UK Illegal Aerosol Spraying Report – Responses

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

OFFICIAL Responses Received by Andrew Johnson   2

Defra  2

Department for Transport4

ADJ’s Response to the Schumann Report7

Definition of Cirrus Clouds  7

Section 7, Page 12  7

Section 3 Para 2  8

Section 4, Top of Page 8  8

Section 4, Just under Figure 5  8

Section 5, Paragraph 1  8

Section 5, Paragraph 2  9

Section 6, Figure 6  9

Section 7 – Para 3  9

Section 7 – Para 5  10

Section 9, Start10

Section 11  10

Conclusion  10

Further Remarks  11

2nd Response From Department for Transport12

Response from WWF UK (they have a campaign about Carbon Footprints)17

Responses received by e-mail in Support of Chemtrailing Dossier and Associated Press Release   19

Responses Received By Other People Making Enquiries Related to Aerosol Spraying or Chemtrails   24

John A, Southern UK   24

Phil Morris, formerly of Cheshire, received a number of responses:30

Phil Morris Response and Data Archive  33

Other Related Items   33

Letter to Al Gore Re Global Warming and Chemtrails  33

E-mail to Prof Mike Lockwood re Sun-Induced Climate Change  34

 


 

OFFICIAL Responses Received by Andrew Johnson

 

Defra


[ This response was kind of “harsh”, but was written as a reaction to the flat denial of the evidence and because they did not follow my request to NOT send a response like this. ]

 

 

Dear _____

 

Thank you for your response which I received some time ago. I was somewhat surprised to receive it – for the following reason. In my report, I stated I was not interested in receiving a reply which was a flat denial of the evidence presented. The letter which was signed by you  (but you may not have written it) represented a denial of the data presented in my report. I stated in the report this was unacceptable and such a response should not be sent to me. This, then, is a waste of time and money and will be noted as such.

 

However, seeing as you did respond, I must point out that history has now recorded your name as being someone who supports a denial of basic evidence. This evidence was put together in a careful and reasoned manner. Your response did not offer any specific counter arguments of science or analysis to those that were presented to you. I need not point out that this goes against the way in which an organisation like DEFRA should operate – it should operate based on the principles of scientific truth.

 

Now, if I had submitted a basic letter with a few comments, your response might be considered adequate (from a certain, limited, point of view). However, I submitted an 18-page (approx.) report, backed by over 20 signatories, along with a DVD containing additional video evidence, so this is something more significant. I can also tell you that I received a number of messages of support following the publication of my press release and report –  many people are now waking up to this issue. This means that your agency is going to have to deal with this issue at some point in the future.

 

Your denial of evidence and the implied support of illegal black operations is now noted and recorded for future generations to look back on. You can, of course, at any point, revisit what I presented – I have included a draft copy here for you, in case you personally didn’t see it – and you can consider what the evidence means for us both – and what some group of people seem to be doing to the air that we breath. You can send me your personal response as to why you think the report is wrong, if you like – what specific elements of data do you disagree with? Or, you can walk down the street and look up at the aircraft that seem to be involved in re-engineering the atmosphere for some undisclosed purpose – and then wonder how so many other people (like you) can possibly be ignoring the issue. Yes, it’s probably due to fear. So the way to overcome that fear is to seek knowledge and seek the truth – in doing so, we may find a way to mitigate the effects of what this secret project is trying to achieve. For now though, I would like you to pass on this message to your line manager and for them to pass it on up the ranks: “We know” and “We’re watching you.”

 

I urge you to carefully review this data – in a personal if not professional capacity. I am not just a “customer”, I am a person – someone who knows when official agencies are denying evidence to protect another person or group. I know when someone has been told to put out an “official response” because the issue is too big or too sensitive to present an honest response.

 

On the next page, I include some of the messages I have received in response to the publication of my report and press release.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

 

{Enclosed another copy of original Report}

Department for Transport

 

 

 

e-mail sent: 13th June 2006

 

 

Dear ____

 

Many thanks for your kind response and the information you included in it. I am pleased to note that you read my report and were able to comment on it.

 

I found the paper you referenced, written by Professor Ulrich Schumann, and have studied it in some detail. I have included a more detailed commentary below and I will be e-mailing him separately.

 

In summary, I would say that there is little or nothing in this report which explains the phenomenon and data I presented in my report:

 

1)      It talks about contrail formation being linked to cirrus cloud formation, but states there is no proven link between them.

 

2)      It does indeed discuss persistent "contrails" but does not explain why they form and the duration of their persistence is not discussed in detail or with any empirical data.

 

3)      In particular, my attention was drawn to 2 figures: the standard contrail duration of maximum 2 minutes (I have no argument with this!) and also the discussion of regions of ice supersaturation. It states that ice supersaturation in the atmosphere may be the cause of persistent contrail formation but no firm link is documented or established. Indeed, a figure of 150 km is quoted for the maximum size of a region of ice supersaturation. If you check my measurement in Section 4 of my report, made directly from known satellite photos, I have measured chemtrails that are over 300 km long.

 

Some discussion of lidar measurements is included in this report, and this is quite interesting, but inconclusive. I have to ask myself (and maybe you will too) why there are no ordinary (optical) photos in this study? Why are there are no time-lapse studies? These studies can be made with cheap and simple equipment and are useful for gathering quantitative raw data.  Coupled with other methods for gaining information about the state of the upper atmosphere, this could form the basis of more useful study. Of course, as I am a private individual without access to research grants and resources, I am not really in a position to progress very far with this.

 

Below, I include a detailed response to the report.

 


 

 

ADJ’s Response to the Schumann Report

 

Definition of Cirrus Clouds

 

There seems to be some confusion that contrails may be Cirrus Clouds, so I want to consider the definition of cirrus clouds. From: www.allstar.fiu.edu/…

 

Cirrus (Cl). Very high, Thin, wavy sprays of white cloud, made up of slender, delicate curling wisps or fibers.  Sometimes takes the form of feathers or ribbons, or delicate fibrous bands. Often called cats’ whiskers or meres’ tails.(left)

 

Cirrocumulus (Cc). Thin clouds, cotton or flake-like. Often called mackerel sky.  Gives little indication of future weather conditions.(right)

 

Cirrostratus (Cs). Very thin high sheet cloud through which the sun or moon is visible, producing a halo effect.   Cirrostratus is frequently an indication of an approaching warm front or occlusion and therefore of deteriorating weather. (left*)

 

Also from: www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk…

 

Cirrus clouds are wispy, feathery, and composed entirely of ice crystals. They often are the first sign of an approaching warm front or upper-level jet streak. Unlike cirrus, cirrostratus clouds form more of a widespread, veil-like layer (similar to what stratus clouds do in low levels).  When sunlight or moonlight passes through the hexagonal-shaped ice crystals of cirrostratus clouds, the light is dispersed or refracted (similar to light passing through a prism) in such a way that a familiar ring or halo may form. As a warm front approaches, cirrus clouds tend to thicken into cirrostratus, which may, in turn, thicken and lower into altostratus, stratus, and even nimbostratus.

 

Looking at the chemtrails, these do not match these descriptions much at all – because they are not water vapour based cloud formations.

 

I will now go through some sections of the paper  “FORMATION, PROPERTIES AND CLIMATIC EFFECTS OF CONTRAILS (Schumann, 2005)” and offer a commentary on what each one says.

 

Section 7, Page 12

 

The formation of contrail-cirrus is clearly visible to ground observers and observations by satellites from space [77-79]. However, modelling and prediction of contrail cirrus for observable cases is still in its beginning [88]. Proper models and validation data for such studies, including the state of the atmosphere, at scales comparable to the size if supersaturated regions are still to be provided. No conclusive observational evidence exists for an impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus properties.

 

So, there is no evidence that contrails affect the formation of cirrus clouds.

 

It is to be expected that aviation aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions may impact the upper tropospheric aerosol over their entire life cycle, which may last over a time scale of up to a few weeks depending on season and altitude.

 

We see almost immediate effects of contrails/chemtrails – as documented on 4th Feb 2007, for example.

 

 

In particular, soot particles originating from aircraft exhaust may act as efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei [22, 57]. Aviation aerosols may trigger the formation of clouds long after the emission, when the background atmosphere has changed to a state allowing cloud formation (supersaturation).

 

“May” indicates this is an assumption, and no data is presented to back this up.

 

Aircraft-induced aerosols can modify the micro-physical properties of clouds, change cloud particle sizes and forms, and the number of cloud particles [89-90]. The result of such modification may include a change in the precipitation rate, in cloud life time, and in cloud radiative properties. A quantification of the impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus properties is subject of ongoing research.

 

Again, “may” has been used and it is stated the link between aerosols and cirrus formation is “unknown”. No reason is given as to why trails persist.

 

Section 3 Para 2

 

Compared to thermodynamics, the particle emissions play a secondary role in contrail formation. If the atmosphere is cold enough, a contrail will form even for zero particle emissions from the aircraft engines because of condensation nuclei entrained into the exhaust plume from the ambient air.

 

This is, just as I put in my report, an explanation of contrails which don’t persist. I have no argument with this.

 

Section 4, Top of Page 8

 

Since contrail persistence requires at least ice saturation, a sky full of contrails but without natural cirrus shows that cases occur with humidity above ice-saturation but below the threshold for cirrus formation.

 

This is not an explanation – it is a statement that “something happens”. It says that trails can persist without supersaturation – so, supersaturation cannot be the sole explanation for the formation persistent trails. The phrase is really, again, saying “persistent trails form, but we don’t know why.”

 

Section 4, Just under Figure 5

 

Regions with ice supersaturation have been found with horizontal extensions of the order 150 km [53]

 

This still doesn’t explain why trails persist. Also, I measure a trail over 300 km long – which presumably would fall into the “unexplainable” category we can deduce from Section 4, top of Page 8.

 

Section 5, Paragraph 1

 

Small and large transport aircraft may produce persistent contrails of similar size, even though the fuel consumption may differ by a factor of five [66]. Under subsaturated conditions, contrails of 2-engined aircraft evaporate mostly already during the jet phase (<20 s), contrails of 4-engined aircraft often survive until the end of the vortex phase (ca. 2 min) [68]

 

This is the only paragraph where specific times for the duration of persistence is mentioned – all these times do not agree with the examples I have documented and provided to you. I am fully aware that ordinary contrails dissipate within 2 minutes.

 

Section 5, Paragraph 2

 

At present, only a few exploratory studies have dealt with the later stage of the persistent contrail dynamics which depends on the mesoscale atmospheric flows with rising or sinking motions of turbulent or wavy character and on shear, radiation and ice particle sedimentation. A vertical shear in the wind perpendicular to the contrail causes a contrail spread which may reach several kilometres within hours [73-76].

 

Again, this is saying, “we don’t know why trails persist”.

 

Section 6, Figure 6

 

Compare with satellite photo from Feb 4th 2007.

 

Notice any differences? Right hand photo was from:

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.n… (4th Feb 2007)

 

Section 7 – Para 3

 

Consider the meaning of this paragraph:

 

A correlation between aviation soot and cirrus particle concentrations has been observed in cirrus only in one case study, apparently in young persistent contrails [91]. The potential for a connection between aerosols and cirrus has been found in experiments which have shown differences in aerosol and cirrus particle concentration in clean and polluted air masses [20; 92-95]. However, the contribution of aviation emissions to cirrus formation in the atmospheric aerosol has not yet been observed at ages beyond about one hour, nor has the formation of cirrus been documented which forms from aviation aerosol without presence of a contrail. The potential for an impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus has been shown in still tentative numerical simulations of soot concentrations and ice particle formation [96, 97].

 

Is this suggesting that the aircraft passes over, with no persistent contrail, then a cirrus cloud forms sometime later? If this is the case then:

 

1)      It does not match the observed data I discuss (trails are seen immediately and persist).

2)      It is likely to be difficult to prove, at many locations, what particulates were responsible for cloud formation – whether those emitted from aircraft, or those from industrial pollution, or those carried from distant location by, say, the jet-stream.

 

Section 7 – Para 5

 

The ice formation processes are very complex and not yet finally understood[5, 6, 92, 98, 99]. The changes in concentrations of ice nuclei (such as aircraft soot) maycause an increased cirrus cover but may also cause a reduced cirrus cover, so even the sign of thiseffect is presently uncertain [100].

 

So, there is no definite link between contrails and cirrus formation anyway!

 

In the rest of section 7, it discusses the increase in contrails over the long term, but does not explain how specific days can show almost blanket coverage and then, some days later there are virtually no contrails seen – even in the same weather conditions.

 

Section 9, Start

 

The climatic impact of contrail cirrus is not known.

 

On a global scale and/or long term this may be true, but I have documented the effect, as have others, on short term, localised climate change – where a haze develops and sunlight levels drop. This is a known, observed effect which is repeated and backed by reliable data.

 

Section 10 is not really relevant to what I have presented discussed, though it may have some bearing on what is being discussed.

 

Section 11

 

“Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses.”

 

The data presented in this report simply does not support this conclusion. Neither does it support or explain the formation of crosses/grids and almost parallel lines, as shown in many pictures I have and the ones presented to you. So, this conclusion is false – also see Section 4, Page 8 – as mentioned above. What it says there does not support such a conclusion.

 

It is really saying “Persistent contrails may be formed in regions of ice-supersaturation, but we have no real, reliable explanation why Persistent contrails form”. The correct conclusion is that unknown aerosols are being covertly introduced into the air – as I said in my report.

 

Conclusion

 

The paper lists an impressive number of references, but sadly it completely fails to explain the type of trails that have been documented by hundreds or thousands of people across the world.

 

The report suggests a maximum length of a trail of 150 km – I showed an example of a trail twice this length (quite a few others can be found on that and other satellite photos). It also mentions a persistence duration of about 2 mins – I have time lapse photography showing trails lasting over 18 minutes – and the 360 km one suggests a duration of at least 27 minutes. So, this report does not explain this data either.

 

 

 

Further Remarks

 

There is a considerably large volume of evidence which people are ignoring and thus they are drawing incorrect conclusions. I hope I have provided you with enough feedback on the Schumann report to demonstrate that something is seriously wrong and, as I said in my previous letter, deeper and uncompromised investigation is required by you and your agency.

 

Below, I include some messages that were sent to me from around the world following the posting of my report and press release.

 

I will be posting a follow-up press release, discussing the essence of your response and my answers that I have included here.

 

Thank you very much for reading this long response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

2nd Response From Department for Transport

 

 


 

e-mail sent: 22nd June 2006

 

Dear ____

 

Many thanks for your prompt response to my previous e-mail. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond. (Coincidentally, I also received an evidence-denial response to my report from the CAA today.)

 

I think you may have slightly misunderstood me because I am certainly not disputing the existence of ordinary contrails lasting for a maximum period of 2 minutes. I state this clearly in my report. I also think saying "150km or 300km" (a factor of 2) is rather a loose margin of error to apply to basic data. Additionally, we could argue about the usage of the word "may" if it was especially important here.

 

The criticisms I raise about the Schumann report are valid and I have presented data which the report cannot explain. I have sent the same comments to Professor Schumann as I did to you, so I am sure he is capable of responding in his own way, should he have the time, interest or inclination to do so.

 

Also the credibility of data and evidence and conclusion is often a matter of opinion. For example, is a currently employed funded scientist always going to produce better analyses and "more credible" conclusions than a retired one? You state "with contrails there is scientific uncertainty but that doesn’t support a chemtrail conspiracy". However, the data I provided cannot be explained – it is not explained in that report. I find Clifford Carnicom’s scientific data, analyses and conclusions (see www.carnicom.com) to be more credible than the report you kindly linked me to. Additionally "conspiracy" is an emotive word, which I avoid as much as possible, because I prefer to focus on points of evidence.

 

However, let us assume, for the moment, your conclusion is correct. The grid of trails which appeared outside my window on 10th June 2005 must then be the result of ordinary air traffic. Also, the 42 aircraft I counted and filmed on Sunday 4th Feb must be ordinary air traffic. Can you therefore please answer these questions:

 

1) Can you please provide a list of flights which travelled over the Derby area between 9pm and 10pm on 10th July 2005?

 

2) Can you please verify that some of these flight paths crossed at 90 approximately degrees in the same area?

 

3) Can you please provide a list of flights travelling over Markeaton Park Derby between 14:15 and 16:45 and verify that there were at least 42 planes during that period?

For your convenience I have provided the unretouched pictures of the Grid and links to Google Maps of the location of my house…

 

maps.google.co.uk/ma… 

 

(Lat/Long 52.902891 / -1.378364)

 

(the grid was seen on bearing of about 280 degrees (i.e. approx West-North-West of my house)

 

and Markeaton Park, Derby:

 

maps.google.co.uk/ma…  (Lat/Long 52.935129 / -1.505260)

 

I can provide the unretouched video clips of the aircraft from 4th Feb if this will be of any help.

 

Thank you for any help you can provide in supplying or pointing me in the direction of this data – if we could find it would clear up these 2 instances of illegal aerosol spraying and prove that my description of same is incorrect/inaccurate in these particular cases.

Thanks again.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

 

e-mail sent: 22nd June 2006

 

Dear ____________

 

Many thanks for your response to my report regarding illegal aerosol spraying operations which are being carried out in UK Airspace and in many other areas of the world. (For your information, at the end of this message, I include responses from around the world which I have received, following the posting/publishing of my report.)

 

I appreciate your response, even though your letter clearly disagrees with the conclusion above, as I predicted in my report. I have already considered in some depth (as have many others) this explanation, and found it cannot, by the laws of physics, explain all the data.

 

However, let us assume your statement is correct. The grid of trails which appeared outside my window on 10th June 2005 must then be the result of ordinary air traffic. Also, the 42 aircraft I counted on Sunday 4th Feb must be ordinary air traffic. Can you therefore please answer these questions:

 

1) Can you please provide a list of flights which travelled over the Derby area between 9pm and 10pm on 10th July 2005?

 

2) Can you please verify that some of these flight paths crossed at 90 approximately degrees in the same area?

 

3) Can you please provide a list of flights travelling over Markeaton Park Derby between 14:15 and 16:45 and verify that there were at least 42 planes during that period?

 

For your convenience I have provided the unretouched pictures of the Grid and links to Google Maps of the location of my house…

 

maps.google.co.uk/ma… (Lat/Long 52.902891 / -1.378364)

 

(the grid was seen on bearing of about 280 degrees (i.e. approx West-North-West of my house)

 

and Markeaton Park, Derby:

 

maps.google.co.uk/ma…

 

(Lat/Long 52.935129 / -1.505260)

 

I can provide the unretouched video clips of the aircraft from 4th Feb if this will be of any help.

 

Thank you for any help you can provide in supplying or pointing me in the direction of this data.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive

Borrowash

Derbyshire

DE72 3QW



Response from WWF UK (they have a campaign about Carbon Footprints)

—–Original Message—–

From: Supporterresponse Supporterresponse

[mailto:Supporterresponse@ww…]

Sent: 11 June 2007 15:28

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld…. Subject: 512434789/MD

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Thank you for your letter concerning climate change.

 

I appreciate your comments that climate change is natural. Throughout its life the earth has moved from cold periods – ice ages – to warmer periods – interglacials.  We are in an interglacial now, the temperature is about 4 degrees centigrade warmer than during the last ice age which ended 20,000 years ago.

 

However, over the last 150 years or so it has been observed that this warming has accelerated. It is now 0.5 degrees centigrade warmer than it was in 1860 – a huge change for 130 years considering there was only a rise of 4 degrees centigrade in the last 20,000 years.

 

Furthermore, the last century was the warmest century for 600 years and the last 2 decades of the 20th Century were the warmest on record. The speed at which the change is happening, leads us to the belief that it is not a completely natural change. The current science looking at the issue has concluded that there is a ‘discernible human influence on climate change.’ This human influence is mainly a result of increases in CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy.

 

Whilst CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, during the last 150 years or so (since the Industrial Revolution), there has been a dramatic increase in our emissions of CO2, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy (i.e. power generation, transport and industry) and it is this increase that is responsible for the accelerated warming.

 

For more information on this, please see “The Science of Climate Change – A Short Overview”, report on www.panda.org.

 

WWF believes that each person can take responsibility for their impact on climate change. Especially when one considers the fact that 36% of the UK’s CO2 emissions come from us driving our cars and heating and powering our homes.

 

By switching to a green electricity supply you can support the development of renewable energy resources within the UK. Renewable energy sources are defined as energy sources which occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment and which can be harnessed for human benefit. There are many forms of renewable energy, including wind, wave and solar power. They can be used for both electricity and heat generation. For example, the burning of biomass produces heat that can be recovered and distributed locally. The main benefit of using wind, solar and wave renewable technology is that the emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 in particular) zero compared to those associated with fossil fuel use.

 

WWF are also looking at how domestic users can reduce their energy use. This includes things such as buying energy saving light bulbs, switching off appliances and lights when not in use, insulating your home properly and buying energy efficient appliances.

 

The changes in the local and global climate we are seeing is expected to have a number of significant impacts. Ice sheets, already showing signs of retreat will continue to melt, increasing the incidence of avalanches and dramatically changing river flows. This shrinking of the ice sheets will have major impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic habitats, affecting Polar Bears (Arctic) and Penguins (Antarctic). There is also evidence that the Siberian Tiger could be squeezed out of its Tundra habitat. Snow on mountain ranges is melting, the snow line is retreating.  Species such as the Ptarmigan in Scotland could simply run out of habitat.

 

There is also the risk of an increasing number of pests and diseases in the UK as conditions for their survival become more favourable and more unusual weather conditions will be seen – the UK will become more stormy with 10% more rainfall which will lead to more flooding.

 

I appreciate your comments about climate change and global warming and hope you have found this letter both helpful and informative. Please be assured that these events are already taking place and therefore it is essential that we do everything that we can to conserve energy and the environment for current and future generations.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us and for letting us know your views.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Supporter Relations

WWF Sent the paper copy of my report back, with the following letter:

 


Responses received by e-mail in Support of Chemtrailing Dossier and Associated Press Release

 

John H:

I have photos from the skies over Bristol, UK that I took in 2004 showing chemtrails. I wrote to my MP asking what they there were but he didn’t know!


Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

I would like to express my deep admiration for your efforts in rationalizing the chemtrail phenomenon with the relevant UK authorities. Please do not stop.

 

My name is KS and live in NE London.Aeresol operations are at times very heavy in this area. They fly virtually straight over my house (IG10). There is most definitely a cover up on the real nature of these emissions. Persistant bollocks from the authorities must be exposed and the phenomenon publicised as widely as possible.

 

I am interested in following your line of enquiry with the relevant authorities and wondered if you could give me some advice on methods to document and present evidence.


Dear Andrew, first of all, let me say that I appreciate your concern, it must feel at times that you are the only one awake in a world of sleepwalkers and outright liars.

 I’ve been CT aware since I read an article in Nexus magazine in about 2002. At the time I wasn’t too concerned as it wasn’t happening here, but in a few months it was..having been prepped I knew immediately what was happening. My only effort at contacting ‘the establishment’ was to email the Mayor of London’s environmental person, who said she didn’t know what the heck I was talking about or why I was contacting her office,and suggested I call my MP. I realised that official blanket denial was the order of the day, top priority.

   All the best, Duncan.


Hi,

 

Interested to read your documents on the chemtrails,I also have witnessed this strange cloud formation that seem to appear of the back of these "contrails", I am sure that this never used to happen when seeing planes fly across the sky,you would see the vapour then a few seconds or at tops a minute they would be gone,so there does seem to be something going on! But what!  Keep up the good work in finding out information,i am not sure as an individual what I can do,any ideas? if you cant answer this email its ok,just to let you know that there are other people seeing this happen too.

 

J


Hi there,

                I`m Keith G, I live on the South Herts border in the UK. Early retired now I often take shots of various sunsets.. clouds or whatever. I remember in the 60`s.. seeing `contrails` where we lived in Ponders End Enfield.. North London.. I think I was told contrails. Well.. for some time its been too obvious.. I`ve even asked those I`ve found email addresses for, including a U.S. airforce commander.. er..

 

I realise we have high altitude planes monitoring weather, atmosphere, etc.. but.. why the need for at least five planes at one time early evening.. all leaving trails.. often criss cross.. I have many pics of this.. sunset and earlier morning. The answer.. `Your air space guys are very tight over there.. nothing to worry about`.. I wasn’t asking about security issues.. I`m asking why the need for five high altitude planes at one time, surely not just to produce pretty patterns for my enjoyment?

I had a very late night last Saturday and was still up at 7.45am Sunday.. tapping outside.. a neighbour decided it was a good time to repair a flat roof edge.. his immediate neighbours must have been very pleased.. then I saw a trail.. ok.. took it.. five minutes later I looked out again and blimey.. there was a corker.. looked lower and was spreading out. I`ve not downsized it yet… was going to go out and see how far it went.. it was long.. and had already thickened. So that was aprox 8am.. and I bedded soon after. I KNOW  my neighbours think I must be an idiot taking pics of clouds.. maybe they think I`m looking for ufos.. er no.. I like sunbeams from behind clouds.. and sometimes get some good shots.

 SO.. I`m following this `campaign` with interest. I`m not saying its pollution as such.. I do suffer bronchil trouble.. and my childhood was spent in a heavily polluted area.. even the smokeless zone went around a local industrial chimney.. did I laugh? How much did that cost em.. so..  WHY  so many at one time.. that’s my question. Early morning.. and evening. Er.. seen some by moonlight as well. How long have they been `adjusting` the weather?

 Regards, Keith G

 


 

Hi

 

I just read your essay on the rense site.

 

I have been watching chemtrails over the lower mainland of British Columbia and north west Washington state and photographing them since 1995.

 

I’ve also observed them traveling in western US and Canada. By the way I spent 3 months in Belize winter 05/06 and didn’t see a single trail.

 

In fact the only clear day which didn’t result in sky obscuration was July 4th, 2007. I guess they gave someone in the chain the day off. What evil must lurk in this chain for them to continuously spray poisons on their fellow man.

 

Being a pilot for 40 years I tend to watch the sky and aircraft movements more than the average person.

 

One particular incident stands out in my mind more than any of the others.

 

One July day in 2005 I was walking my runway at about 10:00 am. I did this every day to ensure there was no FOD on the runway in case of visitors.

 

I was walking back, about 023 degrees, when I saw what appeared to be a white DC-10, L-1011, or MD-11 at about 11-12,000 feet heading southeast and about my 1-2 o’clock and about 7-8 miles.

 

It was spewing an enormous white trail and since it was just south of Vancouver when I spotted it, it had to be over Vancouver control zone and either in contact with center or with their prior knowledge of it’s passage.

 

All this was going through my mind when it turned left and headed right down my runway heading and passed directly overhead as it went north east.

 

I could see clearly this was a KC-10 with no markings.

 

It continued the present heading maintaining the same altitude until it reached the north shore mountains where it turned off the spray and turned right heading to the Seattle area and initiated a climb.

 

I’ve seen others including a more recent KC-767 just east of Vancouver where I live now but the KC-10 experience was the closest for me.

 

I read somewhere the Bush Crime family has ordered 900, yes 900 more KC-767 aircraft from Boeing to add to their spraying fleet. It was mentioned that there was no retirement in store for the planes in inventory now.

 

I have had a lot of material accumulate in our horse feeders and on my motor home from these recent sprayings so I’m going to collect as much as I can for testing.

 

Best regards, Wayne


 

Hello Andrew.

 

I might have sent you a message once before since your address is in my e-mail listing.  Thank you so much for launching a true request for investigation into the by-now perennial chemtrail issue.  And thank you for acknowledging Clifford Carnicom’s work.  I distribute his documentary, and in case you don’t already have a copy, I would be happy to send you one if you give me your mailing address.

 

I think that the applications of this program are massive.  Nothing less than altering the entire matrix of the earth itself, so that all kinds of modifications of life can be effected.  I believe that creating drought and forcing population reduction and migration are part of it, not to mention the mind control associated with electromagnetic intervention.  I think we should stop using the word "weather", since that implies something natural and I don’t think we have that anymore.  We have "managed climate states".  I think "management" is the operative word for the entire operation.

 

Thanks for your initiative in this huge huge issue.

 

Harriett F

 

 


Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

My family has been watching the ever increasing aerosol spraying from aircraft.

We first became aware of this daily operation in November 1998.

 

Please understand we are not radicals, we are retired professionals who have a good frame of reference of what normal clouds look like.

 

We have opposed the ‘covert-like’ legislation titled "weather modification".

 

We hope that you will be willing to help uncover The Real Truth.

 

Sincerely,

BC

Arizona

 


There is a massive cover up – no question.

 

Today, as usual, I notice a thousand glinting minute metallic particles all over my car windscreen – and ask myself – where on earth this could have possible come from ??!!- knowing full well where.

 

Well done you for sending that report but it needs to go to people that will listen not the agencies that are bent on covering it up.

 

I have been tracking these since 2003.

 

Louise, London

 


Hello Andrew,

 

I picked up on your work from the Jeff Rense website.

 

Briefly, I got interested in what’s really going on in the world after my son became inexplicably ill in august 2004.1 have to say that at times I wished that this hadn’t happened, because as the saying goes ‘Ignorance is Bliss’.

 

One of my ‘gut feelings’ was that my son had been exposed to some sort of agent, perhaps a Mycoplasma of some sort.

 

When I saw the BBC news report on aerosol trials in the Sixties I thought it would be worth following up. I enclose the correspondence which I hope you will find informative.

 

The protective hoods produced by Avon cost less than £100 each. I rang them to enquire whether I could purchase one. The nice lady who spoke to me said that since the report had been made public (in the Telegraph originally) that she had been given a statement to work from when approached by a member of the public. Although the company website (www.avon-protection….) doesn’t directly state that the hoods can’t be purchased by individuals, in reality they can only be obtained by the military and essential services.

 

Feel free to contact me on this matter, or anything else that I might be able to help with.

 

Best regards,

 

John


Responses to 1st Press Release (www.prweb.com//relea…)

 

Hello Andrew

 

Just received your PR web release and am reading the report.

 

I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3months.

 

Thank you so much and I have sent it everywhere.

 

I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it.

 

If I can Help let me know

 

John, Australia

Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

A friend sent me your report about chemtrails in the U.K.  I have tracked them here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year.

 

The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in  local climate and environment.  Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting.

 

Earlier this week, after a barrage of heavy spraying, I decided to e-mail NOAA through their website (unfortunately their form does not allow the addition of pictures) and received the response as indicated below. 

 

Susan, Arizona

Dear Andrew Johnson,

 

Have just read your excellent article on chemtrails, and agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I live near Exeter in the South-west, and have been concerned for some time about these aircraft sprayings, having a huge amount of air traffic here at times, and as you say, the sky ends up completely milky white.      I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead……… looks like a St.Andrews cross.   I’m quite interested in astronomy , and have a large pair of binoculars  80 x 20’s , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. With these binos I have also seen an aircraft that was spraying from the tailplane, the trails were not coming from anywhere near the engines…….. quite offset from the engine positions. So, yes we are being sprayed.     Where do these aircraft come from?   Surely someone must see this amount of air-traffic taking off and landing! It makes me so angry that these pilots could be doing this to us all……..and presumably to their own families. Perhaps these pilots don’t have the full story on what they are doing, or are paid huge amounts of money, or maybe they are flown remotely from a base somewhere.

 

Anyway, if I can help in any way to get to the bottom of this, please let me know, I’m so pleased to see someone in this country voicing the concerns I’ve had for a while now.

 

We need a lot of us to make a dent in this thing………and I don’t think the Gov’t will have a word of it…… tried that.  We need to know where these aircraft are based, who runs them, and who’s paying for all this.

 

James M.

Hi Andrew,

I have just been looking over your chemtrail dossier and I think think it is an excellent peice of work.

Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in nexus magazine around about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US, if indeed it was happening at all, but still I decided to keep my eyes open just in case.

 

But then back in 2002 I was leaving my nephews house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home to Kelso just over the Scottish border.

 

From the main road near the tyne tunnel you can just see the cheviot hills that mark the border with Scotland and England, and amongst those hills is Otterburn military training camp.

Now back then and reaching the rise on the main road I could see in the distance the cheviot hills, except this time I could make out a huge X in the sky, so all the way home I kept my eye on this X to try to discover it’s exact location and upon reaching wooler I could see that the X was amost above my head but to the left and which would have been directly over otterburn training camp and ever since that day these trails have been persistent over and near my home which is only about 20 miles from the training camp.

 

Now if you note, I first noticed this at the end of the summer in 2002 just as the case for the war in Iraq was being ramped up, any connection?

 

I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon and also believe that last years spate of noctilucent clouds here in the UK may also be connected.

 

Keep up the good work Andrew.

 

Your’s sincerely,

 

John C

Dear Mr. Johnson:

 

I am interested in your report and would like to communicate with you about some of the information that two of us have been researching since 1998.  We believe, however, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989, when the American taxpayer funding was made available for a wide variety of programs…which include the making of persistent jet contrails.  We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date…however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s.

 

If you would like to communicate with me this would be great.  I do intend to forward your site on the Internet here and in several places in the next couple of days.  I have a variety of government documents which might be of interest to you as well.

 

 

Your report is very good.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rosalind, California

 

 

Responses Received By Other People Making Enquiries Related to Aerosol Spraying or Chemtrails

 

John A, Southern UK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Morris, formerly of Cheshire, received a number of responses:

 

Subj: Aircraft over Cheshire

 

Date: 5/6/04 4:55:31 PM GMT Daylight Time

 

From: David.Butcher@dap.ca… (Butcher David)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File: AVHRR_Channel2VIS_240404.zip (255893 bytes)

DL Time (44000 bps): < 2 minutes

 

 

Dear Mr Morris,

 

In your last 3 e-mails about the spraying of a substance by aircraft over Cheshire, you posed 3 more questions and made a statement that also requires an answer.

 

Firstly, you asked "how would you know planes are not undertaking spraying activities?"

 

All aircraft requiring to fly en route in this category of controlled airspace must file a Flight Plan. The Flight Plan will specify all the required details of the aircraft and routeing so that the aircraft can be integrated into the air traffic control system and be received at the destination airport. They would be mostly transatlantic flights inbound to UK airports or requiring to overfly; the vast majority would be commercial air transport aircraft on Repetitive Flight Plans filed months in advance against the requirement of airlines to fly pre-planned scheduled services. Occasionally, military aircraft, usually transport aircraft, require to fly in this category of controlled airspace and so comply with civil procedures accordingly. A small number of private or company business jets also use the system. The point is that no aircraft are permitted to undertake any activity inconsistent with the normal operation of aircraft or controlled airspace without being subject to prior co-ordination to meet safety requirements. Neither the UK Government, the Civil Aviation Authority or National Air Traffic Services Ltd allow non-standard activity of the sort you describe to occur in UK airspace. Your question is rather like asking: "how do you know that aircraft are not being operated unsafely and so are going to crash?" The answer would be that we apply a strict set of safety regulations and procedures to all aircraft operations to militate against it happening.

 

You state that "all the planes leaving the trails described were not civil craft and airliners, my videos prove this. All airliners in the same skies at various heights left no trails at all."

 

All I can say in response to that statement is to ask: if your videos are proof that the aircraft were not civil aircraft, what do your videos prove instead? As indicated above, we do not accept that other types of aircraft, e.g. military, or unknown aircraft are spraying a substance into the atmosphere because of the way that the air traffic control system operates and the extent of regulation of UK airspace and aircraft operations. Thus, as things stand at the moment, we would not have any reason to undertake an investigation of your claims.

 

The following answers your 2 questions about the formation of contrails and the phenomena you observed in Delamere Forest:  Condensation trails (contrails for short) are elongated streaks of cloud formed by the passage of an aircraft. Although commonly associated with the upper troposphere (20000 to 40000 feet), they can form at any level, even at the ground, depending on the temperature, humidity and characteristics of the aircraft. They are formed in various ways.  One of the combustion products of petrol and other aviation fuels is water; this is ejected through the exhaust and tends to raise the relative humidity of the air in the wake of the engines. On the other hand, the heat generated by the engines tends to lower the relative humidity by raising the temperature of the wake. In certain conditions the net result is to increase the humidity to saturation so that a cloud is formed which trails behind the aircraft. This type of trail can ordinarily occur only if the air temperature is below a critical value which varies almost linearly from about -24 deg Celsius at sea level to about – 45 degrees Celsius at 50000 feet. The critical temperatures, which are only slightly affected by the type of aircraft, apply to aircraft flying at cruising speed in an atmosphere just saturated with respect to ice; the corresponding temperatures for saturation with respect to water are lower by about 2 or 3 degrees. Contrails can occur exceptionally at temperatures above the critical values when the free air is supersaturated with respect to ice (i.e. the air contains more water which, if all frozen, the air could not ‘hold), or when fuel consumption is greater than it is under normal cruising conditions e.g. with the throttle fully open.  Once a trail is formed, it broadens by diffusion. If the surrounding air is at or near saturation, the trail evaporates slowly or not at all and is then long and persistent; if the relative humidity is low, the trail only appears as a short plume behind the aircraft. Due to an interesting physical aspect of the atmosphere, it is not uncommon for the air to be supersaturated with respect to ice. Since the exhaust gases contain sublimation nuclei, any trail formed in these conditions is persistent and may thicken until the ice particles fall out as snow.  However, the attainment of saturation of the atmosphere is not sufficient for the trail to become visible; condensed water or ice particles must be in sufficient concentration to be seen, and this further depends on illumination, background contrast, distance and other viewing conditions.

 

Trails may form at any height attained by an aircraft provided that the temperature is suitable. Over Southern England, the height at which exhaust trails would be expected to form in the winter ranges from about 26000 to 70000 feet; in summer, when the stratosphere is warmer, the range is from about 30000 to 450000 feet. At high latitudes, trails can occur at low levels or even at ground level.

 

(I am guessing of course, but I think the planes doing this over Cheshire and Lancs are often 5000-10,000 feet: Phil)

 

With particular reference to the 24 May, the three attachments should help to explain the general situation. The first is a mean sea level pressure and frontal analysis chart. This shows that a cold front was lying to the west of the UK with high pressure situated over Southern England, which had led to warm conditions being experienced over much of Southern England. Further North, the approaching front was bringing increasing amounts of thin cloud and moisture into the upper atmosphere. There are two satellite pictures attached from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AHVRR), one in the near infra-red wavelength of the spectrum (0.725-1.10µm, just outside the ‘visible’ wavelengths) and one in the thermal infra-red (11.5-12.5µm), taken at 0626 UTC (0726 BST). Although it is not clear, on the thermal IR image, the streaks over the Irish Sea are contrails and there is a mixture of cirrus (high thin ice cloud) and contrails extending east from Liverpool to Lincoln. You will note that these streaks are not observed on the near-IR image, indicating they are thin, high and most probably composed of ice.  Wing-tip trails  These very thin transient trails are formed aerodynamically by the reduction of pressure at the extremities of the wings of an aircraft, the adiabatic expansion causing a reduction in temperature to below the dew-point. These trails are most frequently seen in association with aircraft in tight turns as the maximum reduction in pressure at the wing tips occurs at these times. If the temperature is already low, insufficient water may be condensed to produce a visible trail; furthermore if the air is very dry, the condensation point may not be reached. Accordingly these trails are usually seen in mild, damp weather at low altitudes. The weather conditions around the Delamere Forest area yesterday evening (based on the weather reports from Manchester and Liverpool airports) suggested exactly these conditions; light SW’ly winds, temperature 9 degrees Celsius and dew-point 7 degrees Celsius with scattered slight rain showers. Through the atmosphere there was several changes in speed and direction of the wind; this may account for the trails appearing not to move against the movement of the clouds at the various heights.  METAR reports for Manchester Airport 5 May 2004 (note times in UTC)  EGCC 051850Z 23004KT 9999 FEW018TCU SCT060 BKN220 09/06 Q0981 =  Decode – observation time 1850UTC wind blowing from 230 degrees True at 4 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas of cumulus congestus at 1800 feet, 3-4 oktas at 6000 feet and 5-7 oktas at 22000 feet. Temperature plus 9, dew-point plus 6, mean sea level pressure 981 mb.  EGCC 051820Z 25005KT 210V310 9999 FEW018CB SCT036 BKN090 09/07 Q0980 =  Decode – observation time 1820UTC wind blowing from 250 degrees True (varying between 210 and 310 degrees in the last ten minutes), speed 5 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas of cumulus congestus at 1800 feet, 3-4 oktas at 3600 feet and 5-7 oktas at 9000 feet. Temperature plus 9, dew-point plus 7, mean sea level pressure 980 mb.  METAR reports for Liverpool Airport 5 May 2004 (note times in UTC)  EGGP 051850Z 22009KT 9999 VCSH FEW015 SCT030 10/07 Q0981 =  Decode – observation time 1850UTC wind blowing from 220 degrees True at 9 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, shower in the vicinity of the airport, 1-2 oktas at 1500 feet, 3-4 oktas at 3000 feet. Temperature plus 10, dew-point plus 7, mean sea level pressure 981 mb.  EGGP 051820Z 23006KT 9999 FEW015 SCT042 10/06 Q0980 =  Decode – observation time 1820UTC wind blowing from 230 degrees True at 6 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas at 1500 feet, 3-4 oktas at 4200 feet. Temperature plus 10, dew-point plus 6, mean sea level pressure 980 mb.

 

Lastly, an associate in the Department of Transport has undertaken to also e-mail you on the matter of ‘chemtrails’-type activity, but from the perspective of national policy and security. Please let me know if you have not heard from the DfT by the end of next week.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Butcher

Consultation Secretary

Directorate of Airspace Policy

0207 453 6524

 

Mr P Morris

Cuddington

Cheshire

by email

 

3 February 2006

Mrs Fozia Chughtai

Aviation Environmental Division

Department for Transport

Zone 1/33

Great Minster House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

Direct Line: 020 7944 5435

Fax: 020 7944 2189

GTN No: 3533 5435

E-mail: fozia.chughtai@dft.g…

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

 

Dear Mr Morris,

 

 

AVIATION AND POLLUTION

 

Your emails of 26 January and 2 December to the Government Office for the North West has been sent to this Department for response as we deal with aviation policy matters.

 

You ask which UK environmental laws would prohibit any kind of material being expelled across UK airspace. As far as I am aware, there are no such regulations for this purpose.

 

Levels of pollutants from civil aero-engines are controlled through manufacturing performance standards: the UK has adopted the international standards through The Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002.

 

With regard to the earlier email and your belief that USAF jets are illegally spraying the UK with dangerous chemical fibres, you will have to contact the Ministry of Defence. This Department is only responsible for policy relating to civil aircraft.

 

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs Fozia Chughtai

 

Phil Morris Response and Data Archive

 

Can be accessed in this zip file:

 

www.checktheevidence… Morris-Letters-Responses-Data.zip

 

Other Related Items

 

Letter to Al Gore Re Global Warming and Chemtrails

 

—– Original Message —–

From: Susan Gordon

To: goreonmsn@hotmail.co…

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:03 AM

Subject: weather & environment

 

Dear Mr. Gore,

 

How do you feel about weather modification technology and it’s possible role in the global environment? 

 

I refer specifically to bill S517, introduced by Senator Kay Hutchinson in 2005, and also historical weather modification projects such as POLEX (1971), AIDJEX (1973), the Soviet Woodpecker System, and perhaps even the current activity of HAARP.

 

We desperately need rain in the Southwest and it seems that cloud-seeding projects have been of minimal help at best.  Is there concern that attempts to artificially alter weather patterns and create a chemical sun-shield/cloud cover could create more problems than they solve, or is there hope that they will be effective?

 

Susan Gordon

Sedona, Arizona

 

 

E-mail to Prof Mike Lockwood re Sun-Induced Climate Change

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 15 July 2007 12:44
To: Lockwood, M (Mike)
Subject: RE: Solar Climate Forcing Paper

 

Dear Prof Lockwood,

 

Many thanks for replying to my message of 06 July. I have spent a little time working through your interesting paper and realise that it does not even mention (in the main body) CO2 or "Greenhouse Gases". This is very interesting to me.

 

My own view is that there are a number of factors at work here – and CO2 and industrialisation is likely the least significant of them. One question which arose in my mind is… what about the industrialisation previous to the last 20 years? For example, we had more sooty factory outputs and less efficient burning of fuels (though also less in amount) in the 1850’s-1950’s (at a guess).

 

Also, may I offer the following comments: in section 4 "Recent solar trends and their implications", regarding the Cosmic Ray influence you say "We here do not discuss these mechanisms in any detail.". I think this sort of area holds the key (see below). In what I think could turn out to be related, you mention in the Conclusions: "there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism which is, as yet, unknown." Again, see below.

 

Whilst the data in your paper supports the idea that the Sun itself does not seem to have significantly affected the climate on Earth in the last 20 years, data from the rest of the Solar System suggests that something IS influencing the climate on several, if not ALL, of the other planets. Have a look:

 

Venus:

 

www.colorado.edu/new…

 

(More on other Earth factors below)

 

Mars:

 

www.xtec.es/recursos…

 

Jupiter:   

 

www.berkeley.edu/new…

 

Saturn:

 

www.daviddarling.inf…

 

(Spin time has changed – original new scientist article doesn’t seem to be available)

 

Uranus:

 

abyss.uoregon.edu/~j…

Neptune:

 

www.news.wisc.edu/ne…

Pluto:

 

web.mit.edu/newsoffi…

 

 

I think this could have something to do with the physics which could explain the following facts:

 

Olympus Mons, 27km high volcano on Mars – latitude 19 deg

Solar Maximum – most sunspots occur at latitudes of 19.5 degrees

Red Spot on Jupiter 19.5 degrees.

Big Island of Hawaii – latitude 19 degrees

Dark spot on Neptune – latitude 19 degrees

Alpha & Beta Regio – Venusian volcanoes – latitude? You guessed it! 19.5 degrees.

Strongest El Nino currents occur on latitude – 19 degrees. 

 

Also, I think the density of the Local Interstellar Medium could be changing (but this is Scientific Heresy, of course…) 

 

ae-www.usc.edu/bio/d…

Local Interstellar Medium

 

Research on the properties of the Local Interstellar medium have been carried out in scattered periods beginning in 1978. The NASA Space Physics Division has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the Division. The dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community, which has been supported primarily by the Space Science Division. The most important contributions to research in this program are papers (48), which presents a calibration independent method of determining absolute LISM density, and (89), which presents the first evidence for a large increase in the LISM neutral atomic hydrogen density from Voyager measurements of the 50 AU region, suggesting the approach to the termination shock (89). See 19, 20, 21, 48, 64, 82, 89.

 

Finally, as I mentioned to you in my previous message, there is an unacknowledged aerosol spraying programme very much in use. This is very hard to believe, but if you read my report (attached – and agreed on by over 20 named signatories), you will find the basic data that proves it is happening. And it isn’t just me that thinks so – please see below – and see how baldly the agencies have denied the evidence I have presented.

 

Over to you.

 

Many thanks for reading this long message.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive

Borrowash

Derbyshire

DE72 3QW

Tel: 01332 674271

 

 

 

. Persistant bollocks from the authorities must be exposed and the phenomenon publicised as widely as possible.

 

I am interested in following your line of enquiry with the relevant authorities and wondered if you could give me some advice on methods to document and present evidence.


Dear Andrew, first of all, let me say that I appreciate your concern, it must feel at times that you are the only one awake in a world of sleepwalkers and outright liars.

 I’ve been CT aware since I read an article in Nexus magazine in about 2002. At the time I wasn’t too concerned as it wasn’t happening here, but in a few months it was..having been prepped I knew immediately what was happening. My only effort at contacting ‘the establishment’ was to email the Mayor of London’s environmental person, who said she didn’t know what the heck I was talking about or why I was contacting her office,and suggested I call my MP. I realised that official blanket denial was the order of the day, top priority.

   All the best, Duncan.


Hi,

 

Interested to read your documents on the chemtrails,I also have witnessed this strange cloud formation that seem to appear of the back of these "contrails", I am sure that this never used to happen when seeing planes fly across the sky,you would see the vapour then a few seconds or at tops a minute they would be gone,so there does seem to be something going on! But what!  Keep up the good work in finding out information,i am not sure as an individual what I can do,any ideas? if you cant answer this email its ok,just to let you know that there are other people seeing this happen too.

 

J


Hi there,

                I`m Keith G, I live on the South Herts border in the UK. Early retired now I often take shots of various sunsets.. clouds or whatever. I remember in the 60`s.. seeing `contrails` where we lived in Ponders End Enfield.. North London.. I think I was told contrails. Well.. for some time its been too obvious.. I`ve even asked those I`ve found email addresses for, including a U.S. airforce commander.. er..

 

I realise we have high altitude planes monitoring weather, atmosphere, etc.. but.. why the need for at least five planes at one time early evening.. all leaving trails.. often criss cross.. I have many pics of this.. sunset and earlier morning. The answer.. `Your air space guys are very tight over there.. nothing to worry about`.. I wasn’t asking about security issues.. I`m asking why the need for five high altitude planes at one time, surely not just to produce pretty patterns for my enjoyment?

I had a very late night last Saturday and was still up at 7.45am Sunday.. tapping outside.. a neighbour decided it was a good time to repair a flat roof edge.. his immediate neighbours must have been very pleased.. then I saw a trail.. ok.. took it.. five minutes later I looked out again and blimey.. there was a corker.. looked lower and was spreading out. I`ve not downsized it yet… was going to go out and see how far it went.. it was long.. and had already thickened. So that was aprox 8am.. and I bedded soon after. I KNOW  my neighbours think I must be an idiot taking pics of clouds.. maybe they think I`m looking for ufos.. er no.. I like sunbeams from behind clouds.. and sometimes get some good shots.

 SO.. I`m following this `campaign` with interest. I`m not saying its pollution as such.. I do suffer bronchil trouble.. and my childhood was spent in a heavily polluted area.. even the smokeless zone went around a local industrial chimney.. did I laugh? How much did that cost em.. so..  WHY  so many at one time.. that’s my question. Early morning.. and evening. Er.. seen some by moonlight as well. How long have they been `adjusting` the weather?

 Regards, Keith G

 


 

Hi

 

I just read your essay on the rense site.

 

I have been watching chemtrails over the lower mainland of British Columbia and north west Washington state and photographing them since 1995.

 

I’ve also observed them traveling in western US and Canada. By the way I spent 3 months in Belize winter 05/06 and didn’t see a single trail.

 

In fact the only clear day which didn’t result in sky obscuration was July 4th, 2007. I guess they gave someone in the chain the day off. What evil must lurk in this chain for them to continuously spray poisons on their fellow man.

 

Being a pilot for 40 years I tend to watch the sky and aircraft movements more than the average person.

 

One particular incident stands out in my mind more than any of the others.

 

One July day in 2005 I was walking my runway at about 10:00 am. I did this every day to ensure there was no FOD on the runway in case of visitors.

 

I was walking back, about 023 degrees, when I saw what appeared to be a white DC-10, L-1011, or MD-11 at about 11-12,000 feet heading southeast and about my 1-2 o’clock and about 7-8 miles.

 

It was spewing an enormous white trail and since it was just south of Vancouver when I spotted it, it had to be over Vancouver control zone and either in contact with center or with their prior knowledge of it’s passage.

 

All this was going through my mind when it turned left and headed right down my runway heading and passed directly overhead as it went north east.

 

I could see clearly this was a KC-10 with no markings.

 

It continued the present heading maintaining the same altitude until it reached the north shore mountains where it turned off the spray and turned right heading to the Seattle area and initiated a climb.

 

I’ve seen others including a more recent KC-767 just east of Vancouver where I live now but the KC-10 experience was the closest for me.

 

I read somewhere the Bush Crime family has ordered 900, yes 900 more KC-767 aircraft from Boeing to add to their spraying fleet. It was mentioned that there was no retirement in store for the planes in inventory now.

 

I have had a lot of material accumulate in our horse feeders and on my motor home from these recent sprayings so I’m going to collect as much as I can for testing.

 

Best regards, Wayne


 

Hello Andrew.

 

I might have sent you a message once before since your address is in my e-mail listing.  Thank you so much for launching a true request for investigation into the by-now perennial chemtrail issue.  And thank you for acknowledging Clifford Carnicom’s work.  I distribute his documentary, and in case you don’t already have a copy, I would be happy to send you one if you give me your mailing address.

 

I think that the applications of this program are massive.  Nothing less than altering the entire matrix of the earth itself, so that all kinds of modifications of life can be effected.  I believe that creating drought and forcing population reduction and migration are part of it, not to mention the mind control associated with electromagnetic intervention.  I think we should stop using the word "weather", since that implies something natural and I don’t think we have that anymore.  We have "managed climate states".  I think "management" is the operative word for the entire operation.

 

Thanks for your initiative in this huge huge issue.

 

Harriett F

 

 


Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

My family has been watching the ever increasing aerosol spraying from aircraft.

We first became aware of this daily operation in November 1998.

 

Please understand we are not radicals, we are retired professionals who have a good frame of reference of what normal clouds look like.

 

We have opposed the ‘covert-like’ legislation titled "weather modification".

 

We hope that you will be willing to help uncover The Real Truth.

 

Sincerely,

BC

Arizona

 


There is a massive cover up – no question.

 

Today, as usual, I notice a thousand glinting minute metallic particles all over my car windscreen – and ask myself – where on earth this could have possible come from ??!!- knowing full well where.

 

Well done you for sending that report but it needs to go to people that will listen not the agencies that are bent on covering it up.

 

I have been tracking these since 2003.

 

Louise, London

 


Hello Andrew,

 

I picked up on your work from the Jeff Rense website.

 

Briefly, I got interested in what’s really going on in the world after my son became inexplicably ill in august 2004.1 have to say that at times I wished that this hadn’t happened, because as the saying goes ‘Ignorance is Bliss’.

 

One of my ‘gut feelings’ was that my son had been exposed to some sort of agent, perhaps a Mycoplasma of some sort.

 

When I saw the BBC news report on aerosol trials in the Sixties I thought it would be worth following up. I enclose the correspondence which I hope you will find informative.

 

The protective hoods produced by Avon cost less than £100 each. I rang them to enquire whether I could purchase one. The nice lady who spoke to me said that since the report had been made public (in the Telegraph originally) that she had been given a statement to work from when approached by a member of the public. Although the company website (www.avon-protection….) doesn’t directly state that the hoods can’t be purchased by individuals, in reality they can only be obtained by the military and essential services.

 

Feel free to contact me on this matter, or anything else that I might be able to help with.

 

Best regards,

 

John


Responses to 1st Press Release (www.prweb.com//relea…)

 

Hello Andrew

 

Just received your PR web release and am reading the report.

 

I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3months.

 

Thank you so much and I have sent it everywhere.

 

I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it.

 

If I can Help let me know

 

John, Australia

Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

A friend sent me your report about chemtrails in the U.K.  I have tracked them here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year.

 

The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in  local climate and environment.  Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting.

 

Earlier this week, after a barrage of heavy spraying, I decided to e-mail NOAA through their website (unfortunately their form does not allow the addition of pictures) and received the response as indicated below. 

 

Susan, Arizona

Dear Andrew Johnson,

 

Have just read your excellent article on chemtrails, and agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I live near Exeter in the South-west, and have been concerned for some time about these aircraft sprayings, having a huge amount of air traffic here at times, and as you say, the sky ends up completely milky white.      I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead……… looks like a St.Andrews cross.   I’m quite interested in astronomy , and have a large pair of binoculars  80 x 20’s , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. With these binos I have also seen an aircraft that was spraying from the tailplane, the trails were not coming from anywhere near the engines…….. quite offset from the engine positions. So, yes we are being sprayed.     Where do these aircraft come from?   Surely someone must see this amount of air-traffic taking off and landing! It makes me so angry that these pilots could be doing this to us all……..and presumably to their own families. Perhaps these pilots don’t have the full story on what they are doing, or are paid huge amounts of money, or maybe they are flown remotely from a base somewhere.

 

Anyway, if I can help in any way to get to the bottom of this, please let me know, I’m so pleased to see someone in this country voicing the concerns I’ve had for a while now.

 

We need a lot of us to make a dent in this thing………and I don’t think the Gov’t will have a word of it…… tried that.  We need to know where these aircraft are based, who runs them, and who’s paying for all this.

 

James M.

Hi Andrew,

I have just been looking over your chemtrail dossier and I think think it is an excellent peice of work.

Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in nexus magazine around about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US, if indeed it was happening at all, but still I decided to keep my eyes open just in case.

 

But then back in 2002 I was leaving my nephews house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home to Kelso just over the Scottish border.

 

From the main road near the tyne tunnel you can just see the cheviot hills that mark the border with Scotland and England, and amongst those hills is Otterburn military training camp.

Now back then and reaching the rise on the main road I could see in the distance the cheviot hills, except this time I could make out a huge X in the sky, so all the way home I kept my eye on this X to try to discover it’s exact location and upon reaching wooler I could see that the X was amost above my head but to the left and which would have been directly over otterburn training camp and ever since that day these trails have been persistent over and near my home which is only about 20 miles from the training camp.

 

Now if you note, I first noticed this at the end of the summer in 2002 just as the case for the war in Iraq was being ramped up, any connection?

 

I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon and also believe that last years spate of noctilucent clouds here in the UK may also be connected.

 

Keep up the good work Andrew.

 

Your’s sincerely,

 

John C

Dear Mr. Johnson:

 

I am interested in your report and would like to communicate with you about some of the information that two of us have been researching since 1998.  We believe, however, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989, when the American taxpayer funding was made available for a wide variety of programs…which include the making of persistent jet contrails.  We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date…however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s.

 

If you would like to communicate with me this would be great.  I do intend to forward your site on the Internet here and in several places in the next couple of days.  I have a variety of government documents which might be of interest to you as well.

 

 

Your report is very good.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rosalind, California

 

 

Responses Received By Other People Making Enquiries Related to Aerosol Spraying or Chemtrails

 

John A, Southern UK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phil Morris, formerly of Cheshire, received a number of responses:

 

Subj: Aircraft over Cheshire

 

Date: 5/6/04 4:55:31 PM GMT Daylight Time

 

From: David.Butcher@dap.ca… (Butcher David)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File: AVHRR_Channel2VIS_240404.zip (255893 bytes)

DL Time (44000 bps): < 2 minutes

 

 

Dear Mr Morris,

 

In your last 3 e-mails about the spraying of a substance by aircraft over Cheshire, you posed 3 more questions and made a statement that also requires an answer.

 

Firstly, you asked "how would you know planes are not undertaking spraying activities?"

 

All aircraft requiring to fly en route in this category of controlled airspace must file a Flight Plan. The Flight Plan will specify all the required details of the aircraft and routeing so that the aircraft can be integrated into the air traffic control system and be received at the destination airport. They would be mostly transatlantic flights inbound to UK airports or requiring to overfly; the vast majority would be commercial air transport aircraft on Repetitive Flight Plans filed months in advance against the requirement of airlines to fly pre-planned scheduled services. Occasionally, military aircraft, usually transport aircraft, require to fly in this category of controlled airspace and so comply with civil procedures accordingly. A small number of private or company business jets also use the system. The point is that no aircraft are permitted to undertake any activity inconsistent with the normal operation of aircraft or controlled airspace without being subject to prior co-ordination to meet safety requirements. Neither the UK Government, the Civil Aviation Authority or National Air Traffic Services Ltd allow non-standard activity of the sort you describe to occur in UK airspace. Your question is rather like asking: "how do you know that aircraft are not being operated unsafely and so are going to crash?" The answer would be that we apply a strict set of safety regulations and procedures to all aircraft operations to militate against it happening.

 

You state that "all the planes leaving the trails described were not civil craft and airliners, my videos prove this. All airliners in the same skies at various heights left no trails at all."

 

All I can say in response to that statement is to ask: if your videos are proof that the aircraft were not civil aircraft, what do your videos prove instead? As indicated above, we do not accept that other types of aircraft, e.g. military, or unknown aircraft are spraying a substance into the atmosphere because of the way that the air traffic control system operates and the extent of regulation of UK airspace and aircraft operations. Thus, as things stand at the moment, we would not have any reason to undertake an investigation of your claims.

 

The following answers your 2 questions about the formation of contrails and the phenomena you observed in Delamere Forest:  Condensation trails (contrails for short) are elongated streaks of cloud formed by the passage of an aircraft. Although commonly associated with the upper troposphere (20000 to 40000 feet), they can form at any level, even at the ground, depending on the temperature, humidity and characteristics of the aircraft. They are formed in various ways.  One of the combustion products of petrol and other aviation fuels is water; this is ejected through the exhaust and tends to raise the relative humidity of the air in the wake of the engines. On the other hand, the heat generated by the engines tends to lower the relative humidity by raising the temperature of the wake. In certain conditions the net result is to increase the humidity to saturation so that a cloud is formed which trails behind the aircraft. This type of trail can ordinarily occur only if the air temperature is below a critical value which varies almost linearly from about -24 deg Celsius at sea level to about – 45 degrees Celsius at 50000 feet. The critical temperatures, which are only slightly affected by the type of aircraft, apply to aircraft flying at cruising speed in an atmosphere just saturated with respect to ice; the corresponding temperatures for saturation with respect to water are lower by about 2 or 3 degrees. Contrails can occur exceptionally at temperatures above the critical values when the free air is supersaturated with respect to ice (i.e. the air contains more water which, if all frozen, the air could not ‘hold), or when fuel consumption is greater than it is under normal cruising conditions e.g. with the throttle fully open.  Once a trail is formed, it broadens by diffusion. If the surrounding air is at or near saturation, the trail evaporates slowly or not at all and is then long and persistent; if the relative humidity is low, the trail only appears as a short plume behind the aircraft. Due to an interesting physical aspect of the atmosphere, it is not uncommon for the air to be supersaturated with respect to ice. Since the exhaust gases contain sublimation nuclei, any trail formed in these conditions is persistent and may thicken until the ice particles fall out as snow.  However, the attainment of saturation of the atmosphere is not sufficient for the trail to become visible; condensed water or ice particles must be in sufficient concentration to be seen, and this further depends on illumination, background contrast, distance and other viewing conditions.

 

Trails may form at any height attained by an aircraft provided that the temperature is suitable. Over Southern England, the height at which exhaust trails would be expected to form in the winter ranges from about 26000 to 70000 feet; in summer, when the stratosphere is warmer, the range is from about 30000 to 450000 feet. At high latitudes, trails can occur at low levels or even at ground level.

 

(I am guessing of course, but I think the planes doing this over Cheshire and Lancs are often 5000-10,000 feet: Phil)

 

With particular reference to the 24 May, the three attachments should help to explain the general situation. The first is a mean sea level pressure and frontal analysis chart. This shows that a cold front was lying to the west of the UK with high pressure situated over Southern England, which had led to warm conditions being experienced over much of Southern England. Further North, the approaching front was bringing increasing amounts of thin cloud and moisture into the upper atmosphere. There are two satellite pictures attached from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AHVRR), one in the near infra-red wavelength of the spectrum (0.725-1.10µm, just outside the ‘visible’ wavelengths) and one in the thermal infra-red (11.5-12.5µm), taken at 0626 UTC (0726 BST). Although it is not clear, on the thermal IR image, the streaks over the Irish Sea are contrails and there is a mixture of cirrus (high thin ice cloud) and contrails extending east from Liverpool to Lincoln. You will note that these streaks are not observed on the near-IR image, indicating they are thin, high and most probably composed of ice.  Wing-tip trails  These very thin transient trails are formed aerodynamically by the reduction of pressure at the extremities of the wings of an aircraft, the adiabatic expansion causing a reduction in temperature to below the dew-point. These trails are most frequently seen in association with aircraft in tight turns as the maximum reduction in pressure at the wing tips occurs at these times. If the temperature is already low, insufficient water may be condensed to produce a visible trail; furthermore if the air is very dry, the condensation point may not be reached. Accordingly these trails are usually seen in mild, damp weather at low altitudes. The weather conditions around the Delamere Forest area yesterday evening (based on the weather reports from Manchester and Liverpool airports) suggested exactly these conditions; light SW’ly winds, temperature 9 degrees Celsius and dew-point 7 degrees Celsius with scattered slight rain showers. Through the atmosphere there was several changes in speed and direction of the wind; this may account for the trails appearing not to move against the movement of the clouds at the various heights.  METAR reports for Manchester Airport 5 May 2004 (note times in UTC)  EGCC 051850Z 23004KT 9999 FEW018TCU SCT060 BKN220 09/06 Q0981 =  Decode – observation time 1850UTC wind blowing from 230 degrees True at 4 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas of cumulus congestus at 1800 feet, 3-4 oktas at 6000 feet and 5-7 oktas at 22000 feet. Temperature plus 9, dew-point plus 6, mean sea level pressure 981 mb.  EGCC 051820Z 25005KT 210V310 9999 FEW018CB SCT036 BKN090 09/07 Q0980 =  Decode – observation time 1820UTC wind blowing from 250 degrees True (varying between 210 and 310 degrees in the last ten minutes), speed 5 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas of cumulus congestus at 1800 feet, 3-4 oktas at 3600 feet and 5-7 oktas at 9000 feet. Temperature plus 9, dew-point plus 7, mean sea level pressure 980 mb.  METAR reports for Liverpool Airport 5 May 2004 (note times in UTC)  EGGP 051850Z 22009KT 9999 VCSH FEW015 SCT030 10/07 Q0981 =  Decode – observation time 1850UTC wind blowing from 220 degrees True at 9 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, shower in the vicinity of the airport, 1-2 oktas at 1500 feet, 3-4 oktas at 3000 feet. Temperature plus 10, dew-point plus 7, mean sea level pressure 981 mb.  EGGP 051820Z 23006KT 9999 FEW015 SCT042 10/06 Q0980 =  Decode – observation time 1820UTC wind blowing from 230 degrees True at 6 knots, visibility 10 kilometres or more, 1-2 oktas at 1500 feet, 3-4 oktas at 4200 feet. Temperature plus 10, dew-point plus 6, mean sea level pressure 980 mb.

 

Lastly, an associate in the Department of Transport has undertaken to also e-mail you on the matter of ‘chemtrails’-type activity, but from the perspective of national policy and security. Please let me know if you have not heard from the DfT by the end of next week.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Butcher

Consultation Secretary

Directorate of Airspace Policy

0207 453 6524

 

Mr P Morris

Cuddington

Cheshire

by email

 

3 February 2006

Mrs Fozia Chughtai

Aviation Environmental Division

Department for Transport

Zone 1/33

Great Minster House

76 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DR

Direct Line: 020 7944 5435

Fax: 020 7944 2189

GTN No: 3533 5435

E-mail: fozia.chughtai@dft.g…

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

 

Dear Mr Morris,

 

 

AVIATION AND POLLUTION

 

Your emails of 26 January and 2 December to the Government Office for the North West has been sent to this Department for response as we deal with aviation policy matters.

 

You ask which UK environmental laws would prohibit any kind of material being expelled across UK airspace. As far as I am aware, there are no such regulations for this purpose.

 

Levels of pollutants from civil aero-engines are controlled through manufacturing performance standards: the UK has adopted the international standards through The Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002.

 

With regard to the earlier email and your belief that USAF jets are illegally spraying the UK with dangerous chemical fibres, you will have to contact the Ministry of Defence. This Department is only responsible for policy relating to civil aircraft.

 

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs Fozia Chughtai

 

Phil Morris Response and Data Archive

 

Can be accessed in this zip file:

 

www.checktheevidence… Morris-Letters-Responses-Data.zip

 

Other Related Items

 

Letter to Al Gore Re Global Warming and Chemtrails

 

—– Original Message —–

From: Susan Gordon

To: goreonmsn@hotmail.co…

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:03 AM

Subject: weather & environment

 

Dear Mr. Gore,

 

How do you feel about weather modification technology and it’s possible role in the global environment? 

 

I refer specifically to bill S517, introduced by Senator Kay Hutchinson in 2005, and also historical weather modification projects such as POLEX (1971), AIDJEX (1973), the Soviet Woodpecker System, and perhaps even the current activity of HAARP.

 

We desperately need rain in the Southwest and it seems that cloud-seeding projects have been of minimal help at best.  Is there concern that attempts to artificially alter weather patterns and create a chemical sun-shield/cloud cover could create more problems than they solve, or is there hope that they will be effective?

 

Susan Gordon

Sedona, Arizona

 

 

E-mail to Prof Mike Lockwood re Sun-Induced Climate Change

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 15 July 2007 12:44
To: Lockwood, M (Mike)
Subject: RE: Solar Climate Forcing Paper

 

Dear Prof Lockwood,

 

Many thanks for replying to my message of 06 July. I have spent a little time working through your interesting paper and realise that it does not even mention (in the main body) CO2 or "Greenhouse Gases". This is very interesting to me.

 

My own view is that there are a number of factors at work here – and CO2 and industrialisation is likely the least significant of them. One question which arose in my mind is… what about the industrialisation previous to the last 20 years? For example, we had more sooty factory outputs and less efficient burning of fuels (though also less in amount) in the 1850’s-1950’s (at a guess).

 

Also, may I offer the following comments: in section 4 "Recent solar trends and their implications", regarding the Cosmic Ray influence you say "We here do not discuss these mechanisms in any detail.". I think this sort of area holds the key (see below). In what I think could turn out to be related, you mention in the Conclusions: "there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism which is, as yet, unknown." Again, see below.

 

Whilst the data in your paper supports the idea that the Sun itself does not seem to have significantly affected the climate on Earth in the last 20 years, data from the rest of the Solar System suggests that something IS influencing the climate on several, if not ALL, of the other planets. Have a look:

 

Venus:

 

www.colorado.edu/new…

 

(More on other Earth factors below)

 

Mars:

 

www.xtec.es/recursos…

 

Jupiter:   

 

www.berkeley.edu/new…

 

Saturn:

 

www.daviddarling.inf…

 

(Spin time has changed – original new scientist article doesn’t seem to be available)

 

Uranus:

 

abyss.uoregon.edu/~j… 

Neptune:

 

www.news.wisc.edu/ne…

Pluto:

 

web.mit.edu/newsoffi…

 

 

I think this could have something to do with the physics which could explain the following facts:

 

Olympus Mons, 27km high volcano on Mars – latitude 19 deg

Solar Maximum – most sunspots occur at latitudes of 19.5 degrees

Red Spot on Jupiter 19.5 degrees.

Big Island of Hawaii – latitude 19 degrees

Dark spot on Neptune – latitude 19 degrees

Alpha & Beta Regio – Venusian volcanoes – latitude? You guessed it! 19.5 degrees.

Strongest El Nino currents occur on latitude – 19 degrees. 

 

Also, I think the density of the Local Interstellar Medium could be changing (but this is Scientific Heresy, of course…) 

 

ae-www.usc.edu/bio/d…

Local Interstellar Medium

 

Research on the properties of the Local Interstellar medium have been carried out in scattered periods beginning in 1978. The NASA Space Physics Division has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the Division. The dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community, which has been supported primarily by the Space Science Division. The most important contributions to research in this program are papers (48), which presents a calibration independent method of determining absolute LISM density, and (89), which presents the first evidence for a large increase in the LISM neutral atomic hydrogen density from Voyager measurements of the 50 AU region, suggesting the approach to the termination shock (89). See 19, 20, 21, 48, 64, 82, 89.

 

Finally, as I mentioned to you in my previous message, there is an unacknowledged aerosol spraying programme very much in use. This is very hard to believe, but if you read my report (attached – and agreed on by over 20 named signatories), you will find the basic data that proves it is happening. And it isn’t just me that thinks so – please see below – and see how baldly the agencies have denied the evidence I have presented.

 

Over to you.

 

Many thanks for reading this long message.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive

Borrowash

Derbyshire

DE72 3QW

Tel: 01332 674271

 

 

 

Related articles...

Comments are closed.