Governments and academic institutions vehemently deny such programs exist, yet the fact that for decades our atmosphere has been geoengineered by aircraft trails and ship trails is increasingly understood and acknowledge by a majority.
Although the recent news coverage on Harvard’s geoengineering circus and American State University was a double slap in the face to many anti geoengineering activists, concepts such as or similar solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) are finally being discussed by the broader community. More importantly is has caused many people to question what they have already been witnessing in their sky.
Personally, I believe Harvard formally announced its’ ‘hypothetical’ plan to dim the sun (problem) to generate a flood of public concern (reaction), which will enable them to implement their plans for global governance of geoengineering programs (solution). Despite my personal opinion, the recent mainstream coverage concerning geoengineering may in fact be a positive development.
How on earth could it be positive?
We all know that voting systems these days are questionable to say the least, but now that geoengineering has been propelled into the mainstream arena political parties can be pressed to affirm the political party’s view on the matter (in black and white).
Ask your local representatives about their level of understanding and opinion on geoengineering; do they support research and/or future deployment? If a representative is found to endorse geoengineering technology, this can be used to launch a social media campaign which will inform voters that if they vote for ‘X’ they are voting for geoengineering. If representatives are unaware of geoengineering, this would be a perfect time to provide them with information.
Even if your local representatives deny the ongoing geoengineering programs we currently witness in our sky, they can no longer deny that governments and members of academia, adorning their sophisticated facades and passive aggressive mentality, are and now openly, but coyly, calling for the ‘official future deployment’ of geoengineering technologies and for the creation of a global governing body.
Academics keep the public bewildered by claiming geoengineering is only in the research stages, yet, the same people often fail to mention that some of these research projects last for almost as long as Smith and Wagner’s conjectural ‘SAIL’ program, which has a projected deployed lifespan of 15 years. Another detail which is often neglected is the fact that scientists and academic institutions were conducting outdoor experiments as early as the 1950’s.
Also, it is well documented that for a decade or more psychologists, sociologists, public relations experts and even philosophers have been employed by governments and academic institutions to research public opinion, reactions, apprehensions and knowledge regarding geoengineering. Is such research into human behaviour and psyche what is driving the geoengineering narrative now promoted by mainstream?
Below is a list of relevant information and websites you may like to share with your local representatives (or anyone who would like to learn more about geoengineering).
Artificial Clouds [website]: http://artificialclouds.com/
Weather Modification History [website]: https://weathermodificationhistory.com
Hands Off Mother Earth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering [pdf]: http://opchemtrails.com/archives/504
Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: http://opchemtrails.com/archives/499
The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: http://opchemtrails.com/archives/491
Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: http://opchemtrails.com/archives/522
OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/
Links to informative websites: http://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.