US Senate Admit That Chemtrails Are Real And Killing Humans

Fact checked
US senate admit that chemtrails are real and killing humans

Until recently you were considered a conspiracy theorist if you believed that the U.S. government were involved in spraying harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, in other words if you believed in chemtrails. 

Now an official US government document vindicates what alternative media have been saying for years.

According to the document, entitled Weather modification: programs, problems, policy, and potential:

Weather modification, although a relatively  young science, has over the years stimulated great interest within the scientific, commercial, governmental, and agricultural communities.  

Such responses are readily understandable. Weather-related disasters  and hazards affect virtually all Americans and annually cause untold  human suffering and loss of life and result in billions of dollars of economic loss to crops and other property.

While weather modification  projects have been operational for nearly 25 years and have been  shown to have significant potential for preventing, diverting, moderating, or ameliorating the adverse effects of such weather related disasters and hazards, I am greatly concerned regarding the lack of a coordinated Federal weather modification policy and a coordinated
and comprehensive program for weather modification research and development.

This fact is all the more disturbing in view of the manifest needs, and benefits, social and economic, that can be associated with weather modification activities.

These deficiencies in our Federal organizational structure have resulted in a less than optimal return on our investments in weather modification activities and a failure, with few exceptions, to recognize that much additional research and development needs to be carried out before weather modification becomes a truly operational tool.

7 Comments

  1. Small-scale weather modification is old news. This does not prove the massive global conspiracy which chemtrail theorists believe is occurring, and it certainly doesn’t prove that if a contrail from an aircraft lasts for more than a few minutes, then it is a “chemtrail” and part of said conspiracy.

  2. Small-scale weather modification is old news. This does not prove the massive global conspiracy which chemtrail theorists believe is occurring, and it certainly doesn’t prove that if a contrail from an aircraft lasts for more than a few minutes, then it is a “chemtrail” and part of said conspiracy.

  3. Michael, are you an apologist shill, or simply putting your head in the proverbial sand? Physics 101, Laws of Thermo dynamics etc put the lie to “persistent con (condensation) trails. Further, having made extensive observations and recordings of a multitude of trails indicates that there is an obvious, distinct difference from condensation and chemical trails. When these craft are flying at 30,000 feet (or higher) and their trail persists from horizon to horizon, and there are numerous simultaneous trails, along with the flights leaving those trails that do not correspond to standard flight paths, it speaks for itself that there is something a great deal more afoot than “small-scale” weather modification.

  4. Michael, are you an apologist shill, or simply putting your head in the proverbial sand? Physics 101, Laws of Thermo dynamics etc put the lie to “persistent con (condensation) trails. Further, having made extensive observations and recordings of a multitude of trails indicates that there is an obvious, distinct difference from condensation and chemical trails. When these craft are flying at 30,000 feet (or higher) and their trail persists from horizon to horizon, and there are numerous simultaneous trails, along with the flights leaving those trails that do not correspond to standard flight paths, it speaks for itself that there is something a great deal more afoot than “small-scale” weather modification.

  5. This report is from 1979. Maybe before you call something proof: a) read the entire document, not just “cherry pick” sentences; b) look for documents from 2015 onwards to verify claims; c) let people form their own opinions. This is why people distrust most “journalists”, they are too busy trying to tell us what information they present “really means”. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.