Skip to main content

Up in the sky — is that a contrail or chemtrail?

OK, weighing in on the chemtrails issue. For some, the very existence of chemtrails is a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that has large forces of government, giant corporations, and other such dark (often secret) forces, acting in collusion to control the weather and even to control countries and their populations.

[I catch a contrail or chemtrail. Click for bigger.]
The most visible "evidence" cited are persistent contrails (often in crosshatch patterns) left in the sky. These chemtrails (chemical contrails) are not composed of the vaporous exhaust of airplane engines, but intentional injection of chemicals into the stratosphere. The supposed purposes of laying chemtrails range from global weather control, international warfare, or world depopulation initiatives. All of this in secret without any oversight or control by the affected populations.

Oh my. For a while the chemtrails theory seemed to call out for skeptical distancing on my part.

My worldview accommodates some fundamental craziness in everyone so I'd tolerate my "rational" friends going off on chemtrail tangents from time to time. I did watch some very carefully made and "reasonable" documentary efforts on contrails, particularly "What in the world are they spraying," and its sequel, "Why in the world are they spraying." (Both are available online.) But the idea that the government, or some giant corporation in collusion with the government (the "Monsanto Model") would be able to get away with spraying crap into the air seemed unlikely to me.

On February 14, 2013, NASA scientist Riley Duren gave a presentation on geoengineering. It was a very interesting talk about controlling the weather. He very plainly discusses the precise methods of laying chemtrails, and their costs and purposes. He didn't say anyone was actually laying chemtrails, but that it was an inevitability! Holy crap!

The entire broadcast is still available. I made an 8 minute edit which excerpts the parts concerning chemtrails.



Does this prove chemtrails exist? Not necessarily, but it shows that NASA (and many others) know how to make them and know that they can be "weaponized" for global control and giant profit.

Would a corporation be able to get away with it? And why do chemtrails? Here's a scenario. In 2013, Monsanto purchased Climate Corporation for $930 million. That's almost a billion dollars. What does Climate Corporation do? It underwrites weather insurance for farmers. So if you underwrite bets on weather, being able to control the weather or even influence it the tiniest bit could pay off big time.

That people on the ground may suffer unpredictable flooding or drought might stop Monsanto, though. Not.

In the presentation, Duren gives the hypothetical cost of a global chemtrail campaign at $10 billion a year. That's a steep price even for Monsanto though, with a total capitalized value of around $20 billion.

But how about a really gigantic corporation like BASF? They're the biggest GMO/pesticide/chemical corporation on Earth with a capitalized value of around $87 billion, and revenue last year of around $100 billion.

But wait. In an article cited by Duren, the RRN Team of the World Economic Forum states, "Recent studies suggest that a small fleet of aircraft could inject a million tonnes of sulphur compounds into the stratosphere – enough to offset roughly half of the global warming experienced to date – for US$ 1 billion-US$ 2 billion annually."

That's an order of magnitude less than Duren's estimate, and that much more doable.

(And it would have to be even less than that if the motivation were not to reduce global warming but to influence weather in specific areas. A drought or a flood can sell the right seeds and chemicals.)

So, up in the sky. Is that a contrail or a chemtrail? Well, it certainly could be a chemtrail, couldn't it? But if it were, we the people would be informed about it, right?

Our government wouldn't let harmful chemicals be injected into our skies without telling us, right?

We'd have to have informed consent to allow chemicals to be sprayed into the atmosphere, right?

Especially if those chemicals might have unpredictable effects on our health, the weather, or that might unfairly profit huge corporations at our expense, right?

They would have to disclose what chemicals they are spraying and observe some kind of buffer zone, right?

Right?

H. Doug Matsuoka
15 June 2014
Makiki, Honolulu

Recorded Ustream of Riley Duren's complete NASA presentation on geoengineering:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29293171

Youtube of my edit of Duren's NASA presentation:
http://youtu.be/UCSgDPsHOBc

Publication cited by Duren: World Economic Forum 2013 X Factors list:
http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/section-five/x-factors/#view/img-3

Article mentioned by Duren (Guardian 7/17/2012 US geoengineers to spray sun-reflecting chemicals from balloon): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon

World Economic Forum: Are we at risk from rogue geoengineering?
http://forumblog.org/2013/01/are-we-at-risk-from-rogue-geoengineering/

Monsanto purchase of Climate Corp:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/

Documentary: What in the world are they spraying?:
http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA

Documentary: Why in the world are they spraying?:
http://youtu.be/mEfJO0-cTis




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HCDA creates their own anti-homeless police at HAR hearing

While no one was watching, the HCDA (Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority) held  a Hawaii Administrative Rules hearing that creates their own anti-homeless police force, and (incidentally) raises park fees by up to 500%. The affected parks are at the intersection of Honolulu Council Districts 4, 5, and 6, (Trevor Ozawa, Ann Kobayashi, and Carol Fukunaga respectively) but none (or their staff) were present today. These laws were made without any oversight from the public or their elected representatives.

Who knew that such sweeping changes could be made without the oversight of any elected officials? And after one decision making hearing that is accountable to no one? If the Honolulu City Council had to rule on such changes, it would require three full council hearings, and opportunities for public participation at each.

My own interest in attending the hearing was to get some kind of hint as to the mechanism the City would use to curtail First Amendment rights in Thomas Square afte…

Eric Seitz: Pro bono is a crock

At yesterday's "Justice in Jeopardy, Expanding Access to Justice in Challenging Economic Times" at the UH Richardson Law School, Dean of Harvard Law School Martha L. Minow pointed out that one in five Americans now qualify for civil legal assistance because they are within 125% of the Poverty Level -- a record high in the history in the county. As the demand for legal services grows, the available resources continue to diminish, leaving most without the "equal protection" of the law.

I checked out the breakout session on pro bono because I used to work for Hawaii's pro bono referral service, Volunteer Legal Services Hawaii (VLSH).

These days, most pro bono services are not attorneys representing clients, but short informational sessions at legal clinics. Moderator Robert LeClair asked attorney Eric Seitz what he thought of this turn in pro bono services.  This is what Eric said:

"Well, let me start out by saying that I've always thought pro bono w…

What The City Doesn’t Want You To Know About Thomas Square

[This article was originally published by CivilBeat on July 21, 2016. I'm reprinting it with video clips. Doug]

The City of Honolulu plans to close Thomas Square on Aug. 15 for six months and re-open it in February 2017 as something completely different, according to its master plan. Although city officials have unveiled grandiose plans concerning a drastic makeover, there are a number of troubling things they are trying to keep under cover:

1. It will no longer be a public park. The master plan calls for Thomas Square to be transferred from the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation, where it is a public park, to its Department of Enterprise Services. What is it? The department runs the Blaisdell Center, the Waikiki Shell, the zoo and the public golf courses. By way of a memo dated April 28 from the city’s enterprise chief Guy Kaulukukui to the state’s head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the city asked the state to make changes to allow a change of purpose for…