Those who have spent time traversing the chemtrails rabbit hole will probably agree that it is a rabbit hole with many tunnels. Tunnels which are often interconnected, go for miles and are riddled with off shoot tunnels.
With this in mind, while watching James Corbett, of the Corbett Report, discussing how when ‘looking at a painting we can become so fixated on the individual brush strokes it distracts us from the painting itself.’ In other words, we can lose sight of our original path, becoming side-tracked by the noise. For some reason this stuck with me, nagging in the back of my mind.
After mulling over this for a few days I wondered, am I looking too closely at the individual brush strokes and thus loosing site of the painting? Has the topic of chemtrails been so micro analysed and saturated with diverging theories, opinions, jargon, information and disinformation, that I stopped looking at the painting?
For me this was one of those moments when the foggy veil lifts and the whirling amass of thoughts and information suddenly become clear. I won’t even bother going into the many, many, many interconnected rabbit holes I have been down. Time wasted debating with people about wording, motives, outcomes, methods, scientific studies, statistics, not to mention the countless insults which have been endured. Just saying the word chemtrails is controversial and can trigger a flurry of hostility.
But here’s the thing. At the core of everything is the fact that planes are making clouds (aka chemtrails), and have been doing this for decades. Chemtrail clouds vary in type and the particulates can remain in the atmosphere for hours if not days. It can take hours before chemtrail clouds become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds. Moreover, chemtrail clouds are not ‘just water vapour’ (which btw is a greenhouse gas), they also contain metal and chemical particulates, including: carbon black, sulfur, aromatics, aluminium, etc. [1, 2].
Trolls can try to ridicule you for believing in chemtrails but unless they are devoid of any brain cells they can not argue with the simple facts:
Publicly scientists admit they do not even really know what impact chemtrails (or, persistent contrails) are having on our climate. Moreover, it is only recently that scientists have started factoring clouds into climate models; an area which has many deficiencies, uncertainties and issues surrounding transparency.
Any honest Scientist will openly admit we still have much to learn about the true relationship between clouds, the earth, the climate and our atmosphere. Even the loudest geoengineering advocates, while acknowledging the predicted negative impacts e.g. increase mortality rates, natural sacrifice zones, admit they are uncertain as to what the true impacts of geoengineering technologies (once ‘officially’ deployed) will be.
The impact these man-made chemical clouds are having on earths’ climate, weather systems, our environment and our health has been largely ignored by governments, environmental hierarchies, medical professionals, the media… you know… all the people who are meant to have our best interests at heart. These people remain wilfully ignorant, too fearful (or unable) to speak out, or are busy discussing ‘official‘ deployment of geoengineering technologies.
Though for me, the simple, clear explanation, ‘planes make clouds (aka chemtrails) and clouds impact on climate and weather’ is at the very core of the chemtrails rabbit hole, or I guess you could say it is the ‘outer layer of the onion’.
The interconnected rabbit holes e.g. climate change, weather warfare, wifi/frequencies, depopulation, haarp, ship tracks etc. are just that… more rabbit holes. Yes they are relevant, but they are also the layers beneath the outer layer, the individual brush strokes that are a part of the painting.
Personally, I still firmly believe there are multiple programs, initiatives, motives, and goals driving the chemtrail agenda, but rediscovering the entrance to the chemtrails rabbit hole I stumbled into over 4 years ago has allowed me to filter out the noise and to appreciate the painting in its entirety once more.
Elemental composition and morphology of ice-crystal residual particles in cirrus clouds and contrails
Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
Impacts of aviation fuel sulfur content on climate and human health
Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7
The Assessment of Aviation Cloudiness in IPCC Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis
Verification for Different Contrail Parameterizations Based on Integrated Satellite Observation and ECMWF Reanalysis Data
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.
Its a word which rouses an array of responses. From blank stares, laughter, eye rolling, criticism, curiosity and sometimes even looks of excitement when the people you are speaking with realise you use the word ‘chemtrails’ too. Obviously, the latter is my favourite response, like finding a kindred spirit that speaks your language and with whom you can finally have a rational conversation with about the subject.
But is it okay to use the word chemtrails? After all it is said the word originated from the U.S. Military. Or does using the word chemtrails discredit you and the information you provide?
The simple answer is, it depends on your audience. The word chemtrails is descriptive and is an apt description for the ‘chemical trails’ we witness in our sky more days than not. Moreover, the word chemtrails encompasses technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB); technologies all based on deploying man made atmospheric chemical trails (visible or not) in an attempt to ‘engineer the climate’.
Then again, if you are talking to someone who will instantly shutdown once you say the word, is there any point speaking to them at all?
The word chemtrails is now part of pop culture. Meaning it is a word known and used by the masses. Moreover, numerous articles and papers have long suggested that the man-made clouds produced by aircraft (aka chemtrails) are indeed already geoengineering the atmosphere [1, 2, 3] (a whole other topic in and of itself, deserving of its own post).
Despite this, the word chemtrails is often cited as one of the top 10 ‘conspiracy theories‘ and when you search the word chemtrails, most search engines turn up page after page of debunking sites before anything resembling an anti geoengineering or chemtrails website appears in the search results (if they show up at all). Even many of the larger anti geoengineering activists frown upon those of us who dare use the word.
Language is a funny thing like that. Certain words or phrases provoke prejudice, hostility, passion… sadness etc. Trigger words are analysed by psychologists, monitored by governments, and used by politicians, marketers, the media, internet trolls, and yes, even everyday people.
However, irrespective of one’s position in society, cultural background or educational status, one way or another we seem to adapt to the language which surrounds us as much as the language which surrounds us adapts to us. And as history illustrates, those who speak the language deemed to be ‘proper’ or ‘noble’ will always look down upon those of us who dare to use slang, defy the rules of grammar or digress from the hodgepodge of prescriptivist jargon which they deem appropriate.
Having said all that, as for the word chemtrails, for me when I am talking to friends and family I do not hesitate to use the word chemtrails. I sometimes even use it to trigger a reaction from certain people. But when around strangers or peers I will often use terms like weather modification, climate engineering, geoengineering, solar radiation management.
Those who are already familiar with these terms will often respond with “oh you mean chemtrails?”, but if they don’t I will usually continue using the mainstream jargon. If they ask for more information I tell them to visit the opchemtrails website and library (or if I think they are going to be super anal about the word chemtrails, I will point them to other credible sites). From there it is up to them.
Again, whether or not you use the word chemtrails is up to you, and really depends on your audience and how clearly you want your message to be received.
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.
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]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/504
Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/499
The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/491
Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/522
OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/
Links to informative websites: https://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info
Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.