portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro


Chemtrails over Camas

Check out this picture from Camas
Hey Folks,

I have been coming to Portland Indymedia for about a year and a half
In that time, I have had to carefully determine which news sources to
believe and what to discredit. (That happens with Indymedia... you need
to use your own intellect to judge what is the truth and what is not.)
During my visits here, I have seen stories about Chemtrails. To be
honest... I never really read any of them, because the idea sounded just
way too "out there" for me. (No offense.)

Two weeks ago, (3/28) I went canoeing with my 4 year old son. We
decided to go to a nearby lake and soak in some springtime sunshine.
All was fine and dandy when we paddled out to the middle of the lake.
(Round Lake, Camas Wa.)
When I looked directly toward the south... I could plainly see numerous
contrails laid in a north/south direction. (The contrails went as far
as the eye could see.)
However; when I turned my head toward the North... I could plainly see
ALL of the contrails ending a couple miles north of Camas. (See
picture.) For those of you that don't know... Camas, Washington is
directly across the Columbia River from Troutdale Oregon, which
basically makes us the northernmost part of the Portland Metro area.

At first I really didn't think anything about it. But, the more I
looked... the more confused I became. I could not come up with ONE
single explaination on why/how the contrails could simply stop in the
Thankfully I had my digital camera with me.

So... can someone PLEASE try to explain this to me? Seriously.

(The picture was taken at 10:15 am on Sunday 3/28. I was looking
directly north when I snapped this.)

this is covert ILLEGAL operation called Project Cloverleaf 11.Apr.2004 23:04


CHEMTRAILS "everything you always wanted to know though were afraid to ask"

2 PDF FLYERS TO PASS OUT @ AIRPORTS/PUBLIC: Project Cloverleaf summary & HAARP connections
repost 19 Mar 2004 18:04 GMT

Two separate flyers at the main IMC website mentioned below:

1. Mechanics, Airline Executives, & Doctors talk of Project Cloverleaf, 1998 to the Present

2. Project Cloverleaf: Timeline, 1994 to the Present--with its HAARP connections

other informative summaries:



The flyers can be passed out worldwide: The website referenced has international translations.

Other Langauges besides English at the website: SPANISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN, PORTUGUESE, JAPANESE.

This is a globally reported phenomenon.



You have got to cause a stink in the popular mind, it is the only way to save yourselves from them.

And god bless Dennis kucinich who attempted to introduce a bill in 2001 that would ban chemtrails operations--though hardly anyone supported it. One of the few Congressional friends to the American people--and the world--is Dennis Kucinich. You will learn about this on the timeline flyer. (#2)

FLYER #1 mentions how YEARS of Congressional and governmental stalling even though they are aware of the issue is excellent evidence of a coordinated cover-up. Plus, it has some testimonials that are excellent hooks for people to explore the referenced website.

FLYER #2 is a detailed timeline of documentable evidence about chemtrails with its HAARP connections, beginning in 1994. This one has detailed medical reports as well about chemtrails and their effects.

By the way, I have little love of trolls, unlike some other comments referenced at "Chemtrails over Portland" article,  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280993.shtml . I hope he gets a nice whiff of the chemtrails or his kids get sick--and then he has to log back in and pretend nothing is going on. That would be true torture.


1. Just hand them out or, if you are hassled, put them in magazines in public areas.


1. Leave them in the airplanes for other passengers on the next flight to see, particularly put them
in all those "SkyMall" or whatever magazines.
2. or leave them in magazines in waiting areas beyond security at the airport.
3. Even if they are picked up on the next round, the flight crew, pilots, attendants, boarding personnel will be made aware.

RECOMMENDED WAY TO FOLD THEM: Put page 2 face up towards yourself. Fold right-most third panel over middle second panel. Then, use fingernail to make the sharp and fine fold for the cover, while holding page 1's title/cover image towards yourself. It does fit. I have done this numerous times already.

PRINT THEM 'landscape, double sided' (or if you just have access to a single sided printer, just print on both sides of the same paper by manually feeding it in twice.)

The second flyer is set up to 'self-replicate,' because in the text it references back to the original URL for the Portland IMC article. So, anyone who gets a printed copy via a handout operation can see the link, get on the web, come to the Portland IMC, and get the original PDFs for themselves to print and distribute to others they know.

Both flyers are posted to this other link for convenience:

or download them here:

I was in the same boat (or canoe) as you: tended to skip the posts and whole topic for quite some while. Please help get the word out to other 'skeptics' you know, that's it OK to be a skeptic though skeptics work with evidence instead of fear of evidence. Ignoring or fearing evidence is a sign of denial instead of skepticism. And, nice pic you posted. Thanks for documenting the place/time so clearly.


whole interview about the issue on coast-to-coast radio from 2003 posted here:

CHEMTRAIL CONFESSIONS: mechanics,airline execs, doctors talk of Project Cloverleaf, 1998-

other SPECIFIC Things To Do 11.Apr.2004 23:33

get photographic evidence

1. use your Telescope or Binoculars to *positively identify* the aircraft doing the spraying (if you live near McMinnville, these flat-white painted tanker planes are supposed to be operating from a base there)

2. use your Digital / Film Camera to photograph these aircraft, in detail shots which clearly show markings and external modifications to the planes

3. search terms to use on Portland Indymedia and the web:

- aluminum oxide

- barium

One Expanation 12.Apr.2004 07:24

Average Joe

Here's a simple explanation why the contrails ended: the aircraft left a region of the atmosphere favorable to formation of contrails and entered one that is unfavorable. Where they left, and the contrails ended, if far more than a couple of miles north of Camas. From the looks of things, it's probably more like halfway to Seattle, so perhaps the aircraft were descending toward Seattle and descended below the layer of atmosphere favorable to contrails.

It's as simple as that, although many people who post long articles with references to centers of delusion would have you think otherwise.

Contrails don't spread they evaporate 12.Apr.2004 07:56


Despite the rapid response team that monitors IMC about this phenomena, it
really is simple. Observe the aerosol trails and note if they exhibit the side pluming of Operation Cloverleaf. If the trail vanishes, it is a contrail which seems to be normal. If not it aint water vapor.

Aaaugh! 12.Apr.2004 09:08


You guys are the biggest batch of subnerds since Friendster was invented. Yes, there is a secret government rapid response team that covers up this global conspiracy to fill the people's skies with mysterious "chemtrials", giving us headaches, stomachaches, bad sex, and in some way upholding capitalism. I am not one of those types that dismisses conspiracy ideas, since quite often they hold up to be true (the IMF, 9/11, CIA/masons, corporate collusion, etc.), but you guys just make everyone tune these ideas out when you bring in ridiculous ones about aliens and "chemtrials" and the like.

and it's nice to know they are on the job. 12.Apr.2004 09:17


thanks for the noise.

Rapid Responding Government Agent 12.Apr.2004 09:38

Agent Orange

It's part of our secret plan.

First we have a guy write stories about chemtrails for over a year, and then we direct him to "wise up" after careful study of the basics of atmospheric phenomena and recant. Then we have him post stories about aliens. Oops, that's me. Darn, I hope HQ doesn't find out I spilled the beans.

Look: there are three kinds of contrails, wing-tip whorls, hydrogen combination and hot air condensation. The last of these tend to rise and spread out. Under some infrequent, but still regular circumstances, these can form cirrus clouds, artificially, but still just clouds. The sky looks hazy and it used to drive me batty, but now I know that it was conjecture and sloppy reasoning on my part that allowed me to believe such unsupported crap. Quick comparison, there are no meteorolgists who support the claims of chemtrail proponents however, there are hundereds of witnesses in the pilot field and experts on aerial phenomena that have concluded that there are regular visitors in our airspace, tracked on radar and visually confirmed.


Contrails Spread 12.Apr.2004 09:39


Contrails are caused by water vapor that comes out of the jet engines. Water vapor because the hydrogen in the jet fuel burns and becomes water (H20, remember?).

The water vapor comes out of the engine, and if conditions are one way it becomes little droplets of water - like a cloud. These are the ones that evaporate.

Ir the conditions are another way (like colder, for instance) the water vapor becomes little ice crystals. These are the ones that spread, because the ice crystals don't evaporate as fast as the little droplets of water.

where in the above, Cannon 12.Apr.2004 09:49


anything equate Chemtrails to aliens? Is this an example of derailing the discourse, a rather childish
tactic used by low-leveled trolls? Need to use more realistic refutations than scoffing at it by saying
it's "conspiracy theory" involving "aliens". That's so passe!

cannon knows what's up 12.Apr.2004 11:54


chem trails=coast to coast=alien fanatics

it's very simple

men who write books about conspiracies involving president gerald ford and his "supposed" dental appointment; the authors drawing a quick conclusion that he was really meeting with extraterrestrials.

don't take this as a total stereotype here; i'm sure there are some exceptions!

nice pic, by the way.

I'm truly puzzled by the comment by 12.Apr.2004 12:26


that says "chem trails=coast to coast=alien fanatics..it's very simple..men who write books about con- spiracies involving president gerald ford and his "supposed" dental appointment; the authors drawing a quick conclusion that he was really meeting with extraterrestrials." as no where in all the above does
the these concepts occur. I see nothing about "gerald ford", "dental appointment", "extraterrestrials"
or "coast to coast", and am wondering how @ got these words from his reading? Have you, @, run out of
your meds?

Yikes! 12.Apr.2004 12:33

Camas Paddler

I had no idea that I would start all of this idiotic in-fighting by simply publishing photographs that I shot while Canoeing.
(I better keep my hiking pictures to myself.)

still waiting for an explanation for ... 12.Apr.2004 12:57

yes I know about the physics of contrails

... how I never saw this years ago (about twenty years ago), though I was an avid sky-gazing kid. The trails ALWAYS disappeared after a few minutes, and they NEVER spread out over the sky creating the overcast I've seen the last few days after spraying, I mean "planes flying their normal paths in the sky". Kind of strange, too, for regular passenger planes to follow a type of crop-dusting pattern rather than just circle waiting for a runway, or flying directly to / from the airport.

My guess 12.Apr.2004 13:05


I think they might be adding stuff to the fuel to cause the formation of an overlayer of clouds. I would guess that they do this to alleviate symtoms of global warming.

Okay look 12.Apr.2004 13:12


I am willing to believe this, if I can get a cohesive argument out of you guys. Seriously, I will listen. But so far all I have heard is weird theories as to these trails being a government plot. To do something that is bad, probably. And will you stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll? I would say the single most annoying thing about activists these days is how we are so quick to jump to the conclusion that a naysayer is a cop. I'm sure the police have better things to do than read indymedia all day long, like shooting minorities and stuff. I threw in the aliens because most folks put the chemtrails theory in the same camp as the aliens theory. Only more people believe in aliens.
But all jesting aside, will someone please post actual info about what you believe these "chemtrails" to be? And then, perhaps, back up this info?

use a search engine, look it up 12.Apr.2004 14:34


here's a link exerpt
Chemtrails are spread by fleets of jet aircraft in elaborate cross-hatched patterns are sparking speculation and making people sick across the United States. Condensation trails, called contrails, are generated at altitudes high enough for water droplets to freeze in a matter of seconds and not quickly evaporate - typically where the temperatures are below -38 degrees Celcius.

Chemtrails can form through the addition of water vapor to the air from the jet engine exhaust. Even tiny nuclei released in the exhaust fumes may be sufficient to generate ice crystals, and hence, condensation trails.

The strange spray patterns are being reported repeatedly over towns in Tennessee, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington state and California.

Cobwebbing stuff coming down from the zigzagging jets flying all day long, line after line, back-and-forth, like furrows in a farm field.

Immune system symptoms include swollen hands and legs, night fever and shortness of breath.

as to the global warming idea...
Edward Teller once proposed to mitigate this effect by infusing the STRATOSPHERE with reflective partials. Not at 40,000 feet.

uh, hello? 12.Apr.2004 15:32

guy who is not a dope about physics

"bob", were you responding to my post? What would be added to the fuel to cause this difference? The argument of the debunkers is that these are "contrails", which aren't caused by anything in the fuel at all, but the heat from the jet exhaust causing water condensation behind the planes.

Any explanation for the patterns the planes fly in? They do not follow the flight paths for typical passenger planes.

Also, "cannon", a cohesive argument was offered in the very first post. Did you follow the links? Too lazy to read before posting? Do you need more than airline mechanics, execs, and doctors speaking on the record about this phenomenon?

Look at the picture in the upper left here and explain how this is a "contrail", which is coming directly out of the wings rather than forming some distance behind the engines:

don't believe everything you read on the internet 12.Apr.2004 15:44

iggi webguru@genfoods.net

that article is bs...especially the letter from the so-called "mechanic". why the hell would anyone want to spray feces into the upper atmosphere. don't you think "general managers" have to breathe too? that's completely ridiculous.

conspiracy theories are fun, but don't take them too seriously...chemtrails were debunked years ago.

one theory 12.Apr.2004 16:05

among many

Is that the spray IS being used to alleviate the symptoms of global warming. Nowhere have I read about FECES being sprayed into the air(and I've read the article, too).
What I HAVE read, and tend to believe, is that the spray contains minute particles of aluminum, which deflect SOME of the sun's rays from beating down upon the earth...Geez, it HAS been kinda UNSEASONABLY warm lately...It MIGHT be true...?
This might also account for the generally hazy atmoshpere, and the VERY hazed-over effect the spray seems to have on the sun itself.
Some people believe the government is especially concerned with protecting the snow cap in places like Mt.Hood, which, by the way, is where most of the west coast's ENERGY comes from. If it melts too early, the results could be disastrous.
This might also explain why, though there weren't many "chemtrails" over Portland on Easter Sunday, the spraying was especially intense over Mt. Hood.
To those who say contrails could behave oddly under a given set of circumstances, well...I could believe that if I didn't see that strange set of circumstances happen on an almost DAILY basis over my house and neighborhood.
As to the "fact" that weather forecasters that work for the news don't believe in chemtrails...Oh well..There you go. I suppose if the guy on TV says they don't exist, they MUST NOT.
Anyway, what's a little inhalation of aluminum? I mean, global warming still hasn't been "proven" to anyone, right? Needs more study...

I am now a believer....... 12.Apr.2004 17:29


.....I laughed so hard at this latest of the "chem"trail revivals that I lost sphincter control. Yep, you got it....I made a chemtrail in my pants and now I am forced by existance of irrefuteable evidence to acknowledge the existance of chemtrails. I particularly enjoyed the referral to a site providing "evidence" of chemtrails only to find it was but one of a list of dozens and dozens of similar, but equally silly "conspiracies". Folks, you all believe what you want to believe, but the pictures above, as in every other similar posting I have seen on here, are of CONtrails. This picture shows the North to South flight patterns of commercial jets landing in Seattle. The Contrails end at a point the airliners are at an altitude where the atmospheric conditions no longer support formation of contrails. There are so many other things in the world we should be concerned about. To those who will assume by this latest posting that I am a "troll"--enjoy your equally delusional and paranoid ideation. Peace, all.

believe as you like there 12.Apr.2004 18:15

francek ,

but I'm believing in CHEMTRAILS no matter how much silliness you put up here. Got to do better job of
bashing CHEMTRAILS if you expect to find converts to contrails. CHEMTRAILS win the day for me!

Dear "believe as you like there 12.Apr.2004 18:45


...here is a good place to start:  link to urbanlegends.about.com

There is one good thing about this topic. It does get folks looking up into the sky.

looking up in the sky?! 12.Apr.2004 20:15


Yes continue to look at the great mystery of the cosmos. Blackholes, novas, moons&planets, asteroids,etc. are the wonders of the sky and heavens.
Recent discoveries of the milkyway point to a contracting phenomenom at 47deg.39.55az.123dep in the 7th quadrant,in other words--directly above us--. This phenomenom can manifest itself as hazy, clear-whitish lines appearing similar to airplane contrails, and evidence has shown that the contracting of our quadrant is becoming acute. Some scientists speculate the possibility of contraction to a babyblackhole within 3yrs., minus the white lines.

white lines 12.Apr.2004 21:00


i like my chemtrails in rock form. its a better rush when you smoke it.


here is reposting that tells WHAT they're all about

Feature Story - The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects
illustration - by Bruce Conway / revised 6.20.03 / Lightwatcher Publishing

forward: For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.

Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun
Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering
by: Bruce Conway

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in your philosophy." - Shakespeare

Five years ago I founded the Chemtrails Hall of Shame web site to document and investigate the elusive Chemtrail spraying operations in the skies above my home in the Pacific NW. The site can be found at:  http://www.lightwatcher.com
During this time I have had the opportunity to work with and befriend several of the luminaries within this field of investigation: Diane Harvey, Brian Holmes and a very special investigator who chooses to remain anonymous in this article. Each of these individuals has contributed greatly to the subject, keeping this topic alive within the alternative media . These chemtrail spraying programs, which are apparently being conducted on a worldwide basis, are evident to anyone who has the desire to look up and perceive the evidence. Yet, definitive proof has remained elusive.

Total denial by governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream media, the systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing coverups by the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy of disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy and paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above our heads, and has now grown to become the largest coordinated global engineering project in the history of our species. How can I make such a preposterous claim?

Brian Holmes of www.holmestead.ca has investigated these eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of his efforts, many within Canada and on the net have become aware of the ongoing spraying operations. Like other serious investigators who have studied this phenomena, Brian's work has been maligned, and there are ongoing attempts to discredit him and his sources.

Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian nicknamed 'Deep Shield' came forward with specific and detailed information about this mysterious program, corresponding with him via e-mail. A transcript of the communications with Deep Shield and the Shield Project can be read online at:  http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html. For those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of the truth.

Since then we have been able to study, and verify a number of Deep Shield's primary claims. The anonymous insider gave Brian's readers some valuable clues to follow if they wished to investigate deeper into the history and hard science of chemtrails. A primary clue was to investigate the term 'geoengineering.'

One investigator took the clues provided by 'Deep Shield' and dug in. She eventually found an N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the Mitigation of Global Warming. This study is still available online and is also available in hardcover. This massive document validates the insider information provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold mine of evidence.

This massive research study is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The results were presented in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigation's (corrective measures). Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, ect.

This entire volume can presently be read online at:  http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html. Keep in mind that this study is only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds of papers on related topics have been published in scientific journals. We don't expect this featured study to remian online for long once the cat is out of the bag. So do check it out soon.

The full involvement of foremost government agencies, research firms, universities and private corporations are detailed in this global 'geoengineering' study. Keep in mind that this was approved by and funded by Congress. We expect that this documentation will bolster the beliefs of most hardcore chemtrail believers. It will also continue to undermining what little trust still remains in our leaders and their institutions. This documentation proves that they have lied repeatedly about their involvement and the existence of chemtrail spraying programs.

It alsp appears that we 'Chemtrail' investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific umbrella of 'Geoengineering and intentional climate change.'

Chemtrails are just one of the 'mitigations' proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project  http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998)

The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: "The projected insufficiency of Kyoto's emission reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia."

"Geoengineering--intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth's climatic systems--may be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory "Marshall Plan" of costly emissions reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory "Manhattan Project" geared toward developing feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences."

"In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron "fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos" by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]" pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project."

In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.

This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.

This landmark study; the widespread experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation.

The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft.

Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.


The following excerpts detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming

Evaluating Geoengineering Options
"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail."

"The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter."

"The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms."

Screening Out Some Sunlight
"Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided below."

Stratospheric Dust
"Although the space dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations of the residence times of 0.2-m dust above 20 to 40 km are of the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to increase its net reflection of sunlight."

Mass Estimates
"Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 m increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 m."

"The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models."

Delivery Scenarios
"Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.
However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years."

"An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year."

"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."

"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated."

Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach
"Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small."

"Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud, which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud cover would be formed every time the number of CCN increased."

Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei
"With Albrecht's assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are present, the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 density, and it is assumed that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is 2.7 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN.
To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient CCN."

"Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use. Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle."

"Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust compounds in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere."

"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted."

"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

(end of excerpts)

Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:

(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS
(Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates, Seattle, Washington

ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

GEORGE F. CARRIER, T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

GORDON H. ORIANS, Professor of Zoology and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York (resigned from panel February 1990)

SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford, England
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, Florida

PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven

PETER BREWER, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific Grove, California

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth Center, New Haven, Connecticut

DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University, New York

JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General Manager, Fluorochemicals Division, E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware

KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Studies, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts

GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and Director, Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California

EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy, and Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (resigned from panel October 1990)

GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook

HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson

JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and Applications, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore

BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham

ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director
DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer
NANCY A. CROWELL, Administrative Specialist
MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative Secretary


Papers of special interest to Chemtrail Investigators

Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project - Stanford Environmental Law Journal January -  http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two

Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), "The Planet Needs a Sunscreen" Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. -  http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation - by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm

Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent experiment. Science 243:293299  http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P. Jonas, R. Charlson, H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart, V. Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal, and D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-131.  http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P. McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor, 1995: Group report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.

Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372

Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the radiative forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(D3):55975613.  http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3): Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Effects. Report GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories, and paper presented to the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., December 1984.

Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):2627.

Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects of particulates from solid rocket motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research 5(2):7786.

re: Feature Story - Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects 13.Apr.2004 00:30


keep it coming, if you know of more. Post as separate articles if you have it.

Much appreciated.

to the debunkers 13.Apr.2004 08:50


why don't you try to find something debunking 'chem'trails that is not written by jay reynolds? 'con'trails are just as ugly as 'chem'trails in any case. anyone ever thought of actually inspecting these airplanes as they land? oh, that wouldn't be possible would it?

Dear yak, and all... 13.Apr.2004 10:47


...by all means. Read everything, and read critically. Look around and think, independantly. But, at the end of the day, if you look at the picture provided by Paddler, and you hear his description, the labeling of the event as "chem"trails is a leap of hysterical and paranoid thinking. The further leap that this is evidence of corporate/governmental/fascist manipulation of the atmosphere over Portland is laughable on the one hand, and sad on the other. There are many sincerely held opinions that are based on nothing but hooey. Don't take my word for it, but read all of the postings and studies referred to in the many posts above critically. A few examples come to mind. Is there a patent for a dispersing device to be used by aircraft? Yep, by the buttload. Have there been experiments regarding manipulation of the atmosphere? Yep, ever since early farmers chanted, threw sticks and stones at the sky, and sacrificed small animals to induce rain. Are there thousands of papers and studies on our changing climate and the affects humans have on it? You bet, just as there are studies on termite and cow gas which, by the way may have a greater impact on our climate than many human activities. Have experimenters fired clouds of barium gas deep into our skies? Yep, they do it every year up at Poker flats, outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. They fire it by use of small rockets, waaaaaaaaay up into the sky. They are studying the effects of upper atmospheric conditions in order to learn more about our magnetic field and auroras. But, goodness, does it all add up to the preposterous assertion that Boeing and the government are colluding to turn 767's into a fleet of tankers for the purpose of changing our climate? Or that Mt. Hood is being messed with? Well...uhm....NO!

Paddler, next time you are out in your canoe, enjoying the marvels and mysteries of the grandeur of our earth, and you look up into the sky--if you worry about anything, worry about what I do: That a chunk of "blue ice" formed by way of a faulty valve in the plane's crapper system, and loosened by vibration and higher temperatures of lower altitudes, may have broken off and just may be headed for your and my noggins. I truly believe, based on observations and critical ready, that such an occurance is far more likely than your getting asthma and a skin rash from some sinister program.

Thank you for your consideration. You may all return to your affinity groups.

responding to debunkers' b.s. 13.Apr.2004 11:27

guy who knows what a logical debate is

Reading through all the posts by debunkers (what a fricking chore), still no response to why smoky-looking streams come out of NOZZLES on many of the planes in the sky, rather than forming behind the jet engines from the heat of the exhaust (that would be a normal contrail).

Still no response to why the planes fly in patterns similar to cropdusting flight patterns, rather than the usual flight patterns taken by passenger planes.

I'm just really concerned with what I see when I look up, and you're not providing answers for me. Oh, I read that "urbanlegends" article. It didn't explain away these things either. The word "chemtrail" doesn't even appear in the article!

poor francek... 13.Apr.2004 11:32


must be under a lot of troll-pressure to devote so much effort to his cause. Too bad!
For the truth is...CHEMTRAILS are real with the question being...WHY? It's the "why"
that the "they" don't won't us knowing about, and truth is, we need to move beyond the
simple "are Chemtrails real" or "no, they're not" useless discourse and get on to WHY,
for we know they are REAL! Enuf of this madness...ask the most important question..why!

*outdated ~to 'truly puzzled'~ 13.Apr.2004 12:12


Where in YOUR reading did you come to find that I'm a "he"? As for the "where did you get that idea" come on, have you ever listened to that talk radio crap? Total shenanigans. It's hard to believe "hard facts" when the next guest is talking about his 'president/dental appointment/alien conspiracy' book. But I'm sure that none of the above authors listen to that sort of silly talk, of course not. Right? And the other thing -making an allusion that I'm "out of meds", that was really cute. Go take an aspirin. Jeezus christ, who posted the SUPERscroll on chemtrails? A link would have been adequate.

Camas paddler: I'm not trying to start any in-fighting; I admit that my comments were not comPLETely relevant or helpful, but my goodness, come on, listen to some of this stuff. I'm obviously not going to admit outright that I was wrong. As for the pix, share 'em all you want!

Hey now... 13.Apr.2004 12:52

Camas Paddler

Hey now...

don't suck me into your personal tirades about the legitimacy of Chemtrails. (Pro or Con)

As I so eloquenty wrote in my original message... I simply saw something that I never saw before... took a picture of it and posted it here asking for info. That's it.

I can't believe how fired up you guys/gals are getting on this. Why don't we all just settle down and have a dialog with one another? (Geez... isn't that what we want in other areas of our lives... dialog?)

From the 31 messages that have been left since I posted those pictures... the only thing I learned is that this is a VERY touchy issue, that makes people start acting like children.

Maybe this might help... (just a thought.)

Why can't we break down some of the current theories on how/why Chemtrails exist in our skies. (If they even exist at all)
You know... point/counterpoint.
All of this general bashing is like spinning our tires in the mud.
Anyway... of to lunch.

CAMAS CONTRAILS 13.Jul.2004 20:51


You are correct! There is no logical explaination.
Because you have no schema to fit them into...
from experience in your lifetime...
SO....a big question: If they are not logical, and do not fit into your
lifetime schema ( learned definitions)
then there is something irregular about them.
Right? That is why you ARE asking, right?
I applaud your questioning mind!
A big question: If the news media covers tornadoes that somehow come down in Salem Oregon..or the news covers other anomolies, why isn't it covering this irregularity?

Thanks. Sorry its not an explaination...but rather a confirmation that you are correct.

RE: Chemtrails over Camas 28.Aug.2004 02:30


i should think that the planes that made the trails were flying from the direction where you saw the trails end, and flying to the direction where you couldn't see the end of the trails - hope this helps

2.5.12 about 9am 07.Feb.2012 08:35

Joe Anybody

portland sky
2.5.12 about 9am
clear blue sky
picture from cell phone
looking northeast from downtown