2011 May26 from G. Edward Griffin
INVESTIGATORS WANTED
Can Chemtrails be proved?
It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many labora...tory tests we collect, they always seem to come up ...with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.
SKI SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow in merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from some toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by claiming that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.
Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain away the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and align themselves with the prevailing view.
DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.
We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But that will take a little time to pull the facts together.
Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, I think our critics will run out of plausible-denial theories.
PLANE FINDER
One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this Ap on an iPhone is about $4, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs actually are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and private aircraft. Military aircraft and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.
I'm sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing a trail from horizon-to-horizon will all be identified as merely commercial craft and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system ... well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.
To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable. Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a plane that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters. One blogger who is not happy with the technology claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of some interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.) In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.
In spite of the debunkers, there is an opportunity here to collect data that will be very compelling, even if there are areas not serviced by the technology and even if a small percentage of commercial planes are, in fact, without transmitters. If we can demonstrate that most flights with long trails are missing from the system, I think we will have put the final nail into the coffin of chemtrail denial.
TWO-EDGED SWORD
This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from the same scheduled planes that carry passengers? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who are convinced that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.
Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: http://planefinder.net/. Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you should be able to go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has very long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight including the time.
For those with iPhones or other smart phones that can handle the Plane Finder Ap, purchase it and install it. Then, every time you see a plane, aim the camera lens of the phone at the plane and record its identification, including the time.
That's it. If 50 or 100 people will do this, and if they are able to collect data on flights over a one-month period, we will have a data base of immense value. When complete, please prepare a summary, including the locations where observations were made and a brief summary of your experience, and send it to me at gedward.griffin@verizon.net.
Are we going to have fun or what?
Ed Griffin
INVESTIGATORS WANTED
Can Chemtrails be proved?
It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many labora...tory tests we collect, they always seem to come up ...with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.
SKI SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow in merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from some toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by claiming that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.
Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain away the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and align themselves with the prevailing view.
DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.
We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But that will take a little time to pull the facts together.
Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, I think our critics will run out of plausible-denial theories.
PLANE FINDER
One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this Ap on an iPhone is about $4, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs actually are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and private aircraft. Military aircraft and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.
I'm sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing a trail from horizon-to-horizon will all be identified as merely commercial craft and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system ... well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.
To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable. Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a plane that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters. One blogger who is not happy with the technology claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of some interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.) In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.
In spite of the debunkers, there is an opportunity here to collect data that will be very compelling, even if there are areas not serviced by the technology and even if a small percentage of commercial planes are, in fact, without transmitters. If we can demonstrate that most flights with long trails are missing from the system, I think we will have put the final nail into the coffin of chemtrail denial.
TWO-EDGED SWORD
This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from the same scheduled planes that carry passengers? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who are convinced that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.
Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: http://planefinder.net/. Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you should be able to go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has very long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight including the time.
For those with iPhones or other smart phones that can handle the Plane Finder Ap, purchase it and install it. Then, every time you see a plane, aim the camera lens of the phone at the plane and record its identification, including the time.
That's it. If 50 or 100 people will do this, and if they are able to collect data on flights over a one-month period, we will have a data base of immense value. When complete, please prepare a summary, including the locations where observations were made and a brief summary of your experience, and send it to me at gedward.griffin@verizon.net.
Are we going to have fun or what?
Ed Griffin
