Follow Us on Twitter

Like us on Facebook!

Error occured while retrieving the facebook feed

Donate to AltNews.INFO

Our BTC Address: 3D5W9V6husNZuhapxGMbRLnwWQDMGoXcwZ

NOTICE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY All intellectual property rights to the various posts, materials, and cartoons belong solely to their respective creators. No claim is made here to the intellectual creations of others.

A Link Between Monsanto, Blackwater & Bill Gates?

Iconoclast says: As more and more evidence of a global food conspiracy start to emerge, the financial connections eventually have to become clear. The following research indicates that the military industrial complex is behind this deliberate destruction of the world’s edible food supply, to be replaced by the bioengineered foods which contain any number of things we may not even know about yet, which could potentially act as a catalyst to some sort of mass extinction event, as the elite have outspokenly advocated for. Check out the Georgia Guidestones.  This is their open plan to reduce our numbers. This is the ends to that means if there was any. Control the food, and you control the population. Control the water, and the air, and you control the population. Maintain the only real seeds left on the planet, and you control the population.

Disinfo Blog | Posted by majestic on January 3, 2011


There’s an unlikely story circulating on various underground news sites claiming that the controversial biotech company Monsanto has acquired infamous mercenary outfit Blackwater (now trading as Xe Services). The report apparently first appeared in La Jornada, one of Mexico City’s leading daily newspapers, described by Noam Chomsky as “the one independent newspaper in the whole hemisphere.” Pravda has translated the original Spanish text written by Silvia Ribeiro into English. From my reading of the Jeremy Scahill article that seems to form the basis of the report, the most you can deduce is that Monsanto hired the creeps at Blackwater to do dirty work for them, but the rumor keeps circulating, so could there be a grain of truth somewhere in this story?:

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

* The author is a researcher at ETC Group

Declassified NZ Defense Force Reports Reveal Chemtrails Linked To Outbreak Of Illnesses

Optimizing the Effectiveness of Directed Energy Weapons with Specialized Weather Support

Maj De Leon C. Narcisse, USAF
Lt Col Steven T. Fiorino, USAF
Col Richard J. Bartell, USAFR*

When the thunderclap comes, there is no time to cover the ears.
—Sun Tzu

Accurate characterization of the atmosphere is essential to maximizing the use of directed energy (DE) weapons. Developing, procuring, and sustaining such weapons has been and will continue to be difficult; therefore, it is imperative that they achieve optimum effect when employed. The atmosphere, a highly dynamic medium in which these systems must operate, can significantly impact their effectiveness, thus necessitating an understanding of this environment and a capability to predict it. DE systems, particularly high-energy lasers (HEL) employed at low altitudes, will exhibit significant variations in performance based on location, time of day, and time of year. Through the Air Force Weather Agency, the Air Force Weather (AFW) community provides centralized terrestrial and space weather support to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force, Army, unified commands, national intelligence community, and other agencies as directed.1 This article outlines some of the unique atmospheric influences on DE weapons and the ways that specialized weather support can enhance the mission capability and efficacy of those weapons.

Anticipating the changing nature of warfare is part of the responsibility that AFW shares with other parts of the Department of Defense (DOD) after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. AFW cannot afford to wait for DE weapons events to happen and then react. According to the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2006, “new capabilities [are] needed by Combatant Commanders to confront asymmetric threats.”2 Not all of the “new capabilities” are the weapons themselves; much of the advancing technology in the DE weapons realm involves the transition of high-fidelity modeling and simulation competencies into mission-planning tools. These decision aids, coupled with timely and accurate environmental assessments, would enable the DE weaponeer to optimize an employment strategy. AFW’s ability to guide the employment of DE weapons in all environments—via accurate determination of how to exploit information on target-area weather conditions to best advantage—is essential to secure the battlespace of tomorrow. Identifying the optimum time of day, attack heading, and attack altitude for low-altitude employment of HELs serves as an example of such information exploitation.

Major Types of Directed
Energy Weapons

This article addresses two types of DE systems: the HEL and the high-power microwave (HPM). Whereas HELs direct a beam of focused energy to a precise point on the target to damage or destroy it, HPMs do not physically destroy a target. Rather, they invade the electronics and disrupt the components, circuitry, and switches inside the device. Additionally, they can cause behavior-modifying sensations in living organisms. HPMs, which do not require the precise aiming necessary for HELs, can function as area weapons, depending on the frequency, field of view, range to the target, and selection of either a large or small footprint.3

These weapons complement each other, each having advantages and disadvantages. HPM weapons cannot focus on as small an area as can HEL weapons but have proven effective through clouds and fog since they experience about two orders of magnitude less extinction (i.e., loss of energy due to absorption and scattering) in those conditions than do HELs. HPMs generate high electric fields over the entire target, in sharp contrast to the intense energy delivered by a laser to a typically small and precisely selected target area.4 Furthermore, they can affect enemy electrical systems regardless of whether those systems are on or off.5 For example, HPMs can stop air-, land-, or seaborne systems in their tracks. Additionally, HEL and HPM systems can engage multiple targets nearly instantaneously since they propagate at the speed of light.6 DE systems can have a “deep magazine,” which means that their ability to fire is limited only by their capacity to recharge and cool themselves.7 Because DE weapons only expend energy, the cost per shot represents the sole cost of powering the device. Electrically generated and free-electron lasers require nothing more than power sources, eliminating the need to transport, store, and load munitions, and minimizing the logistical footprint, compared to conventional weapons. The fact that the factory can directly resupply chemical lasers eliminates the need for long-term storage.8 HEL weapons provide almost surgical precision, greatly minimizing the potential for collateral damage.

Issues with the Atmosphere

In a vacuum, electromagnetic energy travels unattenuated, reaching its target with the theoretical maximum energy available; however, Earth’s atmosphere contains mitigating factors that affect the intensity of DE received at the target. These factors include linear and nonlinear processes in the atmosphere that can affect the propagation of DE systems or electromagnetic energy in general. Linear processes are those in which the DE beams do not modify the characteristics of the atmosphere—for example, scattering caused by molecules, aerosols, rain drops, or other particles. Nonlinear effects such as thermal blooming, a defocusing of the beam caused by heating of the beam path due to absorption, result from the presence and intensity of the DE beam itself.9 Both linear and nonlinear effects combine to reduce intensity at the target.

Because the atmosphere decays exponentially with height, its effects on HEL/HPM propagation vary most dramatically in the vertical. Thus, a definition of the atmosphere’s vertical structure is in order. For the purposes of this article, the atmosphere consists of the boundary layer; lower, middle, and upper atmospheres; high altitude (as defined by the Air Force); and space regions (fig. 1).10 The atmospheric zone where each DE system operates influences not only those systems’ capabilities but also their support requirements.

Figure 1. Structure of the atmosphere. (Adapted from “The Atmosphere,” Directed Energy Professional Society, High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems Short Course, sec. 6, p. 50.)
Figure 1. Structure of the atmosphere. (Adapted from “The Atmosphere,” Directed Energy Professional Society, High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems Short Course, sec. 6, p. 50.)

Critical to the success of military weapon systems is understanding the conditions in which they must operate. Atmospheric differences can affect DE systems in various ways, depending on whether the weapon operates over water or land within the boundary layer or in the upper atmosphere (fig. 1). For example, although a system may operate in the boundary layer, many different climates exist within this area (e.g., desert, tropical, woodland), not to mention variations associated with the four seasons. The varied DE systems under development or planned for military use must account for the environments in which they are designed to function.

Directed Energy Weapon
Systems and Environments

The armed forces will develop unique DE weapon systems tailored to their various missions. Land warfare dictates smaller engagement ranges than may be encountered through the air or via the seas. The Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps must adapt DE systems to their unique environments.

Army Systems and Their Anticipated
Operating Environment

The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL), a combined effort of the US Army and Israel, seeks to defeat rockets/artillery/mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles in the boundary layer of the atmosphere.11 In addition to defeating the RAM threat, the Army might also consider using DE solutions to counter improvised explosive devices and man-portable air defense missiles.12 Although not currently an active program, the MTHEL helped pave the way for other programs such as Skyguard, a land vehicle produced by Northrop Grumman that provides a laser-based air defense against short-range ballistic missiles, RAM, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.13 Skyguard protects aircraft from man-portable air defense systems out to a range of roughly 20 km (12.4 miles); against harder RAM targets, it has an effective range of 5 km (3.1 miles).14 Additionally, a laser ordnance-neutralization system integrated onto a Humvee, dubbed “Zeus,” has seen action in Iraq for destruction of surface land mines and unexploded ordnance. Another descendant of the MTHEL, the High Energy Laser Rocket Artillery Mortar vehicle, developed by Northrop Grumman, is a truck-mounted HEL designed to defeat the RAM threat.15

In the future, Army DE systems may operate at ranges from tens of kilometers against larger weapons, to hundreds of meters against small-arms fire, primarily confined to long and nearly horizontal paths in the boundary layer. The potential to employ DE weapons on other Army platforms (e.g., tracked vehicles, wheeled vehicles, and helicopters) grows as DE weapons become modular and smaller. The precision and speed of HEL weapons raise the possibility of use in the countersniper or sniper mission. Due to the stealth of these systems (HELs emit no visible light beam and produce no sound), they may offer a level of tactical surprise not previously realized in warfare.16

The ground-based nature of potential Army HEL engagements will be strongly affected by the required long, oblique slant paths through the dense atmospheric boundary layer. Additionally, the most stressing effects of aerosols and optical turbulence, which create distortions within the atmosphere, will often occur near the aperture of the HEL, where any induced bending or spreading of the energy is more likely to reduce the weapon’s effectiveness.17 Thus, operational weather forecasting and tactical decision aids will likely play key roles in the employment of the Army’s HEL weapons.

Air Force Systems and Their Anticipated
Operating Environment

The Air Force manages the airborne laser (ABL), a modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft designed to carry a high-energy chemical oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) and shoot down enemy ballistic missiles during their boost phase. The ABL operates primarily at altitudes between 12 and 16 km, nearly ideal for a high-energy COIL because of the general absence of clouds, the vast reduction of water-vapor content, and pressure that amounts to only about 20 percent of that at sea level, which further reduces absorption. Here, the laser has an expected range of hundreds of kilometers. In January 2007, the ABL fired two solid-state illuminator lasers at the NC-135E “Big Crow” test aircraft, verifying the ability to track an airborne target and measure atmospheric turbulence.18 On 8 September 2008, the ABL aircraft successfully fired its high-energy chemical laser for the first time during ground testing at Edwards AFB, California.19 The ABL is scheduled to conduct its first intercept test against an in-flight ballistic missile in 2009.20

The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), a modified C-130 aircraft with an integrated COIL designed to support special operations, functions in and through the boundary layer with the laser primarily directed toward Earth’s surface. Thus, the diurnal variation of aerosol effects, coupled with other manifestations of the dynamic nature of the lower and boundary layer of the atmosphere, is of extreme importance for the ATL, which has an expected range of tens of kilometers.

The degrading effects of the boundary layer on HEL propagation vary throughout any given day with changes in relative humidity (fig. 2). Furthermore, the thickness of the boundary layer and the strength of optical turbulence also vary diurnally. At times, high relative humidity can cause increased attenuation due to scattering, but a correspondingly thinner boundary layer or lower optical turbulence could offset this negative effect somewhat. Efforts to quantify these effects to optimize HEL engagement performance are likely to be of paramount importance.

Figure 2. Variations in temperature, dew point, and relative humidity on a typical fair-weather day at a midlatitude site (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, on 6–7 October 2004).
Figure 2. Variations in temperature, dew point, and relative humidity on a typical fair-weather day at a midlatitude site (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, on 6–7 October 2004). Periods with lower (higher) relative humidity are noted as times with reduced (enhanced) aerosol scattering and thus greater (reduced) thermal-blooming effects. (Blooming is the effect that characterizes an intense laser beam passed through an absorbing medium [such as the air], causing the absorbed energy to produce density changes that can alter the intensity distribution of the beam and shift it away from the intended direction of propagation. Thermal blooming is an effect associated with heating the atmosphere. “The Atmosphere,” Directed Energy Professional Society, High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems Short Course, sec. 6, p. 50.) Periods with greater solar heating and optical turbulence are also noted, primarily during afternoon/early evening hours.

The director of the ATL Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program has indicated that Boeing is considering an array of potential fixed-wing platforms to carry the ATL. A COIL device was installed in a C-130H in late 2007, and during a test on 7 August 2008, the ATL aircraft fired its high-energy chemical laser through its beam-control system, which acquired a ground target and guided the laser beam to it, as directed by the ATL’s battle-management system.21

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has developed the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response man-portable laser weapon, a nonlethal deterrent for protecting troops and controlling hostile crowds. The operating environment for this weapon includes the very lowest levels of the boundary layer. It uses laser light that temporarily impairs aggressors by illuminating or “dazzling” individuals, preventing them from seeing the laser source and areas near it.22 Use of this weapon in rain, snow, or fog could have collateral, off-axis effects not yet fully quantified.

The Active Denial System (ADS), a nonlethal HPM DE weapon designed for use against personnel, uses focused millimeter-wave beams to produce an intolerable heating sensation on a person’s skin. Mounted on a vehicle, the ADS operates over primarily horizontal paths in the boundary layer against ground targets. According to a media demonstration held at Moody AFB, Georgia, in January 2007, the vehicle’s two-man crew located and affected targets more than 500 meters away. Full production should begin in 2010.23 Further study is necessary to quantify the tactical impact of weather on ADS operations because many tropical locations can experience conditions that cause up to a 30 percent loss of ADS beam energy over a 1 km path. This is significant since it may force ADS operators to adjust power output based on humidity conditions.

Navy and Marine Systems and Their
Anticipated Operating Environment

The Navy is focusing efforts on several requirements that DE might help to address, such as protecting the fleet. Efforts include mitigating air-sea cruise missiles, cigarette (fast-moving) boats, unmanned aircraft systems, rockets, floating mines, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and other emerging threats.24 Optimally, any system designed for use on Navy surface-warfare ships, which operate in a maritime environment heavily laden with moisture in the form of water vapor, should provide ship protection and indirect fire support to ground forces.25 These systems direct fire from maritime surface vessels toward a land or an airborne target. If DE systems proliferate onto Navy and Marine aircraft that support ground forces or provide fleet defense, they too will often operate in the lowest, most attenuating reaches of the atmospheric boundary layer.

Marine Corps systems for large- and small-scale land engagements and close-quarters combat may prove similar to those used in tactical scenarios envisioned for the Army. Thus, some opportunities may present themselves for leveraging investments from the other services.


Describing and predicting the weather may reach unprecedented levels for the proper employment of DE weapons. We cannot under­estimate the need for a better understanding of the atmosphere as it relates to DE weapons. The work being done to address environmental issues must be leveraged, but much more is needed. We must also address weather requirements for DE weapons.

Accurate Characterization of the Atmosphere

DE weapons require an accurate characterization of the atmospheric path between sensor and target. The same holds true of traditional ordnance, but to a much lesser degree of accuracy since a bomb is not modified by the atmosphere at the molecular level along the path between the vehicle that transports it and the intended target. For example, wind can blow a bomb dropped from high altitude off course by a few hundred meters, but the bomb impacts somewhere on the ground. However, at every step along a DE weapon beam’s intended propagation path, the atmosphere can modify its intensity, lethality, and overall effectiveness. Clearly, these types of weapons exemplify an unprecedented dependence on accurate weather characterization.

Laser weapons demand a more complete understanding of what happens to the beam along the potential engagement path than current predictive capabilities allow. Therefore, we cannot overemphasize the need for accurate characterization of a DE weapon’s potential propagation path. Engagement distances and the changing environment create a need for more robust models and simulations than currently exist in the AFW inventory. Much of the present research addresses beam-control issues related to the ABL, which generally operates in the favorable environment of the middle and upper atmosphere. This same type of emphasis must occur in the boundary layer, where smaller-scale DE weapons operate. According to AFW’s transformation guidance, we must “anticipate and manage increasing model resolution, vertical domain from surface to near space, and physics requirements based on new weapon systems coming into the inventory (e.g., Airborne Laser).”26 AFW has concerns about whether or not weather-support products are robust enough to meet anticipated requirements for the employment of DE weapons.

Leveraging the Work of Others

Army Materiel Command manages the Battlefield Environment Division, the lead DOD agency for research and development of boundary-layer weapons unique to the Army. AFW should be able to collaborate with the Army Research Laboratory to leverage the characterization of atmospheric effects on DE battlefield weapons used by the Army. This work not only could help AFW understand the effects of the atmosphere on these types of weapons, based on Army tactics, but also could help support the development of unique forecasting products for current or anticipated needs not currently being addressed.27

Readiness for the Operational Weather
Requirements of Directed Energy Weapons

Tactics related to HEL and HPM systems will likely differ from those utilized for conventional weapon systems. What is generally considered “fair weather” for conventional weapons may not be favorable for DE weapons. Again, citing the example illustrated by figure 2, the time of day during fair weather can have a dramatic influence on the effectiveness of an engagement involving low-altitude DE weapons. A weather forecaster supporting such an engagement that includes low-altitude, tactical, high-energy, solid-state lasers would need to balance the counteracting effects of reduced aerosol extinction with greatly increased optical turbulence in the afternoon, as opposed to morning-hour conditions of relatively high aerosol extinction and much lower turbulence. Despite the quiescent weather suggested by figure 2, an accurate assessment of the dwell time necessary to produce the desired effect on an HEL engagement in the boundary layer could not be made without a high-fidelity forecast of the diurnally varying height of the boundary layer.28 Such detailed forecasting in the apparent absence of “bad weather” differs significantly from traditional Air Force and Army weather support but is not completely unprecedented. The advent and later proliferation of infrared sensor and imaging systems in the 1970s and 1980s led to the development of electro-optical tactical decision aids for weather forecasters, based upon primitive radiative-transfer modeling algorithms used in research and development. Equipped with straightforward graphical user interfaces, they were repackaged as operational decision aids.29 These aids saw use as, among other things, “thermal crossovers” for infrared targeting systems, helping distinguish targets by highlighting differences between hot and cold backgrounds. As HEL and HPM systems enter the inventory, we will need operational decision aids for DE weapons, based on today’s sophisticated modeling, simulation, and research.


Various activities can be utilized right now as we begin to support DE weapons. AFW has many opportunities to tailor weather support. We must continue existing research and secure funding to help push atmospheric characterization forward. Beyond the research and funding, which are key, we must have support from the services at the highest levels.

Leveraging Current Air Force Weather Activities

AFW can begin by augmenting the education and training of new forecasters in the 335th Training Squadron at Keesler AFB, Mississippi, with a block of instruction on weather issues affecting the propagation of DE weapons. For example, a “For Your Information” document or Air Force Weather Agency Technical Note can help forecasters in the field. At most of its conferences and symposia, the Directed Energy Professional Society offers short courses in HEL propagation and HPMs taught by subject-matter experts.30 Research modeling and simulation codes such as the High Energy Laser End-to-End Operational Simulation (HELEEOS), developed and managed by the Center for Directed Energy at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and the Directed Energy Environmental Simulation Tool (DEEST), managed by the AFRL’s Space Vehicles directorate, provide opportunities for developing operational and tactical decision aids.31 By attending briefings or short courses, senior leaders across the DOD can begin to understand the effects of weather. In summary, AFW can begin educating forecasters and those in leadership positions at senior levels both inside and outside the DOD. Educated leaders can help secure funding for research and development since they understand the problems associated with forecasting for DE weapons. Leveraging high-fidelity modeling codes such as HELEEOS and DEEST will assist with incorporating weather effects on DE propagation spanning from ultraviolet to radio frequencies. These available codes—candidates for decision-aid software used by the operational weather community—have been validated as modeling tools and have earned credibility in the research community.

Current Research Efforts

AFW must examine current programs sponsored by the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office (HEL-JTO) to assess the relevance of the research in terms of assessment of atmospheric effects and prediction for operational DE weapons. Established in 2000 to manage a comprehensive approach to the development of HEL science and technology for DOD organizations, this office has had annual operating budgets in recent years in excess of $70 million, with programs sponsored across industry, academia, and government agencies.32 Sponsored programs include research and development of the HELEEOS at AFIT and part of the DEEST development at the AFRL. Leveraging current efforts pursued by the AFRL’s Directed Energy directorate (AFRL/RD), the Office of Naval Research, and the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command may also provide useful research that supports atmospheric propagation of HELs and HPMs.

Funding for Research

Funding would help support many areas of research. A key research topic would address whether today’s meteorological observations support DE weapons to the degree required. We may need to develop new products, such as optical-turbulence maps, molecular and aerosol absorption maps, scattering maps, thermal-blooming maps, and others. These types of environmental inquiries will involve academia, private industry, and the DOD.

We must urge senior-level DOD and congressional leaders to understand the criticality of continuing support for research, development, and testing related to DE and environmental effects on DE weapons. Proper characterization and prediction of the environment are warranted in order to quantify environmental impacts. Benefits include speed-of-light engagement, precision strike to destroy, area strike to disable, low expended mass per engagement (deep magazine), and low cost per engagement.33 Furthermore, US adversaries are rapidly moving ahead with the development of DE weapons (especially HELs).34 A better understanding of how environment modifies the performance of such weapons would become an exploitable advantage even if the adversary has superior hardware.


AFW and the Air Force Weather Agency, through the Weather Requirements for Operational Capabilities Council, must continue to work with the acquisition community to anticipate and determine unique support needs.35 New DE weapon-systems prediction information such as optical-turbulence forecasts, aerosol-concentration products, boundary-layer height forecasts, and so forth, will require policy support and coordination from the Air Force Weather Agency. Other products may be required to support the numerous systems under development.

Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command, Intelligence and Requirements (AFMC/A2/5) may be in the best position to address weather-acquisition concerns related to Air Force DE systems as they make the transition from the labs to the war fighter. For the Air Force, AFMC could serve as lead command for this effort. Headquarters AFMC/A2/5 must account for these atmospheric-related concerns before any air or space system becomes operational. Close cooperation among AFRL/RD, Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, acquisition professionals, and the operational community is essential.

Political considerations must become a part of this effort. Engaging the wrong target can have massive geo-political consequences, which can affect the acceptance and use of a new type of weapon that could change warfare.


With continued funding for research and focused advocacy by senior leaders, an already robust AFW community can transform itself into a superior support provider for DE weapons and an enhancer of employment. Funding from HEL-JTO, major military commands, and the Army can help answer how best to mitigate and/or, perhaps, ultimately exploit atmospheric effects in the employment of DE weapons. We need advocacy in various arenas as commands and agencies continue to battle for precious resources. Senior leaders must understand the potential consequences of not supporting these research and development efforts (e.g., DE weapon systems may not perform as expected due to unanticipated environmental effects), as well as the unintended strategic/political fallout that such a lack of support could have on future operations. We must encourage current research efforts that translate easily into operational decision aids for atmospheric characterization and assessment. Education and training in DE weapons are necessary for senior leaders and for people at all levels of the Air Force weather community to ensure weapons effectiveness against potential enemies. The United States’ adversaries are not waiting for tomorrow; they are acting today.36

We anticipate no major changes in the organization of AFW. However, weather personnel may need to fill key positions in the HEL-JTO, AFRL/RD, or Naval Sea Systems Command to advocate and lead efforts to address atmospheric characterization. Collaboration with HEL-JTO, AFRL/RD, academia, and private industry is essential to keep abreast of advancements in areas related to military operations. AFIT and the AFRL should receive funding to continue the upgrading/improving of software codes such as HELEEOS and DEEST, and mission-level decision aids based on these research tools must be developed. In the current fiscal climate, increased manning is not a realistic expectation, so accurate characterization of the atmosphere through decision aids will likely be necessary—and might possibly represent the accepted solution. AFW can shape DE support and optimize DE performance for tomorrow by acting today.

*Major Narcisse is director of operations, 651st Electronic Systems Squadron, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts. Lieutenant Colonel Fiorino is an assistant professor of atmospheric physics at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). Colonel Bartell is a research physicist at AFIT’s Center for Directed Energy.

[ Feedback? Email the Editor ]


1. Air Force Mission Directive 52, Air Force Weather Agency, March 2004, 1.

2. Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 6 February 2006), 1,

3. Col Eileen M. Walling, High Power Microwaves: Strategic and Operational Implications for Warfare, Occasional Paper no. 11 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, February 2000), 6,

4. USAF Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century—Directed Energy Volume (Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 1995), 7.

5. Walling, High Power Microwaves, 2.

6. HPM: A form of energy that can “deny, disrupt, damage, and destroy” electronics. HPMs are designed to incapacitate equipment, not humans. Walling, High Power Microwaves, 1, 20. See also USAF Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas, 8.

7. Richard J. Dunn, “Operational Implications of Laser Weapons,” Analysis Center Papers (Los Angeles: Northrop Grumman Analysis Center, 2005), 19.

8. Ibid., 20.

9. Capt De Leon C. Narcisse, “Comparison of the Refractive Index Structure Constant Derived from Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) Models and Thermosonde Data”(master’s thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, March 2003), 17.

10. Air Force Space Command News Service, “Near-Space Programs to Provide Persistent Space Capability,”, 15 March 2005, (accessed 9 January 2009).

11. Northrop Grumman Corporation, “Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL),” Defense Update: International Online Defense Magazine, July 2006, 1, news/MTHEL.htm (accessed 8 January 2009).

12. C. Lamar, briefing, High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office Annual Review, Monterey, CA, subject: US Army Space and Missile Defense Command, 3 May 2005.

13. Northrop Grumman Corporation, “Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL).”

14. Jefferson Morris, “Northrop Unveils Skyguard Laser Air Defense System,”, 13 July 2006, xml (accessed 8 January 2009).

15. Marc Selinger, “U.S. Army Studying Guns, Lasers, Interceptors to Destroy RAMs,”, 28 October 2004, news/RAM10284.xml (accessed 8 January 2009).

16. Dunn, “Operational Implications of Laser Weapons,” 21.

17. See George Y. Jumper and Robert R. Beland, “Progress in the Understanding and Modeling of Atmospheric Optical Turbulence,” AIAA-2000-2355 (paper presented at 31st American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference, Denver, CO, 19–22 June 2000). Optical turbulence is defined as “temporal and spatial fluctuations in the index of refraction that result from atmospheric turbulence.”

18. TSgt Eric M. Grill, “Airborne Laser Returns for More Testing,” Air Force News, 26 January 2007, (accessed 8 January 2009).

19. “Boeing, Airborne Laser Team Begin Firing High-Energy Laser on ABL Aircraft,” Boeing, 8 September 2008, (accessed 8 January 2009).

20. “Boeing-Led Airborne Laser Team Fires Tracking Laser at Airborne Target,” Boeing, 16 March 2007, (accessed 8 January 2009); and “Boeing-Led Airborne Laser Team Actively Tracks Airborne Target, Compensates for Atmospheric Turbulence and Fires Surrogate High-Energy Laser,” Boeing, 16 July 2007, q3/070716c_nr.html (accessed 8 January 2009).

21. Dave Ahearn, “Boeing Laser Weapon Development Achieves Major Advances,” US Air Force AIM Points, 16 October 2006, (accessed 8 January 2009); and “Boeing Tests Entire Weapon System on Advanced Tactical Laser Aircraft,” Boeing, 13 August 2008, (accessed 8 January 2009).

22. Eva D. Blaylock, “New Technology ‘Dazzles’ Aggressors,” Air Force Print News, 2 November 2005, (accessed 8 January 2009).

23. Elliott Minor, “Ray Gun Makes Targets Feel As If on Fire,” Air Force Times, 25 January 2007, (accessed 9 January 2009).

24. B. Tait, briefing, High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office Annual Review, Monterey, CA, subject: Naval Sea Systems Command, PMS 405, 3 May 2005.

25. CAPT William J. McCarthy, USN, Directed Energy and Fleet Defense: Implications for Naval Warfare, Occasional Paper no. 10 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, May 2000), 21,

26. Air Force Weather Strategic Plan and Vision, FY 2008–2032 (Offutt AFB, NE: Air Force Weather Agency, August 2004), 2.

27. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, August 2007), 145, http://www.ofcm

28. The dwell time is the time the laser spot is maintained on the target for the desired effect. See Directed Energy Professional Society, High-Energy Laser Weapon Systems Short Course, sec. 8, p. 3.

29. Maj K. G. Cottrell et al., Electro-Optical Handbook, Volume 1: Weather Support for Precision Guided Munitions, Air Weather Service Technical Report AWS/TR-79/002 (Scott AFB, IL: Air Weather Service, May 1979).

30. “DEPS Short Courses,” Directed Energy Professional Society,
Courses.html (accessed 9 January 2009).

31. “High Energy Laser End-to-End Operational Simulation (HELEEOS),” Air Force Institute of Technology, Center for Directed Energy, (accessed 8 January 2009).

32. Lt Col John B. Wissler, “Organization of the Joint Technology Office: Finding the Right Model for an Integrated, Coordinated Investment Strategy,” Program Manager Magazine, November–December 2002, 26,; and US Government Accountability Office to Congressional Committees, memorandum GAO-05-933R High Energy Laser Transition Plans, subject: Department of Defense’s Assessment Addresses Congressional Concerns but Lacks Details on High Energy Laser Transition Plans, 28 July 2005, 5, (accessed 9 January 2009).

33. USAF Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas, 8.

34. Shaveta Bansal, “Pentagon Confirms China’s Anti-Satellite Laser Test,” All Headline News, 6 October 2006, (accessed 28 February 2007).

35. Ibid.

36. Col M. D. Zettlemoyer, chief, Integration, Plans, and Requirements, to AF/A3O-WR/RP, MAJCOM A3Ws, letter, 12 February 2007.

Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins talks about Chemtrails live

Record low temperatures

The ice-age comes

Long Island hits record-low 13 degrees | Newsday | Originally published: December 10, 2010 12:38 PM | By GARY DYMSKI

If it felt a little colder Friday morning as you sat warming the car or waiting for the train, well, it turns out it was colder.

It was a record-low 13 degrees at Islip Friday at 6:56 a.m., according to the National Weather Service, breaking the previous Dec. 10 daily low of 16 in 2002. The coldest Dec. 10 at Brookhaven National Lab, which began recording weather statistics in 1949, is 7 degrees in 1968.

Tim Morrin, an observation program leader and meteorologist with the service in Upton said the first 10 days of December have been colder than normal – about four degrees lower on average – and it’s going to stay cold, too.”All signs are for a persistence of the pattern we’ve seen and even colder,” Morrin said Friday morning.

The service is geared toward forecasts of seven to 10 days, he said, and except for some rain and warmer weather late Saturday and into Sunday, the next week or so will continue to be slightly colder than normal.

Since 1984, when the service began keeping records, the average mean temperature for the first nine days of December is 38.7 degrees. Through Thursday, this December’s average mean is 34.4 degrees.

Morrin said a blocking pattern in the high latitudes of Greenland is partially to blame for the recent cold stretch. The block forces cold arctic air from the plains of Canada down toward the Northeast, he said. Under more common weather patterns, that block is released and the colder air drifts north, toward Canada.

Except for this weekend, when a rain system from the west comes calling, temperatures starting Monday will revert to the teens, Morrin said.

So, it’s rain and temperatures in the high 40s, starting Saturday night and into late Sunday.

On Monday, it’s back to cold. And windy, too. From Monday through mid week, expect highs around 28 to 30 degrees and lows in the midteens, he said.

“One reason we’ve felt colder is the wind, and that’s coming back,” Morrin said. “We’re probably going to get cold, northwest winds from 20 to 25 mph.”

There also might be some light dusting of snow, but nothing more. “Often, when that blocking pattern is in place, it’s cold but dry,” Morrin said.

As for a White Christmas, it’s a little early to tell, he said.

More Chemtrail Research

Chemtrail Patents:

Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere

United States Patent 4,686,605 / Eastlund / August 11, 1987

A method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region which normally exists above the earth’s surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

Method of modifying weather

United States Patent 6,315,213 / Cordani / November 13, 2001

A method for artificially modifying the weather by seeding rain clouds of a storm with suitable cross-linked aqueous polymer. The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the clouds ability to rain.

Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin

United States Patent / 5,286,979 / Berliner / February 15, 1994

This invention is a process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere by dispersing melanin, its analogs, or derivatives into the atmosphere. By appropriate choice of melanin composition, size of melanin dispersoids, and their concentration, the melanin will absorb some quantity of ultraviolet radiation and thereby lessen its overall effect on the critters who would normally absorb such radiation.

Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying

United States Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot / August 14, 1990

A rotary liquid spray atomizer for aerial spraying is driven by a variable speed motor, driven in turn by power from a variable speed AC generator. The generator is driven from a power take-off from the engine of the spraying aircraft, a drive assembly includes a device for controlling the speed of the generator relative to the speed of the engine. The particularly convenient drive assembly between the generator and the power take-off is a hydraulic motor, which drives the generator, driven by a hydraulic pump driven from the power take-off. The speed of the hydraulic motor can be controllably varied. Conveniently the AC motor is a synchronous motor.

Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids

United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983

A laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying involve the use of a streamlined body having a slot in the trailing edge thereof to afford a quiescent zone within the wing and into which liquid for spraying is introduced. The liquid flows from a source through a small diameter orifice having a discharge end disposed in the quiet zone well upstream of the trailing edge. The liquid released into the quiet zone in the slot forms drops characteristic of laminar flow. Those drops then flow from the slot at the trailing edge of the streamlined body and discharge into the slipstream for free distribution.


United States Patent: – US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972

A chemical system for releasing a good yield of free barium (Ba°) atoms and barium ions (BA+) to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere and interplanetary space for the study of the geophysical properties of the medium. Inventor(s): Paine; Thomas O. Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration with respect to an invention of , Hampton, VA 23364

Chemtrails in the Mainstream News

It’s a quiet mountain community, but some residents claim something’s happening in the sky that’s making them sick — Mystery clouds and unusual contrails …

Is it a weather experiment on a massive scale?

In a Channel 4 News investigation, Paul Moyer looks into why some say the government is manipulating the weather.

Lets all email KNBC-4 and let them know they need to keep the public aware of the Chemtrail problem

‘Chemtrails’ In Las Vegas Skies–Marcus K. Dalton Tribune Media Group (part two August 26, 2005)

The following notice was posted on a Santa Cruz weather website on April 16, 2004. It doesn’t get much more blatant than this. Here we are being directly informed that they are spraying “small particles” over populated areas and yet we are being told this in a manner as if it were just as natural of an occurance as the falling rain itself.

Click here for VIDEOS of aerial spraying

CHEMTRAILS: TRAIL RESEARCH REPORT–This report is the result of research into the science of contrail formation and an analysis by observation and measurement of contrail persistence. This research was inspired by the claims of an unnatural type of trail known as Chemtrails as an attempt to detect such trails.


Why has NASA launched a project to engage ordinary citizens – even schoolkids – in monitoring the jet fuel leavings?




CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA–The four active projects ongoing in the atmosphere.

CONTRAIL PETITION –Add Your name to a petition to seek Congressional Hearings on Contrail Activity. You can also join the coast-to-coast SKYWATCHER’S Association through this key website. View startling close-up photos that show spray coming from the tails of jets – with no contrails from their wing-mounted engines.


CHEMTRAILS UK–Much has been reported on the chemtrail scenario around the globe, especially the USA, however, little has been illustrated on the situation in the UK.A few years ago, and little publicised, the UK was subjected to massive chemtrailing, and hardly anyone took any notice! Many of you scanning these pages will be familiar to the scenario, and later a number of links will be placed in. This page for the time being is for reference purposes, where people may link to in order to see for themselves EXACTLY what IS going down

PURPLE HAZE–This website is in response to the continuing Chemtrails being reported throughout the United States. Here in Oklahoma we’ve been tracking this since May 1999. We endure daily spraying, with few exceptions.

CONTRAILS – CHEMTRAILS – OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA–I do not know why we are seeing on a semi-regular basis these different looking contrails. I have decided to start to archive these contrails for the Oklahoma City area, beginning with the June 6th observation.

CHEMTRAILS-POISON FROM THE SKIES–A documentation about Chemtrails


IS SPRAYING ILLEGAL?–U.S.Code-Title 50-War and National Defense

TRACERS–Exploring An Enigma: Is There A Relationship Between Contrails and UFOs?


GROUND ZERO/S-4 DATABASE –Investigation: Mysterious Contrails






Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials.

CHEMTRAILS-BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS IDENTIFIED–Biological components have now been identified in the two ground samples previously analyzed on Numerous red blood cells, white blood cells, and unidentified cell types have been found within the sub-micron fiber sample previously presented and submitted on Jan 20 2000.



















AIR FORCE LIES TO AMERICA ABOUT CHEMTRAILS–This letter authored by Michael K. Gibson, Lt. Col., USAF This document received by email on September 11 2000 Posted by Clifford E Carnicom September 11 2000

DEAR LT. COL. MICHAEL GIBSON – ABOUT YOUR CHEMTRAIL ‘RESPONSE’…–This responds to your “response” to Representative Mark Green concerning chemtrails.


SYNTHETIC CLOUDS REVEALED–These photographs (video stills) taken on June 22 2000 reveal the synthetic nature of the cloud base which developed over Santa Fe NM on that day. The first four photographs show the effects of a plane which recently passed, or “cut through” the cloud layer which was in the process of formation at this time. No direct spraying had been observed at this time, and these clouds rapidly entered into the Santa Fe skies at the jet stream level.

EPA REFUSES TO IDENTIFY CHEMTRAIL SAMPLE–The following letter dated June 28 2000 has been received through the office of Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The office of Carol M. Browner by inaction to previous requests refuses to identify the ground sample which has been sent to her via certified mail, and refuses to conduct an investigation on this matter.

CHEMTRAILS – BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS IDENTIFIED–Biological components have now been identified in the two ground samples previously analyzed on Numerous red blood cells, white blood cells, and unidentified cell types have been found within the sub-micron fiber sample previously presented and submitted on Jan 20 2000 to Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

SOUTH AFRICA NEWS REPORT CORROBORATES U.S. FINDINGS–Strange, sticky, wiry threads similar to spider’s web falls in the Karoo.

H.A.A.R.P is Located in Gakona Alaska. Despite what the Air Force Claims, H.A.A.RP is an exotic weapon based upon Tesla Technologies that will be used for weather Modification(creating tornados, steering Hurricanes, creating droughts etc), massive releases of energy that will Dwarf a Nuclear Explosion, creating earthquakes, mind control and many other horrifying things.

In all reality these fools are not sure what will happen when they blast the Ionosphere with billions of Watts of Energy. With out the Ionosphere, life here on earth will Perish.

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun – Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects

by Bruce Conway / revised 6.20.03 / Lightwatcher Publishing

Forward: For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the classification of ‘Geoengineering.’ This is the chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.

Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department heads and CEO’s from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more. This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun

Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering

by: Bruce Conway

“There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in your philosophy.” – Shakespeare

Five years ago I founded the Chemtrails Hall of Shame web site to document and investigate the elusive Chemtrail spraying operations in the skies above my home in the Pacific NW. The site can be found at:

During this time I have had the opportunity to work with and befriend several of the luminaries within this field of investigation: Diane Harvey, Brian Holmes and a very special investigator who chooses to remain anonymous in this article. Each of these individuals has contributed greatly to the subject, keeping this topic alive within the alternative media . These chemtrail spraying programs, which are apparently being conducted on a worldwide basis, are evident to anyone who has the desire to look up and perceive the evidence. Yet, definitive proof has remained elusive.

Total denial by governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream media, the systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing coverups by the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy of disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy and paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above our heads, and has now grown to become the largest coordinated global engineering project in the history of our species. How can I make such a preposterous claim?

Brian Holmes of has investigated these eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of his efforts, many within Canada and on the net have become aware of the ongoing spraying operations. Like other serious investigators who have studied this phenomena, Brian’s work has been maligned, and there are ongoing attempts to discredit him and his sources.

Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian nicknamed ‘Deep Shield’ came forward with specific and detailed information about this mysterious program, corresponding with him via e-mail. A transcript of the communications with Deep Shield and the Shield Project can be read online at: For those of us who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of the truth.

Since then we have been able to study, and verify a number of Deep Shield’s primary claims. The anonymous insider gave Brian’s readers some valuable clues to follow if they wished to investigate deeper into the history and hard science of chemtrails. A primary clue was to investigate the term ‘geoengineering.’

One investigator took the clues provided by ‘Deep Shield’ and dug in. She eventually found an N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the Mitigation of Global Warming. This study is still available online and is also available in hardcover. This massive document validates the insider information provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold mine of evidence.

This massive research study is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base – Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The results were presented in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigation’s (corrective measures). Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments, acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, ect.

Policy Implications of Global WarmingThis entire volume can presently be read online at: Keep in mind that this study is only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds of papers on related topics have been published in scientific journals. We don’t expect this featured study to remian online for long once the cat is out of the bag. So do check it out soon.

The full involvement of foremost government agencies, research firms, universities and private corporations are detailed in this global ‘geoengineering’ study. Keep in mind that this was approved by and funded by Congress. We expect that this documentation will bolster the beliefs of most hardcore chemtrail believers. It will also continue to undermine what little trust still remains in our leaders and their institutions. This documentation proves that they have lied repeatedly about their involvement and the existence of chemtrail spraying programs.

It also appears that we ‘Chemtrail’ investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific umbrella of ‘Geoengineering and intentional climate change.’

Chemtrails are just one of the ‘mitigations’ proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project (Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998)

The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: “The projected insufficiency of Kyoto’s emission reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia.”

“Geoengineering–intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems–may be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory “Marshall Plan” of costly emissions reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory “Manhattan Project” geared toward developing feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences.”

“In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron “fertilizer” in parts of the Earth’s oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial “Mount Pinatubos” by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]” pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project.”

In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.

This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses.

This landmark study; the widespread experimentation and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation.

The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft.

Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.


The following excerpts detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for reducing greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted from: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base – Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming

Evaluating Geoengineering Options

“Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail.”

“The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter.”

“The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2 through stimulating growth of biological organisms.”

Screening Out Some Sunlight

“Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth’s surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ”mirrors” or a cloud of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that might be considered are provided below.”

Stratospheric Dust

“Although the space dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20 to 40 km are of the order of 1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally accepted that volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for several years (Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in the stratosphere by adding more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to increase its net reflection of sunlight.”

Mass Estimates

“Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2 g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary albedo by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required, and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26 µm.”

“The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl’s model is distributed between 10 and 30 km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate models.”

Delivery Scenarios

“Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between 40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using Reck’s estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a, 1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ¥ 1010 kg of particulates, compared with the panel’s estimate of 1010 kg, based upon Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will be much shorter than 10 years.”

“An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause varies with latitude and season of the year.”

“In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required.”

“The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at the same effective rate should be investigated.”

Changing Cloud Abundance – The Approach

“Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where the surface albedo is relatively constant and small.”

“Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht’s idealized stratocumulus cloud, which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets. The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently, about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to be discharged per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent increase in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud cover would be formed every time the number of CCN increased.”

Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei

“With Albrecht’s assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are present, the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 ¥ 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 ¥ density, and it is assumed that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 ¥ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is 2.7 ¥ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 ¥ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN.

To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed homogeneously, would be needed to produce sufficient CCN.”

“Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use. Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle.”

“Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust compounds in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere.”

“Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted.”

“Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented.”

(end of excerpts)


Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:

(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS

(Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates, Seattle, Washington

ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

GEORGE F. CARRIER, T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

GORDON H. ORIANS, Professor of Zoology and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York (resigned from panel February 1990)

SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford, England

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, Florida

PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven

PETER BREWER, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific Grove, California

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth Center, New Haven, Connecticut

DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan

RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University, New York

JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General Manager, Fluorochemicals Division, E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware

KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Studies, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts

GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and Director, Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California

EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy, and Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (resigned from panel October 1990)

GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook

HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson

JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and Applications, National Climate Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore

BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham


ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director

DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer

NANCY A. CROWELL, Administrative Specialist

MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative Secretary


Papers of special interest to Chemtrail Investigators

Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project – Stanford Environmental Law Journal January –

Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), “The Planet Needs a Sunscreen” Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. –

Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –

Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an inadvertent experiment. Science 243:293­299

Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P. Jonas, R. Charlson, H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart, V. Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal, and D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-131.

Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P. McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor, 1995: Group report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol. 20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.

Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In Aerosols and Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372

Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the radiative forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(D3):5597­5613.

Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3): Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Effects. Report GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories, and paper presented to the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., December 1984.

Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols and gases in the stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):26­27.

Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects of particulates from solid rocket motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research 5(2):77­86

The Georgia Guidestones (The elites plan for us all)

In the middle of an otherwise empty field in Elbert County, Georgia stands one of the modern enigmas of our current age. Right here in the United States, seemingly in the middle of nowhere the Georgia Guidestones are a huge granite structure that contains a very cryptic message. The Guidestones origins themselves, are steeped in mystery.

georgia guidestones American Stonehenge   The Georgia Guidestones

Consisting of six stone tablets, and standing over 20 ft tall, the Guidestones were commissioned 1979 by a mysterious, and very wealthy man who used only the obvious pseudonym R.C. Christian.

It has been speculated to be a connection to the secret society of the Rosicrucians.  Whether this is true or not are unknown. Given the nature of the text involved has only propagated more rumors and conspiracies that this structure was the work of some secret order, and that it is a message to the surviving members of humanity, after this organization accomplishes its stated mission of “maintaining a population under 500 million”.

Written in 8 different languages on the faces of the 4 largest stones, the Georgia Guidestones contain a list of 10 guidelines.  Featured in English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian, these messages, like a sort of modern 10 “commandments” on the surface may seem reasonable, even practical, if we weren’t already approaching 7 billion people alive on earth.  Given that fact, and the fact that the first commandment would seem to be at odds with that fact, this has caused many to worry that this is an open plan for population reduction.

ageofreason American Stonehenge   The Georgia Guidestones

The 10 principles outlined are as follows:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.

4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.

9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.

10.Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

It does seem like, while there are some idealistic goals set forth by this monument, most sound quite logical, sustainable, and sound advice to future generations.

What is so strange about the guidestones however, and what has people so skeptical of its “altruistic” message, is the underlying context. A close examination of the message makes it clear that the Guidestones are implying that humanity, as we know it, is burdensome in general and must be dealt with. It is as if we are a virus on the planet. While this may be true n some respects, the solution proposed by the first “commandment” means many of us will have to go soon.

This fear stems from the evidence that is widely available that there is, in fact, a shadow government lurking behind the scenes, and the members of this cloak and dagger group are generally members of a larger fraternity of secret societies like the Bilderberg Group, the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, and that this group, through it’s public think-tank organizations like the CFR and Trilateral Commission are collectively known as the Illuminati, and that they intend nothing short of world domination and subjugation of the classes of the ultra-rich and slaves.  Through the use of eugenics, geoengineering, police state and martial law for those countries like America where the populace is still armed, it is believed that the Illuminati do  not wish to see this population reduction for the sake of the Earth, but rather as a means to better assert control over the slave class that will remain to serve them after their big move.

When taken in this context, the Guidelines begin to appear to take on a more sinister meaning. 

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000. Given that the the Earth’s population is currently nearing 7 billion, this would mean a dramatic decrease in numbers.

Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity could be seen as a call for forced sterilizations and other limits on reproductive rights. 

Avoid petty laws and useless officials is often cited as a call for a police state, or martial law; eliminating local law enforcement and replacing them with National or World officials under one umbrella.

guidestones english American Stonehenge   The Georgia Guidestones

Near the Georgia Guidestones is an explanatory tablet, that outlines the dimensions of the monument, as well as the astrological significance.  There are other facts listed here, such as the date erected and the languages included.  The following is an exact listing of the information contained, which can also be seen on the Official Web Site of The Georgia Guidestones.

At the center of each tablet edge is a small circle, each containing a letter representing the appropriate compass direction (N, S, E, W).

At the top center of the tablet is written:

The Georgia Guidestones
Center cluster erected March 22, 1980

Immediately below this is the outline of a square, inside which is written:

Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason

Around the edges of the square are written the names of four ancient languages, one per edge. Starting from the top and proceeding clockwise, they are:

  • Babylonian cuneiform
  • Classical Greek
  • Sanskrit
  • Egyptian hieroglyphics

On the left side of the tablet is the following column of text:

Astronomic Features
1. channel through stone
indicates celestial pole.
2. horizontal slot indicates
annual travel of sun.
3. sunbeam through capstone
marks noontime throughout
the year

Author: R.C. Christian
(a pseudonyn) [sic]

Sponsors: A small group
of Americans who seek
the Age of Reason

Time Capsule
Placed six feet below this spot
To Be Opened on

The words appear as shown under the time capsule heading; no dates are engraved.

On the right side of the tablet is the following column of text:


1. OVERALL HEIGHT – 19 feet 3 inches (5.9 m)
2. TOTAL WEIGHT – 237, 746 POUNDS (107 tons)
3. FOUR MAJOR STONES ARE 16 feet (4.9 m),

4. CENTER STONE IS 16 feet (4.9 m), FOUR-

5. CAPSTONE IS 9 feet (2.7 m), 8-INCHES

LONG; 6 feet (1.8 m), 6-INCHES WIDE;
1-foot (0.30 m), 7-INCHES THICK. WEIGHS
24,832 POUNDS.

4 INCHES LONG 2 feet (0.61 m) WIDE.
1-foot (0.30 m), 4 INCHES THICK, EACH

2 1/2 INCHES LONG, 2 feet (0.61 m), 2-INCHES
WIDE; 1-foot (0.30 m), 7-INCHES THICK.
8. 951 cubic feet (26.9 m3) GRANITE.


Below the two columns of text is written the caption:


The names of eight modern languages are inscribed along the long edges of the projecting rectangles, one per edge. Starting from due north and moving clockwise around so that the upper edge of the northeast rectangle is listed first, they are:

  • English
  • Spanish
  • Swahili
  • Hindi
  • Hebrew
  • Arabic
  • Chinese
  • Russian

Astronomical features

The four outer stones are oriented to mark the limits of the 18.6 year lunar declination cycle.[2] The center column features a hole through which the North Star can be seen regardless of time, as well as a slot that is aligned with the Sun’s solstices and equinoxes. A 7/8″ aperture in the capstone allows a ray of sun to pass through at noon each day, shining a beam on the center stone indicating the day of the year.[3]


34°13′55″N 82°53′40″W / 34.231984°N 82.894506°W

The Georgia Guidestones are located on a hilltop in Elbert CountyGeorgia, approximately 90 miles (140 km) east of Atlanta, 45 miles (72 km) from Athens, and 9 miles (14 km) north of the center of Elberton. The stones are standing on a rise a short distance to the east of Georgia Highway 77 (Hartwell Highway), and are visible from that road. Small signs beside the highway indicate the turnoff for the Guidestones, which is identified by a street sign as “Guidestones Rd.” It is located on the highest point in Elbert County.


Elbert County owns the Georgia Guidestones site. Robert C. Christian deeded the five acres to the county immediately upon purchase from Wayne Mullenix.[2] According to the Georgia Mountain Travel Association’s detailed history: “The Georgia Guidestones are located on the farm of Mildred and Wayne Mullenix…”[5] The Elbert County land registration system shows what appears to be the Guidestones as County land purchased on October 1, 1979.[6][7]

The monument was unveiled in March 1980, with the presence of 100 people.[8] Another account specifies March 22, 1980 and said 400 people attended.[2][3]


In his article, “Decoding the Georgia Guidestones,” Van Smith identifies three potential candidates as the true identity of R.C. Christian (Joe H. Fendley Sr., Dr. Francis Merchant, and Ted Turner). In the end, Smith concludes that Ted Turner is the most likely candidate for being R.C. Christian, stating, “Our investigation into the identity of Robert C. Christian has uncovered highly persuasive yet circumstantial evidence linking Robert Edward “Ted” Turner to the very center of the Georgia Guidestones originators. This evidence is so strong that we believe Ted Turner probably was R.C. Christian. At the very least, Turner probably knows who R.C. Christian is.” [2]

Yoko Ono and others have praised the inscribed messages as “a stirring call to rational thinking,” while opponents have labeled them as the “Ten Commandments of the Antichrist.”[3]

The Guidestones have become a subject of interest for conspiracy theorists. One of them, an activist named Mark Dice, demanded that the Guidestones “be smashed into a million pieces, and then the rubble used for a construction project,”[9] claiming that the Guidestones are of “a deep Satanic origin,” and that R. C. Christian, belongs to “aLuciferian secret society” related to the New World Order.[3] At the unveiling of the monument, a local minister proclaimed that he believed the monument was “for sun worshipers, for cult worship and for devil worship”.[8]

Another popular conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, in his 2008 documentary ‘Endgame: Elite’s Blueprint For Global Enslavement’ highlights “the message of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, purportedly built by representatives of a secret society called the Rosicrucian Order or Rosicrucians, which call for a global religion, world courts, and for population levels to be maintained at around 500 million, over a 5.5 billion reduction from current levels. The stones infer that humans are a cancer upon the earth and should be culled in order to maintain balance with nature.”[10]

Researcher Van Smith claims to have uncovered numerological messages encoded within the proportions of the various Georgia Guidestones components that link the monument to the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world which opened in Dubai over thirty years after the Georgia Guidestones were designed. Smith presents evidence demonstrating that the opening date of the tower, the death of Dubai’s emir, Sheik Maktoum bin Rashid al Maktoum, and the exact height of the Burj Khalifa can all be deduced directly from the proportions of the granite slabs.[11]

In 2008, the stones were defaced with polyurethane paint and graffiti with slogans such as “Death to the new world order.”[12] Wired magazine called the defacement “the first serious act of vandalism in the Guidestones’ history”.[3]More recently, in an apparent attempt to topple the monument, a large notch was cut from the top of the English language Guidestone near the 8″ long, 1⅝” thick stainless steel dowel pin used to secure that slab to the capstone.[2]

As of November 14, 2009, the stones bear a variety of graffiti. Elbert County is funding ongoing repair and has installed two video surveillance cameras at the site.[2]

See also


  1. ^ Roadside America Web site
  2. a b c d e f g Decoding the Georgia Guidestones by Van Smith. Van’s Hardware Journal (December 28, 2009)
  3. a b c d e f g h American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse by Randall Sullivan. Wired Magazine ISSUE 17.05 (May 2009)
  4. ^
  5. ^ Georgia Mountains Web site
  6. ^ Land parcel information
  7. ^ Parcel map
  8. a b Moran (2004); p.193
  9. ^ The Elberton, Georgia (2005)
  10. ^ Endgame: Elite’s Blueprint For Global Enslavement Exposed + Why The Dreams Of The Rulers Are Humanity’s Worst Nightmare by Paul Joseph Watson, October 25, 2007
  11. ^ More Linkage between the Georgia Guidestones and the Burj Khalifa by Van Smith. Van’s Hardware Journal (January 12, 2010)
  12. ^ “Defacement of the Guidestones”. Photobucket. Retrieved 2009-05-09.


External links