August 5, 1998
from: John H Ray, 916 Swartmore Court, Schaumburg, IL 60193
Congressman Philip M. Crane 233 Cannon Office Building Washington, D.C.
20515-1308
Re: Contrails that do not dissipate but expand into Sirus like clouds
are affecting our climate.
Dear Congressman Philip M. Crane:
While watching the NBC evening news (7/27/98) they had a report that
NASA
scientists have been studying the effects of CONTRAILS on our
environment
for years. Satellite file film from 1997 showed numerous contrails
that
remained aloft for most of the day and expanded as much as 800 miles
as it
moved with weather systems across several States.
NASA scientist actually flew specially equipped research aircraft
along
these contrails and "recorded unusual turbulence." NASA however
avoided
reporting the chemical particulate count and content of these
contrails. As
scientist, the inevitable question of chemical content requires an
answer.
What causes these contrails to stay aloft for so long? What is the
chemical(s) particulate in these contrails and it's direct and
indirect
effect on our environment? NASA now believes "...increases of
commercial
flights and these non-dissipating contrails are causing excessive
cirrus
like clouds blanketing the skies. It could be a definite factor in
Global
Warming."
It is really ironic that I wrote letters to practically everyone last
year
about this same subject and did not receive one "Official" response
to my
specific concerns. By the way that no response specifically applies
to your
office.I had called your local office several times for answers and
was assured
your local Staff Manager would call me back. I get return calls from
your
local office the same as your responses to my letters . . . NONE! As
our
ELECTED Representative YOU shield yourself by making it difficult for
your
constituents to gain access to your ear. YES, I HAD attended several
of your
"local meetings" which were for political and self-grandiose speeches
and
any serious discussions opposing your "political agenda" are never
considered. Could that be the reasons for such low attendance? Of
course
your interpretation of this low attendance is indifference?
Enclosed is a copy of my letter of Oct.17, 1997 for YOUR review AGAIN.
Perhaps this time someone on your staff might read it this time and
find it
necessary to respond for you. I expect a response specifically
related to my
letter and NOT the usual computer generated response on some
unrelated topic
about airplanes.SincerelyJohn H Ray
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - EPA Technical Factsheet
on:
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (EDB) Drinking Water StandardsMCLG: zero mg/l
MCL: 0.00005 mg/lHAL(child): 1 day: 0.008 mg/l; 10-day: 0.008 mg/l
Health Effects Summary
Acute: EPA has found ethylene dibromide (EDB) to potentially cause a
variety
of acute health effects, including damage to the liver, stomach, and
adrenal
cortex along with significant reproductive system toxicity,
particularly the
testes.
Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term
exposures:
For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, a one-
day
exposure of 0.008 mg/L or a ten-day exposure to 0.008 mg/L.
Chronic: A lifetime exposure to EDB at levels above the MCL has the
potential to damage the respiratory system, nervous system, liver,
heart,
and kidneys.
Cancer: There is some evidence that EDB may have the potential to
cause
cancer from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL.
Usage Patterns: Ethylene dibromide is mainly used (83% of all use) as
a
scavenger for lead in anti-knock gasoline mixtures, particularly in
aviation
fuel. Other uses (17%) include: solvent for resins, gums, and waxes;
in
waterproofing preparations; as a chemical intermediate in the
synthesis of
dyes and pharmaceuticals; and as a fumigant, insecticide, nematicide
for
grains and fruit. (It's a nerve-agent!)
Persistence can vary greatly from soil to soil. In one laboratory
screening
study using 100 soils, half-lives ranging from 1.5 to 18 weeks were
determined. In one field, ethylene bromide was detected in soil 19
years
after its last known application; the long persistence was the result
of
entrapment in intraparticle micropores of the soil. Low Koc values and
detection in various ground waters indicate that ethylene bromide
will leach
in soil. The relatively high vapor pressure (11.2 mm Hg) indicates
evaporation will occur from soil surfaces.
In the atmosphere, ethylene dibromide will degrade by reaction with
photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (half life 32 days).
The primary removal process for ethylene bromide in surface water is
volatilization. Under normal conditions, the volatilization half-life
from a
typical river and lake are about one day and 5 days, respectively.
In ground waters (such as aquifers) where volatilization does not
occur,
ethylene bromide can be degraded by biodegradation and hydrolysis.
Uncatalyzed hydrolysis is slow, with half-lives reported of 6 yr at
25 deg
C, to 13.2 yr at pH7 and 20 deg C. But hydrolysis catalyzed by the
presence
of various natural substances (such as HS ion) may be competitive with
biodegradation (half-life of 1-2 months). It reacts with
photochemically
produced hydroxyl radicals with a half life of 32 days or a 2.2% loss
per
sunlit day. Ethylene bromide does not directly photolyze when exposed
to uv
light between 300 and 400 nm.
Biodegradation can be a primary degradation process in soil. A review
of
available biodegradation data pertaining to ethylene bromide
concluded that
ethylene bromide is biotransformed fairly readily in the environment;
lifetimes can be as short as several days in surface soils and as
long as
many months in aquifer materials.Internet Discussions
Witnesses a dozen or more witnesses of massive spraying and sickness
call in
on the 1/25/99 Art Bell show: Hear the Real Audio file at:
http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/archive99.html#jan99
Also, read "Truth By Decree " at
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/decree.htm
More U.S. National UpdatesOREGON CONTRAILS
from Clarence Napier (ranger@azwest.net)
Dot; Here is another message from Don. in Oregon. Clarence Yes, I
have a
couple of samples- small ones. Here's part two. I didn't believe it
at first
and my wife then called Unsolved Mysteries. Our story matched their
stories.
A few days went by and I got my second sample. As the sun comes up
you can
watch it dissipate. It's like ice melting, but not frozen. It was a
warm
summer morning when I got the second sample with a syringe. I put it
in a
baggie and put it in the freezer. It froze immediately into a crystal
frozen
form. A few more days went by and in broad daylight an unmarked
helicopter
came hovering over our trailer. My wife was outside. She ran inside
to get
the looking glasses as I watched the helicopter. It started to head
toward
our pasture. When my wife came back outside, the helicopter swung
back and
came at her. She ran for cover. WE DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF AIRCRAFT
OUT
HERE, AND NOW WE DO! I told a few friends that seemed to be in the
same path
and they got in on the second samples, too, at their place. Ruth is
another
lady that is scared to death. She gets bothered by these same
helicopters.
They are gray black or like a blue black. There have been more
sittings by
more people. They haven't bothered us since then, but other people
have been
bothered by the helicopters.Thanks, Don
PS. There is a lot going on out here. It's a great cover. UN vehicles
spotted - Russian people with escorts - Forestry has started to train
the
cops - and visa versa - and lots of UFO sitings out here.TENNESSEE
CONTRAILS
by Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com)
I sent the following "experience" to Hal - a pilot. but I should be
sharing
it with everyone. Clarence Napier answered, "Thank you Dot, maybe
when he
sees what is really going on we could have a good helper in getting
the
info. out to the public." Clarence;At 03:52 PM 1/21/99 EST, you
wrote:Hal
When I first heard about the contrails from Clarence Napier in
Phoenix, AZ -
I told him that these were just "vapor trails". He asked me very
politely to
start watching - and I have. So that is what I suggest that you do.
These
are NOT vapor trails. Right after I started watching, sure enough one
of
these high-flying military planes when over - SPRAYING - not from
exhaust -
from a device (PROVEN) and right over the trail was a commercial
airliner -
who was leaving a vapor trail. The vapor trail dis-appeared almost
immediately. HOWEVER, the contrail lingers and the cloud becomes
wider and
wider - making a small cloud in the sky.
I have been posting the FACTS that both NASA and the Air Force admit
to this
activity. (from Joe Burton SBurton3@aol.com). Haven't you been
reading my
postings? It is also a FACT that these planes are spraying
deliberately -
not just an exhaust from their engine flying over. WHY else would
they be
making X marks in the sky. Yes, the same plane - cuts his spray off -
then
turns back around and makes an X. I have seen this with my own eyes.
Federal Aviation Administration Facility
Caught Launching Chemtrail Spray Aircraft by Val Valerian, April 12,
1999,
Amended with more data April 16, 1999.
It was reported to Leading Edge Research Group the afternoon of April
12,
1999 by one of the longtime readers of the Leading Edge Research
Journal
that the huge FAA Technical Center near Pomona, New Jersey, adjacent
to
Atlantic City Airport, was seen by him about 3:45 pm to launch three
large
olive green four-engine jet aircraft, which proceeded to circle
around and
fly over Ocean City. They began to emit a fog-like compound from the
rear of
the aircraft (not from the engines). The aircraft then turned and
proceeded
toward Atlantic City, New Jersey at an altitude of between 8,000 and
10,000
feet, with the fog-like spray continuing from the rear of each of the
aircraft. According to the report, this particular FAA Technical
Center is
even larger than the Atlantic City Airport, and is capable of handing
747's
on their runway. Experimental aircraft are also tested there.
As an aside, this same individual took a tour of the facility in the
early
1990's. After the tour had been going a while, he began to talk to
one of
the FAA supervisors that had accompanied the tour. While in the
middle of a
series of questions to the FAA supervisor, he asked, "Is this the
place that
alien technology is back-engineered?". Without thinking, the FAA
supervisor
replied, "Oh, no, we don't do that here, we ....", and suddenly got
red in
the face and appeared angry that he had spoken out. The official went
out of
his way to avoid the questioner during the rest of the tour. Any
common
sense approach to the "chemtrail" problem, which is happening over
every
major population area in the United States, would have to involve the
knowledge of the FAA, the Department of Commerce, and more. The fact
that
scores of aircraft are pulling non-standard and potentially hazardous
manuvers over cities all the time and continue to do so means that
one or
more areas in the government are involved with this insidious
program. Now,
we have one credible and verfied source for at least one launch
mission.
"Contrails" vs. Chemtrails From: Val Valerian, Leading Edge Research
Group
Subject: Contrail vs ChemtrailDate: 17 April 1999
I was just giving thought to this whole "contrail" thing. Scattered
around
are various messages about this activity , some of which claim to have
pictures, videos, etc. I have had the chance to go over most of the
websites
on the internet about this phenomenon, and I notice that in fact the
whole
issue also involves a confusion between "contrails" and "chemtrails.
Now, I would like to "ramble on" for a second about something
specific.
Isn't it convenient, in terms of this relatively "new" phenomenon,
that the
activities of these aircraft produce a trail SIMILAR to a "contrail",
so
that discussion of "contrails" (by those who poo-poo chemical trails)
conveniently overwhelms discussion of chemical trails. If you look at
some
of these sites, like Ian Goddard for examples, they feature
discussions
which EQUATE CHEMICAL TRAILS with "contrails", then go on to "prove
that
contrails can't happen below 33,000 feet (etc)", so that "contrails
(CHEMTRAILS) don't exist", and therefore "anyone who is claiming to
see
contrails below 33,000 feet coming from aircraft is nuts". Now,
things that
come from aircraft, in terms of aerial dispersion, can probably only
come
from 2 places - the wings/engines and the rear of the aircraft. The
recent
observation by my long-time friend in New Jersey about the FAA
facility
distinctly observed the materials coming out of the back of the
aircraft,
not from the engines, and the planes weren't much higher than 8,000
feet
from the ground for as long as he observed them. Chemical trails.
Nevertheless, discussions about my report on this FAA phenomenon
(Amended 16
April 99) , and frankly 90% of the general discussion, continues to
blandly
and blindly talk about this in terms of "contrails", not chemical
trails,
which only provides the "opposition" with more and more weight as
long as
people blindly stumble into this "snare". Consider this:
1. Aircraft which are flying above 30,000+ feet can generate normal,
fast
dissipating contrails, while at the same time such an aircraft could
decide
to generate chemical trails out the rear of the aircraft, or out the
wing
tips (see #5) which would be confusing to the ground observer, and
would be
"hidden" under the weight of the "contrail" label.
2. In the reports I have read so far, aircraft have come as low as
250 feet
above the ground spraying this material, and it seems that most
aircraft
that have been seen spraying have been seen lower than 33,000 feet,
although
multi-engine aircraft have been seen emitting normal engine contrails
as
well as colored sprays coming from the wing tips at higher altitudes.
3. A chemical trail laid out at a two thousand feet, for example,
would by
description be called a "contrail" by the public, because there is no
other
conceptual name for anything like this which would be observed by
thepublic.
4. The slave media and medical authorities, especially on the
internet,
would by definition never report a large series of outbreaks of any
kind
(especially results of chemical trails) unless it were to the
advantage of
the orthodox medical system (promotion of vaccines and other profit-
making
biologicals). Despite this, you still hear people say, blindly, "I
couldn't
find any outbreaks on the internet, so there aren't any outbreaks". I
think
you know some people like this out there who are using this
"argument". Ian
Goddard himself did write a very good piece called "Truth By Decree"
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/decree.htm which discusses the mental
programming of the public by the media.
5. It is also a point that all everyone sees is a series of single
chemical
trails, not multiple trails as would be produced by the multi-engine
aircraft observed, so it would seem that many of these "chem trails"
might
be coming from the rear of aircraft, not from engines, which again
means
they could never be "contrails". It is this kind of fact that became
evident
in the aircraft sightings in New Jersey. Photos of any kind, after
the fact,
would not make this fact immediately apparent, but the spacing of the
trails
is too wide to have come from engines, only from a singular source,
probably
the rear of aircraft. However, there have been sightings of material
being
sprayed from the wingtips, not the engines, as well, but the spacing
of the
trails we are seeing is greater than the wing length of most aircraft.
All things considered, it is my personal opinion that we ought to
relabel
things, get rid of the phrase "contrails", and replace it with
something
more accurate, like "biochem trails", "biochemical fog", etc. Now, if
there
start to be more websites out there that label this phenomena
properly, for
what it really is, people will probably begin to see this whole issue
in a
more accurate way. Those who try to deliberately confuse the issue
with
"contrails" are either doing so out of ignorance, it would seem, or
because
they are part of an agenda which seeks to continue the coverup about
this
activity. I intend to implement changes on our page relative to this
issue.
If we don't collectively work together on this aspect of the problem,
the
whole issue will become more analogous to unidentified aerial craft
versus
swamp gas, which means that the activity will continue and more
people will
be compromised. So, a semantic issue can destroy all
investigativeactivities.
The current aerial activity is not precedental by any means. From the
aerial
experiments done by the government in the 1950's, to the deliberate
spraying
of Oregon residents in the 1980's by helicopters owned by Evergreen
Aircraft
(contractor to the CIA), to the "biogels" that have been falling in
the
1990's in Washington State and other areas, seems that a long-standing
program has been implemented that is meant to biologically affect the
population. So this "phenomena", at least in terms of intent and
action, is
really not new.
Making the problem more difficult to solve, in terms of getting
people on
common ground, are people who feel they can come into a discussion,
or a
report, and declare that the information is bogus, "because they said
so".
There are a number of people out there who have nothing useful to
contribute, have done little or no personal research on their own,
think
they are the "lord validator" of other people's experience, and
arrogantly
parade around like someone gave them the keys to truth. We all know
people
like that, too. And, all these people do is attack or criticise every
little
nuance in an attempt to deride or divide any serious research effort,
while
at the same time go on to define what's "valid" and what's not, and
expect
people to kowtow to them, respond defensively to them and to give
their
power away. Now, honest people make mistakes, but these Pontifical
people
are their own worst enemy. The best thing to do is ignore them, let
them
espouse their "Klass" mentality, and carry on with the work.
I really don't see the issue of chemical trails getting resolved soon
enough, especially because of the issues discussed in paragraph 2 and
3
above, or until the resolution of this semantic issue is seen. In my
opinion, for what it's worth, we ought to call a rose a rose. Look at
the
picture on the Leading Edge page concerned with this issue. Any
average
person would call them "contrails", but I never saw "contrails" like
that,
especially at the relatively low altitude, well below 33,000 feet.
Many of
the pictures make it difficult to tell a "contrail" from a chemical
trail,
but the one on our page is definitely not a "contrail". The ground
can be
seen and it's obvious these chemical fog dispersion patterns do not
qualify
as "contrails". I think an effort needs to be made to carefully select
visual evidence that makes this distinction apparent, and to have
those
maintaining web pages on the subject (who don't dwell on "contrails")
briefly discuss this sematic and scientific point, and then present
evidence
to show what is really happening. Please try and spread the word to
those
researchers making an honest effort, if you think what I have said
makes
sense to you.
BACK TO TRANSPORTER