A Clash of Evidence

 

A Clash of Evidence:
The Realities of Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

by Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 06 2016
Edit May 14 2016
Edit Jul 05 2016
(A Partial Editorial)

There are many environmental activists who assume a certain cause and relationship between active geoengineering programs and those projects that fall under the term of “Solar Radiation Management (SRM). This paper will reiterate the basic fallacy of that assumption, and it will direct the reader towards a more comprehensive inquiry of the true nature of the forces and agendas that are likely to be involved.

For those that do not wish to engage in the full length of this article,  the Solar Radiation Management principle is one of interfering with solar heat transfer to the earth.  There are various schemes for accomplishing this which will be discussed later; the most modest of the choices requires the introduction of certain types of particulates into the middle of the stratosphere (from about 7 to 30 miles above sea level).

The essential problem here is that geoengineering  activity as it is currently practiced (and for that matter, bioengineering as well), is operational in the troposphere (from ground level to an average of about 7 miles above sea level), and not the mid-stratosphere.  There is a world of difference between the two, but for that discussion you will have to muse yourself further into this paper.

 

atmosphere2
Image source : scied.ucar.edu

 

Before going further, however, it will be beneficial to provide a brief historical context for the issues and the language involved.  There is a track record of controversy and confusion, information and misinformation, official responses and denials, organization and disorganization, research and speculation, and authorities and personalities that now span close to two decades. Unfortunately, the progress of society coming to terms and truthfulness with the deliberate modification of the atmosphere, and ultimately the planet itself, has been slow.

So first, a little history of language and personalities.  The journalistic rise of the geoengineering issue began, to my best recollection, in the last few weeks of the year 1998.  A certain Canadian journalist came to prominence quite rapidly on a nationally syndicated radio show, with coined language and defined agendas to let the world know that something very different and important was to affect the world.  It is fair to say that I have never been at ease with either the language or the a priori “agenda” that was introduced, as they always seemed to be supported with substantial fanfare and attention, but without any basic science to support claims being made.  The issue was, essentially, outlined and served to the public without proper investigation and discussion.

It is worthwhile to investigate that history a bit, as it represents a good portion of why we are where we are today.  Most of us may not be aware that generational forces are now at play in our understanding of the geoengineering issue. The language introduced at that time was the use of the term “chemtrail”,  a term that never did have a formal, accurate, or scientific definition then, and it still does not today.  That deficiency alone has been enough to interfere with the proper investigation of environmental pollution and contaminants, and it remains moderately successful to this day.  Whether such language of derision and denial, but of popular appeal, was a product of personal creativity or design of influence I may never be able to state with certainty; I do, however, have my opinions on the matter and I see no benefits from the choice.  My separation and disdain for populist and ill-defined terminology that is used in vain to seek legal standing is known, and I shall not be party to perpetuate this dubious origin. Only those words that will stand up in a court of law have merit here, and you are the one that will need to make your case.

The second great coup of the early journalistic ‘work’ was to define, in the eyes of the public, the very reason for the existence of geoengineering programs before any science was in place to justify the claim.  Again, it was all far, far “too easy” for one of my persuasion.  Check your internet history books, but you will find that a global and covert operation of unprecedented scale was, by use of a curious combination of implication and certainty,  for the purpose of “reducing global warming.

History will show that there has been an incredible level of success in strategy and influence upon public perception with these implants.  They are, however, in reality travesties and injustices to the public cause.

What the public was ‘given’, therefore, was an unsubstantiated agenda, ill-defined language of popular attraction, and a host of ready-made and supported ‘detractors’ that raised a commotion, provided distraction and dispute;  all of these set the stage to successfully avoid journalistic integrity, scientific investigation, and accountability by public representatives.  The obstacles were all provided at little cost, but at great expense to the needs and interests of the public.

This strategy of framing public perception and discussion under the guise of potential benefit was generally effective for more than a decade.  Hard hitting journalism never did take place, thorough investigations were not launched, scientific work was not supported, and public officials were not held accountable.

The problem that developed was that the claim of ‘cooling the planet’  by using aircraft to disperse aerosols did not fit the facts of observation.  They did not fit them then, and they do not fit them now.  It has taken some time for this truth to become evident; I presented my first paper on this topic (Drought Inducement, Apr. 2002) in the early part of the last decade.  This work was followed by additional papers (Global Warming and Aerosols, Jan. 2004, A Global Warming Model, Apr. 2007, and A Geoengineering and Climate Change Model, Jan. 2015) during the course of the successive decades. The tenets of that investigative work are also confirmed on a broader level with documents issued by, for example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1999, 17) and NASA (“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles” 2016) on the net heating effects from “thin, high clouds.”

High, thin “clouds”, including those that originate from an introduced aerosol base, do not cool the planet; they heat it up.

The next piece of the puzzle that we must fit into the picture is Edward Teller, and specifically the paper by him entitled, “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”  This paper, authored in part by the developer of the hydrogen bomb, is often cited by activists themselves as one of the holy grails that proves that geoengineering operations are in place, and that they are indeed “cooling the planet” and “combating global warming” (albeit covertly, for some unknown reason). There are some important portions of the paper that have not been paid attention to;  this omission inappropriately supports a culture of popular belief that lacks scientific foundation.

Edward Teller does indeed propose various schemes for cooling the earth’s temperature, including the introduction of aerosols or particulates into the atmosphere. The issue, however, is WHERE in the atmosphere he proposes to do this, and the answer to this question is very relevant to the cause and purpose of this paper. It is even more revealing to point out the additional options that are both proposed and preferred by Edward Teller in his paper, as they help to place his atmospheric aerosol proposal into a better perspective.

Let us spend a brief time with the proposals of Edward Teller, as they are outlined in the paper cited above.  Please note that even within the introductory notes that Teller uses the phrase of introducing “scatterers” (i.e., light and heat) “into space from the vicinity of the earth”; this should give some indication of what the thrust of the thinking process is.  Teller proposes to introduce the scatterers into three different locations to artificially cool the earth (Teller 1997, 7):

1. Into the middle of the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere). The stratosphere is in the upper atmosphere, and the troposphere is the lower atmosphere. This important difference will be discussed in more detail a little later in this paper.

2. In orbit, in SPACE, approximately 4000 miles above the earth.

3. Deep in SPACE, approximately 400,000 miles from the center of the earth.

An obvious pattern of diverting the heat to locations distant from the earth should be apparent to us; it is one that has not been disclosed sufficiently within the current discussions taking place with respect to both geoengineering and climate control.

The reason the materials are proposed to be so distant from the earth is two-fold:

1. Most of the materials considered will absorb heat.

2. It is desired to have the captured heat radiate into space; not into the earth and its lower atmosphere.

The principles of the approach should not be difficult to grasp here, but they most certainly have been misrepresented in most discussions that are taking place with respect to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations.

If you hold a parasol over your head on a hot sunny day, it might keep you cooler. The air around you will still absorb that heat, however. The color and material of the umbrella is going to be another factor (i.e, albedo, specific heat, etc.) that you will want to consider. If you want to cool the planet, you are going to have to move the umbrella a lot further away – into space, for example. This is the essence of the Teller paper, and it is important to understand this proposal before certain terms of “solar radiation management” with respect to current geoengineering practices are bandied about. WHERE the material is injected into the atmosphere makes a big difference on the net heat effect, and this topic has largely been ignored within the popular circles of discussion on geoengineering. This discussion should lead one to think much more deeply about what the definition of geoengineering actually is, and how that definition compares to the realities of the projects and operations AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY AND ACTIVELY PRACTICED. Climate modification strategies, or more appropriately, environmental control strategies, are only one part of a much bigger picture.

The Teller paper has gained a lot of mileage in the geoengineering circles, and it is my opinion that much of this mileage is without merit and in ignorance. I must credit the Canadian journalist again for the majority of that progress, as the seed was planted very early in the game with a great deal of supposed ‘alternative media’ support. The Teller paper never explained the physics or consequences of introducing massive amounts of specific aerosol types into the lower atmosphere. The reason for this is simple; the paper was never intended to explain it because this act is not a viable way to cool down the earth. The Teller paper was inappropriately supported and attached to the observation of and media coverage of geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently in place and operational.

Now let’s discuss some of the differences between the troposphere and the stratosphere in more detail. The distinction between what is real and hypothetical will never take place until we put at least some effort in that direction.

The troposphere is where weather is made. The troposphere is where airplanes generally fly. The troposphere is where the air is more dense and it is where pollution has a more immediate impact upon us. It is the where the majority of the earth’s atmosphere is, and consequently it is where we can breath and live. The troposphere has a profound and immediate impact upon our very existence on this planet. Roughly ¾ of the mass of the entire atmosphere is contained within the troposphere, the average height is about seven miles (a trip to the grocery store), and it is a veritable delicate eggshell of life for this planet. The troposphere is delicate and crucial to all life on this planet, and disturbance or pollution within it threatens our very existence. It cannot sustain serious damage without immediate consequence.

The stratosphere is where the air is very thin, centering closer to an average height of 20 miles above the earth. Airplanes cannot and do not fly in the mid-stratosphere regularly, as there is not enough air to support them; only specialized or high performance aircraft will rarely be able to visit this transitional zone to space. Geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations, in a practical aviation sense with current technology, cannot be practiced there. Teller makes clear that the preferred target for his ideas is generally in space, where the heat can feasibly be diverted or managed AWAY from the earth.

Readers may also to review an interview from several years past on this and related subjects; it is available via Freedom For All TV which is based in Canada (“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube” 2016).

It is now that we can understand a portion of the dilemma that is before us. If we accept that aviation is a primary tool that is actively being used to artificially modify the atmosphere, then we know that this is occurring within the troposphere, and not the mid-stratosphere. But we also know, at least as based upon Teller’s models, that mid-stratospheric operations would be required to effect any type of practical mitigation to global climate warming. Teller also lets us know that long term climate control by aircraft is hardly a preferred method, as it requires specialized performance aircraft and requires continual renewal to maintain its effectiveness. What is known, therefore, is that geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations AS THEY ARE NOW PRACTICED IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE, i.e., the troposphere, are not directed and motivated primarily toward climate control, including the purported mitigation of “global warming”.

The forces behind the implementation of active and current geoengineering operations have always understood this, and it never has been a logical motive for the current operations. This is the case regardless of popular conceptions with popular appeal that have been circulated for far too long without contest.

It is certainly past time for the citizens of the world to understand this as well, including many of the well intended environmental individuals and organizations that affect this same citizenry.

The language may have changed some over the recent decades, but the confusion and obfuscation remains as strong as ever now. It is past time to play the cards straight and to force each of us to confront the truths of the matter.

We must now pay some attention to the language that is now in vogue and how it changes. The terms of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘global warming’ were foisted upon us in earlier days; aerosols and particulates were always favored from my position, but those terms do not exactly have popular twitter appeal. They do, however, remain valid and accurate as far as the substance of the matter.

We have transitioned now to more socially acceptable terms of climate change, geoengineering, and “solar radiation management”. Unfortunately, the confusion behind the terms remains as dysfunctional as ever. We can be assured that the definition of geoengineering (and bioengineering) as I understand them, are not at all in agreement with many popularly held notions of that same term. Environmental modification and control is simply one small slice of the bigger pie, as far as I am concerned. I will reiterate my scope of consideration for the term near the end of this paper.

We should, however, at least seek out the definition of the popular term (by many environmental activists as well) “Solar Radiation Management”. This term refers to the management of climate control issues through a modification of the earth’s heat balance;  only one option of which includes the introduction of particulate matter into the stratosphere (NOT the troposphere).

Specifically, from the Royal Society:

“Solar Radiation Management (SRM) [are] techniques which reflect a small percentage of the sun’s light and heat back into space.”

Again, I will make the case here that the term cannot and does not apply to current and active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations as they are currently practiced in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). The stratosphere is not the troposphere, and the troposphere is not the stratosphere. The physics of each layer within the atmosphere are completely different from one another and they cannot, in general, be “used” for the same purposes. You cannot talk about them or treat them as though there is no difference of importance.

You cannot rely on methods and definitions that have physical principles, meaning and application within a certain domain (i.e, the stratosphere) and then use those same methods and principles for a different domain (i.e., the troposphere).

To further assume that the practitioners of active geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations are active within the mid-stratosphere when they are not (as determined by direct observation) further undermines the case for protest of the actual modification of the lower atmosphere (i.e., the troposphere) that is taking place. Talk about misrepresentation and obfuscation of a global environmental and health issue; there is plenty of fodder to work with here.

To claim further that the motives of the geoengineering practitioners are beneficial and well-intended (i.e, “solar radiation management and the curtailment of “global warming”) but that the operations are now known to actually cause harm because of a net heating effect is equally misguided. The operations as they are practiced are not an experiment of beneficent intent; the developers understand the physics and the applications quite well (within their sphere of interest). Rest assured that the web of deployment is not centered on, or confined to, the principles of “Solar Radiation Management”.

Current operations directly impact and affect the lower atmosphere (troposphere) in which we all live and breathe; this assertion is now supported directly by field measurements.  The particulate counts are real and observable, and they have been made. The measurements referred to are not worthy solely of “climate control” consideration; they are, however, of immediate impact and detriment to your health and well-being. Gravity works, and the materials do ultimately reach ground level and they are measurable in direct correspondence to activity levels. You may wish to think a little closer to home, in some respects, and become active on that front.

Incidentally, attention should probably be called to a particular segment of a particular interview from several years past; my recollection is that a Mr. George Knapp from the Coast to Coast network moderated the affair. It is another part of the social history, “alternative” media, and social impressionability that precedes us. You may or may not choose to investigate the affair as I report it here.

It was not made clear prior that multiple parties would be available on the interview and fair representation on the sides of an issue can always be a topic of debate. What remains of interest to me is a particular response evoked from a particular Canadian journalist on the panel when I introduced the subject of “biological operations” (e.g., bioengineering) into the discussion. I think it is fair to say that I must have struck a nerve in the flow or agenda of the conversation. After the claim that biological operations are indeed an active component of the aerosol operations as they are now practiced, the particular response from this “Canadian journalist” was:

“There is not! There is not! I repeat there is not any evidence of biological operations available!” (to my best recollection). The response was immediate, emphatic and unqualified.

The show’s host then immediately switched to a commercial break after this statement was made. You may judge for yourself what dynamics transpired at that moment, but the forceful response certainly struck me as out of balance within a purported discussion of important environmental issues.

In the time made available, I refuted the unsubstantiated claim then. I refute it now as well.

I am only one researcher, and I hardly make claim to knowing all shades of an operation that I am not party to. Over the years, however, a ‘list of applications” has been developed which remains internally consistent with all known and observed data. The list has not changed in any significant fashion for more than a decade. I will continue to voice the claim that no discussion of geoengineering (or bioengineering) is of adequate scope unless it delves into each of the following domains:

1. Environmental modification and control (of broader scope than global temperature issues).
2. Military applications
3. Electromagnetic operations
4. Biological operations (including bioengineering)
5. Geophysical considerations
6. Surveillance System Development (LIDAR applications)
7. Exotic technology system monitoring

The prime-time audience may not be ready for the realities and implications of the various aspects itemized above, but they are ultimately deserving.

There are parties that continue to promulgate the thesis that Solar Radiation Management, i.e., the attempted mitigation of “global warming” via stratospheric modification is at the crux of active geoengineering operations. There frequently remains the implication that the motives for operation are of good intention even if the observations of consequence contradict that claim. The use of Edward Teller’s paper is frequently cited as the basis for the implementation of theoretical concepts into actual operation, regardless of the physics or details involved. There are seldom, if ever, references to differences between the impact of operations in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) vs. the stratosphere (upper atmosphere). There frequently is the assumption that the agendas of operation are known and defined by popular perceptions. For close to two decades, the evidence does not support these claims and misrepresentation is in place.

I would encourage that each of us seek common ground and understanding of the forces and applications that are likely operative within the spheres of active and practiced geoengineering (and bioengineering) operations. There is some value in review and observation of the social history and assumptions that accompany our evolution in the pursuit of truth. It is also wise to force good science and reason continuously into our deliberations and debates, and to admit our mistakes so that we may rise above them. If information, analyses and representations are inconsistent we must each be willing to confront those positions. I believe that the phrase has already been coined for us – “The Truth is Out There”, and it is the job of each one of us to help find it.

Sincerely,

Clifford E Carnicom
April 06, 2016
Edit May 14, 2016
Edit July 05, 2016

 

Additional Notes:

Readers may also wish to become familiar with a model document that proposes an international ban on geoengineering (and bioengineering) practices. Please refer to StopGlobalGeoengineering.org for additional information(“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering” 2016).

Appreciation is extended to Harold Saive for a note of clarification within this paper.

Bibliography:

“Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles.” 2016. Accessed March 24. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/.

“Freedom Free For All TV: Clifford Carnicom Interview – YouTube.” 2016. Accessed April 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1islqA3QNo.

“Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty | Royal Society.” 2016. Accessed March 29. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/.

“Global Ban on Geoengineering – Stop Global Geoengineering.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://stopglobalgeoengineering.org/global-ban-on-geoengineering/.

“Image: The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed March 29.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1999. “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere.”

Teller, Edward. 1997. “Global Warming and Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Climate Change.”

“The Stratosphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview.

“The Troposphere – Overview | UCAR Center for Science Education.” 2016. Accessed April 6. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/troposphere-overview

AEROSOL ANOMALIES

“AEROSOL ANOMALIES”
Posted on Behalf of the Submitters
by
Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 17 2008

During the past month, two individuals have submitted a series of photographs to me that depict unusual airborne forms.  To my knowledge, neither of these individuals is in contact with the other.  The photographs are stated to be original.  In both cases, the photos shown here are reported to have taken place in the midst of heavy aerosol operations over the respective geographic regions.

The photos in both cases show unusual ring-shaped or disc-like objects.  The photos in one case are quite clear and remarkable.  The fact that the second set was even captured is also fortunate.  A statement from the photgrapher in each case will follow the images that have been submitted.  These photographs raise several questions about at least some aspects of the aerosol operations and they appear to defy any conventional perception of aircraft.  The accompanying “emission trail” with the ring like structure of the first set is especially curious.  My appreciation is extended to both of the individuals that have offered their images to the public in the quest to further understand the nature of the aerosol operations.

SET ONE:

ring 1
Magnified Section of Ring Like Structure
in conjunction with “emissions” of an aerosol operation.

ring 2
Second Image of Ring Like Structure (highly magnified)
in conjunction with “emissions” of an aerosol operation.

ring 3
Above photo(1of2) reduced in scale to show greater perspective on “craft”.

ring 4
Above photo(2of2) reduced in scale to show greater perspective on “craft”.

Statement by the observer:

“I saw this chemtrail forming to the west of Vail, Colorado on March 7, 2008 at 5:23PM.  As I zoomed in full with a 70 to 300 lens on my D200 Nikon, there appeared to be no plane in front of the chemtrail – like it was forming out of thin air.  After shooting several shots, there was another plane-less chemtrail rising to the west just before sunset.  It was spooky.  When I downloaded the pictures, there was a halo shape at the front of the chemtrail in some of the images and absolutely nothing visible in others.

The Air Force has had stealth aircraft that are invisible to radar for quite some time.  Apparently they now also have aircraft that are invisible to cameras as well.  Why would stealth aircraft be flying missions over ski country?

I became chemtrail aware during my investigation into the true story of the 911 attacks.  But it did not hit home until November 18, 2007 when I documented the first saturation mission over Vail.  That Sunday started mostly sunny.  Then one jet flew over high and fast and left a huge expanding plume.  It was followed by jets flying from all points of the compass.  Inside of three hours, the sky was covered in a gray soup of converging chemtrails.  The sun was partially blocked out.  Then the planes vanished and not one was seen the rest of the day.  After documenting a saturation mission over Crested Butte on December 13, 2007 where the sun was completely blocked out in three hours – there was no doubt left that something sinister was being perpetrated by the Air Force in Colorado.

I’ve watched jets leaving no contrail at all fly towards a cloud and turn on the chemtrail upon entering the cloud and exit the cloud leaving none.  I’ve photographed jets at similar altitude leaving no visible exhaust trails flying near jets leaving huge chemtrails.  The next day after saturation missions, I’ve seen a return to normal jet traffic and normal vanishing contrails.  The denial from people that say this is all normal don’t remember what is was like in the west before the late 90s.  The deep blue sky without a cloud that lasted three weeks straight on a regular basis during summers never happens now.  When I flew across the country last time, I didn’t see the ground once from Denver to Boston.  The clouds looked weird and fibrous; unnatural.  I have images that show clouds of green, purple and rust colors.  That simply can’t be water or you would see the rainbow colors.  After 25 years in Colorado, I have no memory of the chemical colors I now see regularly in clouds.  I also have no memory of the strange chemical halos around the sun.  I certainly have no memory of planes leaving trails in a grid that block out the sun in three hours.  The time lapses I have of this are indisputable evidence to me.  Most people I show my evidence to think I have a point that something is terribly wrong with these pictures.  Other people roll their eyes and think of me as a paranoid delusionist.  I see that as a huge obstacle to stopping this madness.  People simply don’t want to believe the truth that the government of the United States would do anything to harm them.  You can show them the documents released through the freedom of information act about the mind control experiments, the intentional infection of black men with venereal disease, lining up soldiers in front of a nuclear blast wave and they still believe this same government wouldn’t pollute the Earth for all time to gain a military advantage.  I’m not sure how to reach these people.  Preaching to the quire will get us no where.  What will convince these people? Perhaps nothing will until they get Morgellons disease.”


SET TWO:

second ring 1
Second anomalous disk-ring like structure reported in combination with heavy aerosol operations.
Separate geographic region and time from first set.

second ring 2
Reduced scale on second disk-ring like structure reported in association with heavy aerosol operations over area.
Statement form photographer is to follow.

second ring 3
Second photograph by second photographer presented for informational purposes only.
Disk object barely visible.
Please see text description below (arrow added by CEC for clarification).

Statement by the observer:
As discussed please find attached the two photos of the unidentified flying disc I captured.  
The first one attached is much clearer and was taken on Sunday March 23, 2008.  It was observed 
out of peripheral vision, and barely captured it although it was on a straight horizontal flight 
path but fast, faster than the aircrafts in the airspace at the time precise time!!! without the 
UV filtering sunglasses I normally wear but didn't that day.  It was smack dab in the middle of 
the airspace precisely during the time of heavy activity via the daily observed same aviation 
assault team [ assault team described here: http://dayspringgatheringscircle.org/blog/?p=881] 
The second photo was taken TODAY [Apr 14 2008 Ed.  Note-CEC], is the same unidentified 
flying disc, but today's story is quite different.  I was wearing my UV filtering sunglasses and 
caught the beginning erratic activity out of the peripheral vision once again as we were filming 
all the heavy activity of the daily observed same aviation assault time and out of the corner 
of my eye I caught an erratic movement, then in a split second going straight VERTICAL and 
FAST, as soon as I dropped my UV filtering Sunglasses it vanished right were it was as I had 
my glasses on, flipped my glasses back on and it caught in the same airspace region precisely 
where I couldn't see it seconds before [ light reflection? light bending?], anyways, this disc 
did a figure 8, went left and went right, banked left 90 degrees and then shot straight 
up vertical into the cloud cover ahead.  This all happened in split seconds, and with a 
wing and a prayer I just flicked on auto and took the shot because the disc was rising 
straight vertical so fast I thought it would be gone before the shutter could capture it.  
You will notice that the disc on the second photo almost out of the frame, top of the photo, 
on its vertical straight rise, whereas on the 1st photo, it was on a horizontal flight path, 
course I didn't think to track it on the first photo, like I was able to track and observe it 
the second time.  This thing looked exactly like it was remote controlled as fast it did a 
figure 8 then went left ,right and vertical.  By the way, the same aircraft were in the 
same airspace both times, what I call the worker bees.  All in all, I have now observed 
this disc 4 times, and at all times directly in the middle of heavy aerial activity.
Editor's Notes:[CEC]
1.  The photographs are stated to have been taken in North Carolina.
2.  The photographs from set two are the protected private work property of DaySpring 
Gatherings by Gabriel Paul.  THE IMAGES FROM SET TWO ARE NOT TO BE COPIED
FROM THIS SITE and they have been posted solely with the permission of the author.
3.  An assessment is provided by the second photographer that the craft is NOT likely from
"other planets", but  may be "human made as a remotely controlled 1)discharge unit, 
2) atmospheric testing apparatus, 3)surveillance eye, 4)combination of all the above
and more to toss into the puzzle."

Aerosol Asymmetry: Core Tracks & Pulse Observations

Aerosol Asymmetry:
Core Tracks & Pulse Observations

Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
May 14 2007
Edited May 29 2007

A significant set of observations has taken place. On Mother’s Day and the day following of 2007, another major aerosol operation was conducted over the skies of the Santa Fe, New Mexico region. A more detailed visual examination of some of these emissions has been made; mechanical, artificial and systematic introduction of the aerosols appears evident. There are two primary observed anomalies at this time: the first of these is the presence of what may be referred to as “core tracks” (ribbon-like; possibly filamentous in nature) and the second is the repeated presence of a characteristic “pulse” emission. The behavior and character of these anomalies is now being presented and an adequate basis for further examination exists with this article. These characteristics are completely out of accordance with any claims of meterological discontinuities in the atmosphere, any uniform fluid or gas dynamic analysis, and any unmodified combustive process. It is apparent that distributions of discrete material into the atmosphere are taking place. Complete Identification of these processes and the unusual chemical and physical reactions that accompany them are required to safeguard the welfare and interests of the citizens of this planet.  A set of control photographs exist at the end of this report.

Asymmetry 1
Asymmetric “Core Tracks” within the aerosol trail
May 13th, 2007, Santa Fe, NM
Exposed shortly after passage of aircraft.
Core tracks appear in this case on one wing side of the aircraft only.

Asymmetry 2
Asymmetric “Core Tracks” within the aerosol trail
May 13th, 2007, Santa Fe, NM
Core lines appear in this case on one wing side of the aircraft only.
These core tracks appear to provide a basis
for subsequent pulse pendule development.
Exposure taken a few seconds after the preceding photograph.
Notice the ribbon has become displaced, but has maintained its form;
this indicates a discrete substance from that of the trail.
A relationship to previously disclosed filaments should be considered.

It has been a question for some time as to why the “pendules” form as a regular component of the aerosol trails. It has been claimed by some that such pendules are just a normal development from customary meterological conditions. They have been referred to by certain parties as virga, which are defined as ” wisps of precipitation streaming from a cloud but evaporating before reaching the ground1.” Two objections can be immediately raised: first we are not dealing with “clouds” by definition (as clouds and conventional aircraft emissions are entirely different physical processes), and second, such a phenomenon would obey uniform laws of motion and not be commonly recorded in a repetitious or pulse formation. It is also clear that the aerosol materials are not immediately descending(as precipitation is expected to), but that they are expanding and are part of an extended physical-chemical reaction outside any bounds of evaporation. In addition, such pendules will not be observed in combination with normal contrail formation, as evaporation, dissipation and rapid mixing of the heated water vapor into the air will dominate that process. It has also been clear for some time that an asymmetric process is involved in many of the aerosol formations, however, any clarification of that process has eluded most observers.

Asymmetry 3
“Pulse” character of additional aerosol trail; May 14th, 2007, Santa Fe, NM

What follows is a progression of photographs that will demonstrate the further developments, transformations and reactions within an aerosol trail under examination.  This progression occurs over approximately a 20 to 30 minute period. The time of this series is approximately 1015-1045.  The initial sky conditions were generally clear and sunny, although it was apparent that an extensive aerosol operation had been previously conducted to the south.  The result of the operation is that the sky became progressively occluded during the two day interval of this report.  The majority of the occlusion was accomplished within the first few hours of the operation.

Asymmetry 4
Asymmetric “Core Tracks” within the aerosol trail
May 13th, 2007, Santa Fe, NM
Exposed immediately after passage of aircraft.
Core lines appear in this case on one wing side of the aircraft only.

Asymmetry 5
Asymmetric “Core Tracks” within the aerosol trail
May 13th, 2007, Santa Fe, NM
Core lines appear in this case on one wing side of the aircraft only.
Exposure taken a few seconds after the preceding photograph.

Asymmetry 6
Core tracks remain slighty visible, but are dissipating fairly quickly in time.
Estimated time into progression series approx. 30 sec.
Transformation into striated form is beginning.

Asymmetry 7
Core tracks essentially no longer visible at this stage.
Stronger striation and beginning of pendule development on the side where core tracks were visible.

Asymmetry 8
Greater separation of materials towards a pendule form.
No core tracks visible.

Asymmetry 9
Strong separation into pulsed pendule form on the side where core tracks previously existed.

Asymmetry 10
Stronger separation into pulsed pendule form on the side where core tracks previously existed.

Asymmetry 11
Approaching full transformation within the boundaries of the expanding trail.
Marked pendule form apparent.  Disparity in development coincides
with previous core track locations.

Asymmetry 12
Final development within the boundaries of the expanding trail.
Marked pendule form apparent.  Disparity in development coincides
with previous core track locations.

The core lines reported in this article have been observed at earlier times; they have been recorded during one scene of the documentary available through this site.  The advantage of the current report is that clear images of the progression have been recorded.  The process indicates a systematic distribution system that produces unusual and remarkable physical transformations in a relatively short period of time.  The reaction is one of increasing, rather than decreasing intensity.  It appears likely that ionization and dessicant qualities are significant catalysts in the reaction.  The role of the core lines is not determined at this time, however, it appears quite possible that they are involved in the subsequent pulse and pendule formations.  High quality imaging equipment is required to document the core tracks and they may be visible only under favorable lighting conditions.   The possible relationship between the core tracks (ribbon-like in form and behavior) and the filamentous materials discussed extensively on this site must be considered.  Any attempt to conceal the presence of the ribbon formations, past, present or future, should also be considered as a possibility.  It is recommended that these observations be explored in greather depth so that the mechanics and materials of distribution and the physics of transformation can be more fully understood.


Control Photographs:
May 29, 2007 – Santa Fe, NM – 1900 (approx.)
Normal Contrail (Water Vapor) Trail Progression
Entire Progression Time is approximately 15 seconds.

Asymmetry 13
Photograph of aircraft passage overhead

Asymmetry 14
Approximately 5 seconds after passage of aircraft.

Asymmetry 16
Approximately 10 seconds after passage of aircraft.

Asymmetry 17
Approximately 15 seconds after passage of aircraft.
After approximately 20 seconds after passage of aircraft, all visible traces of the contrail are gone.

References:

Answers.com, Virga, http://www.answers.com/topic/virga

Note:
Photographs include post-processing with gamma and sharpening filters to improve detail.

ORBS REQUIRE CONSIDERATION

ORBS REQUIRE CONSIDERATION
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 14 2004
Santa Fe area of New Mexico
Edited Oct 19 2006

Reports of orbs, or lighted spheres, have occurred frequently during recent years and these reports appear to frequently coincide with the aerosol operations. Isolated but credible photographs of such orbs have been brought to my attention in the past. I have, however, refrained from presenting this information due to the lack of corroboration and redundancy in the imagery evidence that is available.

On March 10, I conducted video taping of heavy aerosol operations to the southwest that were centered over the Albuquerque, NM region during the sunset hour. The camera was on a tripod during the entire session. At the close of filming, the camera was pointed at an airplane in the southeast sky at an angle of approximately 30 degrees in altitude. After the aircraft had passed, a spherical object appeared and remained relatively stationary in the viewfinder. I videotaped this object for approximately 1 1/2 minutes, and the evidence from that taping appears on this page.

ORBS
Video Still of Orb
Santa Fe NM Mar 10 2004
SE Sky, Altitude Approx. 30 deg., Approx. 1830
No Zoom

The size and origin of the object can not be determined at this time. The character of the object is generally that of a ball of light. Higher resolution video remains available for examination, and limits of resolution are inherent in the internet presentation of this information.

Examination of the video reveals several interesting aspects. The physics of motion of the object defy common explanation. There is no obvious propulsion system visible, and the movement of the object is generally non-linear. The boundaries of dark on the right and left sides of the image frames may be an artifact of the camera process; similar exaggeration of light boundaries have been observed during the filming of conventional contrails, for example. The camera was operating in a digital mode, and increased zooming of the lens reveals increasing pixelization as is expected.

In the original video or higher resolution formats of the video, an interaction of the object with the surrounding atmospheric medium can be seen. This interaction occurs in periodic pulses, always on the same side of the object (left side). The interaction is visible as variations in the lighting of the pixels over a fairly broad region of the frame, an area slightly smaller than the area of the orb itself. It would appear that this interaction is of a plasma nature. There also appears to be a pulsation within the light source itself, however it can not yet be determined if this is an artifact of the imaging process. Any variation in the size of the object is due to variations in the video camera focal length (zoom), and it is not due to change in the distance to the object.

ORBS
Video Still of Orb
Santa Fe NM Mar 10 2004
SE Sky, Altitude Approx. 30 deg., Approx. 1830
Zoom Approx 50x

It is not known whether or not there is an association between the existence of this object and the concurrent conduct of heavy aerosol operations in the same general area and at the same general time. The appearance of the object and the subsequent video record of this object are simply made available to the public for consideration in light of previous reports that have been made.

Citizens are encouraged to further this research topic, and to seek out the highest quality imagery if such events reoccur. The circumstances of this videotape were somewhat fortuitous, as the camera was relatively stationary on a tripod at the time and appeared in the viewfinder somewhat serendipitously.

Video versions of this event suitable for distribution over the internet are available at the bottom of this page through a variety of links.

It is appropriate and proper to consider the existence of such orbs and/or other anomalous objects in the context of the research that has been conducted for more than five years on the nature, origin, applications and purposes of the aerosol operations.

ORBS
Video Still of Orb
Santa Fe NM Mar 10 2004
SE Sky, Altitude Approx. 30 deg., Approx. 1830
Zoom Approx 60x

Additional Note:

Two additional anecdotal reports of anomalous airborne objects have been received, one over the Farmington, New Mexico area and the other over the outskirts of Santa Fe, New Mexico. These reports occurred during the same general time period of this report, however, the specifics of observations are not available at this time.

Additional notes for Oct 19 2006:

It has been brought to my attention that the date of observations recorded under the images has been previously misstated as Mar 10 2002. The actual date of observations was Mar 10 2004.  The original date of the authoring of the report on Mar 14 2004 is correct.  These dates have been corrected.  My appreciation is extended for the identification of this error.  This date has been verified by its association with the documentary production  released in Jan 2005 as well as the date and time stamps of the original media files that were produced.  The report stands as stated.

 


VIDEO STREAMING VERSIONS:
Real Player : Low Resolution Streaming Media Video File (360k)

Windows Media Player : Low Resolution Streaming Media Video File (390k)

Real Player : Broadband Resolution Streaming Media Video File (1.1M)

 


VIDEO DOWNLOAD VERSIONS:

Real Player : Low Resolution Video File (orb.rm download version – 360k)

Windows Media Player : Low Resolution Video File (orb1.wmv download version – 390k)

Real Player : Higher Resolution Video File (Orb128.rm download version – 1.1M)

CLOVERLEAF

CLOVERLEAF
Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 20 2003

An operational term of “CLOVERLEAF” for the criminal aerosol operations that continue to be conducted without informed consent has been corroborated from numerous independent and unrelated sources extending over a period of several years. This term is therefore presented to the public as a credible avenue for research and investigation in the future.

Hostile actions and the threat of harm to sources that have contributed to the disclosure of “Cloverleaf” as an operational term are one aspect of this evaluation.

This assessment is not presented as an absolute; it is presented as an avenue for serious investigation based upon a variety of credible and corroborating information that has been made available over time.

Any sources that claim to be involved in deliberate deception, or “hoaxing” as it relates to the term “Cloverleaf” are to be examined in detail as to their credibility, and they receive no standing in this issue.


Clifford E Carnicom
Aug 20 2003

TWO SUBMITTALS: MEGASPRAYER – SATELLITE PHOTO

TWO SUBMITTALS:
MEGASPRAYER – SATELLITE PHOTO
Received by Email
Posted on behalf of the sender
by
Clifford E Carnicom
July 24 2001

MEGASPRAYER
Photograph received by email 071001

Notes submitted by the sender:

“Hi Clifford. I’ve got another sprayplane for you to see. Both photos are of the same plane just a few seconds apart. The photos were taken on July 5 at approx. 9:00AM in Diamond Springs, CA. the plane approached from the South heading North. It sprayed for approx. 30 seconds, 10 seconds before I took the photo and about 20 seconds after. The trail that it left for that 30 seconds eventually turned into a high cirrus cloud that persisted for several hours. The relative humidity for sacramento at 300mb on July 5 was approx. 67%. Notice the white spray coming from the wings between the engines and the cabin.”

“I’m sending you the uncropped picture of the Megasprayer I sent you. I thought it might be helpful in determining altitude. I believe it is a Boeing 757 series 200 with an overall length of 155ft. 3in. The print is 4by6 inches and as you recall was shot with 1000 mm lens.”

Sprayplane #010706 copy
Photograph received by email 071001
 


Satellite
Satellite Image Received by Email on 072401

Notes submitted by the sender:

“Hi Clifford. No sprayplanes over Sacramento since the 16th. They’ve been busy off the coast. Check it out.

CONTRAIL FORMATION MODEL

CONTRAIL
FORMATION MODEL
Clifford E Carnicom
Apr 12 2001

A preliminary model has now been developed which can be used to predict whether contrails will form or not under reported meteorological conditions at flight altitude. Analytical models for contrail prediction appear to be difficult to acquire publicly, and this model is therefore offered for investigative purposes. This is an original development that results from a variety of sources and methods, including unclassified aerographic manuals, meteorological theory, least squares analysis and regression analysis. It is to be interpreted as an empirical model, and it is subject to further refinement depending on the results that are obtained from its use.

The model offered is as follows:

 

c + (.02c – .41)t

RHmin =

_______________

 

(.003c – .14)

where c = e(151 – alt) / 19. 5

and t = temperature of the atmosphere at flight altitude in degrees centigrade

and alt = altitude of the jet aircraft in thousands of feet.

RHmin is the minimum relative humidity (with respect to water per conventional standard) that is required at flight altitude for contrails to form. The contrails referred to are those classically and conventionally defined as condensation trails, i.e., composed of water vapor. A standard atmospheric model is assumed within the development. The model is intended to be used only within the range of 30,000 to 40,000 ft. MSL. The model is quite sensitive to small changes in temperature, and consequently, any errors in temperature.

Commercial flight traffic usually ranges between 35 and 37 thousand feet MSL. A representative case may be considered, therefore, at approximately 36,000 ft. MSL. Standard temperature at 36,000 ft. MSL is approximately -53.5 deg. centigrade.

This model can and will now be evaluated with actual observations in an effort to test it for reliability. Citizens are welcome to submit their own observations for inclusion if they so desire. The value of this model is to identify those meterological conditions which are supportive of conventional contrail formation. Anomalous persistent contrails and subsequent “cloud” decks that result from frequent aerosol operations can also be examined in conjunction with this model.

Contrail formation/dissipation and cloud formation are to be recognized as two separate physical processes resulting from differing conditions and variables for each. It is important that any analysis of these two processes be appropriately and separately understood before any mutual connection is to be made.

A history of observations is available on the aerosol report page.

This model is in addition to that previously developed that predicts contrail dissipation times, as well as a model to predict the distance behind the engines that the contrail is expected to form.

The model presented will be modified, revised or further developed as circumstances require.

VISIBILITY STANDARDS CHANGED

VISIBILITY STANDARDS
CHANGED
Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 30 2001
Edited Apr 01 2001

The following graphs obtained from the National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demonstrate a significant alteration in visibility reporting methods as well as data results that warrant a further explanation to the American public.

It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

One explanation which has been offered through recent correspondence for the switch to 10 mile visibility limits involves the use of the ASOS, or the Automated Surface Observing System by the National Weather Service, which incorporates a maximum visibility limit of 10 miles. Information on this system can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/modernize/asostech.html. Any reason for the actual change in standard remains unidentified at this point. Remaining in need of further accounting is the significant degradation in visibility as evidenced by the data which follows this change in standard.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

It will be valuable for other citizens to conduct similar archive research in varying geographic regions. This data is available on the NCDC site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.

It is a reasonable to suggest that an investigation be conducted to seek an adequate explanation for the change of a significant meteorological reporting standard that has been made at a national level, and the subsequent deterioration in visibility that correlates directly with the advent of large scale aerosol operations conducted without informed citizen consent.

VISIBILITY GRAPHS : SANTA FE, NM
JAN 1994 – MAR 2001
visibility


visibility


visibility

Note: Data points above the maximum reporting standard apparently indicate missing observations.

Clifford E Carnicom
Mar 30 2001
Edited Apr 01 2001