Chemtrail Debunkers....

Got barium?

-->Barium facilitates weather mod projects because it can create cloud formations at extremely low humidity, when natural clouds cannot form. Barium oxide (a salt) is a desiccant (drying agent) and can be used by the military to de-humidify clouds and dry up unwanted precipitation. Have your skin, mucus membranes and eyes been very dry lately?

We know that America's military-industrial complex has been spewing various forms of barium into our atmosphere for years. The University of Alaska has propelled barium into space in order to study the earth's magnetic field lines. The military used barium salts over enemy territory in Libya, Panama and Iraq, reportedly to make the population sick. A recent report from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base confirms that the Air Force has been spraying barium titanate across the United States to facilitate advanced radar studies.

-->

www.healthfreedom.info...

Yummmm, Barium, It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Some really good pics of nasty jet pollution and it's effects on our skies.

Lot's of great info and a place to study further.

www.bariumblues.com...

-->Barium is a major component of the aerosol spraying operation called chemtrails. Our atmosphere has become a platform for some of the latest weapons of war (such as HAARP).

-->

also specifically:

www.bariumblues.com...

reply to post by pianopraze

Here is more proof.

Huh??? "proof" of what, exactly?? All you have there in that Canadian study is a cost analysis, and technologies considerations and suggestions. That is NEW, from only last Fall!! It is a presentation, an examination --- IDEAS only, so far!

Did you actually read the whole thing?? I did.

I suggest YOU read it all, and pay attention to what it actually is saying, the terms used and what it is proposing.

PROPOSING!

And, all those who starred this contribution post....I suggest YOU read it too, rather than just reflexively agreeing with the poster's opinion. An opinion that is based on flawed assumptions, apparently, after reading IN to the paper what the poster wanted to see....confirmation bias, again rearing its ugly head.


The aviation parts pertaining to Boeing 747 performance capabilities were most amusing in their naivete'. I see the report's primary emphasis is on getting any particulates, for purposes of "geoengineering" lofted to as high an altitude as possible. (My thinking is, the airships --- yet to be designed and built in any great numbers --- are by far the best scenario. IIRC, they provided a better cost advantage too, overall).

But, the 747s "analysis" made too many naive assumptions .... continuously focusing on the published "Service Ceiling" of the airplane, at 45,000 feet. Folks.....that number is NOT an absolute, and what is ignored is the WEIGHT and resulting performance of the airplane. Fully loaded, initially after takeoff, there is NO commercial airliner that can immediately climb up to its 'service ceiling" altitude!! The number published is achievable ONLY at weights much lower than maximum gross take off. (IF your "mission" is, as they calculated, a 5000 kilometer range, you have to carry a LOT of weight, in fuel for that endurance time-frame. PLUS your 'payload'. As time goes by, fuel burns off, weight goes down, and higher altitudes are then possible....but NOT right away!).

I also laughed when they got to the part of the "crew" cost break-down. "One" pilot, and a "mission specialist". LOL!!! The B-747 (as in ALL civilian turbojet airplanes) requires a minimum of TWO pilots. Such a glaring error casts a bit of doubt on many of the conclusions drawn by that.

In essence....they were tasked with doing the best they could to ascertain (in a ballpark way, as scientifically as they could manage) a cost estimate, of various technical proposals. And, even before getting into the nitty-gritty of the thing.....those of you who "believe" it is some kind of "proof".....you don't even have to read all 85 pages to see the fallacy of "proof" claims!!


Page 3 of the PDF:

(Lord Rees) ---

....Lord Rees, chair of The Royal Society, wrote in the forward to the Society's 2009 report on geoengineering,

"The continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is driving changes in the Earth’s climate. The long-term consequences will be exceedingly threatening, especially if nations continue ‘business as usual’ in the coming decades. Most nations now recognize the need to shift to a low-carbon economy, and nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But if such reductions achieve too little, too late, there will surely be pressure to consider a ‘plan B’—to seek ways to counteract the climatic effects of greenhouse gas emissions by ‘geoengineering’ … Far more detailed study would be needed before any method could even be seriously considered for deployment on the requisite international scale. Moreover, it is already clear than none offers a ‘silver bullet’, and that some options are far more problematic than others.2".

In case you missed it, I highlighted some pertinent points. And, the tag-line there:

"....none offers a 'silver bullet'....."

PDF page 6:

Introduction paragraph 1.2 ---

The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the
feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management
(SRM). This study does not examine effectiveness or risks of injecting material
into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems
on a single cost basis.

I could cite many more examples of this study's actual purpose, and what it says "in context". But, others may wish to comb through, and read for themselves.

I am very disappointed to see such a post as yours, shouting "proof", where none exists...........

reply to post by Tecumte


Your link is science fiction.

It specifically cites "Cliff Carnicorn". He is a well-known HOAXER who will climb onboard with any and all pseudo-science claptrap, and repeat it as if it were true. He has been in on this gravy train HOAX for many years, by now. He is not above LYING intentionally, and just sitting back and watching gullible people fall for it.

You are not disappointing him.....

reply to post by Tecumte


Ditto.

And, sorry to be blunt, but that opening line about "barium" and "breakfast"? Not original, at all...lifted from the stupid sites you've been falling for, isn't it??


As in the first link, this one "barium blues" is yet another that is WELL-known, been around for a long time, and long ago refuted as BUNK! I see you are on the classic path that new "chemmies" travel, when they first toss out all sanity and reason, and fall head first into this nonsense.

USE YOUR BRAIN!! Get educated about REAL science. You might find out that what you used to "believe" causes you some embarrassment at first, but it will worth it so you don't look foolish in future. No one likes to be laughed at, do they?


Here....I found this site, just chock FULL of references to contrails for decades. SOME of the writing is prone to "anger" at contrails....as the opinion that they somehow are "ugly" .... can't get that attitude wrapped in my head, to tell the truth. They are JUST CLOUDS!!!

There are personal reports and statements from WW II, Korean conflict, Vietnam, Cold War aspects, etc.

www.bariumblues.com...

Also, from Shuttle and ISS astronauts, from their high point-of-view, looking down. There are countless photos, and the ALL describe contrails as "ice crystals"....not 'barium', none of that nonsense.

AND......the biggest fallacy of those stupid "chemtrail" websites is they use people's lack of global awareness....of SCALE and size of the whole planet!! A person in XYZ somewhere, looks up and sees his/her LOCAL sky conditions, and freaks out!! (Admit it....it is EXACTLY what you, and other "chemmies", are doing). But, they (you) are not realizing the entire Earth is HUGE....and the contrails are only occurring, and 'concentrated' (when conditions are right for them to even form, and persist....this is not 100% of the time)....where people WANT to fly and travel. A tiny, tiny percentage f the overall global surface area!!

THINK!!! How much of this planet's surface is covered in oceans? About 70 - 75%, yes? What percentage of heavy, frequent air traffic is there over the world's oceans, on any given day.....compared to over the North American or European continents??


Video.....illustrates perfectly my POINT:

A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)

SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007

In the past 15 years, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) has been examined by two premier scientific groups. Lowell Wood has investigated the practicalities and risks of this approach in considerable depth. He is currently on the staff at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ken Calderia, of the Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, has done confirmatory work at Carnegie and Livermore.

The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research Regarding the need for solar radiation management (using sulfate particles), Paul J. Crutzen, Nobel Laureate for his work on the ozone hole and considered one of the world’s premier atmospheric physicist, stated last year: “the very best would be if emissions of the greenhouse gases could be reduced so much that the stratospheric sulfur release experiment would not need to take place. Currently, this looks like a pious wish.”

The pictures below show the effect of the predicted sea level rise on the State of Florida. We would lose three major metropolitan cities, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Saint Petersburg, as well as the nation’s trillion dollar investment at Cape Canaveral potentially by as soon as 2050.

The purpose of the Framework below is to outline how solar radiation management, using stratospheric particles, can be evaluated and employed with complete certainty and within the time needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming. The Framework below is based on solar radiation management (SRM) as detailed by Alan Carlin (2007a and 2007c), and as conceived by Wood, Caldeira and others.

The Framework would consist of five core elements, each of which is essential to application of the proposed geo-engineering. These five elements reflect the concerns of the National Academy of Sciences and the consensus of climate scientists and economists conducting both science and policy research on geo-engineering.

1. Precisely Define Solar Radiation Management Objectives: In light of the potential to apply SRM incrementally, much like adjustment of a global thermostat, and in light of the potential for any nation or consortium to use SRM without “permission,” the first element of the Framework is specification of the objective being sought so that any nation or international body would have a basis for responsible action. Objective (3), below, discusses the need for an international body to address actual implementation of SRM.

2. SRM Research: Although there is no question that a nation could successfully implement SRM by doing no more than replicating the major volcanic eruptions, Dr. Wood recommends more optimum types of particles and more targeted placement of them into the stratosphere. We need research on each of the following:

a. The optimal size, composition, and placement of particles (elevation and geographic coverage) and determination of the optimum radiation wavelengths to be reduced, in order to achieve the Framework Objective;

b. The particle quantities required as a function of temperature reduction (energy balancing) as needed to meet the Framework Objective, i.e., in order to preserve the historic mass of all three major ice sheets;

c. Evaluation of the optimal transport mechanism to carry particles into stratosphere;

d. Identification of, and evaluation of means to eliminate or reduce, potential adverse non-temperature environmental effects of particles; For further discussion, see, references listed in footnote 119 of Carlin, 2007a.

3. Design and implement an institutional setting for use of SRM Professor Barrett, Director of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, argues there is an immediate need to examine how to manage SRM use through an international body, a policy recommendation also made by Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Barrett 2007, Carlin 2007). To prevent the political pathologies observed in the operations of the IPCC and the UN Environmental Program, an international institution patterned after the Federal Reserve Board or the International Monetary Fund might be expected to provide neutral leadership. Such an apolitical body would likely operate in small incremental steps, much as the Federal Reserve and the IMF do with monetary policy. Recalling that SRM could be implemented by a single country with the needed financial and technological resources, this element of the Framework would serve to ensure international consensus on this global activity.

5. Proposed Timeline
This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of
guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.

Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to
include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary research and technical
development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale
testing of SRM, to include funding requirements. The ideal leader of this consortium
would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his
colleagues), and would include institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns
Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry,
as well as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted
by climate scientists today. Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would
identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a
specific objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a
detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and regulate the use of
SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide
spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5 million estimated).

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing
scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation
plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).

Phase III: Review research results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule
of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It
would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18
months).

Phase IV: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) begins under international control
through the SRM control body. Implementation would be transparent and would include
continuing monitoring and reporting of physical effects as well as and semi-annual plan
revisions based on new information gained. Full SRM for the geographic area
selected/world would be realized within weeks of full implementation. Note that if the
quantities are correctly selected, it would be possible to design SRM so that no further
warming of the area selected/world would occur after that time regardless of other
climatic events as long as an appropriate level of particles is maintained.

Phase V: Maintenance of SRM system based on continued comparisons between
objectives (element 1 above) and actual achievements. The SRM program, if effective,
would be expected to continue until no longer needed (when greenhouse gases are
adequately controlled), and could be expected to remain in place for a century.
For a more lengthy discussion on some of the concepts underlying this Framework, see Carlin,
2007.

SOURCE FILE
thehardlook.typepad.com...

Regional climate response to solar-radiation management

www.environmentportal.in...

Concerns about the slow pace of climate mitigation have led to renewed dialogue about solar-radiation management, which could be achieved by adding reflecting aerosols to the stratosphere 1–6 Modelling studies suggest that solar-radiation . management could produce stabilized global temperatures and reduced global precipitation 4–6 Here we present an . analysis of regional differences in a climate modified by solarradiation management, using a large-ensemble modelling experiment that examines the impacts of 54 scenarios for global temperature stabilization. Our results confirm that solar-radiation management would generally lead to less extreme temperature and precipitation anomalies, compared with unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions. However, they also illustrate that it is physically not feasible to stabilize global precipitation and temperature simultaneously as long as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise.

reply to post by pianopraze

Pretty much invisible, except for the scattering effects. Well, here's what Edward Teller says:

Interestingly enough, such Rayleigh scattering of sunlight, performed by stratospherically-deployed aerosols whose diameters are several-fold smaller than the wavelength of light itself, will selectively scatter back into space the largely deleterious ultraviolet component of sunlight while diminishing the light that we see – and that plants use for photosynthesis – only imperceptibly.

From the human perspective, skies would be bluer, twilights would be more visually spectacular, plants would be less stressed by UV photodamage and thus would be more productive, and children playing out-of-doors would be much less susceptible to sunburn (and thus to skin dysplasias and dermal cancers as adults), if this stratospheric Rayleigh scattering system were to be deployed.

www.newruskincollege.com...
I don't see anyone talking about bluer skies or more spectacular sunsets as a result of "chemtrails". I do remember pinatubo sunsets though and that's the idea, to emulate volcanic eruptions. I haven't seen a sunset like that for a long time.

Increasing the albedo of low level cumulus clouds is a different concept from the injection of scattering materials at high levels. Reflective low thick clouds (cumulus) decrease radiative forcing, in theory. Reflective high thin clouds (cirrus, contrails) increase radiative forcing.

What hidden papers? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

reply to post by weedwhacker


BTW...

Too late to edit, so quoting from above:

There are personal reports and statements from WW II, Korean conflict, Vietnam, Cold War aspects, etc.

www.bariumblues.com...

In my Googling, found that web page....and LATER see that it TOO is hosted by the "barium blues" people??



Even though it has loads of science, and actual facts about real contrails. Maybe they have a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde complex?? LOL.....

Anyway, the "home page" of barium[color=1464F4]blues --- the one with all the pictures of normal clouds? THAT is utter nonsense, the captions they've included...claiming "barium". (and other things)

What balderdash.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Your link is science fiction.

It specifically cites "Cliff Carnicorn". He is a well-known HOAXER who will climb onboard with any and all pseudo-science claptrap, and repeat it as if it were true. He has been in on this gravy train HOAX for many years, by now. He is not above LYING intentionally, and just sitting back and watching gullible people fall for it.

You are not disappointing him.....

Thank you for your opinion and such willingness to share it.

Others may disagree however and find lot's of usefull info on the many links posted.

The only HOAX really too that I see are that are skies aren't being purposely covered in a nasty polluted cloud cover.

That's obvious.

I'm quite content that more and more and more people everyday are looking into it, with videos and info coming from every corner of the non-kept media reaching new researchers daily.

And nothing the so called misnamed 'debunkers' do is having any substantial affect in slowing it down.

Originally posted by Tecumte


Thank you for your opinion and such willingness to share it.

Others may disagree however and find lot's of usefull info on the many links posted.

The only HOAX really too that I see are that are skies aren't being purposely covered in a nasty polluted cloud cover.

That's obvious.

I'm quite content that more and more and more people everyday are looking into it, with videos and info coming from every corner of the non-kept media reaching new researchers daily.

And nothing the so called misnamed 'debunkers' do is having any substantial affect in slowing it down.

edit on 31-3-2011 by Tecumte because: spelling

You all sound like people in a Multi Level Marketing scheme, who think any day now, its going to get real big and you will prove all of us wrong.

Oh..one of the people who helped start the Hoax, Len Horowitz, actually does have his own MLM network marketing to sell now.

But anyways, even since 1998 when people starting falling for it, they said the same thing back then, that its going to get real big and you will soon have proof of it all. 13 years later, its the same exact thing. Not only do you all not have proof, but when "proof" is presented, its either not at all what you say it is, its either junk science, or hoaxed photos, or debunked pictures from 10 years ago.

I wonder how many more times this year that chemtrailers will put up the KC-10 video, or the G-1 turboprop with air sampling tubes, or a small cloud seeding plane. or KC-135 with icing attachment on the boom, or the E-6A Navy communications airplane?

Or better yet, the video from Pinal of junked aircraft that are supposedly chemplanes too

"I don't see anyone talking about bluer skies or more spectacular sunsets as a result of "chemtrails". I do remember pinatubo sunsets though and that's the idea, to emulate volcanic eruptions. I haven't seen a sunset like that for a long time,"-Phage

Well where I live here in Mid-Missouri, after a cloudless blue sky has been saturated in a matter of hours by these dozens and dozens of planes flying in X's and O's and U turns, putting out these brilliant white smokey looking spreading plumes, right about the time the sun has set behind the horizon, this nasty mess glows bright red, an almost surrealistic look to the sky occurs, like a kid with a box of red crayons went on a binge.

Then after about fifteen more minutes when the sun is no longer visable and the light is at a different angle this nastiness takes on a whole different look, like coal smoke hanging and dripping down from the sky really quite ugly.

I realize I'm going to have to dig out the pictures and get some stills up from the videos I shot, not to try and disuade any 'debunkers' (because that's pointless and really not my concern or intent anyway) but to share with others who honestly care.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Tecumte


Thank you for your opinion and such willingness to share it.

Others may disagree however and find lot's of usefull info on the many links posted.

The only HOAX really too that I see are that are skies aren't being purposely covered in a nasty polluted cloud cover.

That's obvious.

I'm quite content that more and more and more people everyday are looking into it, with videos and info coming from every corner of the non-kept media reaching new researchers daily.

And nothing the so called misnamed 'debunkers' do is having any substantial affect in slowing it down.

edit on 31-3-2011 by Tecumte because: spelling

You all sound like people in a Multi Level Marketing scheme, who think any day now, its going to get real big and you will prove all of us wrong.

Oh..one of the people who helped start the Hoax, Len Horowitz, actually does have his own MLM network marketing to sell now.

But anyways, even since 1998 when people starting falling for it, they said the same thing back then, that its going to get real big and you will soon have proof of it all. 13 years later, its the same exact thing. Not only do you all not have proof, but when "proof" is presented, its either not at all what you say it is, its either junk science, or hoaxed photos, or debunked pictures from 10 years ago.

I wonder how many more times this year that chemtrailers will put up the KC-10 video, or the G-1 turboprop with air sampling tubes, or a small cloud seeding plane. or KC-135 with icing attachment on the boom, or the E-6A Navy communications airplane?

Or better yet, the video from Pinal of junked aircraft that are supposedly chemplanes too

edit on 31-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

Think what you will, after all that's what this board is all about, but realize back in the late 90's when intentional atmospheric modification first took off in a big way, very few people were aware and it took time. Now when I go to almost ANY message board on nearly any non-kept outlet, all the way from ones dealing in health issues to economic ones I see people who have become aware and are helping others to do the same. Even on MSM message boards that aren't heavily censored I see people speaking out about it so the knowledge is growing and spreading as it should. Keep up your efforts to downplay it all, in time however I think your attempts will have proved futile and a waste of time (and money?)

reply to post by Tecumte


In other words you agree. We're not getting clearer blue skies and vibrant red sunsets as a result of "chemtrails". But we are getting more diffuse sunsets as a result of normal aircraft contrails. Thank you.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3adf41d4bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Tecumte


Think what you will, after all that's what this board is all about, but realize back in the late 90's when intentional atmospheric modification first took off in a big way, very few people were aware and it took time. Now when I go to almost ANY message board on nearly any non-kept outlet, all the way from ones dealing in health issues to economic ones I see people who have become aware and are helping others to do the same. Even on MSM message boards that aren't heavily censored I see people speaking out about it so the knowledge is growing and spreading as it should. Keep up your efforts to downplay it all, in time however I think your attempts will have proved futile and a waste of time (and money?)

Growing and spreading? go look at the Carnicom board and Chemtrail Central, and tell me how much its spreading? Those were the two main boards for chemtrails back in the day. i do not think Chemtrail Central has had a chemtrail related post in 6 weeks now, last I checked.

If there has been no proof in 13 years, and the "proof" offered ends up debunking chemtrails, then how are you going to get proof.

maybe some chemtrailers will give Will Thomas some more money that he can keep.

reply to post by Tecumte

....right about the time the sun has set behind the horizon, this nasty mess glows bright red....

Ummmm....something that's been observed for eons. Sorry, but you didn't realize that the low Sun (below YOUR horizon, where you are located) will illuminate the bottoms of clouds, in the red part of the spectrum??

Every school kid knows this! Even ancient mariners, before science of meteorology, noted a correlation. There is an adage, a ditty...ever heard it?

Red sky at night, sailors' delight; Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.

(The actual wording may vary, but the gist is the same. Centuries of observation, and resulting weather patterns).

"Why is the sky red during sunset?"

Sailors' proverb.

Have you ever heard anyone use the proverb above?

Shakespeare did. He said something similar in his play, Venus and Adonis. “Like a red morn that ever yet betokened, Wreck to the seaman, tempest to the field, Sorrow to the shepherds, woe unto the birds, Gusts and foul flaws to herdmen and to herds.”

As far as I know, from school.....there were no airplanes and "chem"-trails, in Shakespeare's time....you may feel free to argue otherwise. It IS your right.

People have enjoyed sunsets for ever.....think they're beautiful, actually. Video:





Do you not think this "chem"-trail hysteria, and hoax, has caused you to lose touch with reality and fact??

Amazing huh? People now thinking a red sunset has to do with chemtrails and airplanes. Well chemtrailers do the same thing with moon halos, and sundogs too. Normal meterological phenomena now mean chemicals to these people

And rainbows, how can we forget rainbows!

Originally posted by Tecumte
Got barium?

Barium facilitates weather mod projects because it can create cloud formations at extremely low humidity, when natural clouds cannot form. Barium oxide (a salt) is a desiccant (drying agent) and can be used by the military to de-humidify clouds and dry up unwanted precipitation. Have your skin, mucus membranes and eyes been very dry lately?

Utter, Utter Nonsense.

Weather Modification projects do not use Barium. It does not help create clouds either. Your paragraph claims that it both create clouds and destroys them, are you debunking yourself?

You are just believing anything you read, as long as it contains the word barium in there somewhere.

Ther is a new chemtrail theory on Rense about turning the skies blue- funny thing tho, the Manganese di-Bromo di-Fluoro-Benzidine they refer too seems to only exist in this article and derivatives of it - I can't find any other reference to it online!!

It also continues the ol' "polymer" meme.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Ther is a new chemtrail theory on Rense about turning the skies blue- funny thing tho, the Manganese di-Bromo di-Fluoro-Benzidine they refer too seems to only exist in this article and derivatives of it - I can't find any other reference to it online!!

It also continues the ol' "polymer" meme.....

Wow, just wow..talk about total nonsense and rubbish. These people will just spout so much junk science, and of course the chemtrailers will just lap it up, without any question or skepticism.

According to Dr. Castle, this "new color blue is due to the chemical compounds Manganese di-Bromo di-Fluoro-Benzidine (salts). They are added to Chemtrails so that light is not reflected; but, rather, these compounds refract both light and dark. Therefore, it works the atmosphere into what is called 'a coherent phase fiber optics refraction' in a crystalline (the salts) blue material. So, the sky 'looks' blue; but actually it only has the refracted color of whatever color (bright or dark) is above it."

Refracts both light and DARK??? Wow..what claptrap