Soddy Daisy and the Chattanooga area were bombarded Aug. 22, a Monday, by jet traffic leaving behind a man-made cloud cover.
The spraying of what one scientist has found to be coal fly ash began early in the morning and lasted most of the afternoon. Perhaps hundreds of aircraft flew over Chattanooga depositing their horizontal streaks.
By David Tulis
Treatments that began Sunday continued nonstop during daylight hours through Wednesday — four days in a row.
On Sunday in southern Norway, 323 reindeer were found on the Hardangervidda plateau, a national park. They had been killed Friday by a lightning strike in the biggest recorded such incident of its kind. State-sponsored weather intervention is responsible for increasingly bizarre events, including extraordinary snows, floods, hailstorms and droughts. “It’s unusual,” said an official with the Norwegian EPA of the slaughter of animals in a 50-meter radius. “We’ve never seen anything like this on this scale.”
Because U.S. aerosol geoengineering is sponsored by Washington, few people pay attention. No environmentalists in Chattanooga have expressed alarm about the practice since I began covering it as news in March 2014, though one noted environmentalist in Nashville has expressed openness to the biggest environmental story in the past 30 years.
Vertical smoke stacks that prick the Chattanooga’s factory skyline bring the ire of environmental critics and stern regimes of air pollution regulation from EPA.
But aerosol geoengineering is different. It effectively turns smokestacks on their side. And since the white powdery trails that drip for miles after silent lofty aircraft are laid horizontally, they might as well be invisible.
False science, true science at odds
In other developments in the sky striping story:
➤ Ken Caldiera and others of the climate and geoengineering establishment have published a paper attacking environmentalists who say sky striping has existed for decades and is a public health menace. Appearing in Environmental Research Letters their 10-page essay is titled “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program.”It assumes science is established democratically by consensus, and not by evidence. It insists sky striping is innocent water vapor. Mr. Caldiera, a proponent of mass chemtrailing to “save the planet,” attacks environmentalist Dane Wigington of geoengineeringwatch.org by name. Mr. Wigington says sky stripes are evidence of a deep state program to control weather with no regard to members of the innocent public below.
➤ The political establishment spreads its ash blanket across the academic troposphere, but leaves the purest sky when it comes to dissenting particles.
Frontiers in Public Health as retracted an important scientific paper for arguing that jet emissions are comprised of toxic coal fly ash. “Human and environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing global Tropospheric aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification” by J. Raymond Herndon Ph.d. was published and then retracted without the normal peer review process. That process lets an author of a controverted paper get all arguments and facts marshalled against him as a proposed retraction is debated. Dr. Herndon says 1 in 15,000 papers is retracted annually. But the San Diego scientist has had two research papers published and yanked under suspicious circumstances suggesting overwhelming outside pressure on the editors. Dr. Herndon says coal fly ash is the efficient, dangerous and cheap talcum-powderlike material spewed from the jet-borne program for weather modification and sun dimming.
Dr. Herndon’s research is a major advancement in the fight by members of the public against the program that has intensified in the past three years and brought with it freakish and catastrophic weather patterns such as Chattanooga’s March 29, 2014, downtown blizzard.
➤ Finally, a story Aug. 23 in the Chattanooga Times Free Press says smog in the Southeast began increasing since 2010 and that they will become more common. The sky tattoo program regularly creates depthless smog banks that dim the sun. The report cites a study that blames these fog banks on lush forestland. “It has been known for decades and trees and other plants send more smog-causing emissions into the atmosphere than the pollution humans send directly from tail and factory pipes.”
Atmospheric injections in Chattanooga this year show no real pattern, except that the city received treatments 9 days each for May, June and July. Here’s my count of chemtrail days based on visual observation.
January — 10 days
February — 5 days
March — 17 days
April — 11 days
May — 9 days
June — 9 days
July — 9 days
August — 7 days (through Aug. 24)
The ash injections scar up an otherwise blue sky Monday with some natural cloud formations in the troposphere.
Details to note
➤ I witnessed several chembos, refractions of sunlight in the metals-heavy deposits that create blots of the color wheel new cloud. I began observing chembos about two years ago as the smog generation program intensified.
➤ I saw numerous jets pass over Soddy-Daisy and Chattanooga on Monday with stop-start emissions patterns and spray arcs that suggest spotty hydraulics or clumpy product that fails to pour out of the nozzles. Or the interrupted stripes may signal practice in a new delivery method. Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday trails were the usual long ones.
➤ As usual, jet trails deposit a fine powder that sometimes reveals itself as a material substance. In one instance I recorded how strings of particulate drifted in straight lines off from the ash cloud, like treacle dripping away from rows of creampuffs.
Other cities treated Monday
Knoxville was treated today. “Non-stop all day. Very often, there wasn’t a cloud in the sky, just aerosols 360,” says Marla Stair-Wood, a skywatching state office worker.
“Heavy, harsh morning of persistent aerosol trails,” she says. “The clear sky turned to toxic soup.”
Sky striping denials
Official media gave generous and glad coverage to the “chemtrail conspiracy theory” essay. The New York Times published “Scientists Just Say No to ‘Chemtrails’ Conspiracy Theory,” Aug. 15, 2016. The paper and media coverage makes the case against an existing geoengineering program by arranging for the consensus report of respected scientists who deal with weather.
“[S]cientists have become more organized in their efforts to shoot down the [chemtrail] idea, conducting a peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters that debunks chemtrails supporters’ claims. The goal, the researchers say, is not so much to change the minds of hard-core believers, but to provide a rebuttal — the kind that would show up in a Google search — to persuade other people to steer clear of this idea.”
The Washington Post covers the paper in a snarky “capital weather gang” column, “Scientists tell the world: ‘Chemtrails’ are not real,” in which Angela Fritz says, rolling her eyes: “All joking aside, ‘chemtrailers’ *** are out there, and they are kind of a nuisance. This is particularly true when they confuse and frighten other people about the source of those puffy white streaks that so often crisscross our sky.”
Study makes consensus easy
I have run out of space to detail the findings of the Caldiera essay. Briefly, it found 49 experts in the area of contrails and 28 in the area of depositing materials in the atmosphere and finds that 99 out of 100 scientists see nothing of merit in the so-called chemtrail theory. The experts agree that a “secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program” is not the simplest and “most parsimonious” explanation for a series of photos showing jet emissions and sky stripes and also of chemical analyses reports of snow and water showing high levels of aluminium, strontium and barium. The paper doesn’t present these scientist’s explanations for the chemtrail photos, just their conclusions about how they might be explained.
The essay’s main fault is that it is not scientific analysis, but a sociological review whose data is the personality and experience of the people who responded to a poll. The people who responded are named in the paper, but answers are tabulated and no one scientist’s personal views are published.
“The number of aircraft contrails has been increasing,” the paper says. “There have been revelations over the decades of governments undertaking action in secret without the informed consent of the population. It is reasonable that ordinary citizens should want questions answered concerning health, climate change, and pollution. While we understand that many of the fears underlying [secret large-scale atmospheric spraying program] theories may be legitimate, the evidence as evaluated here does not point to a secret atmospheric spraying program.”
Much is left outside the scope of this poll that could skew the results. Do these parties take federal grants and fellowships? What about mass days of sky striping activity such as those reported over Chattanooga? What about other deep-state projects that have damaged the health of thousands of people, from soldiers to Louisville housing project dwellers?
The paper by advocates of a mass chemtrailing program doesn’t allow for anyone to imagine that if the deep state military operation proposed in scientific journals becomes a reality, it will look exactly like what Soddy-Daisy residtns and Chattanoogans are seeing today.
Christine Shearer, Mick West, Ken Caldeira and Steven J. Davis, “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program, Environmental Research Letters, Aug. 10, 2016. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/pdf
Marvin Herndon, “Human and environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing global Tropospheric aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification,” Frontiers in Public Health, June 30, 2016. Trace the retraction correspondence here. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction. See also html. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/frontiers1.pdf
“More than 300 reindeer killed by lightning in Norway,” APF, Aug. 29, 2016. https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-300-reindeer-killed-lightning-norway-095020805.html
Angela Fritz, “Scientists tell the world: ‘Chemtrails’ are not real,” Washington Post, Aug. 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/08/16/scientists-to-world-chemtrails-are-not-real/
Henry Fountain, “Scientists Just Say No to ‘Chemtrails’ Conspiracy Theory,” New York Times, Aug. 15, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/scientists-just-say-no-to-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory.html