Recently, I was contacted by Matthias Hancke, who made me aware of a documentary called ‘Overcast’ that he has spent the last 6 years producing. I have to admit that so far I have only seen the promotional trailers for the film but I have been impressed by the efforts of Matthias and his team to establish the chemical composition of man-made clouds produced from aircraft trails.
In all other cases, claims about the damage caused by geoengineering relate to the results of soil and rainfall samples. However, in Overcast, the production team has gone to the source of the problem by flying directly into the trails produced by aircraft operating out of Zurich airport and sampling the content of those trails. The results of the tests from the Zurich samples, which were examined by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, is that aircraft trails contain higher than expected levels of aluminium and barium. What shocked me is that the samples were taken from normal aircraft exhaust, which means that these poisons have been added to the jet fuel in the same way that lead was once added to the petrol used by motor vehicles. For me, this shows that there are two aspects to the geoengineering/chemtrail phenomenon. On the one hand, there are non-commercial planes directly spraying pollutants into the atmosphere. On the other hand, there is the more surreptitious means of adding pollutants to jet fuel so that every aircraft that takes to the skies, whether the owners or operators are aware of it or not, is drafted into the Squadrons of Geoengineering. It is worth pointing out that I sent details of this documentary to my MP (Louise Ellman) and to Mr Robert Goodwill of the Department for Transport (DfT), as well as to Frank Field, who is another local MP, but neither has responded to my email, not even to acknowledge receipt. So much for living in a representative democracy! The reality is that I should not have been surprised by the lack of a response, as the previous email that I sent my MP in August 2015 asked the following. “Please will you outline for me how you intend to ensure that the people of Liverpool are not unwittingly taking part in defence trials or geo-engineering experiments?” That request never received an answer either. The key question that ‘Overcast’ raises and needs answering is how the poisons are added to the jet fuel and who the suppliers are? For now though, I will leave you with the links below to the promotional trailers for ‘Overcast The Movie’, along with a link to its website.
0 Comments
Having begun by looking at the content of the letter from Mr Robert Goodwill, which was then followed by scrutiny of the first part of the FAQ issued by the Department for Transport (DfT), the third and final posting on this particular subject will complete the analysis of the information provided to the public, by examining the second part of the FAQ .
We begin with what is a very simple question but where the answer is anything but. The actual wording of the question is poor but this is how it is presented by the DfT. “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. We are aware that other countries have on occasions used weather modification techniques, such as cloud seeding, which causes precipitation by introducing substances into cumulus clouds that cause condensation. However, these techniques are aimed at reducing the locally damaging impacts of hail, or promoting rainfall, and have no impact on climate and should not be considered to be geoengineering. Since 1977, cloud seeding and environmental techniques have been subject to international regulation. In 1977, countries agreed the Convention of the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD). The treaty forbade the use of environmental modification techniques in hostile circumstances. See the following link for further details." http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm Even though this is a very straightforward question, the DfT seems to have difficulty providing a direct answer. It starts by limiting the scope of the answer to “In the UK” and to what the Department is “aware of”, rather than what is actually known by the government about chemtrails. My response to my MP and the minister was as follows. “What does this really mean? To say that you are not aware of something is to admit your ignorance on the matter. Alternatively, he could have said that he knew that it was not happening, which would be a positive statement, if it was based upon real knowledge. Is he unaware because he is ignorant of the facts or because he has failed to make himself aware of what the facts actually are?" The answer by the DfT includes a rambling about the activities of “other countries”, which seems to be designed to deflect the reader away from what is actually happening in the UK. I pointed this out to my MP and the minister. “It seems that the Government is more aware of what is happening overseas than in the UK. However, if cloud seeding “causes precipitation”, which affects the level of condensation in clouds, to the point that it reduces hail or increases rain, then, it is fair to conclude that cloud seeding affects the climate. Yet, within the same sentence, he states that these techniques have “no impact on climate” and “should not be considered to be geoengineering”. In other words, it is a unique form of cloud manipulation that changes the weather without affecting climactic conditions. Also, why foreign activities are relevant to the UK, or why we should be concerned by what they are called, is not explained. Maybe the suggestion here is that weather modification by other nations is having a detrimental affect on UK citizens because of the techniques used. Please can you explain how it is that cloud seeding affects hail and rain but does not affect the climate, why it should not be considered to be geoengineering and what the detrimental affects to UK citizens are from the activities of other nations in this area?" The answer concluded by talking about an international treaty on environmental modification techniques and pointed out that the treaty forbade the use of such techniques in “hostile circumstances”. To me, this means that if the circumstances are not hostile, then the use of such techniques is not forbidden. My response to my MP and the minister was as follows. “This is an interesting comment because we are not in “hostile circumstances” (unless there is something that I do not know about). It also suggests that if the current conditions are “non-hostile”, then there are no such restrictions in place. As such, it would be possible for “environmental modification techniques” to be utilised domestically. Please can you explain whether the Government is directly, or indirectly, undertaking any form of environmental modification in the UK and, if it is, whether it is subject to any form of oversight to ensure the protection of the public’s welfare?" The next question on the DfT’s FAQ concerns itself with persistent airplane trails but the question is framed in such a way as to link this phenomenon to contrails, when no such link has ever been established. Ordinarily, water vapour (contrails) will dissipate but chemical trails (chemtrails) tend to persist in the atmosphere for considerable periods of time. “Why do contrails seem to form grid like patterns in the sky and why are they long lasting? Should they not disappear within a few minutes?" Aircraft often follow similar routes separated by altitude, time or lateral distance and that is why you see grid like patterns in the sky. There is now widely accepted scientific evidence that contrails can grow and persist in the sky to form larger clouds that become indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds." I responded to my MP and the minister with the following observations. “This is an irrational argument. The regularity by which flight routes in the UK are utilised, is not in and of itself, an explanation for the formation of grid patterns. He claims that there is “widely accepted scientific evidence” for the growth and persistence of contrails but he does not reference any peer reviewed scientific journals in this area or what “widely accepted” actually means in terms of a scientific consensus. Also, his claim is that “contrails can grow and persist”, not that there is evidence that they do. Please can you provide independent scientific evidence that endorses the Government’s view that contrails do “grow and persist”?" The subsequent question on the FAQ addresses possible health concerns but once again, the question is framed in terms of contrails, instead of chemtrails. “Are there any ill health effects caused by contrails? There is no evidence that contrails cause health problems. The main impact of aviation on ground local air quality relates to emissions during the landing and take-off phase up to 3000 feet. Above this height the oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter which can cause respiratory problems become dispersed." I responded to my MP and the minister with the following comments. “This is extremely misleading. The issue is not contrails; it is about aircraft that are dispersing contaminants. By linking these two separate issues, he is deliberately creating a false association. It would be like focussing on the exhaust fumes of a car operating a crop sprayer from its roof rack. What do contrails have to do with the unlawful spraying of poisons into the atmosphere?" I then addressed the comments about respiratory problems being an issue at certain heights. "This is also misleading. The “main impact” really means the immediate impact. Air circulates throughout the atmosphere all of the time, so the idea that pollutants released above 3000 feet remain at that altitude is ludicrous. What has this got to do with non-contrail pollution?" The final question deals with the impact on the climate but once again is framed in terms of contrails, not chemtrails. It also contradicts an earlier assertion that weather modification techniques have no impact on climate, whereas airplane condensation trails do. "Are there any climatic implications from contrails? We are interested in understanding the formation and coverage of contrails from a climate change perspective." I commented as follows. "As before, this is the old magician’s trick of mis-direction. The issue is not contrails. What people are concerned about is being part of a mass experiment that they have not consented to. The Government should confirm if such experiments could be happening now, given that they have in the past, but were concealed by the Official Secrets Act. Is it possible that a Government agency could have authorised such activities, even if the Department for Transport spokesman is unaware of it?" Having addressed the content of the letter that I received from Mr Robert Goodwill, who describes himself as ‘the minister responsible for aviation’, I will now deal with the first part of the FAQ that the Department for Transport (DfT) issues to concerned members of the public.
When looking at the questions posed and the answers provided by the DfT, it is worthwhile not just looking at what is said but also what is left unsaid. "According to some reports contrails contain barium or compounds of aluminium and silicon (often called aluminiosilicates). Is this correct? We understand from the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that measurements undertaken in the UK since 2004 have shown no significant increase in concentrations of barium in rainwater measured at rural sites across the UK. Moreover alumina-silicates are common in clay soils and a wide range of other minerals, therefore measurements in air and soils are dominated by the ground level sources of aluminosilicates rather than any that might come from contrails." First, we need to be careful with terminology here. The DfT is talking about ‘contrails’, whereas my concerns, and those of other members of the public, are about un-natural aircraft trails, often referred to as ‘chemtrails’. By talking about contrails, the minister is deliberately excluding activities that do not relate to natural condensation trails. In this way, he makes the scope of his discussions ludicrously narrow. Second, the words he chooses are evasive and misleading and I pointed that out in my response to my MP and the minister. "This is an answer to a question that simply sought to establish whether reports on the contents of contrails are correct. The response starts with “We understand”, which is just a comment about the level of comprehension, rather than a statement about the facts. It also refers to DEFRA tests conducted “since 2004”. This is significant because later in the document, there is a reference to a treaty on weather modification in 1977. Given that this occurred 38 years ago, surely there would have been a need to monitor adherence to such an agreement? Maybe the lack of earlier evidence is because DEFRA was not formed until 2001. However, it was partly created from the previous Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food, which was formally established in 1919. Can you please explain why DEFRA did not reference MAFF data prior to 2004 when conducting its analysis?" Third, the minister talks about ‘no significant increase’ and this is how I responded to my MP and the minister about that particular assertion. "Once again, we have a subjective assessment. To say that there is “no significant increase” is to make an unsubstantiated claim. After all, what is meant by “significant”? It is not a statement of fact, but just a comment used to justify a conclusion. Nevertheless, it is revealing because it says that there has been an increase in the concentrations of barium in rainwater. But as before, in the Government’s opinion, it is an unimportant rise. Can you please confirm what the measurements are that he is referring to, the increases that have been observed and what the source of the contamination is?" Fourth, the minister refers to ‘rainwater measured at rural sites across the UK’. He does not say exactly when or where the measurements were taken from, which I pointed out to my MP and the minister. "Here, we are told that the samples used to derive the measurements, were of “rainwater” from various “rural sites” across the UK. If the measurements are from rainwater, then they are derived from water that falls as rain. This is stating what should be an obvious point but it is important because later in the paragraph, he refers to “measurements in air and soils”, which by definition are not rainwater. As such, it cannot possibly have any scientific relevance because it is not part of the original data set. However, there is a logic to using rainwater data as it will capture airborne contaminants. But there is no logic at all in only taking measurements at an unspecified number of rural sites, given that the vast majority of the population live in built up conurbations. Why was only rainwater measured, why only at rural sites and where are those sites?" In summary, we can see that from a 75 word answer by the DfT to the first question in its own FAQ, I have identified four key concerns. The DfT concentrates on ‘contrails’ and avoids ‘chemtrails’. It talks about what is ‘understood’, rather than what is known and what is unknown. It makes assertions about what is ‘significant’ and then finally, it refers to ‘measures’, without saying when they were taken or where they were taken from. This is what we are up against when dealing with the UK government on matters of public health and welfare. Worst of all, the mainstream media avoids the subject of aircraft trails and weather modification experiments like the plague. The third and final part of this series will look at more dubious answers by the DfT to questions from its own FAQ. Having waited a long time for a proper response to my enquiries from my MP Louise Ellman, it is now time to publish the information that the government issues to UK residents about airplane trails. As there is quite a lot to information to share on this matter, I will communicate the details in three parts. This is the first part and just deals with the letter that I received from the Department for Transport. Attached to the letter was a Q&A, which I will deal with in parts two and three.
In response to my original enquiry, my MP forwarded my concerns to the Minister of State for the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Robert Goodwill. On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable thing to do. However, the DfT only has oversight of general and commercial aircraft. It is a public body that has no power to monitor all types of aviation in the UK. Military aircraft fall under the control of the Ministry of Defence. This is important because my original enquiry specifically described aircraft movements that could not have been made by commercial aircraft flying from normal airports. I believe that the reason why my enquiry was forwarded to the DfT, is because this particular government department has been tasked with managing public concern about aircraft trails. It does this by acting as a conduit for enquiries by the public and then nullifying them by deliberately deceiving people through a policy of misinformation and propaganda. Even though the DfT does not have full oversight of UK airspace, it does not stop it from making broad sweeping statements about its area of control, whilst implying that such statements apply equally to areas outside of its remit. It is a brilliant sleight of hand that has ‘built in deniability’ because of the fragmentation of control of UK airspace. Such fragmentation has not happened by accident. It is by such a design that enquiries by the public are easily dismissed, whilst those in power neatly avoid accountability. In his letter to me, Robert Goodwill started by saying: “I am replying as Minister responsible for aviation.” Not only was this the first thing that the Minister said, it was his first attempt to mislead. Aviation is a very broad term. The DfT is not responsible for ‘aviation’ in its broadest sense. It is in charge of civil aviation. I made this clear in my subsequent response to both my MP and him, where I said: “The role of Minister responsible for aviation sits within the Department for Transport and as far as I can tell, its focus is on civil aviation. My original email specifically referred to non-commercial aircraft, flying at low altitudes, from military/private airfields and therefore your response should have included details of consultations with the MoD and DEFRA. After all, if private flights are conducting activities that threaten the health of UK citizens, you’d think that these two ministries at the very least would want to know about it. Why did you direct my query to the Department for Transport, when it is clearly not a civil aviation issue”? The second paragraph in the Minister’s letter to me was even more deceitful. He said: “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”. Having already established that the Minister is only responsible for civil aviation, Robert Goodwill now makes a statement on behalf of the Government (not his department), where he offers reassurance about something that is not entirely within his control. Such reassurance is subjective and implies that he has been unable to unearth ‘credible’ evidence, even though he does not point to any efforts to even conduct an investigation. Furthermore, what is considered ‘credible’ will vary from one person to another. As such, my response to my MP and Mr Goodwill was: “The Minister responsible for civil aviation is now speaking for all Government departments. Surely, he is not in a position to do so and to make assertions about ‘evidence’ when his personal remit is so narrow. However, he is not just making a claim outside of his area of expertise; he is making a judgement about its quality. He says that there is no ‘credible’ evidence. This is a subjective judgement as opinions about what is credible will vary. But by making such a comment, he reveals that there is evidence. It is just that the Government (for whom he speaks) does not consider it to be significant. Can you please provide me with details of the evidence that he is referring to?” The third paragraph in Robert Goodwill’s letter provides an explanation of what causes contrails, even though this was never part of my original enquiry. In this way, the DfT creates a false association between suspicious aircraft trails and normal contrails. It is another example of government misinformation. The fourth and final paragraph deals with the fact that concerns over aircraft trails are widespread, even though they go unreported by the mainstream media. My Goodwill says: “The Department has received a number of letters on this issue. As a result, we have put together a Q&A which aims to answer some of the most common questions we receive. A copy is attached”. The details of the Q&A will be dealt with in the next two parts on this particular subject. However, I did make the following comment to my MP and Mr Goodwill: “Why do you suppose that this is the case? Are all of the people that makes these observations mistaken, or could there be something more to it? If so many observations have been reported that it has been necessary to compile a set of FAQs, then why is this matter being handled by a minor department within the Ministry [for] Transport?”
With Prince's recent untimely death, it is necessary to highlight his concerns about what is going on in the skies above us. Prince recorded a song called 'Dreamer' about 'this phenomenon of chemtrails' and then took the very rare step of discussing it on television, which is something that never happens in the mainstream media.
Please watch both clips below. The first one explains how Prince became aware of airplane trails. The second one is the actual song Dreamer, where Prince appeals to us all to ‘wake up’. Please wake up and help others to wake up too. P.S. I have now had to upload this video 3 times because the first 2 that I uploaded were removed. The reason provided for the most recent removal was that it breached the PBS Travis Smiley copyright but there are many more clips on Youtube for this particular show, so that alone cannot be the reason. Instead, it seems that if there is something controversial on Youtube, it mysteriously disappears and can no longer be accessed. Maybe that says something in itself. The powers that be do not want the public to see videos where famous people promote the idea of a cover-up concerning chemtrails.
Please find below a video of Kristen Meghan giving a talk, where she explains her role in the U.S. Air Force to track the use and disposal of hazardous materials. As a result of doing her job correctly, asking the right questions and insisting on the answers, she faced intimidation by senior officers.
As part of her speech, Kristen makes an extremely valid point about those that work in the military and who are aware of what is happening. How can you join the military and claim that you are prepared to go to war and give your life to protect your country, whilst simultaneously being too fearful to come forward and expose wrong doing to the people of your country during peace time? If service personnel are generally regarded to be brave people, why are they so scared to come forward on this issue? In the end, only time will tell. However, for those that have been involved, either directly or indirectly, the old excuse of following orders will not suffice. When the news finally does get out, the public will rightly insist upon an unrestricted criminal investigation and prosecution of all participants, whatever their level of involvement. Hopefully, it will also include the passive collaborators in parliament, local government, the scientific community and the media, who turn a blind eye to what is happening or who insist that there is no evidence, when they have conducted no meaningful investigations into what the evidence really is. When I really started paying attention to aircraft trails over Liverpool, I tried to work out where the planes were coming from and going to. The best that I could do to narrow down the locations, was to realise that many of the planes seemed to operate out of North Wales. Also, I noticed that the planes were not commercial aircraft, even though they did look like passenger jets. Oddly, they never seemed to fly at high altitude and their strange manoeuvres suggested to me that they could not be from standard airports; they could only be flying from private or military airfields.
The closest North Wales airfield to Liverpool of any significance is Broughton, which is near the town of Hawarden. It is also referred to as Chester Airport because of its close proximity to the ancient walled city. The Broughton site was established during the Second World War and is now operated by the Airbus Group. Historically, the site’s security has been provided by the MoD but it is now under the control of the North Wales Police. Many airfields around the UK naturally have links to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) through their history with the Royal Air Force (RAF). As such, many aircraft manufacturers and defence contractors have also been established at these sites, for matters of convenience and security. The question we now need to ask is whether the MoD is using these airfields and its relationships with the on-site manufacturers, as the method by which to release contaminants into the air and onto the unsuspecting public below? The strange thing about Broughton is that within its perimeter, there is a manufacturing company that has nothing to do with aircraft parts or components. The company is called Altitude Aluminium and it specialises in the production of aluminium windows and doors. Maybe this has come about because of Broughton’s post war history, where prefabricated aluminium bungalows were produced by a company called Vickers. Nevertheless, it does seem highly unusual that such a company should operate from within the controlled security border. In other words, you cannot just walk up to its reception; you have to pass through a military style check point first. This would not be controversial if aircraft trails were not associated with the release of aluminium particulates around the world. There are numerous claims that aluminium is used to produce the expanding persistent white trails, which are subsequently contaminating the rainwater and the soil. I am not saying that this particular (and rather bizarrely named) company is doing anything wrong but it is an extraordinary set of circumstances. Strangely, there is also a car restoration company operating within the perimeter but it does not specialise in aluminium products. Whatever the reasons are for the current arrangement at Broughton airfield, it is a shame that we know longer have investigative journalists in the UK who are prepared to dig a little deeper on such matters, when it is clearly in the public interest to do so. If aeroplanes are spraying substances into UK air space, without the knowledge or consent of its citizens, then it stands to reason that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) must be aware of these activities, as it is the organisation tasked with protecting the UK.
All planes in the UK require a flight plan and approval to take to the air. Therefore, if someone were to embark on a flight with malicious intent, such as releasing harmful agents into the atmosphere, then you would think that the MoD would want to know about it, would take such a threat seriously and would do everything that it could to prevent such an attack from happening. In fact, given the current climate, where we are told to be mindful that others intend to harm us and where vigilance is encouraged, you have to wonder why the MoD does not regard the unauthorised dispersal of unknown contaminants into UK air space to be a problem. The only conclusion that I can come to, is that the MoD is unconcerned because it is fully aware of what is happening. The MoD’s claims to the contrary are as reliable as its accounting practices. If you look at the latest set of Annual Reports and Accounts for the MoD (2014-2015), there is a revealing comment by Sir Amyas C. E. Morse within Chapter 6: Certificate of the Comptroller And Auditor General. In a section at the top of page 105, titled ‘Basis for Qualified Opinion on Financial Statements’, the following is noted about the reliability of the MoD’s accounts: The Department does not hold records to enable compliance with the Financial Reporting Framework and account for the expenditure, assets and liabilities arising from certain contracts in accordance with International Accounting Standard 17, Leases. Consequently, I have concluded that the Ministry of Defence has omitted a material value of leased assets and lease liabilities from its Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2013, 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015. This has also led to a material misstatement of the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure for 2013-14 and 2014-15 and Statement of Parliamentary Supply for 2013-14 and 2014-15. I am unable to quantify the impact on the financial statements because the Ministry of Defence has not maintained the records or obtained the information required to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards in this respect. This is a minor statement given the overall size of the report but it is significant because it basically says that the accounts are not accurate because appropriate records have not been kept and that this has been the case for the last three years and so is still likely to be the case today. All we know is that it applies to certain unspecified contracts, resulting in an omission of 'material value', such that the 'impact' on the 'financial statements' is 'unquantifiable'. It is nothing short of a scandal. According to the Serious Fraud Office, the general criminal offence of fraud can include:
Is it not reasonable to ask if criminal activity is taking place at the MoD, for all three of the reasons listed above? Furthermore, if that is the case, could the MoD be concealing other on-going criminal activities, such as the operations responsible for aeroplane trails? Is it any wonder that people distrust claims from those in authority that nothing suspicious is happening in UK air space? The people in the UK have been far too trusting for far too long and it is no good for authorities to just assert that something is not happening. It needs to be demonstrated to an independent team of auditors with scientific legitimacy, who can undertake the necessary tests and who will have unrestricted access to the airports and airfields where the planes originate from.
Recently, I added a Links page to this site The aim is to provide alternative sources of information on items related to this blog.
At the top of the list has to be the Agriculture Defense Coalition, co-founded by Rosalind Peterson. I became aware of this site after seeing a video of Rosalind making a presentation to the United Nations on weather experiments and aeroplane trails. Rosalind presents a compelling case, which I think will earn a place in history. I advise everyone to watch this video and to then ask yourself why the mainstream media has failed to investigate Rosalind's claims, or even to report on them in the first place. In October 2014, I wrote to my M.P. (Louise Ellman) about the prevalence of aircraft trails over Liverpool. Below is a copy of the main body of the email that I sent and the questions that I asked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ms Ellman, I live in the Liverpool Riverside constituency and seek your help on a matter that causes me a great deal of concern. Throughout the summer months, I became very aware of aircraft that were flying over Liverpool and leaving trails of a substance that lingers in the air and expands. Furthermore, the aircraft turn around and repeat the process, until the sky is a mess of intersecting flight trails that form a lattice of a slowly expanding material, until the sky is just a haze. The flights that I saw were operational either in the morning or in the evening, and on days when it was noticeably sunny. They also seem to originate, in many cases, from North Wales. The fact that this is happening is indisputable. However, I have a number of questions that I seek answers to, because I believe that what is happening is unlawful and potentially hazardous to health. As a member of parliament, responsible for the area in which I live in, I assume that this is something that you are aware of. If not, then you will have the means to find out what is going on. We know that the government conducted experiments on the UK population in the past. Millions were in germ war tests The questions that concern me are:
I also hope that you will support me, should I choose in the future, to distribute leaflets to the people of Liverpool, so that they are aware of what is happening in the skies above them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
CategoriesArchives
January 2018
|