‘Turning a blind eye’, is a well-known English phrase that is described on Wikipedia as ‘the ignoring of undesirable information’. It originates from the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, when Nelson, ignored a signal to retreat. He is supposed to have said to his flag-captain “Foley, you know that I have lost an eye, and have a right to be blind sometimes.” Then he raised his telescope to his blind eye and said, “I really do not see the signal.”
This is a perfect analogy for how the authorities treat the subjects of Geo-engineering and Chemtrails. We are continuously told that ‘there is no evidence’ for Chemtrails. Yet, when the authorities are asked if they have tested for what are claimed to be the key ingredients of Chemtrails (namely Aluminium and Barium), we are told that they do not test for these substances because they do not believe that Geo-engineering is actually taking place. That is insane.
So called ‘intelligent’ scientists and government officials are not just wilfully blind to the subject of Chemtrails, they are also blind to the absurdity of their position. They have abandoned the scientific method, which is supposed to be based upon facts and the evidence, to be talking heads for the establishment; just mouthpieces for a nonsensical dogma. The scientists say that the chance that such activities are happening is so small, that it is not worth testing for the chemicals that could be poisoning the planet. Their belief system is so narrow that it is used to justify not conducting any research that might disprove their claims.
Back in July 2016, I made reference on this blog to a film called Overcast. That film is now free to watch on YouTube and it is a very compelling documentary (please see below). I will send a link of the film to my MP (Louise Ellman) and to the Mayor of Liverpool (Joe Anderson) but I doubt very much that either of them will watch the film or act on the information that it contains.
The Overcast documentary shows that the behaviour of scientists is ridiculous. Their advice is restricted to official research projects that have a very narrow scope. This means that if something has not been researched, then it is ‘unknown’ and ‘invalid’ and does not receive any consideration from the scientific community. It is a serious problem for the public because we rely on scientists for advice and we have been taught to believe that such people are always objective and that they always make recommendations based upon the facts.
What are the facts of Geo-engineering and Chemtrails if scientists and those in authority always turn a blind eye to the areas of research that would settle this matter once and for all? What are they scared of? Are they worried that they will be found out? Are they worried that they will lose their funding? Maybe, they are worried that they will lose their status. Whatever the reason (and I suspect that it is a combination of them all), the result is that the public is being badly misled. I also suspect that politicians are being duped but if that is the case, then they are unfit to be in power because they are either extremely naïve or just plain stupid. If those options do not apply, then they are fundamentally corrupt.
We cannot afford to keep turning a blind eye to aerial activities that may be transforming large parts of our environment from areas of natural beauty, into toxic health hazards. Please watch the documentary below.
I have often wondered what would happen if there was an item on the national news that exposed the authorities for operating a secret programme, over a number of years, to spray chemicals from airplanes throughout large swathes of the UK. Can you imagine how the general public would react to discover something that they had been told to dismiss as just a conspiracy theory, was actually shown to be true.
To say that there would be a public outcry, would be a massive understatement and maybe that is why the main stream media has done its best to avoid or discredit the subject. Yet, if it was revealed to be true, serious questions would need to be answered about what chemicals were used and their effect on public health. What would be the long term consequences of involving the public in an outrageous chemical experiment that they never consented to?
Politicians would all express their surprise and call for an enquiry to establish who was involved and what chemicals were used. They would promise to leave no stone unturned to get to the truth. They would insist that however this happened, it was not typical of the way government works. It must have been down to a few bad apples who acted beyond their authority. If it was shown that the chemicals sprayed were detrimental to health, then the politicians would promise to use the full force of the law against those conspirators who had caused harm to UK citizens.
The problem is that the full force of the law does not actually mean anything in this context. Back in 2007, the European Union established a new regulation called REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals), which has the purpose of protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. It was also intended to enhance the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry, whilst promoting alternative methods for the assessment of hazardous substances that do not involve animal testing.
On the face of it, REACH seems to be sensible and the authorities appear to have the public interest at heart. Unfortunately, this is not the case because as well as setting out rules for how chemical substances should be handled, REACH also establishes a set of exemptions to the very rules that are meant to protect us. When you look at the exemptions, you realise that the EU’s intention to protect public health needs to be called into question because it is establishing a framework that allows some people and some organisations to use chemicals irresponsibly.
The main REACH exemptions that bother me include the following:
(1) Substances do not need to be registered if they are manufactured or imported into the EU at less than 1 tonne per year per manufacturer/ importer.
In other words, if you set up a series of manufacturing or import companies, you can easily and legitimately exceed the 1 tonne limit. In fact, it means that in reality, if you are clever in the way that you use such companies, no limit applies.
(2) Radioactive substances within the scope of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom.
Why this exemption applies is not explained but it is not encouraging. Some people claim that chemtrails have been found to contain barium, which is a radioactive substance that is hazardous to health.
(3) The carriage of dangerous substances and dangerous substances in dangerous mixtures by rail, road, inland waterway, sea or air.
Of all of the exemptions, this is the one that stands out the most. It says that if substances that are known to be dangerous are being transported (all types are listed) then the regulations do not apply. Wait a minute. Let’s spell that out. REACH is a regulation to protect people and the environment from dangerous chemicals but the regulation does not apply if chemicals that are known to be harmful are moved from one location to another. Maybe this is the case if you are spraying dangerous chemicals from airplanes?
(4) Waste as defined in Directive 2006/12/EC.
The above directive is focussed on the treatment of waste products that could be harmful to human health or the environment. Why then, if they are known to be potentially dangerous, are such products excluded from the REACH regulation?
(5) Substances used in product and process-oriented research and development (PPORD) (Article 9).
‘A substance which is manufactured in or imported into the EU for the purposes of product and process orientated research and development is exempt from certain aspects of Registration for a period of 5 years, providing the manufacturer applies to the European Chemicals Agency for this exemption. Further details of how to do this and what exemptions apply can be found in Article 9 of REACH.’
What this says is that if a substance is part of a research and development project, then it can be exempted for 5 years if approved by the European Chemicals Agency.
The above details are bad enough but the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has further exemptions that are equally concerning. The key details that people need to be aware of regarding MOD exemptions are taken from the document ‘The Reach Regulation (A guide to Reach Process and Exemption in the MOD)' and are as follows:
(1) The UK MOD is committed to complying with the REACH Regulation, but where it is necessary in the interests of defence, the Secretary of State (SofS) may exempt the MOD or anyone involved in defence-related business from the requirements of specific articles of the REACH regulations.
Basically, this says that if the Secretary of State authorises the use of a substance that may be harmful to health, then the MOD does not have to comply with the REACH regulation.
(2) The MOD managed exemption will be extended to:
This says that once the Secretary of State has authorised an exemption to the MOD, its scope is automatically extended to include partners, foreign forces and overseas bases.
(3) In principle United States (US) military bases in the UK would be covered by the same exemptions and MOD administrative arrangements as UK facilities.
This further increases the scope from UK military bases to US military bases within the UK.
(4) The defence exemption will be served through an administrative system of certification, issued by the SofS, for generic categories of substance (rather than listing specific substance names, for confidentiality). The enforcement Statutory Instrument provides the means for legal exemption, linking it to the SofS’s certificate.
What this does, is to allow the MOD to provide minimal information about the detail of exemptions and crucially, to exempt the MOD from legal responsibility. To quote the report directly “The MOD will share sanitised information with the HSE (Health & Safety Executive) about exemptions, such as the numbers of certificates issued.”
(5) A substance will be considered eligible for an exemption certificate if the substance and/or its use are classified as “Official-Sensitive” or above. (MOD Classification Policy is described in Joint Service Procedure (JSP) 440, Part 4, Section 1).
In other words, if use of a dangerous substance is a government secret, then it is eligible for exemption and the public will know nothing about any risks that they may be exposed to.
(6) MOD will keep certificates internal to MOD/HSE, but will make some statistical information publicly available on an annual basis (e.g. number of certificates issued).
This really spells out the situation. The public will be provided with content free statistics but will be denied access to any useful information about possible risks that they may be exposed to.
What all of this means is that if the authorities are found to have committed mass poisoning of the UK population through chemical spraying from airplanes, they will literally have a get out of jail free card because they can point to the REACH regulation and its various exemptions to explain their actions, assuage their guilt and thereby escape justice. This is further exacerbated by specific MOD exemptions that are granted by the Secretary of State and which are free of any legal responsibility.
It is also worth pointing out that although the UK is supposed to be leaving the EU as a result of Brexit, EU legislation will be transferred to UK law as part of the leaving process. This means that the REACH regulation and its exemptions will continue to apply.
Recently, I contacted my MP and the Mayor of Liverpool to share with them photos that I took of airplane trails over Liverpool. Please see the slideshow below, which includes the photos that I asked both politicians to look at.
In my email, I referred to the trails as ‘un-natural’ because I am certain that they are not just water vapour. I avoided the word ‘chemtrails’ because I did not want my concerns to be dismissed through the use of incorrect terminology. Invariably, the authorities seem to prefer to describe un-natural airplane trials as ‘persistent contrails’, which is nonsense because the persistent nature of flight generated condensation is a new and unexplained feature of modern jet engines.
Although I have gotten used to my MP no longer responding to my concerns, I was initially surprised and then disappointed to receive a reply from the Mayor of Liverpool. In his response, where he also copied my MP, he made the following statement.
“I believe the alleged action you are referring to is commonly known as chemtrails about which UK Government is clear that this does not occur in UK airspace.”
I was surprised by this response because the standard approach seems to be to ignore the concerns of the public. I was disappointed because the above sentence is so dismissive. However, it is a sentence that needs to be analysed in more detail.
First, the Mayor of Liverpool acknowledges the term ‘chemtrails’. This is very significant and I believe that it happened because it is a term in such high usage that it can no longer be avoided.
Second, the Mayor says that it is an ‘alleged action’. In other words, it is a claim that has not been proven. However, the flipside of such a statement is that it is a claim that has not been disproven.
Third, the Mayor says that the ‘UK Government is clear that this does not occur in UK airspace’. This is very significant because he has gone from describing it as an ‘alleged action’ to something that ‘does not occur in UK airspace’. Why has he qualified the statement by referring to UK airspace? Surely, if it is just a ‘conspiracy theory’, it does not occur in any air space. You could argue that this is because the Government is only concerned with activities within the UK’s jurisdiction. The problem is that this is not true. The UK Government is concerned with overseas activities as much as it is about what is happening within our shores. This is particularly true where such activities can have a potentially negative impact on the British Isles. The UK government is party to many international treaties and so it takes an active interest in monitoring them. One of those treaties is to do with weather modification for military purposes, where countries have agreed not to undertake such actions, unless it is for domestic research purposes.
Fourth, the Mayor has quoted the government line on this matter. He says that the ‘UK Government is clear that this does not occur’. The problem here is that the Mayor was presented with evidence and his response was not to examine that evidence but to refer to what he has been told is the ‘truth’. He has not used his own mind to look at the photographs and to ask questions. He has just dismissed what he sees before him because he trusts that the Government is the one and only source of what is true and what is real. How ridiculous?
Fifth, what we see here is a political conspiracy that involves both central and local government. There is an official line on everything and it will be referred to in response to any queries raised by the public. Whoever you approach on a matter, whatever avenue you choose to pursue, the State will always have the final say. Un-natural airplane trails are all in the imagination. Shut up and go away. The political conspiracy is so deep that no-one thinks for themselves anymore and that is how the authorities want it. You will be told what is true and what is false and you will accept it.
Finally, it is worth noting that I asked my MP and the Mayor of Liverpool to look beyond what they were told, to look at the facts and to consider their place in history. In particular, I said the following.
“You are both public servants and I believe that you have a duty to err on the side of caution, particularly when it is a matter of public health. Do you want to go down in history as the politicians that were too ideologically blinkered to see what was actually going on? Do you want to go down in history as the politicians that failed the people of Liverpool because you could not accept the idea that something may be happening that contradicts the official line? Do you want to go down in history as being so belligerent on this matter that you were prepared to put the health of your constituents at risk from whatever chemicals are being sprayed into the air?”
Modern government is a conspiracy because the general public is no longer involved in the key decisions that affect every person’s quality of life. Modern government is a conspiracy because the politicians are just instruments of an inhuman State, which has superseded democracy and common law in favour of elitism, fascism and tyranny. Modern government is a conspiracy because the interests of the few are pursued at the expense of everyone else.
The last thing that I said to my MP (Louise Ellman) and the Mayor of Liverpool (Joe Anderson) on the matter of airplane trails is below.
“If you would at least take the time to observe what is happening in the skies above you, ask pertinent questions and conduct investigations, then you will have fulfilled your duty to your constituents but to ignore the subject altogether would be criminal. It would also be a matter of public record.”
Now, it can be said that this is a matter of public record. When the truth does eventually come out, politicians need to be held to account for their shameful inaction and total incompetence.
The LUL (Look Up Liverpool) site has just had a re-vamp to add my own photos of unnatural airplane trails over Liverpool. I was so frustrated at what I was seeing that I decided to keep a camera with me at all times so that I could take pictures. The hope was that it might make other people sit up and take notice and maybe even start to ask questions. I do get odd looks sometimes when I am seen photographing the sky but it has to be done to record the incidence of what seem to be mass pollution operations.
It is not good enough to just dismiss what is happening as a conspiracy theory. The more pictures that I take the more likely it is that natural curiosity will take over and members of the public will seek explanations for persistent and expanding airplane trails. After all, what is the science behind this secret in 'plane' sight, whereby what we are told is water vapour, now has the ability to self-generate, so that airplane trails expand many times beyond their initial size to cover larger areas. Once established, they then seem to take a very long time to dissipate.
I will email copies of the pictures that I have taken over the last few months to my local MP and to the mayor of Liverpool, in yet another attempt to get them to take the matter seriously. The pictures will also be made available on this site so that others can see more clearly what is happening and can use their common sense to assess whether these aerial activities require further investigation.
If we are being sprayed, then there will be health consequences because the particles released affect the air that we breathe and alter the purity of rainfall.
Following on from my previous article about the RVL Group, whose specialist aviation licence permits it to spray chemicals from planes on behalf of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA), I have managed to locate a video about the system being employed. The video below describes the sea pollution response capability developed by the MCA in collaboration with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).
Clearly, MCA’s aerial spraying system is intended for cleaning up oil pollution at sea. However, their promotional video fails to mention that the RVL Group has also developed a portable version of the system. It has done this in partnership with Waypoint Aeronautical, so that it can be fitted to Boeing 737 cargo planes and fully operational within 4 hours. In other words, the utilisation of such a system can be quickly expanded at short notice. Furthermore, its portable equipment can be disassembled just as easily, so that there is no trace of its usage. This means that if the government wanted a dual use facility, with the secondary option of enabling chemtrail production, then this is ready made to be exploited for that purpose. Please check out the link below which includes a video on the subject.
Within the above article, it says that "The 737 freighters would be hired from airlines and pre-configured with nozzle piping and other permanent equipment, but otherwise keep carrying freight until needed."
If this makes me sound suspicious, it is because the government failed to disclose the existence of the MCA spraying system in all correspondence on the matter of airplane trails. The government did reference weather experiments conducted by other countries but completely failed to explain that there were circumstances when chemicals would be deliberately ejected from UK aircraft.
Some may say that this just illustrates government incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive members of the public. However, the above MCA video was uploaded to YouTube more than 3 years before I raised a query with my MP on the subject of airplane trails. Also, the RVL Group has a special aviation licence to be able to perform its unique operations, which means that the Minister for Aviation should have known about it. Furthermore, the RVL Group’s aviation licence entitles the company to handle 'dangerous goods'. This means that there may be detrimental consequences to health and the environmental from the chemical dispersants employed by the RVL Group. What are the effects of such chemical aerosols on communities living inland of an oil spill and what are the effects on marine life of these toxic substances?
In my opinion, all instances where this system has been employed should be a matter of public record. In that way, we will know when chemicals are being sprayed and what impact it is having on surrounding areas.
On Sunday 18th September 2016, I noticed the presence of persistent airplane trails over Liverpool. As is now becoming normal, I went onto the website Flightradar24 to see if I could identify the culprits. Unfortunately, I was not successful in determining who was responsible for the trails but I did notice a plane with a very strange flight path. Its journey is shown below in a screen shot from Flightradar24.
The Flightradar24 website provided information on the flight and identified the operator as RVL Aviation, which is part of the RVL Group. If you go to the RVL Group website, it says that this particular organisation is a provider of specialist aviation services. This includes aerial surveillance, which may explain the bizarre route shown above. However, in the second paragraph on the company’s website, it says the following about its activities (I have added the bolding and underlining)
“Under its EASA AOC, Type A Operating Licence and Dangerous Goods Approval, RVL Group provides services to a wide range of private and public sector clients and offers expertise in areas as diverse as aerial surveillance and survey, passenger and cargo ad hoc and long-term charter, temporary and permanent aircraft modifications for project work and aerial spraying of pollution dispersants.”
Wait a minute. Did I just read that correctly? This company has a licence to handle dangerous goods, can perform aircraft modifications and is permitted to spray pollution dispersants from its aircraft. Really? Below is their promotional video.
OK, let’s rewind here. When I originally contacted my MP, Louise Ellman, to express my concerns about aircraft spraying, she referred my query to the Department for Transport (DfT). In the letter from Mr Robert Goodwill, the minister responsible for aviation at the time, he made the following statement (detailed in my posting on 15th May 2016).
“Let me reassure [you] that the Government has no credible evidence whatsoever of the release of any matter or aerosol being ejected from aircraft in the UK, other than the normal exhaust products from aircraft”.
Amongst the FAQs by the DfT on this subject, the following was provided (detailed in my posting on 18th July 2016).
“Are Department for Transport aware of Chemtrails?
In the UK the Department is not aware of any other matter or aerosol being ejected from aircraft (known as chemtrails), other than the normal exhaust products from the aircraft.”
It is important to note that the letter that I received from Mr Robert Goodwill, MP, on the subject of aircraft trails and which included FAQs, was date stamped 4th December 2014.
Within the News section of the RVL Group website, it references an article, dated 30th November 2013, which celebrates the successful testing of an adapted Boeing 737, which includes an oil dispersant capability. The flight trials took place in Dothan, Alabama and in partnership with Waypoint Aeronautical. If the trials proved successful, the intention was to employ the system in both the USA and Europe, as a means of cleaning up oil spills.
The article about the trials on the RVL Group website, incorporated the logo for the UK’s Maritime & Coastguard Agency, which means that the UK government was involved and fully aware of what was going on. The question then is why Mr Robert Goodwill, the minister for the DfT at the time, appeared to be ignorant of this project when he provided assurances that his department was “not aware of any other matter or aerosol being ejected from aircraft”. Strictly speaking, he was correct because the trials were not happening in the UK. However, the intention to bring this capability to the UK in the future was known, particularly since it required a specialist aviation licence.
Some people may say that this has nothing to do with persistent airplane trails because the system being developed is for clearing up oil spills. That may be true, but I no longer trust the official line. If this system exists, then it has the potential to be used to spray substances into the atmosphere for reasons other than cleaning away environmental pollutants. In fact, one of the representatives from Waypoint Aeronautical likened the system to a 'crop sprayer'. This makes you wonder why the DfT failed to acknowledge the existence of such a project in the first place.
This is what Waypoint Aeronautical says about its involvement.
“Our team is currently working with the British aviation company RVL Group, to produce the first palletized aerial dispersant spray system for a jet aircraft. The technology will allow jet aircraft to respond to oil spills impacting sensitive coastlines within hours of a spill.”
The promotional video by Waypoint Aeronautical is very similar to the one used by the RVL Group, but it does provide a better illustration of how the system works.
This matter needs to be carefully monitored, as I suspect that we are not being told the full story.
Recently, I became aware of a documentary that addresses the phenomenon of airplane trails. It highlights the same issues that I have observed with planes flying over Merseyside. It also provides details of where to conduct further research into what is happening to our skies.
Our elected politicians will continue to bury their heads in the sand over this matter until their constituents insist that something is done to investigate what is really going on. I encourage people to respectfully express their concerns to their elected representatives by asking for a proper public enquiry. This issue is not going away and the sooner that our MPs realise this, the better it will be for everyone.
Below is a promotional clip from the ‘Look Up!’ documentary. I hope it is useful in helping the public to prod public officials into taking the matter seriously.
This is an update to the original posting.
August bank holiday Monday, 2016, was a sunny day and for most of that day, airplane trails were noticeably absent from Liverpool’s skyline. That was until late evening when I was drawing the curtains and noticed a sudden rash of white trails hanging over the city. I therefore went onto Planefinder to see if I could identify the aircraft responsible for this atmospheric graffiti. While I cannot be sure that the plane detailed below was the source of the trails, there is no doubt that its flight path is highly suspicious.
What I later discovered about this is odd journey is that it did not happen. It turns out that this strange flight path is a processing error by the Planefinder website. This particular ‘Flybe’ plane is not transmitting its flight details by using a system called Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). Currently, ADS-B is not mandatory but it is the new standard that is being introduced over time and all planes will eventually be compelled to use it. Consequently, this flight has been tracked through the use of ground stations and a system called Multilateration (MLAT). The problem with MLAT is that it requires a minimum of 3 groundstations to detect a plane in flight and to accurately calculate its position. The Planefinder website then uses the data about a plane's position to track its flight path and display it on screen.
The screenshot above describes 6 of the 8 flights that this plane undertook on 29 August 2016. Somehow, the Planefinder software has failed to realise when the plane has landed, so that it can terminate the flight. Instead, when the plane has taken off again, the software has assumed that it is continuing on the same journey. It has also filled in the flight data gaps created when the plane landed, so that it appears to be the continuation of a long and circular flight.
This has taught me an important lesson about MLAT data. I believe that aircraft are involved in spraying activities over large parts of Britain. However, it is important that the evidence collected is as robust as possible, otherwise it undermines attempts to get others to take the issue seriously.
There is another website called FlightRadar24, which provides similar flight details to Planefinder and it is worthwhile cross-checking flight details across both websites when observing what appear to be suspicious flight activities.
Most of the strange flights that I have observed are by non-commercial aircraft whose journeys are tracked by MLAT. However, it is possible that these flights have also been inaccurately described because of the same problems to the ones described above.
While ADS-B is a reliable system, MLAT does have shortcomings and these need to be recognised when observing what appear to be unusual flight patterns.
One of the biggest obstacles in convincing others that there is something unusual happening in the skies above them is obtaining proof. The website Planefinder is a worthwhile resource for obtaining the evidence needed to demonstrate that unlawful airplane spraying could be taking place.
I was already aware of Planefinder, but unless things have recently changed in terms of the details displayed, I did not realise what a mine of information this website provides.
If you hover your mouse over a plane as it moves across the screen, it will display summary details about the journey. By clicking on the plane, it will highlight the path that the plane has taken and provide more detailed information about the flight in a panel on the left hand side.
Most of the planes displayed on the site are standard commercial aircraft that transmit data about their flights by utilising a system called Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). Smaller and older planes do not necessarily transmit full details about their flights and the only way to confirm their location is through a system called Multilateration (MLAT).
What I have discovered is that planes that utilise MLAT are more likely to display abnormal flight paths, whereby they take indirect routes to their destinations. On the face of it, this might not seem to be significant, as minor flight path variations are commonplace. However, over a couple of days, I identified numerous flights where the degree of deviation from a straightforward flight path was enormous. In some cases, the flights crossed into other countries and travelled overseas, only to eventually land at a location near to where they took off.
A key benefit of the Planefinder site is that you can apply a filter, so that it only displays MLAT planes, and this makes it much easier to identify flights that behave abnormally.
Planefinder says that it does restrict the information displayed, so that it does not compromise national security, which I believe means that it excludes military aircraft. However, even if military aircraft are not included, the information on MLAT flights is very interesting. I just hope that this data set is not restricted at a later date.
It is worth noting that there is one commercial operator that does not transmit data on all of its flights in the normal way. Some ‘Flybe’ journeys are displayed by utilising MLAT and show extraordinarily circuitous routes. Furthermore, ‘Flybe’ has links to the UK military through ‘Flybe Aviation Services’ (FAS), which provides a Maintenance Repair & Overhaul (MRO) service for the RAF’s fleet of A400M aircraft. The FAS contract has been secured via Airbus Military.
Below is a slideshow of screen shots from the Planefinder website, which displays the bizarre flight patterns that I observed. I start with those that fly near to Liverpool and then look at similarly irregular flights that pass through the UK.
The famous saying “Follow the money”, comes from the film ‘All the President’s Men’, which is about the Watergate scandal. It suggests that if you want to get to the heart of corruption, you have to follow the money trail and see who is providing the resources to fund illegal activities.
This logic should be applied to aircraft trails. If aircraft have been spraying contaminants into the atmosphere for a number of years, then there will be a logistics network in place to ensure that the chemicals being added to aircraft trails are readily available.
The main contaminant that seems to be present in various samples from air, rainfall and soil, is aluminium. So, the question is who manufactures and supplies aluminium in a form that would be suitable for spraying from aircraft? Also, if these illicit aircraft activities are happening on a large scale and for sustained periods of time, then it makes sense to keep the aluminium transport costs to a minimum, and the best way to do that is to locate the producers of aluminium close to the airports where the flights operate from. If that is not possible, then the next best thing would be to locate an aluminium factory near to a port or transport hub, so that it is easier to receive raw materials and to ship finished goods.
When I have watched airplanes spraying over Liverpool, I have noticed that they seem to originate from west of Merseyside. After some research, it seemed that RAF Valley on the Isle of Anglesey, in North Wales, could be the likely candidate. I therefore decided to check out the airport and the surrounding area on Google Maps. It was then that I discovered that within a short distance of RAF Valley, is a defence company called Aluminium Powder. Not only is it located near to a military controlled air field but it is also located near to the port of Holyhead.
Maybe this is a coincidence. Maybe not.
If you look at the Defence Suppliers Directory for the Aluminium Powder Company (Alpoco), it says that it is “among the world’s largest manufacturers of aluminium powders and granules...The company has established a leading position in the supply of superfine aluminium powders”.
Alpoco is a subsidiary company of Advanced Metallurgic Group (AMG) Superalloys UK (the new name for the London & Scandinavian Metallurgical Co. Ltd), which is a subsidiary of AMG Advanced Metallurgic Group N.V.
There are many legitimate uses of aluminium within commercial and military settings but the question is whether aluminium is being used to generate toxic airplane trails over large parts of the UK. If this is happening, then the producers of aluminium powders need to be more transparent about the usage of their outputs, as there is a strong argument for saying that they are responsible for the handling of hazardous materials, even after they have been sold on to other organisations. In other words, if UK citizens are being submitted to sustained levels of pollutants, then the suppliers of such materials should be equally accountable as those that use their products in unethical ways. After all, you would not sell military equipment to criminals, so why would you sell harmful chemicals to those who do not use them responsibly, even if that includes our own government.
Follow the chemistry and make the producers accountable.