willing to stand up as who she is and speak her truth. And we can engage in some meaningful dialogue. You, on the other hand, joined this forum under a fake name within the last 24 hours and hurl insults at me and post angry rants. It's obvious you didn't read the entire thread or look at the sources I provided earlier.

Chill out, dude (whoever you are). This is community (if you are even really part of it). We can disagree and have conversation without all the insults.

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

Mr. McKeown,
My personal friendship with Clifford Carnicom is such that I am compelled to respond to your description of Clifford. You might be surprised to learn that he's very much like you and just wants to bring people together to form a shared vision and purpose.

I suppose I'm honored that you joined this forum yesterday (from afar, it seems) just to respond to me. You make some good points and I appreciate the tone of your posting. Such civility lends me to be more receptive to what you have to say.

There seems to be two issues: 1) The phenomenon of Morgellons, and 2) The contention that Morgellons are being spread by aerial spraying.

The kind of quality of research I would like to see more of about Morgellons (with either issue) are along the lines of these reports:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0029908

http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1105158

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09.01227.x/pdf

I notice that in addition to the Cornicom website (and some others) there is also a large amount of compelling information debunking the more extreme claims. I would particularly welcome reports done by professional pathologists to review.

When researching controversial and unconventional claims, there are the proponents and there are the debunkers. The best way to get to the truth (both sides can make compelling cases on the surface -- who to believe?) is to compare the quality of the research being done. Sources and methodologies matter.

I imagine you might contest some of the findings in the reports linked above. That's fine. Then put up a countering report done with the same amount of rigor!

To be honest, I was not impressed by the quality of research I found on the Cornicom website. Seemed amateurish. But I suppose I have a pretty high standard about how science reports and papers are done.

I don't want to keep engaging "tit for tat" about this (just don't have the time right now to sufficiently engage) but I'll be open minded to any gold-standard studies (no matter who does them) about any of this you might post.

Scott

[Sara S]

I live in Sebastopol, and I see them all the time; I wouldn't consider them rare at all.

Gus...contrails are so rare...