In this, the third and final installment of the 'Chemtrails 101' series, we will examine scientific data supporting the chemtrail hypothesis.
Hundreds of independent lab test results from around the world too numerous to mention here have formed a consensus. The main ingredients in
chemtrails are Aluminum, Barium and Strontium. As you are about to see, professional scientists have corroborated these findings.
Frances Mangels has a Bachelor of Science in Forestry from the International School of Forestry at Missoula, spent 35 years with the U.S. Forest
Service as a wildlife biologist and worked several years with the USDA Soil Conservation Service as a soil conservationist. Today he lives in Mt.
Shasta, CA and works as a master gardener. He took a sample of water from his backyard rain gauge on Feb. 1, 2009 and submitted it to Basic
Laboratory of Redding, CA on Feb. 2, 2009. This sample showed Aluminum at a level of 1010 micrograms per liter (ug/l). This same sample also showed
Barium at a level of 8 ug/l. Using the same sample method and laboratory, he took a sample on Oct. 14, 2009 which showed Aluminum at a level of 611
ug/l. The Barium should not be there in any amount. Barium carbonate is used in rat poison. The normal level of Aluminum in rainwater is .5 ug/l.
These samples show levels of Aluminum at 2020 times and 1222 times the normal levels. There is no heavy industry in the Mt. Shasta area. There is no
reason, other than chemtrails, for this stuff to be showing up at these levels.
Mr. Mangles writes on Oct. 30, 2009:
"The soil scientists from the USDA Soil Conservation Department visited private property east of Shasta Lake, California, on Oct. 27, 2009. Mr.
Bailey, Komar, and Owens tested the pH with standard federal meters. All agreed the pH should be 5.5.
Under Douglas fir, the ph was 7.4, astoundingly basic for that habitat.
Under Poderosa pine, at the precise soil-needle interface, I would expect a pH of 5. At that point, Bailey's meter showed 6.5. This is high for
a microhabitat that should be very acid. Old soil surveys indicate this soil should be very acid, around pH of 5.5.
I bought a house in Mt. Shasta old black oak/pine pasture in 2002, tested the pH at below 6, good for vegetable gardening. It was a major reason
for purchase, and proceeded with highly acid composting of leaves and grass to drive the pH down or at least keep it low, as every master gardener
knows. I added a touch of sulphur and avoided wood ash to insure acidity, and proceeded to teach organic gardening courses out of my yard through
COS. The pH tests were an embarrassment because now my garden is pH 7, sometimes higher. This is the opposite of what should happen.
The pH meter of Jon McClellan proceeded to show pH in McCloud gardens also running close to 7 or 8, which is too high for heavy organic mulch with
no ashes. General lawns were also running over pH 7 under oaks and pines and fir trees. This is contrary to everything I learned in college and the
Soil Conservation Service for 35 years. The old data sheets say these soils should be running at a pH of 5-6.
I tested my rainwater in a plastic NWS rain gauge set high on a pole, and got 1010 ug/l aluminum, with substantial amounts of barium and strontium
included, where it should be non-detectable. Others from the West Coast have similar repeated results, from the Bay Area to Washington."
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) produced data showing elevated levels of Barium in surface water between 1988-2001. Along
with other elevated readings, a sample from the East Verde River near Payson, AZ taken on July 19, 1999 showed Barium at a level of 340 micrograms per
liter (ug/l). This is significant because, unlike such elements as Aluminum, Barium is not commonly found in our soils and water.
The ADEQ analyzed many water samples taken at different times from the Nogales Wash Channel between 1993 and 2002. Among other elevated readings,
they found Barium at levels of: 850 ug/l, 950 ug/l and 900 ug/l.
The ADEQ analyzed many water samples taken at different times between 1988-2004 at the Verde River Below Horseshoe Dam. Among many other elevated
readings, a sample taken on July 19, 1990 showed Barium at a level 560 ug/l and another sample taken within a year showed Barium at a level of 700
In June of 1996, the ADEQ analyzed water samples taken from the Buckeye Canal. The lab report showed Barium at a level of 570 parts per
As far as water contamination is concerned, I must report that a lot of available data which would otherwise support the chemtrail hypothesis is
misleading and unreliable. The data to which I am referring is that which comes from the California Department of Public Health Drinking Water
Program (CDPHDWP). Online, this organization is also referred to as the California Department of Health Sciences Drinking Water Program. The CDPHDWP
produces and distributes publicly a data CD entitled 'California Drinking Water Data'. This CD purports to represent toxicology data collected from
all California water districts. The problem is that, after checking with my local water districts and the CDPHDWP, it is apparent that the data
contained in this CD is very unreliable. My local water districts tell me that this is because the CDPHDWP is using an outdated data collection
method. Furthermore, websites which use this data as support for the chemtrail hypothesis miss the point that the data CD in question represents (and
poorly so) PROCESSED DRINKING WATER when we should be looking at UNPROCESSED or 'SURFACE WATER' (the water found in reservoirs). Online you will find
many graphs based on data contained in the CDPHDWP data CD showing incredible levels of many different toxins. All these graphs are not to be trusted
without a local water department confirmation and even in that case, the data is not wholly pertinent.
Data produced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shows elevated levels of chemtrail toxins. Between 1990 and 2002, CARB ambient air
statewide average data shows elevated and increasing levels of Aluminum and Barium. From 1990 to 2002, Aluminum was detected in the range of 1500 to
2000 nanograms per cubic meter. Even more concerning is Barium which between 1990 and 2002 consistently trended upwards, reaching a peak of 50.8
nanograms per cubic meter in 2002. The CARB classifies Aluminum and Barium as toxic compounds. The CARB website says, "For toxics compounds, there
is generally no threshold concentration below which the air is healthy. For toxics compounds, the greater the quantified health risk, the more
unhealthy the air is." In other words, ANY Aluminum or Barium is unhealthy. There ARE NO SAFE LEVELS except zero. These Aluminum levels are
disturbing, but the Barium levels are totally inexplicable except in the light of the chemtrail hypothesis. Remember, these are STATEWIDE AVERAGES.
God forbid you might be living in an area that increased the average.
You may ask why I am only referencing data up to 2002. This is 2011. Where is the missing data? The answer is that data from between 1990 and
2002 is the only data which the CARB has widely distributed. As far as statewide averages for ambient Aluminum and Barium are concerned, these years
are the only years which their website and their 'California Ambient Air Quality Data' DVD show. Their Public Information Officer Dimitri Stanich
curiously refused to answer questions about the missing data. He referred me to documents which did not address the issue. After discussions with
staff, Mike Miguel, the chief of the Quality Management Branch of the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, wrote me saying, "It is my understanding
that the toxics air monitoring network (samples collected in Summa canisters) stoped analyzing for these compounds due to the low concentrations.
However, the PM2.5 network does analyze for these compounds and that data was provided in the analyses and CD."(sic) A statewide average of Barium at
50.8 nanograms per cubic meter and Aluminum at 2000 are low concentrations?! A yearly statewide average should not show ANY Barium and any levels of
detectable Aluminum or Barium have been classified as unhealthy. The concentrations were trending upwards. They stopped analyzing for these
compounds?! I have scoured their website, written letters and made many phone calls to the CARB and I have not heard of or seen this missing data
presented in any CD. Thankfully, other people have been asking for this missing data as well. The organization known as Environmental Voices
requested the missing data and on September 15, 2010 they got it. Amazingly, after data showing many years of elevated and increasing levels of
Aluminum and Barium, this newly produced data showed MUCH LOWER levels. That's good news, right? I want to believe that everything is as it has
always been. The only problem is that, upon scrutiny of the numbers, you will find that the newly released data contradicts the previously released
Let us look at data for the year 2002 both new and old. 2002 is a year for which the CARB widely distributed data AND it is a year for which they
have provided data to only a select few researchers such as I due to the efforts of Environmental Voices. I will refer to the widely distributed data
as the 'old' data and the thinly distributed data as the 'new' data. The old data says that in 2002 the statewide average for ambient Aluminum was
1980 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says that the statewide average in 2002 was 67.5 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data also says that
statewide average Aluminum concentrations generally remained at this level through to 2009. As far as Barium goes, the old data says that the
statewide ambient air average Barium concentration for 2002 was 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter. The new data says it was 27.5 nanograms per cubic
meter. The new data says that statewide average Barium concentrations only trended lower from 2002 to 2009. Why does the new data contradict the old
Are certain people at the CARB trying to hide something? Why does their Public Information Officer, whose job is to answer questions from the
public, refuse to answer questions about missing data? Why does he obfuscate the truth by referring me to documents that don't answer the question?
Why does one of their division chiefs' response not make sense? How is it that data released to only a select few magically makes the problem go
away? Why don't they post this new data on their website? All their answers so far only leave me with more questions.
So, that is it for Chemtrails 303. Again, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of other scientific confirmations of chemtrail toxins available. I
have left those out in favor of only the most reputable data. Although the logical subject matter of Chemtrails 404 would be the health effects of
exposure to chemtrail toxins, I do not feel the need to write that paper. Aside from the fact that it is difficult to prove; I don't need to tell you
that. I don't need to tell you that breathing particulate toxins all day and night is bad for you. I don't need to tell you that adding to the
myriad of toxins in our food, water and air is bad for us. We know it is. There are many scientific papers supporting this position, but it is just
common sense. We need to reduce the amount of toxins in our ecosystem, not increase them. The chemtrail phenomenon is nothing short of genocide.
Whether or not that was the intention, that is exactly what it is. I have now proven to you that chemtrails are real. Do not live in denial. Denial
equals death. Our collective ignorance is what is killing this society. Ignorance causes chemtrails. I ask that you reverse this trend. Ask the
questions. Demand answers. I have armed you with the verifiable truth; now go out there and shake the trees. Call and write your local office of:
the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources
Board, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, ALL your government representatives, talk radio shows, and television stations. You
are the one you have been waiting for. Thank you.
-'What in the World Are They Spraying' by Michael Murphy, G. Edward Griffin and Paul Wittenberger (video) 2010 Truth Media Productions
IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Mon Aug 29 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)