I should really search chemtrail facebook more often, near zilch to present yet heres much to confirm chemtrails are real and something to question and certainly take note of.
I’m not fighting anyone, nor creating a ‘war’ with any government, merely hoping to bring some sensible awareness that indeed chemtrails are real by bundling together my observations and useful material to strengthen my position.
In the material below we can see older (same day) hazed and aluminized sky, medium term broadening chemtrail into bands of haze and new ‘as being laid’ chemtrail. I’ve photographed chemtrail here in NE England at night in the dark an hour or more before first light of day, which in that particular morning was so blatant I think would never have been perpetrated in daylight (pics pending).
Scouting around we find many pages or sites that fizzle out over time. I also note how few visitors or followers this material actually gathers considering how ‘big’ or apparent in the sky above the problem actually is.
Rosalind Peterson appears and I know from prior knowledge was a peculiar case of a lifetime chemtrail acknowledgement and activism and latterly a complete about-turn and denial before she passed away in Feb 2018, assuming I’ve got my facts correct of course.
Heres bits and pieces to build a picture ….
Then the bombshell from Rosalind Peterson in later life, a complete ‘about-turn’, also I’ve pasted some transcript from this specific youtube page beneath the vid below. I wish no disrespect here, merely bringing in material to form a fuller more informed discussion.
I quote …
Rosalind Peterson, founder of California Skywatch, says there’s no evidence that those trails in the sky are anything other than normal contrails, aircraft emissions. Transcript of that portion:
“We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don’t lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.
And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, … who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who’s doing what …, and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions.
Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there’s tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn’t even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there’s Pentagon reports, there’s all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.
When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don’t have the documentation, and I don’t have a single study, I don’t have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.
So there’s a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can’t back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they’ve got university studies, if you’ve got documents, government documents, if you’ve got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can’t do it.”
end of quote.
All she’ll talk about is probably what is known as ‘chaff’ ie something to confuse enemy radar, a v old technique.
Disclaimer, you have to realise material online may not quite be what it purports to be, there are bound to some ppl that delight in twisting and turning the facts to suit their own viewpoint, to possibly hijack a subject and in effect attempt to misinform and damage the facts as best presented. Therefore of course, read diligently, be sure to get at the intention of the text or material; wolves in sheeps clothing etc.
Currently USA scientists and environmental experts are held in the cleft stick of shut-up or lose your funding.