Greenpeace and the Chemtrail Question
The following article was originally published in September 2004 in the German magazine Raum+Zeit (Space and Time).
It was written by the Swiss freelance journalist and chemtrail activist, Gabriel Stetter. The first article by Gabriel that is online here at Holmestead.ca: Raum+Zeit – issue 127 created quite a storm in Europe and he has followed up with this discussion of why the environmental activists of Greenpeace are so silent on the issue of “The illegal high altitude spraying by large military type aircraft of unknown substances – commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails'”.
The “chemtrail” question is not a belief system; but an observable scientific fact. Greenpeace and other such organizations bring into question their integrity when they fail to take appropriate action.
We often see “rainbows” in the aerosols and the rainbow is also the symbol of Greenpeace, an organization, onto which many people set their last hopes.
In Gabriel’s own words: “After the huge uproar caused in Germany over the release of my “White Skies” – chemtrail article in the German science magazine, “Raum+Zeit” (January 2004) and subsequent reprints due to public demand, likeminded “seers” joined forces with the aim of gaining the attention of Greenpeace, Germany. Greenpeace in Germany is a huge eco-concern with millions of committed supporters who believe in its integrity, and the logical step for us was to ask them to do some basic scientific analysis, and help in generally clarifying the identity and aim of this ghastly weather modification program.
However, thousands of people were thoroughly shocked when they realised, and were informed by Greenpeace in Germany, Switzerland and Austria that – for some reason or other – Greenpeace has NO INTEREST IN THE CHEMTRAIL QUESTION WHATSOEVER. This obviously had me – and many, many others – piqued, and I decided to do a little research into the possible background of the eco-group`s strange position and its striking evasiveness. This new article, just released in Germany, is an overview of the current state of the chemtrail discussion in “Old Europe” and shows some of the intriguing results of that search…”
For the Greenpeace International web site with links to all countries go: Greenpeace where you may contact them, let your voice be heard and also familiarized yourself with the stated objectives of Greenpeace:
“Greenpeace is a non-profit organisation, with a presence in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific.
To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and foundation grants.
As a global organisation, Greenpeace focuses on the most crucial worldwide threats to our planet’s biodiversity and environment.”
Note that in the section below: Trust in the Light? the reference to Lucifer is intended to be interpreted in the literal Latin sense of “bringer of light or illuminator” – although the Church has other thoughts on this subject.
16 September 2004: As a result of viewing this Holmestead.ca page a visitor wrote to Greenpeace Canada and received a prompt response – the text of the Greenpeace e-mail is below.
At least the Greenpeace representative admits to perhaps a little barium from the ‘occasional’ chemtrail – so this is worthwhile in that it indicates they are now aware of the term and admit to the issues involved. But it does appear that it all may be the supporter’s fault for not sending more money!
Even if Greenpeace Canada have no resources to study the “chemtrail” issue it would help a great deal if Greenpeace would make a statement on their web site that acknowledges the existence of “chemtrails” so that *we* don’t have to convince people but simply say: “…look here – Greenpeace knows about it!”
To: “J*** C****”
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: chemtrails and Greenpeace
Dear Ms. C****,
Sadly, there are any number of highly toxic pollutants that are discharged from the average jet engine on a regular, frequent daily basis that are far more immediately and terribly deadly than the barium that may or may not be found in the occasional chemtrail.
Many of those other pollutants have been ones that Greenpeace has worked on in the past, but we have never had the resources to work on all of them, everywhere, all of the time. We would probably need an operating budget one hundred times of what we have currently to be able to do so, and the money that we bring in to do the work that we do comes from donors like yourself, we take no government or corporate funding. So it is always an uphill battle for us to raise funds, under those circumstances.
And I am afraid that we would probably need to be working on a lot of other issues that we are only partly dealing with currently before we would even consider the possibility of even looking into the issue of chemtrails. The world is being damaged in hundreds of other more deadly ways that need to be dealt with first if there is going to continue to be a world to live on.
And people tend to look at us as the solution to the world’s environmental problems, but we aren’t, people like you are. You are. We are merely the messenger.
I have looked at our records and it appears that the most recent donation that you have made to Greenpeace was in the year 2000, but if this information is incorrect and there is some actual change that you do need me to make to your file on the database, as to an ongoing donation or some such thing, please let me know.
6 October 2004: I have just received by mail from Germany a hard copy of this current issue #131 of the Raum + Zeit magazine.
It is an impressive, high quality publication with a circulation of some 50,000, much on the lines of a traditional scientific journal but as a theme it is apparently devoted to popular scientific issues that are otherwise ignored by the controlled mainstream media.
Specifically, issue #131 contains some sixteen full color pages devoted to the subject of “chemtrails” with, in addition to the well illustrated article by Gabriel Stetter, many letters from readers responding positively to his first article in issue #127. Many of these letters are illustrated with color photographs supplied by the readers themselves. Then there is a supplementary article on the same subject and of this total of sixteen pages only half a page is advertising!
If only they published Space and Time in North America!
Translation of the original version was by Graham Rickett, Stroud, England.
“Greenpeace? I, as well as others, suspect them of (to put it politely) not being ‘sincere’. There have been contacts with them, and they have insulted the intelligence of those asking for their input.”
Since the publication of the article ‘Destruction of the Sky’ (2) and the bringing to light of the spraying programme for ‘stabilization of the climate’ that is being carried out under the auspices of the United Nations Organization (UNO), hundreds of telephone calls have been made and thousands of letters sent to every imaginable office and public authority in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Countless experts – climatologists, flight control officers, even members of the intelligence services, have been asked their opinion. The result can be summed up in a very few words: Despite the fact that his inquiries are based on evidence that is available to any critical observer, that can be explained on the basis of solid fact, and objectively tested and verified, the chemtrails researcher meets up with an impenetrable wall of silence.
It is also disturbing to find that in the discussion sparked off by the article the claims made about chemtrails have not been shown to contain any significant error. This became apparent when, as the author of the article, countless replies from the authorities were sent to me – but only by other people. In the course of a full year’s discussion of chemtrails in the German-speaking world, not a single public authority, professional institution or environmental organization considered it necessary to contact the present author. As a rule, letters from the author to government departments also remained unanswered.
Thus a communication of April 21st 2004 to the press spokesperson for the Federal Environment Agency in Berlin, Dr. Claudia Mäder, was strictly ignored. In it the present writer had merely asked for a statement confirming that “the laying of chemtrails as a weather-changing project is not taking place in the skies of Germany”. To respond to a demand of this kind was asking too much of the Federal Environment Agency.
Whether the complete silence maintained by this authority from then onwards may have something to do with the fact (passed on to us by reliable sources) that Dr. Mäders’s superior, seminar leader Dr. Sartorius, is a high-ranking member of the German delegation to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a question we will leave aside for the time being.
Whether behaviour of this kind on the part of our public authorities is simply a matter of chance, I am gradually beginning to doubt; at any rate, it can have nothing to do with the ‘ridiculous’ or ‘unverifiable’ nature of the arguments that are put forward.
GREENPEACE IN A DILEMMA?
Greenpeace Switzerland, on the other hand, seems to be of a different opinion. Thus its climate and transport expert Cyrill Studer wrote the following statement to his colleagues in an internal memo of March 15th 2004: “I have heard of the chemtrails phenomenon. (…) For the present, Greenpeace (…) will not be following up the theme of chemtrails. There is not a sufficiently solid scientific basis. (…) Greenpeace is not an organization that can undertake the verification of a supposed phenomenon. On the one hand, our independence would not be guaranteed and, on the other, it would overstretch our capacities. In other words, important elements of our climate campaign would suffer, particularly the promotion of energy efficiency and of renewable energies, or our active influence in present-day politics.”
How climate expert Studer imagines that the observations of tens of thousands of Swiss, German and Austrian citizens who have recently become extremely interested in the climate can be based on mere supposition, is a question we will set aside for the present. But to conclude from this, that an internal investigation of the chemtrails phenomenon might deprive Greenpeace of its influence in today’s (environmental) politics seems to derive from a very peculiar kind of logical argument. How could such a thing come about? One cannot avoid the impression that something is being intentionally left unclear. Quite a new light would be shed on the position of the environmental campaigners if it turned out that for Greenpeace a thing ‘cannot be’ if it is `not allowed to be’. But let us pause for a moment and see what else Studer has to tell his concerned fellow-campaigners:
“In the climate debate Greenpeace relies on the insights of the UNO climate research committee, the IPCC. This panel, which comprises around 2000 climate experts, is recognized and independent. The conclusions drawn by them are clear: Global warming represents the greatest danger to humanity. A widespread deployment of chemtrails could hardly remain hidden from the IPCC.”
Thus Greenpeace is reliant, so Studer says, on the insights of the IPCC – and thereby of the UNO. The chemtrails article in ‘Raum+Zeit’ he claims to have read; and therefore knows that in it the IPCC is accused not only of involvement in upholding the secrecy of the spraying project, which has meantime spread throughout the world, but of having given its consent to the world’s biggest secret project since the ’Manhattan Project’ of Oppenheimer. However, this does not prevent the Greenpeace activist Studer from maintaining that global warming represents the greatest threat to mankind. Chemtrails, so he believes, are an impossibility, because otherwise the IPCC would be aware of it – and Greenpeace would of course immediately be informed.
For Studer and Greenpeace Switzerland it is certainly comforting to know that BUWAL, the department for Environment, Forest and Rural Affairs of the Swiss Confederacy is entirely satisfied with the seemingly conclusive judgement of the UNO climate authority.
Thus on March 5th 2004 the environment department in Berne responded to the inquiry of Rudolf Rechsteiner, social democratic member of parliament, as follows:
“A number of ideas exist that show how it would be possible to reduce global warming by technical means, at least in the short term. (…) However, these ideas (…) are no more than theoretical. We are not aware of any practical application of these methods, either at home or abroad.”
But it goes on to say: “In Chap. 4.7 of volume III of the IPCC report on its scientific conclusions to date, these measures are summarized under the term ‘geoengineering’ and are commented on briefly (cf. Supplement).” (3)
Included as a supplement with the BUWAL statement there was a short excerpt from the IPCC report “Climate Change 2001 – Mitigation” in English. Obviously, neither Dr. Rechsteiner, who – with undisguised relief – passed the report on to me, nor Herr Studer of Greenpeace had actually read it. In German the report exists only in a much abridged version (IPCC wording: “For policy-makers”). Also entirely lacking are concrete details about geoengineering, like those given by chemtrails informer ‘Deep Shield’, the Academy of Sciences Report of 1991, and the ‘Welsbach Patent’. (2)
So we would still like to apply to the policy-makers in Greenpeace and BUWAL the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, as it remains important for us to try to clarify the mystery, we propose now – exclusively for “Raum+Zeit” readers – to take a look at the small print of the IPCC report.
WHAT DOES THE IPCC REALLY SAY?
In the original English version of Chap. 4.7 we now read the following:
The term ‘geo-engineering’ has been used to characterize large-scale, deliberate manipulations of earth environments. Keith (2001) emphasizes that it is the deliberateness that distinguishes geo-engineering from other large-scale, human impacts on the global environment. (…) Management of the biosphere (…) has sometimes been included under the heading of geo-engineering. (…)
The concept of geo-engineering also includes the possibility of engineering the earth`s climate system by large-scale manipulation of the global energy balance. It has been estimated, for example, that the mean effect on the earth surface energy balance from a doubling of carbon dioxide could be offset by an increase of 1.5 to 2% in the earth`s albedo, i.e. by reflecting additional incoming solar radiation back into space. Because these later concepts offer a potential approach for mitigating changes in the global climate (…), these additional geo-engineering concepts are introduced briefly here. (…)
Most recently, work by Teller et al. (1997) has re-examined the possibility of optical scattering, either in space or in the stratosphere, to alter the earth`s albedo and thus to modulate climate. (…) In agreement with the 1992 NAS (National Academy of Sciences) study, Teller et al. found that about 10,000,000 tons of dielectric aerosols (…) would be sufficient to increase the albedo of the earth by about 1%. (…)
In addition, Teller et al. demonstrate that use of metallic or optically resonant scatterers can, in principle, greatly reduce the total mass of scattering particles required. Two configurations of metal scatterers that were analysed in detail are mesh microstructures and micro-balloons. Conductive metal mesh is the most mass-efficient configuration. (…)
Finally, Teller et al. show that either system, if fabricated in aluminium, can be designed to have long stratospheric lifetimes yet oxidize rapidly in the troposphere, ensuring that few particles are deposited on the surface. (…)
It is unclear whether the cost of these novel scattering systems would be less than that of the older proposals (…) However, it is unlikely that cost would play an important role in the decision to deploy such a system. (…) It is likely that issues of risk, politics, and environmental ethics will prove to be the decisive factors in real choices about implementation. The importance of the novel scattering systems is not in minimizing cost, but in their potential to minimize risk. Two of the key problems with earlier proposals were the potential impact on atmospheric chemistry, and the change in the ratio of direct to diffuse solar radiation, and the associated whitening of the visual appearance of the sky. The proposals of Teller et al. suggest that the location, scattering properties, and chemical reactivity of the scatterers could, in principle, be tuned to minimize both of these impacts.”
At this point in the argument we must leave it to our worthy readers to connect the conclusions arising from the IPCC report with the observations they have themselves made of the sky above their own homes. It would seem that the ‘ordinary person’s’ powers of deduction – as well as his/her commonsense – is far more developed than that of many “policy-makers” in politics, economy and science, who presume, with their foolhardy chemtrails project, to decide on our behalf what – raining down from the sky in form of fine metallic particles – is conducive to our health.
PHENOMENON, BLUEPRINT OR SPRAYING TRIAL?
Greenpeace, at any rate, as shown by its statements and our own research is itself not clear what it knows about chemtrails – or what it is supposed to know. For whereas in March in the Zürich headquarters the statement “chemtrails as a supposed phenomenon” was still circulating as a (typically Swiss) mild breeze, a rather more blustery wind was blowing a short time afterwards at Greenpeace Hamburg. On June 11th press spokesperson Kristine Läger made a rebuttal in the following terms:
“The idea of reducing global warming by putting chemicals in the atmosphere has been around a long time. There are various proposals in this direction, suggesting the chemicals should be independently sprayed and that they should be mixed with the fuel of ordinary passenger aircraft. Whether in Germany such proposals have reached the point of actual realization is highly questionable. So far as we are aware there are no indications from research and observation of weather and climate that these so-called chemtrails exist. Nor are we aware of any project that has been realized in practice.”
Thus we see that Greenpeace confirms the statements made in our chemtrail report about the spraying procedures. The only difficulty with us chemtrail-believers is that we obviously have a sense-perception problem: While Ms. Läger in Hamburg, despite her knowledge of theoretical ‘proposals’, gazes calmly on a deep-blue sky which is only occasionally disturbed by a lonely vapour-trail, we bleary-eyed chemtrail conspiracy-theorists see, absurdly enough, the precise results of the ‘projects’ Greenpeace describes!
To repeat: Greenpeace Germany does in fact know all about the ‘ideas’; they probably also know the ‘Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming’ report of the National Academy of Sciences, and they may even have taken a look at the Welsbach Patent. But they have no idea what conclusions to draw from the chessboard pattern suspended in the Hamburg sky or the aluminium-enriched “rainbows” (see the ‘chembows’ column). Nor do they seem to have read very throroughly the unabridged IPCC “Climate Change 2001” report (which is about implementation rather than just the ideas), or my article ‘Destruction of the Sky’, for Ms. Läger goes to say:
“If these chemicals are meant to have a real effect in terms of changing the climate, they would need to be distributed world-wide, over large areas, and with great frequency. Otherwise it would have no point at all. It would be a costly project, requiring the investment of vast resources, and carrying with it unforeseeable risks. And in all probability this is not happening. However, we cannot discount the possibility that spraying trials have taken place.”
Our thanks to Ms. Läger in Hamburg for clarifying the situation: It is precisely this world-wide laying of chemtrails with great frequency and covering large areas, that is continually being documented. It is, as we already know, costly and hazardous, and requires the investment of vast resources. We know that Dr. Teller’s Livermore Laboratory estimated an annual cost of one billion dollars before the green light was given. For contrary to Ms. Lägers’s assumptions the cost/benefit analysis has long been carried out. What evidence do we have of this? A press statement of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory dated 19th Dec. 2002 is relieved to inform the public: “Biosphere unaffected by geo-engineering schemes.” (4)
The result in a nutshell? Livermore`s atmospheric scientists led by Kenneth Caldeira and Bala Govindasamy set our fears to rest: “This new work shows that a change in solar flux to stabilize climate would have little effect on the terrestrial biosphere,” Kenneth Caldeira assures us. It is even conceivable, the scientist adds, that an increase in carbon dioxide emissions will benefit plant growth in the long term: “In fact, turning down the sun a bit reduces evaporation and therefore gives the plants more water for photosynthesis so that they may actually grow better in a geo-engineered world than they do today.“
Thus we see: A feasibility study of Livermore Laboratory which offers a prospect of success – though in the view of the present writer produced after the fact – mutates in Ms. Lägers’s hands to a high-risk, and therefore entirely improbable, scenario.
But wait a moment, we almost forgot it: the ‘spraying trial’. Yes, something did happen, but only once, and a long time ago too? The final sentence of this excerpt from the Greenpeace statement is – we admit – the most puzzling: Is it the case that “a deployment of chemtrails would scarcely remain hidden from the IPCC and Greenpeace also”, as Greenpeace Switzerland is still trying to reassure us in March; or may there have been ‘spraying trials’ all the same, as Greenpeace Germany forebodes in June? Or is Greenpeace in Hamburg keeping the back door open for what is known in the USA as “controlled disclosure”: the gradual imparting of information that is distasteful to the general population, in carefully planned stages?
So we see: Question after question arises, contradictions too; maybe even cover-ups. Cover-ups? – What an audacious thought!
‘Greenpeace Magazine/4’ (July/August 2004) has just come out. The magazine, published in Hamburg (circulation 120,000), basing its articles on the unspeakable climate shocker “The Day After Tomorrow”, has this time tackled a question that concerns us all: “Before the Flood – Climate Change and its Consequences”. Fifteen pages are devoted to a detailed report on the subject; and five pages to, amongst other things, possible (technological-Utopian) counter-strategies.
So it is with some degree of curiosity that I turn to pages 40-44 where the significant heading “Foam-beaters and Shadow-boxers” seems to hold out the promise of information on the chemtrail phenomenon. As the chemtrails are generally known to be an example of shadow-boxing par excellence, my expectations are correspondingly high. But, oh dear, what do I find in the Greenpeace article? We are told about mirrors in space, golf-balls in the sea, artificial volcanic eruptions; there is even mention of an aluminium-micro-balloon project of chemtrail mentor Edward Teller. But concerning the environmental phenomenon which is causing the greatest concern in the German-speaking world at present, and has prompted the sending of countless hundreds of letters to Greenpeace, there is not a single word, no trace whatever.
From audacious thought – to justified suspicion therefore. Is there really a cover-up, then, after all? The question may be permitted at this point, since the indications are reaching dangerous proportions where Greenpeace is concerned. Or are we to believe that the time of publication has everything to do with “Before the Flood” and nothing whatever to do with “The Destruction of the Sky”?
Maybe – as is so often the case – it is the simplest answer which comes closest to the truth. Supposing the word ‘chemtrails’ appeared in print in the “Greenpeace Magazine”: How many tens of thousands of people more would look up into the sky and recognize that the supposedly Utopian “proposal” has long moved on via “spraying trials” to a systematic, long-term spreading of cloud cover over the whole of Europe? If we call to mind the many clues that lead us to suspect an axis connecting UNO-IPCC-Greenpeace, then the question arises: Could Greenpeace have received “from above” the instruction to carry out an exercise in damage-limitation? Not a comfortable thought, but one that is hard to resist in this case.
TRUST IN THE LIGHT?
Lucis Trust, one of the leading publishers of the written material of the UNO in New York, can boast a very eventful company history. Founded in 1922 under the name ‘Lucifer Publishing Company’ by Alice Bailey, President of the Theosophical Society, Lucis Trust was to help to propagate the writings which Bailey and her esoteric circle believed were helping to prepare the coming of the Theosophical Figure of Light – otherwise known as Lucifer.
Although the Lucifer Publishing Company – for understandable reasons – soon changed its name to Lucis Trust (actually „Trust in the Light“), its offices remained for many years at a highly significant address: 666 United Nations Plaza. The proximity to the headquarters of the United Nations was no accident: Today Lucis Trust – at a new address in Wall Street – is still a noteworthy publisher of both ‘New Age’ literature and of many publications of the UNO administration, and is in charge of the interdenominational ‘meditation room’ at UN headquarters.
One source of funding of Lucis Trust is a finance conglomerate led by former US defence minister Robert McNamara, one of those chiefly responsible for the US military disaster in Vietnam, and later President of the World Bank. Some of this money is apparently channelled to other causes: Lucis Trust is a generous sponsor of humanitarian organizations – Amnesty International, for example, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace International. (5)
What, one is inclined to ask, does this – possibly covert – financing of Greenpeace by organizations which are closely connected to the UNO and the World Bank, have to do with the chemtrails ‘phenomenon’? Maybe nothing at all; or maybe more than many of us will relish.
THE GRIEFAHN CONFESSION
But enough of that. In defiant mood we make a last attempt to find out something about the spraying of fine metallic particles in the skies of Germany, and turn – free from illusion, as befits the situation – to a politician, Monika Griefahn (German Social Democratic Party). Ms. Griefahn, board member of Greenpeace Germany from 1984-1990 and for the following eight years environment minister for Lower Saxony, now chairs the Committee for Culture and Media of the Federal German Parliament. She therefore moves with equal agility on the slippery terrain of environmental politics and in the media quagmire. On July 8th Ms. Griefahn replied to a letter from two chemtrail activists as follows:
“I am in basic agreement with your concerns. Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms. (…)”
Well, a clear statement at last! Ms. Griefahn is not only – like Greenpeace – fully aware that all sorts of experiments are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere. She can even talk about them. Thus the ex-environment minister has joined the ranks of those brave politicians who only remain – ‘half-silent’. The fact that Ms. Griefahn’s years with Greenpeace in Hamburg are some distance removed in the past, has obviously not prevented her from keeping up with developments in environmental policy. She knows what is going on. On the other hand, instructions to the effect that she is to keep quiet are not getting through to Ms. Griefahn. And that is a good thing. For otherwise a statement such as the following would not be possible:
“I share your concern over the use of aluminium or barium compounds which have a considerable toxic potential. However, so far as I am aware the extent of their use is so far minimal. In any case it would be much more sensible (in the logic of such experiments) to place compounds of this kind not in the troposphere, but in the stratosphere, where their exit from the atmosphere would occur far less rapidly.”
At last! There we have it. In the skies of Germany, so Social Democratic member of Parliament Monika Griefahn tells us, aluminium and barium compounds are being spread just as tens of thousands of concerned citizens have observed, documented and bitterly deplored. So far as Ms. Griefahn is aware the amounts spread have been small, but with all due respect, Honourable Member, we “chemtrail conspirators” know better, because we have, for ages, been looking quite consciously every day.
Thanks for your courage, all the same. Who knows? – Maybe one day statues of politicians like Monika Griefahn or the equally plucky US Congressman Dennis Kucinich will adorn in marble splendour the squares of newly verdant German or American cities. As silent witnesses, perhaps, of the lunacy of an epoch in which the madness of manipulation – of the human being, of plants, animals, of the weather – control-freakery and inner inflexibility, had for a short time taken possession of the human soul?
But we first look forward to seeing how Greenpeace dismisses the ‘Griefahn Confession’.
MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND
Basel, the present author’s town of residence, is – perhaps unsurprisingly – a stronghold of believers in chemtrails; one in ten people, so opinion polls say, have already heard of them despite the media blackout. Several thousand people in the prosperous town at the bend in the Rhine know that the chemtrails phenomenon suggests that something is seriously wrong.
Among them are several elderly, but resolute, ladies and gentlemen, well-to-do people, who because of their environmental awareness have been for a long time, in some cases for decades, members of Greenpeace. (6) They include members of the ’exclusive’ Rainbow Warrior Club who have committed themselves to a fixed annual contribution, and also businesswomen who have made over to Greenpeace substantial legacies in the event of their death. Veteran anti-nuclear activists, campaigners for animal welfare or against electrosmog; in their alarm they had all turned to Greenpeace because of the chemtrails – which are visible everywhere in the skies above Basel. But a painful experience awaited all of them: They were palmed off with the same unsatisfactory answers that we have by now grown tired of hearing. (7)
But ‘is’ can become ‘was’: the consequence drawn by these elderly, well-to-do activists from Greenpeace’s lack of interest was the immediate cancellation of membership of many years, the withdrawal of legacies, and the witholding of payments to Greenpeace until further notice.
Now Greenpeace is an organization with a good reputation to lose. This reputation rests upon the quality of its pioneering work for the sake of man and environment, and upon an image which has led one to believe in the highest integrity of the environmental group. But if it were to emerge that Greenpeace – unbeknown to the general public – follows instructions from a higher source, from UNO authorities, for example, and is therefore deliberately burying its head in the sand in the chemtrails question, its good reputation could soon be destroyed.
Such a policy is of no service to anyone, least of all to Greenpeace itself. There is unquestionably a need for environmental organizations of this kind. Greenpeace has the scientifically qualified people, the financial resources and the technical know-how that would enable it to get to the bottom of the chemtrails riddle straightforwardly and reliably, once and for all. If Greenpeace only wanted to.
However, the question remains: Does Greenpeace want, and is it allowed, to do so? For the present the answer seems to be a decisive ‘NO’. But we who feel threatened by the obvious reality of chemtrails, and are shocked by this ostensible lack of interest, have it in our power to get Greenpeace to reexamine its attitude.
For Greenpeace is not only an environment organization, it is also a fund-raising machine. The funds raised keep the engine up and – as in most cases, Greenpeace`s engine still requires oil – running; the effectiveness of Greenpeace is entirely dependent on the money donated. Perhaps you too, dear Reader, have been for years a member of Greenpeace, or support its campaigns? Maybe you too would like to see actions, instead of mere words and cover-ups? Maybe you would become a member – if Greenpeace were only to become concretely active?
Remember, therefore, the power of your purse and do not hesitate to let Greenpeace know of it. Ask to be sent information on what Greenpeace is planning to do about chemtrails. Or strike a bargain with Greenpeace: Membership in exchange for a genuine clarification of the chemtrails question. But also point out what will happen to your membership or your donation, if Greenpeace remains inactive.
‘Money makes the world go round’ – and with it Greenpeace too.
Let us therefore not hesitate to remind Greenpeace of its lofty aims. For only if we do so will Greenpeace fulfil its responsibility towards man and the environment, in the chemtrails question which so deeply concerns us all.
(1) www.holmestead.ca – email of B. Holmes, 16.6.04.
(2) ‘Die Zerstörung des Himmels’, Raum+Zeit Nr. 127, Jan/Feb 2004. Available in English from G. Rickett.
(3) ‘Climate Change 2001: Mitigation’ – 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC/Accra, Ghana 1997). Chap. 4.7, Pages 333-334. Full report: www.grida.no/climat/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
(6) All names are known to the author, and can be sent on request to Greenpeace.
(7) The same statement is sent by Greenpeace to all its branches in Germany.
THE ‘NATURE MIRACLE’ OF THE ‘CHEMBOWS’ AND THE HALOGENE EFFECT
Wherever these weirdly beautiful ‘rainbows’ appear, the chemtrail-spraying sqaudrons are not far away: Whether in winter with ground temperatures of –10 degrees Celsius or in summer at +40 degrees; the chemical rainbows or ‘chembows’ invariably appear after a day (or night) of intensive chemtrail activity, mostly in the direction of the rising or setting sun.
These reflections – in clouds, which official meteorology has now begun to refer to somewhat helplessly as ‘streaky clouds’ or ‘streaked cirrus clouds’ – turn out to be a genuine nature miracle. The air humidity prevailing when chembows are formed, of invariably less than 40%, shows that we are seeing sunlight which is being diffracted in none other than – aluminium powder! – Instead of ice crystals or water drops.
Another sure sign of concentrated spraying is – something hard to catch in photos – the ‘halogene effect’. Maybe you have yourself been surprised how, on many sunny days, there has been an extremely bright light, comparable to the ‘pallid’ ray of a halogene lamp. This – sometimes slightly glittering – effect arises through the diffraction of the sun’s rays by the fine metallic particles!
And now the final proof: If after heavy rainfall there comes a cool, sunny day without spraying activity, the sunlight immediately returns to its – once normal – ‘golden yellow’ light quality. Enjoy these rare moments, with the feeling they bring of life as ‘in days gone by’.
Coincidences occur, that simply cannot be! There is a high probability that this summer (2004) – contrary to all the assurances of the ‘experts’ – you could be sure that on clear days for which a marked rise in temperature was forecast (3 to 5 degrees C) there was spraying activity in your area. Because on such days ultra-violet radiation reaches abnormal levels. But – lo and behold! – this is where the burgeoning chemtrail movement is showing its first signs of success. Not that this mad spraying programme has been stopped – no: Before such hot days the spraying is carried out – not always, but more and more often – under cover of darkness. Often the whole night through.
From now on the authorities are saying, in effect: “Watching not permitted either!”
In order to outwit an increasingly wakeful populace in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the opponent acts from the shadows, in more senses than one. Thus he endeavours to make the chemtrail project invisible, just as Greenpeace renders it silent. Thus a further piece is fitted seamlessly into the chemtrail jigsaw.
Are you sceptical? Test it yourself: On such a day, get up at sunrise, and you will see that the sky, from horizon to horizon, is covered with a dense network of chemtrails. But hardly has the day begun, than the spraying is over and the planes have disappeared.
When then, only a few hours later, people set off in pale halogene sunlight on their way to work – or to church, because Sundays are particularly suitable for the activity described – streaks of whitish chemtrail soup are already spread out over their heads. Bon appétit!