portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

environment | sustainability | technology

still undecided about CHEMTRAILS?

Found this exceptionally well informed article at:  http://www.spirithelps.com/global_weather_control.htm and just had to
post it here for all of your serious students of WHAT'S HAPPENING? It
is sufficiently well-written and documented so that even the usual cast
of debunkers will have great difficulty foisting-off their blather! So
give it a good read, and may it reinforce your growing awareness of just
what in the hell is going on in the skies above you, and in your world!
Global Weather Control System:

Flurry of News Stories Just Released

By Toni Thayer

Envision this -- a plan by a private group of universities and colleges to control the global weather on command, supposedly, only for the benefit of mankind. Does this sound too farfetched to believe? Well, start believing, because it is here today, and the future is now.

A flurry of magazine and news articles cropped up in October on Dr. Ross N. Hoffman's vision to design and implement a central command post for the world's weather control activities. His vision is "within the next 30 years there will be a Global Weather Control System that could influence the weather through the use of contrails (condensed water vapour produced at high altitudes by aircraft), a fleet of solar reflectors orbiting the Earth, wind turbines and microwave energy from satellites," so says an article by Explorations TV, BBC Worldwide. (www.explorations.tv/human_6.html)

Hoffman seems to have the credentials to fulfill his dream with an undergraduate geology degree from Brown University, a master degree in mathematics from Boston University, and a Ph.D. in meteorology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After graduation, he was employed at the Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheric Sciences, and he's also served on the National Research Council Committee on the Status and Future Directions in U.S. Weather Modification Research and Operations.

Today, Hoffman works for Atmospheric Environmental Research, Inc. (AER), a research and development firm in Lexington, Massachusetts. Some of their clients are the U.S. Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and private industry leaders of Boeing Satellite Systems, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., Allied Signal, American Petroleum Institute, Dupont and American Chemistry Council. (www.aer.com/home/home/html)

"Objective analysis and assimilation methods, atmospheric dynamics, climate theory and atmospheric radiation" are Hoffman's primary interests. He's also been involved in Rapid Climate Change (RAPID), "a $20 million, six-year (2001-2007) programme of the Natural Environment Research Council" from the United Kingdom.

The October articles released on Hoffman center around his recent project for the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), "Controlling the Global Weather". The NIAC is an arm of the Universities Space Research Association (USRA), a nonprofit incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1969 "under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences." (www.niac.usra.edu)

The USRA website lists 95 institutional members in 2004, all colleges and universities with "graduate programs in space sciences or aerospace engineering" with 88 members from the United States, two from Canada, three from Europe, and two from Israel. The group's charter is "grand, revolutionary concepts for architectures and systems." (www.usra.edu/hq/ur/coi.html)

NIAC contracted with Hoffman to design a weather controller, "a feedback control system to control the global atmosphere, and the components of such a system . . . providing a scientific basis and system architecture to actually implement global weather control."

Presumably, the need for such a system stems from the chaos theory on the Earth's atmosphere, a view held by many scientists. "A chaotic system is one that appears to behave randomly, but is, in fact, governed by rules. It is also highly sensitive to initial conditions, so that seemingly insignificant, arbitrary inputs can have profound effects that lead quickly to unpredictable consequences," according to Hoffman in his October 2004 article in Scientific American, Controlling Hurricanes. ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...)

This chaotic behavior of the atmosphere is exactly what enables it to be controlled. "It is the very instability of the atmosphere's dynamics that makes global weather control a possibility. Extreme sensitivity to initial conditions implies that small perturbations to the atmosphere can effectively control the evolution of the atmosphere, if the atmosphere is observed and modeled sufficiently well," Hoffman explains in the NIAC contract award. (www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/abstract/589Hoffman.html)

In an October 2004 Red Cross Disaster Relief article by Christina Ward, Controlling the Weather: Disaster Prevention of the Future?, Hoffman goes more in-depth, "Humans could theoretically create small changes in the atmosphere, and these changes could make big differences in the behavior of weather systems. . . The implications would be major . . . Just imagine: no droughts, no tornadoes, no snowstorms during rush hour . . . Could we control the path of a hurricane to prevent it from striking the most populated coastal areas? If we could, should we?" (www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/020228influence/)

Although many weather control projects by numerous countries have been performed and documented, the early experiments in the 1960s focused on "cloud seeding techniques - then the only practical way to try to affect the weather . . . with silver iodide particles dispersed by aircraft."

Hoffman's goal is different because it coordinates the Global Weather Control System into one network and uses sci-fi techniques. An "array of earth-orbiting solar power stations" would beam the Sun's energy to Earth via "microwave receivers on the ground" to generate the huge amount of energy that's required to change the global weather.

"For weather control, however, tuning the microwave downlink to frequencies better absorbed by water vapor could heat different levels in the atmosphere as desired." Hoffman notes, "Raindrops strongly absorb microwaves . . ."

To begin the process of making alterations to the Earth's climate, Hoffman recommends changing some everyday activities, "such as directing aircraft flight plans to precisely position contrails and thus increase cloud cover or varying crop irrigation practices to enhance or decrease evaporation."

He identified "some tools" still needed before it can be fully operational: 1) worldwide weather data collecting, 2) better numerical models portraying the physics of the universe, and 3) more developed computer power.

NASA seems to have additional interests in the project other than just weather control, although, not all of these were identified in the news stories, "Many of the technologies involved in our proposed system are areas of interest to NASA that will be developed for other reasons. These include atmospheric science, remote sensing, aviation systems, fleets of low-cost satellites, solar power satellites, advanced computational systems, mega-systems engineering, and more."

Hoffman admits the downside of weather control, "The nation that controls its own weather will perforce control the weather of other nations. Weather 'wars' are conceivable. An international treaty may be required to ensure that weather control technology be used for the good of all." He says with success, "larger-scale weather control using space-based heating may become a reasonable goal that nations around the globe could agree to pursue."

The Global Weather Control System appears to be the first step by a self-appointed group of scientists to assimilate a master global plan for manipulating the Earth's natural processes. Do they really have adequate fore knowledge to take on such an ambitious project for the entire planet? Can the Earth's inhabitants always count on their morals, standards and actions to work in their best interests? Isn't it downright ludicrous to play with Earth's interconnected systems of humans, wildlife, plants, and atmosphere? In other words, who made these people God?

Author's Note: This is how it works -

Grand Canyon Trust from Flagstaff, AZ is supposedly "protecting" the Colorado Plateau. In reality, the nonprofit group is led by a bunch of global developers [see my articles Don't Trust the Trust and the Grazing Series] who are really shutting America down under the guise of enviro protection as they develop the world. These leaders are heavily involved in many global control projects, through their professional and nonprofit lives, which overlap and serve multiple purposes in the global control scheme.

For instance, they "educate" to change irrigation practices which Dr. Hoffman says must be altered for global weather control to work [see Study says conservation can double water supplies for drought-stricken cities, Headwater News].

They've run ranchers out of business in southern Utah through their illegal grazing permit buyout scheme, thus ending more of the traditional irrigation practices.

They work with Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Sandia National Labs to implement wind energy plants which Dr. Hoffman says are an integral part of the global weather control. [see Southwest Renewable Energy Conference] They're sponsoring public meetings in support of the Sunshine Wind Park.

They don't care a hoot about the environmental degradation from chemtrails raining down on us all day long. I know because I took chemtrails to them in 2000, as a Flagstaff enviro working side-by-side with them on other projects, and was turned down. This was my first clue that they really didn't care about the environment at all. It was several years later before I discovered their connections to the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and the United Nations.

add a comment on this article

chemtrails 21.Jan.2005 13:59



1. Space Preservation Act of 2001
H.R. 2977, introduced by Rep. Kucinich, October 2, 2001 ... uses of space for the benefit ... Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'. SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE ...

HR 2977 IH


1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.


Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.


The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.


The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.


The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.


Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.


In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

this will inform as to how the government treats 21.Jan.2005 18:51

people who believe in CHEMTRAILS

this form a Yahoo Group I belong to that addresses the issue of what are these things in
the sky that some call "contrails" and some call "chemtrails"...which are they really?

Just got this back from a guy named Howard. Since NASA and NOAA employees speak their own language, I'll try to include my translation in parentheses.

Doppler and Jet Contrails

Discussion Thread
Response (Howard) - 01/20/2005 06:04 PM
I am not a contrails expert ("They are all tied up right now") and would refer you to  http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html ("Please go away")
However, contrails consist of water vapor and not particulate matter. ("Well, maybe we were wrong about contrails forming in dry air, but please go away anyhow")

If it is 85 degrees at the surface in Los Angeles, at 30,000 feet above Los Angeles the temperature is more like -50 degrees ("Still far too low for persistent contrails, but don't
make me say so"). Surface readings for Los Angeles can be found on the web at  http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/KLAX.html ("Please go there and bother them instead
of us").

Customer - 01/20/2005 03:05 PM
Message-ID: < 41EFA540.9B46FC1D@labridge.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:34:14 +0000
From: Rick Moors < rick@labridge.com>
Reply-To:  rick@labridge.com
To:  answers@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Incident 050118-000022] Doppler and Jet Contrails

Thanks for your reply, but I'm still a little unclear about a couple of things if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

>> As for contrails they are actually more likely to form in dry conditions versus humid conditions,<<

Could you please elaborate on this statement? I have always assumed jet contrails formed when moisture present in the atmosphere attached to tiny particles in the jet exhaust,
forming ice crystals. I remember seeing these on cold winter days as a kid in Kansas, and even these trails disappeared fairly quickly. Wouldn't dry conditons inhibit this
formation, based on the fact that there is less water vapor present?

Have jet engines become less efficient over the years, resulting in the emission of more particulate matter? I would think that this is illogical, given that military technology can
suppress contrail formation, so that the contrails do not give away the position of the plane to the enemy. We have pollution controls on our car engines, so I must assume that
new jet engines are at least as efficient as the ones I used
to see over Kansas in the 1950's.

>>>and at the elevations that planes fly at the temperatures are significantly colder than what you experience at the surface; <<

I realize there is a great difference in temperatures and humidity conditions at cruising altitude as opposed to ground level, but wouldn't logic dicate that in most conditions, if
ground level temps are 85 degrees with 12% humidity, you would be seeing appropriately similar conditions aloft? Perhaps you could direct me to a site where I could obtain
local (Los Angeles) atmospheric information so I can make a record of
the conditons aloft the next time I notice this contrail coverage.

Also, one final thing. I have often seen jets at high altitude leaving no contrail at all, and at the same time have seen white jets leaving large contrails at a lower altitude (at least I
assume lower altitude in that the plane appears larger, and is often the same body type as other commercial passenger jets leaving no contrails). What would account for this?

Thanks for your time and looking forward to your clarification.


here is more information to support the case for 21.Jan.2005 19:08


I can't believe what I just found.

It seems that in 1994, the Defense Department merged satellite operations with NOAA - UNDER THE CONTROL OF NOAA which is under the Department of Commerce - which of course - is the sock puppet of corporations !


Recent changes in world political events and declining agency budgets prompted a re-examination of combining the two systems. In 1992, a National Space Council study recommended convergence of the two separate weather satellite systems. Following further recommendations contained in the National Performance Review and influenced by increased Congressional interest, NOAA, DoD and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiated studies in 1993 to determine how to converge the two systems. The completed study revealed that a converged system could reduce agency duplication and bureaucracy, substantially reduce costs, and satisfy both civil and military requirements for operational, space-based, remotely sensed environmental data. This tri-agency study formed the basis for the development of the Implementation Plan for a Converged Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System that was issued in conjunction with the 1994 Presidential Decision Directive.

On October 3, 1994, NOAA, DoD, and NASA created an Integrated Program Office to develop, manage, acquire, and operate NPOESS. The IPO is located organizationally within NOAA and is headed by a System Program Director who is responsible to the NPOESS Executive Committee. This Committee, which includes senior representatives from the three agencies, serves as a board of directors to ensure that the overall program plans meet the needs of the three participating agencies. Interagency efforts with NPOESS will result in the continuation of and improvements to the critical satellite measurements necessary to provide timely and accurate forecasts and warnings to the public and to conduct worldwide military operations.

The Integrated Program Office concept provides each of the participating agencies with lead responsibility for one of three primary functional areas. NOAA has overall responsibility for the converged system and is also responsible for satellite operations. NOAA is also the primary interface with the international and civil user communities. DoD is responsible for supporting the IPO for major systems acquisitions, including launch support. NASA has a primary responsibility for facilitating the development and incorporation of new cost-effective technologies into the converged system. Although each agency provides certain key personnel in their lead role, tri-agency work teams staff each functional division to maintain the integrated approach.


Vicky Davis

"Men occasionally stumble on the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off
as if nothing had happened."---Winston Churchill