The Allies of Humanity

A very interesting man named Marshall Vian Summers has, for the past quarter century, been given privy to spiritual messages from an advanced alien race. What these aliens, who he calls the ‘Allies of Humanity’, are telling him is that there are various alien species visiting our world. They see our world as an extremely […] Continue reading

Indrid Cold – The Grinning Man

Even in the strange, often paranoid, twisted, and highly speculative world of Alien Lore and UFOlogy, The Grinning Man is a mystery. The Grinning Man has been spotted several times during periods of intense UFO encounters (for instance, during the 1960s Mothman sightings). Maybe he has been seen around El Paso or Manhattan in the […] Continue reading

Chemtrails III.5: Aerial Spraying Operations, Past and Present

Now that we’ve covered anti-radar chaff, let’s look at other military and civilian operations that involve aerial spraying. Parallels have been drawn between every one of these practices and chemtrails.


Biological and chemical warfare

Cold War era U.S. and British experiments that involved aerial spraying of “surrogate biological agents” are discussed below (“Biowarfare Simulation Tests”). Here, we’ll look only at instances of actual chemical and biological warfare agents being sprayed from aircraft over enemy nations.

WWI

This was, of course, the first air war. Blimps were used to a limited degree in this and earlier conflicts, mostly for reconnaissance and bombing, but now every nation involved was equipped with powerful planes that could reach astonishing new heights (you may recall that the very first contrail sighting was made during this war).
Surprisingly, although chemical warfare was employed by several nations (the French started it off), there was no aerial spraying of chemical weapons during WWI. Chemical weapon tanks and spray systems suitable for mounting on planes had not been developed yet, so more complicated methods of delivery were employed. The blistering agent sulfur mustard (mustard gas), for instance, was deployed mostly via canisters and artillery shells. Mustard gas wasn’t dropped from planes (in bombs) until 1924.

By the way, here’s an interesting fact: Mustard gas was originally named LOST, after the first four letters of the surnames of the German scientists who devised a large-scale production method in 1916, Wilhelm Lommell and Wilhelm Steinkopf.

In Germany, chemist Fritz Haber was the man behind the chemical curtain. He led the teams that developed chlorine gas and other deadly poisons, as well as innovative gas masks with absorbent filters to protect German troops.
Unlike the average chemical warfare engineer, who is divorced from the terrible fruits of his labours, Haber didn’t hide away in his lab. He took a very active role in chemical attacks, even personally supervising the first successful deployment of chlorine gas at the Second Battle of Ypres on April 22, 1915. Some of the French and Canadian soldiers huddled in the trenches could only stare in fascination as the greenish-white cloud of gas drifted closer and closer, until it hit them. Then their lungs burned and they had to gasp for every breath. Some died within minutes, while others fled in terror. Haber was pleased with his work; the attack had been far more successful than anyone anticipated.
Some have attributed the suicide of his wife Clara, one week later, to this success. 
 
The year after the war ended, Haber received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the  Haber-Bosch process, which revolutionized the production of nitrogen-based explosives and fertilizers.
In fact, a whole Rappaccini’s garden of useful-yet-poisonous chemical compounds bloomed in the years after WWI, thanks to wartime chemical warfare research.

The French introduced the deadly gas phosgene in 1916. The Germans responded with chloropicrin, an insecticide. Generally, though, there was a reluctance on all sides to open up the Pandora’s box of chemical agents, partly because the Hague Convention of 1899 forbade the use of poisonous gases in combat. This reluctance is evidenced by the British use of “balloon dope”, a strong-smelling sealant, in fake chemical warfare releases known as “stinks”. The idea was to disorient, preoccupy and intimidate the enemy without actually gassing them to death. To the same end, the Germans cultivated sneezing and vomiting agents like “Blue Cross” (diphenylchlorarsine).

Biological weapons were not as advanced as the chemical agents at this time. Then as now, they were deemed a risky, last-resort kind of weapon because they could have unintended results. You can’t control a germ the same way you aim a bomb or a bullet, and trench diseases were enough of a problem already. When germs are weaponized for combat, the goal is often to debilitate the enemy rather than kill them. War injuries are more bothersome than fatalities, tying up more resources for longer periods of time. But even nonlethal germ warfare has its risks, particularly retaliation with more dangerous agents. No biological agents were deployed against troops in WWI.
The Germans allegedly did, however, spread a disease called Glanders among enemy horses and pack animals.

Research After WWI 

Between world wars, in 1921, the French War Ministry established the world’s first large-scale, peacetime biological and chemical weapons program, and Stalin began what would someday become the world’s most extensive and secretive bio-chem program. Its vast, terrifying scope would not be fully known until the mid-1990s.
In Canada, bioweapon and biodefense research secretly began in the late ’30s. Prior to WWII, a team of military defense researchers led by Frederick Banting (another Nobel Prize winner) conducted a series of experiments to test the efficacy of aerial germ warfare. In October 1940 they sprayed sawdust from a low-flying plane to see how it would disperse, and were soon given the go-ahead to mass produce germ weapons, including anthrax, on Quebec’s Grosse Ile. In 1941, joint Canadian-British open-air testing of bio-chem weapons began in Suffield, a sparsely populated stretch of prairie near Medicine Hat, Alberta. The Brits were delighted to have so much open space for experimentation. They began with metallic cadmium mixed with the strongest explosive available, RDX, producing toxic fumes capable of causing fibrosis of the lungs.

In 1943, Porton Down, the UK’s bio-chem research facility, became the first to claim an effective bioweapon. Over the previous year, researchers had conducted a series of successful anthrax-bombing experiments at Scotland’s Gruinard Island (where bomb tests were also conducted), using sheep as test subjects. The tiny island became so toxic, it had to be vacated for the next forty years.
The U.S. got a slower start, but soon caught up. In 1943, a bio-chem weapons research and development facility called Camp Detrick (later renamed Fort Detrick) was established in Maryland, with businessman George Merck as its first director.

WWII

The poison gas attacks of WWI were horrific enough to scare WWII combatants away from aerial chemical warfare. And although the head of the U.S.’s new biowarfare division, Theodore Rosebury, decided airplanes would be the “most useful means for the dissemination of infective agents,” they were far from knowing precisely how to produce weaponized germs on a huge scale and disperse them without compromising their potency (the Gruinard tests, though successful, were considered too small-scale).  (1, 29)
As in WWI, fear of retaliation in kind was a strong deterrent against first use of bioweaponry. The anthrax bombs were ready to go – Camp Detrick produced the first 5000 of them in May of 1944 – but no one wanted to unleash them.
As far as gases went, all combatants stockpiled the old standbys from WWI (phosgene, mustard gas, etc.) along with the blistering agent Lewisite. The only new poison gas (and the first completely odorless one) to be developed was Compound Z or Compound 1120, accidentally discovered by Canadian researchers. While heralded behind closed doors as a remarkable advance, Z was not deployed at all.  (3)

The fear of chemical warfare was strong, and the hazards really hit home in the Bari raid of 1943, when 81 officers were killed by a release of their own mustard gas.
The poster below, issued around 1943, used cartoons and goofy rhymes to familiarize soldiers and civilians with the tell-tale odors and symptoms of the major weaponized gases. (source)

The fear didn’t prevent all sides from dropping and spraying toxic things from the air during WWII, however.
The Allies used toxic pesticides – notably DDT – to de-louse their own soldiers and kill off mosquitoes (see “Crop Dusting”, below). 
Japan’s infamous biological and chemical warfare unit allegedly dropped packages of plague-infested fleas over Chinese cities and sprayed germs (plague, typhus, smallpox) over Chinese reservoirs.
The only other known acts of biowarfare in WWII were Germany’s sabotage of the drainage systems in Rome (they first confiscated all the anti-malarial medications in the region, knowing the mosquito population would skyrocket) and the OSS‘s non-fatal food poisoning of Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s pre-war financial wizard. Schacht turned out to be a very poor choice of target. Not only had he been shunted aside by the Nazis before the war even began, but he was part of Operation Valkyrie, the secret Nazi plot to kill Hitler. (4)

Zyklon B

In 1919, Nobel laureate Fritz Haber became the head of a new chemical-company consortium, the German Limited Company for Pest Control, or Degesch.
In the early ’20s, a group of Degesch chemists modified a cyanide-based pesticide called Zyklon A (“Cyclone A”), first synthesized by Ferdinand Flury, to create the more potent Zyklon B. This team was made up of Walter Heerdt, Bruno Tesch, and Gerhard Peters. For two decades, Zyklon A and B were used mainly to fumigate grain, though they could also be used as de-lousing agents and rat poison. In the U.S., Zyklon B was used as a de-lousing agent on Mexican immigrants.

Unfortunately, some of the developers of Zyklon A and B later became dedicated Nazis. Flury was elevated to the position of Surgeon General during the Third Reich. And when Nazi scientists decided to use Zyklon B in the gas chambers of the death camps, it was supplied first by Degesch, then by Stabenow & Tesch, the pest control company established by Bruno Tesch in 1924.
In 1946, Tesch and a fellow executive were put to death by the British for their role in the Holocaust. Three years later, Degesch exec Gerhard Peters was sentenced to five years in prison by a Frankfurt court for his role. The only scientist in this group who had any damn sense at all was the inventor of record, Walter Heerdt; he fled Germany in the early ’30s, returning later to testify against former colleagues at Nuremberg.

Zyklon B  is still used as a pesticide in the Czech Republic, which is rather disturbing – the Nazis first tested it on Roma children from Brno.

The study of Zyklon B, DDT, Agent Orange, and other pesticides that turned out to be extremely toxic for humans can tell us much about chemtrail theories, especially the depopulation theory. Note that when Zyklon B became a tool of mass murder, it was not simply dumped from airplanes over the camps.

After WWII

From the end of WWII straight through Vietnam, several nations (including the U.S. and Canada) simulated chemical and biological attacks by spraying “surrogate biological agents” from boats, planes and vans, trying to figure out how far and fast a disease like anthrax could spread. These experiments are covered below (“Biowarfare Simulation Tests”).

The weaponization and stockpiling of germs and chemicals moved at frantic pace throughout the Cold War, with the USSR and the U.S. amassing astonishing amounts of the organophosphorus nerve agents like VX, bacteria, toxins and viruses. Canada, Britain, and the U.S. were signatories of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which barred the use of bio-chem weapons, but it wasn’t actually ratified in the U.S. until the ’70s. And there was no prohibition against defense research.

In the ’50s, the U.S. biological warfare lab at Fort Detrick diligently built up a germ warfare arsenal. Led by a very young microbiologist named William Patrick, researchers cultured and tested and weaponized a range of bacteria, viruses, toxins and rickettsia that could be used to incapacitate, if not kill, large numbers of men. Anthrax, botulinum toxin, Q Fever and tularemia (“rabbit fever”) were considered the best options. They were non-contagious and not necessarily deadly (if treated right away), yet they could take soldiers out of commission for weeks or months. At the same time, however, the researchers worked on such lethal, highly contagious viruses as smallpox and plague.
In addition to extensive animal testing, Ft. Detrick conducted live-virus experiments on Seventh-Day Adventists (conscientious objectors), infecting them with Q Fever, then treating them with antibiotics when symptoms appeared. In addition to Q Fever, about 50 varieties of virus and rickettsia were deemed suitable for biowarfare. Thereafter, gallons of Q Fever and a few other viruses were produced at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.

At least one live-virus test of aerially sprayed Q Fever was conducted over Utah’s Dugway Proving Ground in the ’50s. A spray tank with nozzles was affixed to an F-100 Super Sabre , the fastest jet in the world at that time, and a slurry containing the virus was sprayed over the desert. No human subjects were used in this test, but three soldiers manning roadways during the experiment contracted Q Fever, and so did the pilot, proving the virus was still effective when sprayed from the air. In fact, it traveled over 50 miles to infect the soldiers.

The Korean War and Cuba

China and Korea alleged the U.S. used biowarfare against them during the Korean conflict, and an international team assembled by the World Peace Council, led by British biochemist Joseph Needham, concluded that biological agents had been deployed dozens of times in North Korea by the U.S. military. The U.S. vehemently denied, and still denies, that this occurred even once, and the Air Force’s dismissive and even hostile attitude toward bioweapons during this period seems to indicate that they were still considered unreliable. They were thought to be untested, tricky to use, and ethically questionable. There were also concerns that germ warfare agents couldn’t be contained, and would backfire on any force that employed them. Yet the conclusions of the Needham report stuck like glue.
Ephemeral, hard-to-prove allegations of biowarfare would surface again in the ’80s, against the Soviet Union.

In the early ’60s, Pentagon officials collaborated with Ft. Detrick on a secret plan to douse Cuba with biological agents in the event of conflict, cheekily referred to as “the Marshall Plan”. The germs would not be fatal to most Cubans, but were expected to kill many of the elderly and sick.
Around the same time, General Mills developed the line-source disseminator, an aerial spray device that could continuously disperse chemical/biological agents from planes (if you’re surprised that a company known for its breakfast cereals was elbow-deep in defense projects, check out Project Pigeon). The preferred method of germ dispersal, however, was packing hundreds of tiny “bomblets” full of viruses or bacteria into missiles, then dropping the missiles from the highest altitude possible to spread the bomblets over a broad area.
The “Marshall Plan” was never put into action, and despite years of dreaming up outlandish ways to kill or humiliate Castro, the U.S. never deployed bio-chem agents against Cuba.

Vietnam 

If WWII was largely a war against disease-carrying bugs, Vietnam was largely a war against plants. The thick jungle foliage of North Vietnam provided perfect cover for the Viet Cong, enabling invisible troop movements and sneak attacks. This led to the introduction of one of the most notorious chemical warfare agents of our times, Agent Orange.
Technically, Agent Orange was not a weapon intended to kill people. But its side effects were horrific. For six years (1965-1971), this potent mixture of defoliants (among many others) was sprayed in massive quantities over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as part of the U.S. military Operations Trail Dust and Ranch Hand. This was not the first large-scale use of herbicide in war (in the the ’50s, the British Army sprayed herbicides in Malaysia to kill off the crops of Communist rebels), but it would be the deadliest.
“Agent Orange” has become shorthand for any toxic substance, and some chemtrail researchers aren’t afraid to draw a parallel between it and whatever they believe is contained in today’s jet contrails.

Should you and I be concerned? Yes, very concerned as the long term effects of chemtrails are no different than crop dusting…and Agent Orange.” – presscore.ca

Experimental spraying of some of the “rainbow herbicides” (not including Agent Orange, which was introduced in 1965) began in 1959. The goals were to kill off food crops, driving rural dwellers into the cities of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and to destroy vegetation that provided cover for the Viet Cong. The plan was highly successful on both fronts. Roughly 500 million acres of forest were heavily damaged or destroyed, and the population of South Vietnam swelled from 2.8 million people in 1958 to 8 million in 1971.
To disperse the herbicides, C-123 planes were outfitted with specially designed spray tanks that could hold up to 1,000 gallons of liquid. In under 5 minutes, each plane could spray a swath of land 80 meters wide and 10 miles long, and the average spraying sortie consisted of 3-5 planes. (6)
Nearly 20 million gallons of “rainbow herbicides” were sprayed over the course of at least 6,542 missions. Helicopters were also used in spray operations. (7)

The South Vietnamese had been told of the spraying in advance, and were assured the herbicides were not harmful to humans, animals or the soil.  (8)
But the defoliants had disastrous effects that outlasted the war. The average concentration of the herbicides was 13 times higher than the USDA-recommended application rate for domestic use. And a very dangerous compound lurked within one of those rainbow herbicides.

Why was Agent Orange so toxic? 

Agent Orange was made up of equal parts 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).
2,4,5-T had been widely used as an agricultural defoliant since the ’40s. At first, producers and consumers were blissfully unaware that the manufacturing process contaminated 2,4,5-T with an extraordinarily toxic byproduct, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD is usually referred to as dioxin (technically, though, it’s one of several dioxin-like compounds). It is one of the most dangerous chemicals ever synthesized, capable of causing all the same adverse effects as dioxin.
If produced with rigorous temperature control, 2,4,5-T can contain only about .005 parts per million (ppm) of TCDD. But in the early days of 2,4,5-T production, before anyone grasped how toxic TCDD was and how much of it was being created, quality control was uneven. As much as 60 ppm of TCDD.could end up in a single batch. (9)

Two industrial accidents served as a dark warning that something in 2,4,5-T was extremely dangerous. The first occurred in 1949, at a factory in Nitro, West Virginia. An explosion caused dozens of workers to break out in pustules, a condition characteristic of dioxin poisoning now known as chloracne. Former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushenko bears the scars of chloracne after his 2004 TCDD poisoning.
But at the time of the Nitro explosion, no one knew precisely what caused the skin condition, and no one was curious enough to get to the bottom of it. One physician, Raymond Suskind, did monitor the affected men for the next several years, and reported an array of physical ailments that turned out to be common effects of TCDD. In the ’80s, this same doctor falsified a series of 2,4,5-T studies at the behest of Monsanto, which was facing lawsuits from Vietnam vets and other people exposed to dioxin-contaminated Monsanto products. (8)
The second serious 2,4,5-T accident happened in 1953, in a Germany factory. A leak exposed numerous factory workers to pesticide fumes, and most of them broke out in pustules and suffered serious health problems. Researcher Karl-Heinz Schulz identified the toxic agent as TCDD, and published his results in 1957. This laid the groundwork for an understanding of chloracne and the other health effects of TCDD. Unfortunately, chemical manufacturers ignored Schulz’s findings. Production of 2,4,5-T continued without a hitch.

Did they know how dangerous Agent Orange was? 

From approximately 1951 to 1974, prisoners at Pennsylvania’s Holmesburg State Prison were used as guinea pigs in research experiments commissioned by the Army, Dow Chemical Company, and Johnson & Johnson. The prisoners were volunteers, but they were not apprised of all the risks associated with the chemical agents that were being tested on their skin.
In studies conducted in the early ’60s, Dr. Albert Kligman injected TCDD into 70 of the prisoners on behalf of Dow. Dow was one of the seven companies producing Agent Orange, and wanted to know why some factory workers were developing chloracne. All 70 of the prisoners developed severe chloracne lesions, which were left untreated for seven months.

Dr. James Clary, who helped develop the special spray tanks for Agent Orange dispersal, claims he and other scientists working on the project were aware that Agent Orange contained elevated levels of dioxin. Because the military required such high volumes of the stuff for Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T was being produced at breakneck pace, with slapdash temperature control – hence, more TCDD. Seven companies had military contracts to produce Agent Orange, and there is evidence that at least some of the executives knew it contained TCDD.  (8)
But the end users were not necessarily aware of this. Not even the commander of naval forces, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, knew what was in Agent Orange. When he found out, following the death of his son, he became a strident advocate for full disclosure and aid to vets affected by TCDD.  

As in Reservoir Dogs, the naming of the rainbow herbicides was arbitrary and gave no indication of what they were capable of doing. Agent Pink (which I’m sure no one wanted to use) also contained TCDD, and the Army began spraying it a full three years before Agent Orange was added to the rainbow (in 1965). So Pink is certainly responsible for some of the havoc attributed to Orange.
Up to 3 million Vietnamese citizens (not including unborn children, many of them stillborn) and thousands of military servicemen were affected by Agent Orange alone. The TCDD in Agents Orange and Pink caused a range of severe birth defects, cancers and skin diseases. (6)

To the credit of the international community, opposition to the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was swift and strong when the State Department revealed the existence of the spraying program in March of 1966. Resolutions were immediately introduced to the UN, charging that the U.S. military was violating the Geneva Protocol. In 1969, Nixon declared the U.S. would never use chem-bio agents offensively. And this was before a 1970 paper put an end to the use of 2,4,5-T in the U.S.  By the mid-’70s, 2,4,5-T had been banned in most parts of the world.
In 1975, President Ford declared the U.S. would never again engage in herbicidal warfare (defoliants are now prohibited in combat under the Chemical Weapons Convention).
Numerous studies on the effects of TCDD and Agent Orange have since been conducted. You’d think this would have put an end to TCDD contamination, but sloppy production continued in chemical plants all over the world, and more accidents occurred. There was the Seveso catastrophe in Italy in 1976, the Yu-cheng accident in Taiwan in 1979, the Sturgeon (Missouri) chlorophenol spill of 1979, and the dioxin chicken scare in Belgium in 1999.

One of the places where 2,4,5-T was produced for Agent Orange was a facility in Verona, Missouri, owned by a subsidiary of the Northeastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company. Wastewater and contaminated clay in the vicinity contained levels of TCDD some 2,000 times higher than the dioxin content in Agent Orange. (8)
In the early ’70s, a company called ICP (no, seriously) was hired to remove this toxic sludge.* ICP, in turn, contracted with waste hauler Russell Bliss in the small community of Times Beach, Missouri, to actually get rid of the stuff. Unaware of just how toxic the waste was, Bliss blended it with oil and mud and sprayed it on roads and barn floors to keep down dust. He even sprayed the mixture on his own property.
So many residents and horses were sickened that a decade later, after an EPA investigation, the government purchased the entire town of Times Beach and destroyed it.

sign posted near Times Beach, MO, after it was doused with TCDD-contaminated waste for 10 years

Other aerial spraying in Vietnam

The U.S. attempted to flood parts of the Ho Chi Minh Trail via cloud-seeding, a program called Operation Popeye. It was largely unsuccessful. We’ll examine this and other weather modification efforts in another post.
The Pentagon had floated the idea of spraying anthrax over the trail, but decided against the use of germ warfare. There were fears that the disease would spread along the trail, possibly sickening and killing people and livestock in three countries. 
In 1968, over 1000 sheep were killed in Skull Valley, Utah, when a plane from Dugway Proving Ground accidentally released a large amount of the nerve agent VX. VX was not used during Vietnam (or any other war), but in the early ’90s it fell into the hands of a murderous Japanese cult.

Since Vietnam: No aerial spraying, and no biowarfare

Since Vietnam, the only documented, large-scale deployment of chemical weapons has been Iraq’s use of mustard gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish people during the Iran-Iraq war (1981–1988), and this didn’t involve direct aerial spraying. In the Halabja massacre of March 16, 1988 (now classified as an act of genocide), more than 10,000 Kurds were affected or killed by mustard gas deployed by bombs dropped from Iraqi Mirage and MiG planes.
The only other notable use of a chemical agent occurred during the 2002 Nord-Ost hostage crisis in Moscow, when Russian Spetsnaz forces pumped an unknown gas into the ventilation system of the theatre in an attempt to knock out the Chechen terrorists and extricate the hostages. To this day, we don’t know what they used (fentanyl is the likeliest suspect). Hostages and captors alike died from overdoses of the gas. 

In the ’80s, the Soviet Union was accused of using mycotoxins in support of Communist armies in Cambodia and Laos, and later using them against Afghanistan. Several people in remote villages reported being sickened or burned by a “yellow rain” that came from helicopters. However, the allegations were never confirmed. Two researchers identified yellow dust collected by soldiers as ordinary bee pollen, while others reported finding no mycotoxins in plant samples.

BZ 

At the end of the Adrian Lyne film Jacob’s Ladder, a postscript tells us that BZ, a powerful glycolate agent that can produce hallucinatory effects and extreme confusion, was tested on U.S. soldiers during Vietnam. While I wouldn’t recommend believing everything you read in a movie, this is actually true. BZ was administered to an unknown number of soldier guinea pigs during the Edgewood Arsenal experiments.
Also, a Pentagon study known as Project Tall Timber was designed to test the effectiveness of the M138 bomblet filled with BZ in a tropical forest environment similar to Vietnam (Hawaii’s Waiakea Forest Reserve). In the spring and summer of 1966, the bomblets were statically ignited (not sprayed from aircraft).

The only suspected uses of glycolate agents in combat occurred in Mozambique in 1992, when government forces accused South African troops of using BZ on them, in 1995 when the Serbs used BZ or a similar agent in the Srebrenica massacre, and in 1998, when there were allegations that members of the Bosnian Army used BZ and/or other incapacitating agents against two Sarajevo suburbs, Ilidza and Nedarici.
None of these alleged incidents have been confirmed.

Bioterrorism

If the Soviet mycotoxin allegations are false, then biological weapons have not been used in wartime since the Japanese attacks of WWII. But as we have seen, research and massive stockpiling were conducted throughout the Cold War and beyond. South Africa’s Project Coast is a particularly chilling example. Though none of its horrific schemes were ever put into action, at least one of its alleged participants, Dr. Larry C. Ford, poisoned two women and collected over 200 vials of dangerous bacteria and toxins (including salmonella, cholera and botulinum toxin) in his California home, for some unknown purpose. He committed suicide in 2000, while under investigation for the attempted murder of his business partner (he opted for a bullet instead of poison, the coward). 

State-sponsored programs may have refrained from biowarfare since WWI and chemical assaults since the Iran-Iraq war, but an array of germs have been stockpiled and used as weapons by terrorists and religious cultists throughout that time.

– In 1946, members of a group known as Dahm Y’Israel Nokeam (“Avenging Israel’s Blood”) infiltrated the bakery that supplied bread to the Stalag 13 prison camp near Nuremberg, where several thousand SS troops were imprisoned, and coated 3000 loaves of bread with an arsenic mixture that sickened at least 1900 prisoners.
– In 1972, two teenage white supremacists in Chicago were arrested for plotting to poison the city’s water supply with Salmonella typhi, which causes typhoid fever. (11)
– The Rajneeshees poisoned food with salmonella in at least ten restaurants in Oregon in the early ’80s, in an attempt to complete their takeover of a municipal government. Investigators discovered a fairly sophisticated bio lab hidden on the Rajneeshees’ ranch, where nurse Diane Onang experimented with several pathogens, including ones that cause dysentery, tularemia and typhus. She even attempted to weaponize AIDS.  (4)
– Aum Shinrikyo is known for its sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway, but scientists belonging to the cult also weaponized anthrax and botulinum toxin. Fortunately, the several biological attacks they launched in Tokyo failed. The only known attack with the nerve agent VX was committed against Ryuho Ohkawa, an Aum opponenet, in 1994 (he survived).
– In December 1999, during the Russian assault on Grozny, Chechen rebels blew up two chlorine tanks in the city. No Russian soldiers were affected
– It’s interesting that the largest intentional mass poisoning in history, employing potassium chloral hydrate, potassium chloride and cyanide to kill over 900 people, was also carried out by a religious cult – the People’s Temple of Jonestown. The camp “doctor” (actually a former intern), Larry Schacht, initially experimented with culturing botulinum toxin, staphylococci, and a fungus that could mimic meningitis symptoms as a means of killing everyone, but the work proved too challenging for him. He settled on cyanide, and ordered an amount capable of killing 1800 people from a chemical company in California.  (12)

Chem-Bio Warfare and Chemtrails

One of the most popular theories about chemtrails is that they are part of a vast depopulation scheme (in fact, as we’ll see in the next post, chemtrails started as a depopulation theory). By peppering us with chemicals or metal oxides and/or obscuring sunlight for long periods of time, this theory goes, someone out there hopes to sicken and kill us in order to have all the world’s resources to themselves.

A subtheory that could be called the biowarfare theory of chemtrails surfaced in 2003, with the claims of chemtrail researcher Clifford Carnicom. Carnicom claimed he received the news from another researcher, who heard it from a military source. Carnicom’s unnamed source said the polymer fibers supposedly present in jet contrails have freeze-dried bacteria or viruses attached to them, along with metals (barium, aluminum) to absorb sunlight. The heated metals keep the pathogens alive during dispersal.
Spraying germ-dusted polymers from 40,000 feet in the air would be an unnecessarily complicated, highly inefficient way to spread germs. Any of the other methods examined in this post would make more sense – yet there’s no evidence that any of them are currently being used for biological attack.
As we’ll see in another post, this is only one of many reports and theories about chemtrails that Carnicom has put forward.

A handful of tests conducted at the request of private citizens by small, independent labs indicate that various pathogens, medicines and chemicals have been found in ground and water samples, but there is insufficient proof that any of the material came from contrails. Ground-based pollution, poor sample collection techniques, sample contamination, and lab contamination are likelier explanations.
The depopulation theory of chemtrails will be examined more closely in a later post.

Since WWI, our fears of large-scale chemical or biological attack have led us down some very dark paths. The damage wrought by our own paranoia has perhaps outstripped anything a mere germ or nerve agent could ever do.

Fuel dumping 

Fuel dumping is occasionally mistaken for chemtrail spraying, as any large amount of liquid coming out of a plane can appear suspicious. Photos of fuel dumps have been presented as “smoking gun” chemtrail evidence, and some chemtrail-watchers maintain (without any evidence) that fake fuel dumping masks chemtrail-spraying operations.

Pilots dump excess jet fuel in order to meet the weight requirements for safe landing. Fuel is usually dumped at high altitude so it will dissipate in the air, exiting from special ports on the wings.  One useful way to distinguish fuel dumping from wingtip contrails is to note the distance between the plume and the plane. Remember, contrails appear a short distance behind the plane, because it takes some time for the ice crystals to form. Dumped fuel, on the other hand, comes directly from the fuel-dumping ports. There will be no distance between the plume and the plane. Online, you’re going to find a lot of confusing information about this. The fuel-dumping Navy E-6A TACAMO in the photo above, for instance, is often identified as a chemtrail plane, and emails posted on a Rense.com page convincingly insist this particular plane has no room for extra fuel nor a fuel dumping system. Those plumes must be chemtrails! You have to scroll nearly halfway down the page before you reach a comment from a former TACAMO pilot who sets the matter straight: There are fuel dump chutes on the E-6A, and they are located exactly where you see them in the photo. Even if the E-6A was a chemtrail plane, it should be noted there are only about 16 of them in existence.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for fuel dumping stipulate that fuel must be dumped at a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet, and that a dumping aircraft must be at least five miles away from other aircraft. 
Air traffic controllers are instructed to direct planes dumping fuel away from populated areas and large bodies of water as often as possible. The same guidelines apply to military aircraft, and most air bases  permit fuel dumping only in designated areas.
Obviously, fuel dumps contain more chemicals than jet exhaust or contrails do (the ingredients of jet fuel and jet exhaust are laid out in the first post of this series), and some of the fuel undoubtedly reaches water, vegetation and soil. The good news is that because fuel dump systems are costly and the newer jets don’t actually require them, many aircraft are not equipped with them.

This is not to say that the FAA regulations are always followed, or that fuel dumps haven’t caused serious problems, especially in residential areas close to large airports. For example, in 1998, a World Airways flight dumped 13,000 gallons of jet fuel over Glen Burnie, Maryland, prior to an emergency landing at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, dousing a mother and son in fumes that reportedly caused skin irritation and headaches. The incident spurred state representatives to sponsor legislation that would have required Baltimore/Washington International to monitor and disclose all fuel dumping incidents. The airport opposed the bill as “unworkable”, and it was ultimately shot down. 
In Canada, there have been 577 recorded instances of fuel dumping since 1993.

Cloud seeding and hail mitigation

We’ll be getting into a lot more detail about cloud seeding in a post about weather modification, but it’s important to mention it here because it is a somewhat controversial (yet very common) use of aerial spraying that is frequently mentioned among chemtrail-watchers.

Cloud seeding doesn’t create new clouds. When successful, it turns existing clouds into rainclouds using silver iodide, dry ice, or liquid propane. Silver iodide is the most commonly used substance. Put very simply, cloud seeding is the introduction of particles that can serve as nuclei for ice crystal formation. Under the right conditions, the cloud will precipitate (rain or snow).
For clouds to be successfully “seeded” with silver iodide, they must contain supercooled liquid water (below 0 Celsius). Under the right conditions, the silver iodide’s crystalline, ice-like structure will trigger the nucleation of ice crystals.
Dry ice or propane, on the other hand, cool the air so that ice crystals can nucleate from vapour, even without any existing droplets or particles.

The same basic method is used for hail mitigation, which aims to reduce the size of hailstones that form in a cloud (as its name makes clear, the process can rarely eliminate hail entirely). This is done primarily to prevent crop damage. 

Cloud seeding can be done with ground-based generators or projectiles (rockets, anti-aircraft guns, etc.), but the cloud seeding done over drought-ridden areas is almost always accomplished with silver iodide flares dropped from small, low-flying planes.

There is conflicting evidence as to just how effective cloud seeding can be. The American Meteorological Society is only vaguely supportive of the practice, noting the many drawbacks and uncertainties of weather modification and encouraging further research. An eight-year experiment in Oklahoma and Texas, conducted over a 5,000-square-mile area, showed that cloud seeding increased rainfall, the length of storms and the area in which rain fell. But in 2003, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared research had not yet produced evidence that weather modification can create “verifiable, repeatable changes in rainfall, hail fall, and snowfall”. A 2010 Israeli study offered disappointing results.
Those who deem cloud seeding effective worry that forcing precipitation in one area may deprive another area of rainfall. Cloud seeding operations have even been accused of causing droughts, and numerous lawsuits have been filed against cloud-seeders by outraged farmers over the years. 

In spite of the doubts, there are state-funded cloud seeding programs in 11 drought-prone U.S. states and one Canadian province (Alberta). Typically, private companies are contracted to do the work.  (13)
A few countries, like Niger and Russia, have sporadic national programs carried out by their air forces (the Russian one has been almost comically unsuccessful). The Inter State Committee Against Drought in the Sahel sponsors cloud seeding in several West African nations. China, which has extensive cloud-seeding programs, famously boasted that scientists in Beijing’s Weather Modification Office staved off rain during the 2008 summer Olympics by strategically launching 1,104 rockets containing silver iodide from 21 sites in the city. It seemed to work, but the results of their cloud-seeding programs are still being debated. 
Because it’s an expensive process with no guarantee of success, few individual business operations hire cloud seeders. The notable exceptions are large ski resorts, which have paid cloud seeders to increase snowfall on their slopes.

A widely-circulated video (below) features a secretly recorded “chemtrail pilot” describing “silver iodide weather manipulation”. The tone of the video makes it all sound very sinister, but the pilot is openly discussing methods that have been in use since the ’50s. Note that the cameraman presents zero evidence that anything other than ordinary cloud seeding or hail mitigation is being conducted by the company.

 Cloud seeding to increase precipitation, hail mitigation and fog suppression are the only weather modification services that can be offered at present, because that’s all we know how to do. Contrary to bizarre stories about HAARP-created hurricanes, and an overly enthusiastic military “study” released in 1996, we don’t possess the means of artificially controlling entire weather systems, steering thunderstorms and whipping up tornadoes and whatnot.

Part of the problem with cloud seeding is that we literally don’t know clouds at all. Precisely how and why clouds form and behave is still a matter of intensive study, with cloud physicists still conducting research into why lightning develops in some stormclouds but not others and how cosmic rays may affect cloud nucleation (just last year, CERN published results from a study called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets, or CLOUD).


Firefighting

Aerial firefighting drills and even actual firefighting are sometimes mistaken for chemtrail spraying, despite the extremely low altitudes of the planes.

The first firefighting planes were modified WWII bombers, and most firefighting planes still use the same gravity drop system; tanks are fitted with doors that open to discharge their contents. This type of system requires aircraft to fly at extremely low altitudes (around 200 feet), which takes highly skilled pilots.

Since the early ’70s, The U.S. Forest Service has used military aircraft from the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard (in addition to aircraft owned by private companies under contract) to help fight wildfires. For this, a small number of C-130H planes have been modified to carry tanks known as Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS).


Aerial firefighting uses different combinations of water and the following flame retardant chemicals:

  • Ammonium-based retardants with water-thickening agents added (either clay or a guar gum derivative).
  • Fire-retardant gels. These are thick slurries made up of superabsorbent polymers that absorb hundreds of times their weight in water, creating millions of tiny water droplets surrounded by  a polymer shell. These “bubblets” form a thermal shield over surfaces. 
  • Firefighting foam (similar to fire-retardant gels, except the bubbles contain air instead of water)

Fire retardants typically contain preservatives, wetting agents, and rust inhibitors, and are often coloured with red ferric oxide to mark where they have been dispersed. 

Aside from the ferric oxide, metals are not used in firefighting, so this would not account for elevated amounts of aluminum or other metal oxides supposedly being found in environmental samples.

Everblue: The Great Evergreen Conspiracy



The photo above (original source unknown), and a lot of photos and videos just like it, regularly appear online as a “chemtrail plane in action”: 

You may notice that in a lot of these photos and videos, “Evergreen” is emblazoned on the side of the plane. So what are these sinister Evergreen planes that spray plumes of poison upon us from such low altitudes?
Actually, it’s just one plane. It’s the Boeing 747-100 Supertanker, modified by Evergreen Aviation specifically to fight fires. Evergreen has been contracted to aerially fight fires for 60 years, so it stands to reason they would want to develop bigger, better firefighting aircraft. Their other firefighting aircraft are mostly helicopters.
The Evergreen Supertanker is the largest firefighting aircraft in the world. It can hold over 20,000 gallons of flame retardant, and can fly slightly higher than the average firefighting aircraft – up to 600 feet. It was used for the first time in 2009, fighting fires in Spain and California

Currently, the U.S. Forest Service is not employing the Evergreen Supertanker for its firefighting efforts, as discussed in an Evergreen Aviation statement issued last month.  Forest Service regulations limit the agency to tankers that hold a maximum of 500 gallons. The expense of maintaining the Supertanker and keeping it on standby can’t be met with call-when-needed contracts like those offered by the Forest Service, so Evergreen takes only exclusive-use contracts. The Supertanker is not a military aircraft, and Evergreen is a private corporation that has both military and civilian contracts.

Among many chemtrail researchers, Evergreen Aviation is something very different. It’s a a CIA front, and instead of having one Supertanker, it has an entire secret fleet of them – a cleverly disguised death squadron. Here are some examples:

A post at Aircrap.org declares that Evergreen Air is a CIA front company for U.S. chemtrail operations, based out of Pinal Airpark (formerly Marana Army Airfield) near Tucson and McMinville, Oregon. The entire article is cut and pasted from a 2011 “article” by one Joan Biakov, “Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF”. The title is massively misleading, because the article itself says nada about USAF-Evergreen contracts. Zero evidence to support the CIA claim is provided. Biakov thinks tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes can be artificially created and controlled with ground- and space-based lasers, making me wonder why she’s concerned about airplanes in the first place. Why am I starting to get the feeling this Evergreen conspiracy theory is a little thin on facts? 
When I spoke to the woman who filmed the “chemtrail planes” video, she explained that she became suspicious of Evergreen because the company denies its presence at Pinal Airpark, posts armed guards, and will not allow private planes to land at Pinal (a public facility). These would all be excellent grounds for suspicion and concern. But I learned that Evergreen Aviation does not deny its presence at Pinal (in fact, they have a website devoted entirely to their operation), and that routine military training exercises are sometimes conducted there (which could account for temporary closures and extra security). 

Let’s see what Intel Hub has to say. Here’s a 2011 article titled “Former Secret Chemtrail Facility Revealed, Evergreen Air“. Also a misleading title; the only facilities mentioned are the two openly occupied by Evergreen. 
But wait, they have a chemtrail whistleblower! Back in  2010, Intel Hub reporter Shepard Ambellas interviewed a man who said he had worked at Evergreen’s Arizona installation in the early ’90s. He helped outfit 727 and 747-C planes with liquid discharge tanks and aerosol spray devices. He also spotted mysterious triangular aircraft and fully-functional WWII bombers in the hangars. 

— sarcasm break —-

I’m sure this guy is legit. He showed Ambellas some documentation to back up his claims (Ambellas doesn’t provide any of it to us, but that’s OK. I don’t need to see it to know it’s authentic). He won’t reveal his name or even give a pseudonym, so you know he’s a real whistleblower. Every good whistleblower realizes that when you possess sensitive information that could get you killed, the safest and wisest thing to do is to keep your identity a secret while exposing that information. The bad guys won’t dare go after you if you expose them anonymously! I mean, your death would look way too suspicious! The cops and reporters would be all over that! 

Also, I think it makes a lot of sense that the Supertanker was unveiled with massive amounts of publicity and continues to be heavily promoted, while the nearly identical tankers developed 30 years ago were deployed without a peep. When you have a unique, costly product with lots of overhead expenses, it’s always a good idea to keep it hidden from 99% of your potential customers for a few decades. 

— end of sarcasm break —


Okay, so let me see if I can get this conspiracy theory straight. Evergreen planes, including the Supertanker and possibly a hidden fleet of Supertankers, are engaged in a secret chemtrail-spraying program that somehow involves agencies of the government. Let’s say the CIA is one those agencies. The whole “firefighting” thing is just a cover for Evergreen’s real raison d’etre: Spraying metallic and/or chemical stuff on us from ridiculously low altitudes, for some nefarious purpose(s).
But the U.S. Forestry Service, a powerful federal agency, refuses to employ the Supertanker for its ostensible purpose, which would help make the firefighting cover story look believable? And the CIA can’t find a way to override that decision? How does this make sense? 

There’s only one part of the Evergreen conspiracy theory that’s solid. Evergreen does (or at least did) have CIA ties. According to a series of articles published in the Oregonian in 1988, Evergreen’s founder, Delford Smith, admitted to “one agreement under which his companies provide occasional jobs and cover to foreign nationals the CIA wants taken out of other countries or brought into the United States.”
Other evidence cited in support of a CIA-Evergreen link is weak. A would-be terrorist by the name of Russell Defreitas told authorities he wanted to blow up the fuel tanks at JFK International Airport because he had seen missiles destined for shipment to Israel via Evergreen International when he worked there, years earlier.
Also, Pinal Airpark was the base of operations for known CIA f Continue reading

Chemtrails III: Aerial Spraying Operations – Military Chaff

Almost as soon as any type of aircraft becomes widely available, it seems, people start to spray stuff out of it – for benign or malicious purposes.

In 1906, an enterprising New Zealand farmer attempted to sow a flooded, temporarily inaccessible valley with seeds by sprinkling them from a tethered hot air balloon, and in the ’20s American pilot Fred Nolta sowed rice paddies from his plane.
Toward the end of WWI, Germany introduced the world to airborne chemical assault by dropping gas balloons from warplanes.
In the ’50s, after a series of experiments in which water was dumped onto California wildfires from beer kegs mounted on small planes, crop dusting planes owned by Nolta’s Willows’ Flying Service were converted into fire-dousing tankers. These gradually evolved into the sophisticated aerial firefighting tankers we see today.

A 1923 crop dusting experiment in New Hampshire (photo credit David Lance/USDA)

So the question must be asked: Could any of the many government and corporate operations that involve aerial dumping or spraying account for the chemtrail phenomenon? Let’s start with a prime suspect…

Military chaff

A U.S. Air Force document on contrails states that the only USAF activities which involve the intentional spraying of chemical compounds from aircraft in the U.S. are pest control, weed control and fire suppression (including the use of oil dispersants on oil spills, which are a fire hazard). (1)
This is true in a technical sense; so far as we know, the Air Force doesn’t spray any other chemicals on American soil. But the USAF (and other armed forces around the world) do spray aluminum-coated polymer “chaff” as an anti-radar measure.
Military chaff dispersal is the closest thing I have found to “chemtrail spraying”, and some chemtrail-watchers accept it as such (others, like Ken Adachi of Educate Yourself.org, say it’s just a cover story for what the New World Order perps are really spraying – whatever that may be).
On the surface, chaff looks like a close match for the chemtrail phenomenon: It involves aluminum, it involves polymers, it is performed at high altitudes by military jets, and it is semi-secret.

What is it?

Chaff was first used by the British in 1942. They dropped strips of paper backed with aluminum foil from RAF planes to produce radar returns that would confuse the Luftwaffe. Soon, the German and U.S. air forces were using small aluminum strips or wires for the same purpose (one memorabilia collector has posted photos of a roll of this old-school chaff). (2)
Today, even with stealth technology, most of the world’s air forces still use chaff to disguise troop movements and missiles, evade enemy aircraft and missiles, and send distress signals.

The Allies had even sillier visual aids than Glenn Beck.

As far as chemtrails are concerned, however, the chaff used in military training exercises is the only kind that comes into play. Combat chaff is not approved for use in the U.S. because it interferes with civilian radar.

The most commonly used “training” chaff consists of aluminum-coated fiberglass or silica fibers made as small and lightweight as possible. The strands look like tiny, shiny hairs. Each strand (dipole) is between 17.8 and 25.4 microns in diameter, much thinner than the average human hair, and less than an inch long,
The dipoles have a chemical slip coating to prevent clumping, made up mostly of stearic acid. There are also trace metals in chaff.
Some warn that chaff contains lead or naphtha, but this is not true. Naphtha is used in part of the chemical-coating process, but removed at a later stage. Certain kinds of tinfoil chaff used to have a lead-based coating designed to increase flutter. This technique has not been used since the early ’80s. (3)

Chaff (whether combat or training) is not sprayed like exhaust nor dumped like fuel. Typically, it is spread by motor ejection, mechanical ejection or pyrotechnic ejection. In motor ejection, a motor located on the aircraft feeds large rolls of uncut chaff through cutters at varying speeds to produce either bursts of chaff or a steady stream of it (“saturation chaff”). Mechanical ejection releases little cardboard boxes packed with chaff, which burst open upon release from the aircraft. Pyrotechnic ejection is the most popular method. It uses hot gases generated by an explosive impulse cartridge to push a small plastic piston along a chaff-filled tube. The chaff fibers are released while the tube stays on the aircraft.
Depending on the type of chaff, the method of dispersal and the number of aircraft, chaff releases can disperse billions of fibers in a 10-minute period. (3)

Now that we have some idea of what chaff is, let’s look at two of the most popular chaff-as-chemtrails stories.

“Germany admits spraying chemtrails”

There was great excitement among chemtrail researchers in 2007, when videos featuring a German TV news segment appeared online, declaring that Germany had become the first nation to admit to chemtrail-spraying.

Dutch ufologist John Kuhles seems to have been the first chemtrail-watcher to upload a video (the one below), and most of the later videos are just copies or variations of that one.
The German-to-English translations on these videos are dodgy (if not outright fraudulent), so it’s impossible to know precisely what’s being said unless you’re fluent in German. The gist of the videos is easy enough to grasp, though: A German meteorologist named Karsten Brandt was puzzled by large contrail-like clouds that twice appeared on meteorological radar (in 2005 and 2006), investigated the matter, and became upset when the German Army admitted it was spraying polymer chaff to disrupt radar returns (“chemtrails”). Brandt decided to file charges against the German military and/or persons unknown for manipulating the weather (illegal in that country), and has made allegations (not supported by any evidence in the news segment) that military officials have falsified satellite imagery by digitally removing “chemtrails”. Johannes Remmel of the German “Greens” party expresses concern about chaff pollution, and wants to see transparency in military spraying operations.

Closer examination of videos on which the original audio can be heard reveals that Brandt, Remmel, the news anchor and the reporter do not use actually use the term “chemtrail” at any point. Why would they? Military chaff is about 40% metal and 60% silica by weight. (3)
In fact, “chemtrail” doesn’t appear once in the news segment. Rather, they use the German word for military chaff, duppel. It’s clear that whoever provided the subtitles for these videos (John Kuhles?) wants us to believe the German air force is spraying chemtrails instead of duppel.

Many chemtrail researchers impressed by Brandt’s “chemtrail” work would be sorely disappointed to learn he is a dedicated “greenie”, and the author of five books on climate change. Furthermore, in a February 2006 Q&A about the “phantom clouds” that appeared on German meteorological radar on July 19, 2005, Brandt is openly doubtful of chemtrail theories. Here’s what he had to say to the question, “Are these ‘chemtrails’?”:

On different Internet pages [there] is passionate/vehement discussion that aircraft spray chemical(s) either to counteract the ozone hole or for the U.S. (who else…) to work to secure the world’s weather. This happens – according to the followers of this conspiracy theory – not only on a test basis from time to time, but regularly, around the world and especially over Germany. The spray chemicals leave whitish-gray streaks in the sky. But these are not normal contrails, the ‘chemtrails’ look different and also behave very differently. The beauty of this conspiracy theory: Anyone can see the streaks, anyone can feel threatened, but the (normal) citizen can’t handle or examine them. On Internet pages photos of various streaks are shown, the strange patterns they leave in the sky. For lay people on first sight it is already strange that contrails stay in the sky for hours one day, but the next day resolve within minutes. But this ‘phenomenon’ is very simple and easy to explain with the humidity and [air] current. Of course we also cannot safely exclude that an aircraft sprayed chemicals. This happens regularly, but as to the extent claimed by the conspiracy theorists, we can exclude that with common sense: For such a comprehensive world conspiracy, not just hundreds, [but] thousands [of] U.S. pilots would have to be dedicated/inaugurated, and also scientists, German authorities, etc., etc.
How high is the probability that there are no leaks with such a [large] number of people? Exactly.

(Note: This is my rendering of a Bing translation. You can find the literal translation below the source notes at the end of this post.)

Karsten mentioned that the German Center for Aerospace and the German Army‘s Geoinformation Office extensively studied the mystery clouds, and published their results in a 2005 German Meteorological Society newsletter. You can read that newsletter (PDF) if you know German or have a lot of patience. The radar cloud portion is titled “Unbekannte Flugobjekte im RADAR-Bild?” (“UFOs in the Radar Image?”). The authors make it clear they’re not talking about “flying saucers”, but the radar echoes observed on July 19, 2005, that did not correspond to any known meteorological phenomena.
They offer five possible explanations for the echoes, including duppel, and conclude that further inquiries should be made to determine if experiments involving reflective particles are being conducted. This newsletter, if translated correctly, could be of more value to chemtrail researchers and geoengineering critics than any crappily-subtitled YouTube video.
But there’s a snag: Other meteorologists soon identified the July 19 anomaly as an example of what German weather scientists refer to as the “German Pancake”. It’s a type of radar error, in this case caused by the newly introduced kilometer-scale numerical weather prediction system (LMK). I don’t know if the other mystery clouds Brandt mentioned were chaff or not, but the one that first caught his attention was a pancake. (4)

Pancakes.

I don’t know what became of Brandt’s chaff lawsuit.

“Weatherman admits to military chemtrails”

This video of Tampa’s ABC affiliate weatherman Denis Phillips explaining military chaff was included in the chemtrail documentary What in the World Are They Spraying?, and is often cited as evidence that large and persistent “chemtrails” are becoming too common even for TV weathermen to ignore. Again, though, we’re not talking about chemical-laced contrails. Phillips is talking about military chaff. And since chaff has a distinctive appearance on radar, he probably knows what he’s talking about.
Also, do you know how #@*& difficult it was to identify Denis Phillips? I understand that indie documentarians and YouTube users are pressed for time and all, but for the love of sweet crusty crabcakes, please source your TV footage! If I ever have to spend that much time looking at TV meteorologists ever again, I will welcome death by chemtrail.

Okay, anyway, chaff dispersal by the military is not really a secret. The military won’t discuss it openly, but the General Accounting Office provides basic information about it upon request. Let’s move on to the important questions about it.

If it’s an anti-radar measure, why is chaff being sprayed over countries by their own military planes?

Three primary reasons:
1. Because military pilots, as part of their training, must learn how to mask their planes by creating false radar images. Air Force Colonel Gerald Pease has explained that chaff is difficult to use effectively; it takes a lot of practice.
2. Because the military is testing their own radar systems.
3. Because it is used in combat training exercises.

Remember, this is not combat-grade chaff, but lighter and smaller “training” chaff.

Can it alter the weather?
No. The total amounts of chaff being ejected from military planes in training exercises are infinitesimally small compared to the amounts of particulates that would be required for UV sunshades, as we’ll see in a later post on geoengineering. Unlike jet contrails, the “clouds” formed by chaff are rarely numerous or frequent enough to block sunlight for any appreciable length of time. They can’t increase rainfall, because chaff strands are far too large to serve as nuclei for water droplet formation

We’ll get into chaff’s suspected links to HAARP weather modification and mind control in another post.

Is it dangerous to our health or the environment?
The effects of chaff on humans and the environment are still not entirely known. The few government studies conducted over the years have generally been narrow in scope and/or poorly designed. Being military studies, most of the reports are not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. In my opinion, more independent (read: non-military) studies are needed. Here’s a rundown of some of the military studies on the health effects of chaff conducted in the past 40 years:
1972: In an extremely small-scale study by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, cattle were fed chaff for a period of two weeks. The cattle didn’t exhibit any obvious adverse health effects, so the researchers concluded that chaff has no adverse effects on any livestock. (5)
1977: U.S Navy studies conducted at Chesapeake Bay (where a detachment of the U.S. Naval Research Lab is located ) exposed six varieties of marine life to levels of chaff up to a hundred times the average level. No toxic effects were observed. (6)
1997: The U.S. Air Force released the results of a study, “Environmental Effects of Self-Protection Chaff and Flares”, indicating that effects on wildlife were negligible. (PDF)
1998-1999: A major Naval Research Laboratories study was undertaken. Simultaneously, the General Accounting Office conducted its own independent study. (Ironically, it was Senator Harry Reid of Nevada who directed the GAO to conduct its own investigation into chaff use, and how thoroughly its effects on the environment had been studied by the military. Reid is generally despised by the conspiracy community for what a 2010 article reposted at Infowars.com describes as his “hostile takeover of agriculture”, the FDA Food Modernization Act.
The Navy report, Environmental Effects of RF Chaff” by Theodore Hullar et al., stated that “widespread environmental, human, and agricultural impacts of RF chaff as currently used in training are negligible, and far less than those from other man-made emissions…”, while acknowledging that several health questions remained unanswered. (7) As a result of this study, the Joint Chiefs of Staff implemented tight restrictions on the use of chaff for training in the U.S. (8)
2000: A Navy study conducted at Chesapeake Beach found no evidence that 25 years of chaff releases in the area had resulted in a significant increase in sediment or soil aluminum concentrations (Wilson et al., 2000).
2001: An article published in Navy Medicine noted that chaff strands are too large to be inhaled into the lungs, and would probably just be swallowed or expelled. Workers in the fiberglass industry are not at increased risk of death from fiber inhalation. When aluminum is ingested, 99% of it is expelled. The authors admit, though, that “there is no definitive evidence from the epidemiological literature that chaff exposure is not harmful…” (6)
2005: A review of chaff studies conducted for the Goose Bay Office of the Department of National Defense by the University of Saskatchewan’s Department of Soil Science concluded that while some environmental effects are still unknown, “it is highly unlikely that chaff releases will have any impact on ecosystem functioning or human health because concentrations of suspended chaff are well below known toxic thresholds.
As for the potential hazards of inhaling or ingesting chaff, the authors point out that the fibers are too large to pass naturally through the nose or mouth. (8) However, the Navy Medicine article noted that degraded fibers may be inhaled or ingested and that further study should be done. (6)

Some chemtrail and conspiracy researchers, like Rima Laibow tentatively link the bizarre condition known as Morgellons to military chaff, but as we’ll see in later posts, the fibrous materials that sprout from the skin of Morgellons sufferers bear little, if any, resemblance to military chaff.

Does the aluminum show up in ground and water testing? Could chaff account for elevated aluminum levels reportedly found in environmental samples?

Some chaff can end up in unfiltered drinking water, of course, and this is noted in the Navy Medicine article. (6)
But here’s the thing: If you ate an entire 3-oz. bundle of chaff – not that I would recommend it – you’d be consuming roughly 3000 mg. of aluminum. Consider how much aluminum an avid tea-drinker might consume in a month – up to 5000 mg/kg of aluminum have been found in tea leaves (Xie et al., 2001, PDF), so a person drinking 10 cups a day for one month could ingest about 60 mg. of aluminum from tea alone.
Not that it really matters. Aluminum is the third most abundant element in our environment, after silicon and oxygen, so it turns up naturally in water, soil and food (and unnaturally thanks to industry, processing, packaging, etc.). The good news is that when aluminum is ingested, less than 1% is absorbed by our gastrointestinal tracts, and the other 99% is harmlessly expelled. (Jouhanneau et al. 1997)

The aluminum won’t hurt you, but looking at this teapot might.

The isolated test results that indicate extremely high levels of aluminum and other metals in water and soil, like the ones depicted in What in the World Are They Spraying?, are usually flawed or misinterpreted, as we will see in later posts. In the U.S. and Canada, routine soil and water tests conducted by both government and independent environmental agencies have not been finding unusual amounts of aluminum.

The trace metals in chaff are present in such miniscule amounts as to be insignificant. The 2005 review of chaff studies states that “the amount of chaff needed to raise environmental concentrations of these metals above background levels far exceeds the number than can be realistically deposited in a given area of land or body of water.” (8)
The 2000 Navy study at Chesapeake Beach did not find elevated amounts of aluminum in the soil, despite heavy use of chaff in the area over a 25-year period (Wilson et al., 2000). Currently, area residents are far more concerned about phosphorous contamination from fertilizers than they are about chaff.

But no one wants to rely solely on military studies, so let’s look at a more recent, non-military study involving chaff and the soil. In 2005, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study was conducted in southwestern Arizona to determine if the heavy use of chaff in the area could be a risk to the endangered antelope (Sonoran pronghorn). The researchers studied Sonoran pronghorn exposure to chaff at five sites: the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe National Monument and Luke Air Force Range, using the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge as a control site. Chaff was found more frequently at all the other sites than at Kofa, but researchers noted the difference was not statistically significant, and “the increased chaff did not appear to influence mean aluminum concentrations in soil or sediment, as aluminum concentrations were within Arizona background concentrations.”
The researchers encouraged further testing in the region, but concluded that exposure to aluminum or other metals in chaff would not cause adverse effects even to the vulnerable Sonoran pronghorn. (9)

(By the way, if you’re an American conspiracy researcher who is too busy worrying about what the New World Order is doing to pay any attention to the Sonoran pronghorn, maybe you should.)

Sources:

1. USAF document on contrails (PDF)
2. Wikipedia entry for chaff (countermeasure). Retrieved July 5, 2012.
3. Draft USAF document “Environmental Assessment: Transforming the 49th Fighter Wing’s Combat Capability” (2006), Appendix B, “The Characteristics of Chaff”.
4. Hessler et al. 2006, Hengstebeck et al. 2010
5. “The Ingestion of Fiberglass chaff by cattle” (1972). Canada Department of Agriculture, Health of Animals Branch. Prepared for the Director of Electronic Warfare, Canadian Forces Headquarters.
6. Human and environmental health issues related to use of radio frequency chaff” by Darryl P. Arfsten et al. Navy Medicine, Volume 92, No. 5 (September-October 2001)
7. 1998 General Accounting Office report “Environmental Protection: DoD Management Issues Related to Chaff” (PDF)
8.Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency (RF) Chaff Released during Military Training Exercises: A Review of the Literature” by Richard E. Farrell and Steven D. Siciliano.
9. “Effects of Military Aircraft Chaff on Water Sources Available to Sonoran Pronghorn” (2005) by
Carrie Marr and Anthony L. Velasco (PDF)

Word-for-word Bing translation of Brandt’s answer to “Sind das „Chemtrails“?” on Donner Wetter:

“On different Internet pages is passionate/vehement discussed that aircraft chemicals spray to thus optional the ozone hole counter to work or the USA (who else…) the weather world to secure. This happens – after view the trailer this conspiracy theory – not only test basis from time to time, but regularly around the world and especially over/about Germany. The atomized/vaporized chemicals you want to most to the sky white-grayish stripes/streaks leave. It if is but not to normal contrail, the ‘chemtrails’ see very different and would is also behave differently. The beautiful at this conspiracy theory: Each/anyone can the stripes/streaks see, each/anyone can is threatened feel, but no (normal) citizens can they handle or examine. On the Internet pages be photos various stripes/streaks shown, the strange pattern most sky leave. For the lay people is it on the first sight view already strange that is contrails at one day for hours most sky keep next day but within minutes to resolve. But this ‘phenomenon’ are with the humidity and the flow/current very much light/simple and easy to explain. Of course we can also not with last security/safety exclude that an aircraft chemicals sprayed. But this happens regularly and the to the extent of as to the conspiracy theorists claims happen you can with healthy common sense exclude: For such a comprehensive world conspiracy would have to not just hundreds, thousands U.S. pilots be dedicated/inaugurated, but also scientists, German authorities, etc., etc. How high is the probablity that at one such number of people of people no leaking instead are?”

Continue reading

The Alien Deception

Presented by Dr. Karla Turner at the International UFO Congress & Film Festival in Las Vegas in 1993. It appears that extraterrestrials, during abductions, are hurting, manipulating, and even killing people for their own agendas. Dr. Karla Turner was widely respected in the UFO community for her research on alien abduction. A scholar and professional […] Continue reading

UFO Mayan Art

The filmmakers behind “Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond,” who said that their film will reveal evidence of contact between the Mayans and extraterrestrials, have now released to TheWrap what they claim is photographic evidence of a pre-Mayan, alien civilization. And they claim they’ve got Stephen Hawking on their side. Producer Raul Julia-Levy supplied […] Continue reading

UFO Mayan Art

The filmmakers behind “Revelations of the Mayans 2012 and Beyond,” who said that their film will reveal evidence of contact between the Mayans and extraterrestrials, have now released to TheWrap what they claim is photographic evidence of a pre-Mayan, alien civilization. And they claim they’ve got Stephen Hawking on their side. Producer Raul Julia-Levy supplied […] Continue reading