Chemtrails:GAO report admits "chaff" and more.

[altitudelou]

Finally, perhaps we are starting to get a glimmer of truth out of our politicians with regard to the Chemtrail's and why they are being sprayed and what they consist of.

Chemtrails: GAO report admits "chaff" and more.

Lab report reveals much more


www.proliberty.com/observer/20060704.htm

Last May a family in Iowa contacted the office of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to report the constant criss-crossing of "chemtrails" in the sky above their neighborhood. They received back from the senator’s office a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on "military chaff" and the material safety data sheet for aluminum-coated fiberglass fibers being spread—seven days a week for several hours each day—in the skies above their home.

The chaff is spread by pilots learning how to mask planes or send false radar images. It was reported that the military also has lead-based chaff, but that it is not being used at this time. Chaff was used by the military in Europe in WWII and, according to the GAO, had been used in training here at home since the 50s.

Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed.

Regardless, some members of this family are very sick. On May 23, after a hard rain the day before, they a noticed glittering substance and a pinkish-colored powder substance on the roof of their house. They then noticed the glittering substance on many surfaces, even the dashboard of the family car. Both substances were collected and sent to a lab for analysis.

Among the substances found to be in the samples were several that should simply not be there:

6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia

9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride

26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc

4 molds and fungi

7 viruses

2 cancers

2 vaccines

2 sedatives

Over the last several months, The IO has received a significant increase in chemtrail-related calls and letters. Most report a dramatic increase in chemtrail "spraying" activity in their areas; some are reporting the development of chronic flu-like symptoms, chronic fatigue and body aches that they have never before experienced.

We intend to expound upon this subject in greater detail—hopefully next month.

If you are seeing the relationship between accelerated chemtrail spraying in your area and symptoms among friends, family and members of your community, begin writing it down and send the information to us by mail or email. Note times, dates and specific symptoms. If you live near a military installation, expect that you are being "sprayed." You may want to contact your senator or rep and, politely (that is how you get the information you are seeking) request the forwarding of any information that may be available on the military chaff being used in your area. After obtaining relevant documents from your rep or senator, consider using it to obtain epidemiological data from your local health department.

--------------------------------------------

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web:
idaho-observer.com
proliberty.com/observer/

[Swamp Gas]

Aluminum to reflect sunlight. They are admitting it more and more, and the less we see of debunkers. Direct proportion.

How much titanium is in the mix? The military says it is harmful...... Just like Depleted Uranium.

[socrates]

If only Olbermann or Dobbs would go on a mission with global warming like they do with O'Lielly and immigration respectively. If so, they would certainly venture into the topic of geo-engineering and dare we say the Paul Moyer type investigation at KNBC.

I just went googling and found the following which backs up the How to Cool a Planet Thread here at Gastro and also what SwampDude just said.

From reason online November 1997!!!
Climate Controls
If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world.
By Gregory Benford
reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

excerpt: Reflecting on Reflectivity


...Not all mitigation efforts need take place on land or sea. In fact, the most intuitive approach may be simply to reflect more sunlight back into space, before it can be emitted in heat radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide. People understand the basic concept readily enough: Black T-shirts are warmer in summer than white ones. We already know that simply painting buildings white makes them cooler. We could compensate for the effect of all greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution by reflecting less than 1 percent more of the sunlight.

A mere 0.5 percent change in Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, would solve the greenhouse problem completely. The big problem is the oceans, which comprise about 70 percent of our surface area and absorb more light because they are darker than land.

When it comes to increasing albedo, it would be wise to begin the discussion by introducing positive measures that can be easily understood and are close at hand. Reflecting sunlight is not a deep technical idea, after all. Simply adding sand or glass to ordinary asphalt ("glassphalt") doubles its albedo. This is one mitigation measure everyone could see--a clean, passive way to Do Something.

A 1997 UCLA study showed that Los Angeles is 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding areas, mostly due to dark roofs and asphalt. Cars and power plants contribute, but only a bit; at high noon, the sun delivers to each square mile the power equivalent of a billion-watt electrical plant.

This urban "heat island" effect is common. But white roofs, concrete-colored pavements, and about $10 billion in new shade trees could cool the city below the countryside, cutting air conditioning costs by 18 percent. Cooler roads lessen tire erosion, too. About 1 percent of the United States is covered by human constructions, mostly paving, suggesting that we may already control enough of the land to get at the job.

From such homegrown solutions, we could make the leap to space. The most environmentally benign proposal for increasing the planet's albedo is very high-tech (and expensive): a massive orbiting white screen, about 2,000 kilometers on a side. Even if such parasols were broken into small pieces, putting them up would cost about $120 billion, a bit steep. We would also have to pay a lot to take them down if they caused some undesirable side effects. (One is certain: a night sky permanently light-polluted, irritating astronomers and moonstruck lovers.)

Using more-innocuous dust to reflect sunlight does not work; it drifts away, driven off by the sun's light pressure. But the upper atmosphere is still a good place to intervene, because much sunlight gets absorbed in the atmosphere on its way to us. Also, measures far above our heads trouble us less.

Other sorts of reflectors at high altitudes are promising. Spreading dust in the stratosphere appears workable because at those heights tiny particles stay aloft for several years. This is why volcanoes spewing dust affect weather strongly. The tiny motes that redden our sundowns reflect more sunlight than they trap infrared.

Even better than dust are microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid, which reflects light more effectively. Sulfate aerosols can also raise the number of droplets that make clouds condense, further increasing overall reflectivity. This could then be a local cooling, easier to monitor than carbon dioxide's global warming. We could perform such small, controllable experiments now. The amount of droplets or dust needed is a hundredth of the amount already blown into the atmosphere by natural processes, so we would not be venturing big dislocations. And we would get some spectacular sunsets in the bargain.

As usual, there are human-centered concerns. The Environmental Protection Agency hammers away at particulate levels, blaming them for lung disorders. Luckily, high-
altitude dust would come down mostly in raindrops, not making us cough. The cheapest way of delivering dust to the stratosphere is to shoot it up, not fly it. Big naval guns fired straight up can put a one-ton shell 20 kilometers high, where it would explode and spread the dust. This costs only a hundredth as much as the space-parasol idea. But booming naval guns that rattle windows for miles around are likely to provoke more than a few Not in My Backyard reactions.

Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. These motes would also come down mostly in rain, not troubling the brow of the EPA. Fuel costs about 15 percent of airlines' cash operating expenses, and running rich increases costs by only a few percent. For about $10 million, this method would offset the 1990 U.S. greenhouse emissions. Adding this to the cost of an airline ticket would boost prices perhaps 1 percent. An added asset is that quietly running rich on airline fuel will attract little notice, doesn't even change sunsets, and is hard to muster a media-saturated demonstration against.

But there are, as always, side effects. Dust or sulfuric acid would heat the stratosphere, too, with unknown impact. Some scientists suspect the ozone layer could be affected. If a widespread experiment showed this, we could turn off the effect within roughly a year as the dust settled down and got rained out. (Smaller experiments should show this first, of course.)

These ideas envision doing what natural clouds do already as the major players in the total albedo picture. A 4 percent increase in stratocumulus over the oceans would offset global carbon dioxide emission. Land reflects sunlight much better than the wine-dark seas, so putting clouds far out from land, and preferably in the tropics, gets the greatest leverage.

Clouds condense around microscopic nuclei, often the kind of sulfuric acid droplets the geoengineers want to spread in the stratosphere. The oceans make such droplets as sea algae decays, and the natural production rate sets the limit on how many clouds form over the seas. Clouds cover about 31 percent of our globe already, so a 4 percent increase is not going to noticeably ruin anybody's day.

Tinkering with such a mammoth natural process is daunting, but in fact about 400 medium-sized coal-fired power plants give off enough sulfur in a year to do the job for the whole Earth. (This in itself suggests just how much we are already perturbing the planet.) There are problems with using coal: Arguing that more air pollution is good for Mother Earth sounds intuitively wrong. Coal plants sit on land, and the clouds would be most effective over the oceans. A savvy international strategy leaps to mind: Subsidize electricity-dependent industry on isolated Pacific islands, and ship them the messiest, sulfur-rich coal. The plants' plumes would stretch far downwind, and the manufactured goods could revitalize the tropical ocean states, paying them for being global good neighbors. The wealthy states would then get their mitigation carried out far from home and far from vexatious neighborhood committees, using labor purchased at low rates. And nobody has to take the plants; prices will mediate the demand....

[altitudelou]

What I find encouraging about this "Idaho Observer" article, is that "The Spraying" of foreign substances into the atmosphere is being discussed among some elected officials who seem to be willing to stray from the pat answers and BS that we have been fed for years now.

If we can convince a few more politicians like Senator Tom Harkin to get involved and seriously look at the spraying issue I believe that there is at least a chance that we might get closer to the truth, as things stand now, we are in a sort of limbo and only talking among ourselves and that is not leading to the answers that we are all looking for.

I'm of the opinion that we should keep the pressure on the politicians and not back off, if the issues remains in their faces they will be forced to recognize it as an ongoing problem that they will have to address or face many angry constituents come election day.

[greenman]

this was posted at CTC, US patent for a "powder contrail generation" device , used for scattering silicon treated titanium powder
www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11249.html

[altitudelou]

There was a lot going around about this a few years back, here is a "rense.com" article from 7/18/00.

www.rense.com/general2/pat.htm

Note: in the patent summary,

"The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.REFLECTIVE SCREENS FOR ANY DESIRED PURPOSE."

I wonder if that includes reflecting sunlight?

Also note at the end of the patent "Description",

"Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator.

Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described."

One can only wonder how this equipment has been used and developed over the years since it's patent and just what kind of FAKE contrail generating equipment is currently being used to create the FAKE contrail's that we are seeing, and what are they spraying, etc, etc,... to no end in sight.

I have to laugh at the debunkers that demand proof from us that there is any spraying going on when they can in no way discount the fact of this patent or it's intended uses.

[socrates]

Rigorous Intuition has a thread just started on this article. I kind of have some doubts about some of what the article says. It reminds me of the Dan Rather/ GW gone AWOL thing. Somehow that got all twisted into Rather couldn't get his facts straight so GW is off the hook, but still it appears that GW was in fact a chickenhawk like most of them seem when it comes to joining the army during wartime. So if this article is not true in some big ways, even though the essence of the report is true, chemtrails will continue to be painted as tinfoil internet conspiracy mumbo jumbo. These were just some thoughts provoked in me by the following thread.

p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5840.topic

[socrates]

I have to say that this military chaff thing
looks completely true. I'm not sure about
the samples with all that stuff in it. This
gets me thinking they want us to run around
in circles, to become unsure of what the aerosol
operations are for. Yet, to me I do think it is
mostly to cool the planet, and now it appears to
me they are also used to mess with radar. I think
it is mostly for geo-engineering, because I don't
think they would bombard us with chemtrails if it
were all for military practices. I think for them to
risk exposure by bombarding us with this implies
that it is for a super duper reason. If it were just for
miltary reasons and weather manipulation, I don't
think they would be everywhere as citizen reports
have noted.

I did a bit of googling for chaff and chemtrails.
Here are a few results I found.

"Chaff"- The Chemtrail Realities.... you can find
this halfway or so down the page.
blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-bfMJDIowYba0fcgLhfE-?cq=1&p=1022

Separating Military Chaff from Tinfoil
Posted by : ilyana  on Wednesday, August 02, 2006
link

Ilyana's take on the Idaho Observer article:
"For several years now, there have been reports of
"Chemtrails" being released into the atmosphere
from jets all over the world, but particularly in the US.
This morning I received a report from a member of one
of the newsgroups I participate in. The military has
been dumping something called "Chaff" into the
atmosphere for training purposes and the testing of
radar interference materials since WWII. BUT according
to the article more than an alumimum coated fiberglass
is being dumped. A family in Idaho noticed the material
settling on their home, after Chemtrail activity. They
were all getting physically ill. The family collected samples
and paid for testing. While there were aluminum particles,
there were also many other substances that shouldn't
have been present in the samples.

Many of the articles on Military Chaff substances were written
in the late 1990's. Events after September 11, 2001 seems
to have silenced much of the reporting, although the number
of chemtrail sightings have multiplied massively. These have
been reported on so-called "tin foil hat" websites largely
ignored by mainstream media. But is the government agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)**
a "tinfoil hat website"? Or how about the Government
Accountablity Office (GAO)***?"



Chaff Poses No Danger In Nevada
By William H. Schlesinger
June 9th, 2000
My take on this- typical OK folks nothing to see here,
please move along.
link

Chem-trails REPORTER
www.robertghostwolf.com/chemtrails.htm

"Chemtrails" Debunked
from Democratic Underground Forums
link

The last post is from the administrator Skinner who
not only sends such topics to the "dungeon"
but goes ahead and locks this thread.

Skinner ADMIN  (1000+ posts)  Tue Nov-29-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
22. Locking.
"Chemtrails are kooky."

Also from Democratic Underground: Fighter jet "chaff"
may be killing Valley lightening (Phoenix)
link



Chemtrails - Peanut Butter And Barium Sandwiches
The Chemistry Of The Modern Sky
June 10, 2003 - 21:12
Filed under: Chemtrails Environmental
By Nicholas Jones Illustration - Carl White Earth Day 2002
4-17-2
100777.com/node/370



Perhaps I am underestimating the military aspects
to chemtrails. Yet, it is my opinion that while some
of it is for such practices, I think this is a front or
"limited hangout" for the overriding reasons behind
the program.