Tag: Geoengineering

Alzheimer’s Association Forgets – History Doomed To Repeat Itself

First Case Study to Show Direct Link Between Alzheimer’s and Aluminum Toxicity – Dr. Mercola


Alzheimer’s Disease Now Fastest-Growing Threat To U.S. Health, Report Finds

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/alzheimers-health-united-states-america-threat_n_2820887.html

Can Aluminum Cause Alzheimer’s Disease? by Melvyn R. Werbach, M.D.

“Studies have discovered a direct association between the level of aluminum in municipal drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia.” Source:  http://www.laleva.cc/environment/aluminium_alzheimer2.html

Scientific Studies Concluding The Connection Of Aluminum To Alzheimer’s

Functional and morphological changes in cultured neurons of rat cerebral cortex induced by long-term application of aluminum –

“Aluminum is an environmental neurotoxin and a suspected risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. The neurotoxicity of aluminum on cultured neurons of rat cerebral cortex was investigated using an assay system for synapse formation and immunohistochemistry. The frequency of spontaneous oscillations of intracellular Ca2+, which is correlated to the number of synapses, was decreased after exposure to 100 μM of aluminum chloride for 22 days. Long-term application of aluminum (48 days) caused aggregation of cell bodies and fasciculation of processes. Processes and cell bodies were strongly stained by antibody to tau protein, which is one of the main components of Alzheimer’s neurofibrillary tangles. It is suggested that the characteristics of the degeneration of cultured neurons induced by aluminum show some similarities to the pathology observed in brains with Alzheimer’s disease.” Source:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006291X92902179

Elevated brain aluminium and early onset Alzheimer’s disease in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium: a case report:

By Chris Exley, Biologist (University of Stirling) with a PhD in the ecotoxicology of aluminium

Chris Exley Professor
Click Photo for Dr. Exley’s Biography at Keele University, School of Life Sciences, Staffordshire, UK

Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
Honorary Professor, UHI Millennium Institute

“Introduction: Aluminium is a known neurotoxin and occupational exposure to aluminium has been implicated in neurological disease including Alzheimer’s disease. Here we present the first comprehensive and unequivocal data demonstrating significantly elevated brain aluminium content in an individual occupationally exposed to aluminium.” Source: http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/pdf/1752-1947-8-41.pdf

Connecting The Dots

Below is a detailed and referenced article, Making Sense of Science – Aluminum, originally published July 2, 2014 by The Liberty Beacon, helping connect the dots, exposing corporate media lies (disinformation / propaganda) and its resulting status quo “denial” (via the bidding of corporate profiteers), that has gone on throughout history to this day, at the expense of our collective health and global environment.

liberty beacon logo

Making Sense of Science – Aluminum

 Published July 2, 2014, filed under HEALTH

Whats your Poison

By TLB Contributor: Anna Rodgers

On 10 May, a full page article was featured in the Sun Newspaper, on page 6 about my forthcoming book, Toxic World Toxic People – The Essential Guide To Health, Happiness, Parenting and Conscious Living. Journalist Helen Gilbert pulled facts from it to write her article.

Helen had written about 4 dangerous common toxins in her article titled ‘Whats Your Poision’. – She focused on lead, mercury, cadmium, aluminium (known as aluminum in the USA) that are all around us – not only in the environment but which are now found in some of the foods we eat, the medicines we take, the products we put on our skin and what we build our homes and other structures with. Even many infant formulas contain concerning levels of multiple toxic chemicals, including aluminum. I have written about these 4, fairly extensively in one of the chapters in my book. Helen pulled some facts from that chapter.

By Tuesday afternoon, I had discovered that one of the UK’s largest Science websites “Sense About Science” had completely discredited the article. They wrote a counter article called ‘Tackling Misconceptions About Toxins’

Judging by some pretty major events throughout history, mainstream Science doesn’t always seem to want the public knowing about certain dangerous chemicals because usually they were the organisations that said they were safe from the start, only to be proven otherwise years later.

Does anyone remember the huge lies we were told about smoking, DDT, Lead, Thalidomide, Vioxx to name just a small few? All of these were promoted as safe, healthy, and good for us by these sorts of ‘science’ organisations.

Now we all know the real truth.


These were not just a little lie but were in fact big big lies, with billions upon billions of pounds being made by many corporations. But more important than that, think about all the people that were harmed because of these lies, the lack of proper testing, and how they were marketed to the public. Deaths, disease and cancers were caused directly because of these lies. And it could actually be in the millions. In all of these cases, studies were falsified, people were paid off to keep quiet or paid to tell lies so that they could continue to sell their product. It wasn’t an easy task to get them to take responsibility for the harm they caused. And in each of these instances, Doctors and Scientists were speaking on behalf of these companies for their medicines, pesticides and cigarettes saying to the public ‘you can trust us we are experts’

Yet look at what we now know. They lied.


Most of you reading this will know that we are now living in a world where our authorities are being bought more than ever before, to do what powerful companies want them to do. Congressmen are being bought to vote on things that interest companies, our Governments tell lies constantly and don’t ever seem to do what they promise and pharmaceutical companies are being sued for fraud and misconduct left right and center. This is pretty much a fact. And its not on a small scale – its rampant abuse.


To those who are aware of this, nowadays when mainstream science ridicule something, it usually is because they are trying to squash the truth from being brought to light to the majority of the public. They try desperately to pull the wool over the eyes of the people by using the same old routine ‘trust me, I’m a expert’


In these situations, I often remind myself of this very famous quote:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

Yep. Damn straight. The concerns about DDT, Lead, Smoking, Vioxx and Thalidomide were all at first ridiculed, violently opposed, but now, are self evident.


Sence About Science pulled apart Helen’s article saying that every statement I had made, was not true and that I was alarming the public.

But little do they realise that how they wrote their article (see the very badly written PDF, see here) was an absolute joke and I can show you why. There are so many holes in what they have written that its almost laughable.

Its immediate to see, that they basically want the public to believe that natural chemicals are far more dangerous than manmade ones, and that no disease or cancer is ever caused to anyone by being exposed to chemicals! Whilst it’s true, some natural chemicals can harm in certain amounts or in those that are sensitive to them, but most of them do not as they don’t have the chemical compositions that synthetic chemicals do. And a good point to make about chemicals in general is, how do we know that some individuals won’t be sensitive to them or worse, seriously harmed by them? Something that is not harmful to one person may in fact be very harmful to someone else! If you have a system in your body that is already suffering from something else, for instance your endocrine system (hormones) aren’t perhaps working efficiently, then a chemical that is proven to harm the endocrine system may very likely make you worse!

It is therefore highly likely that synthetic chemicals are causing cancers (and in this case, causing Alzheimer’s) because we know in the studies that have been done on some of the concerning chemicals that this is where the evidence is pointing! Many man made chemicals are known carcinogens! That is a fact. Yet what is more worrying is that some of the chemicals these organisations support, and say are safe, have been put onto the market before being effectively tested for safety over the long term, or if they are safe when mixed with other chemicals!

So these science bodies are making statements that have not been proven at all to be true in the first place!

They do not know that their chemicals DO NOT CAUSE harm. The statements they make to the public are not based on real facts. They twist words around very cleverly and are relying on gullible people coming to their site who think that what they say is always 100% scientifically and ethically correct. Often these sorts of science websites mix truth in amongst their lies, so that the average person won’t be able to read into the real lies!

They said I am alarming the public with my information but that is GOOD, I want people to be alarmed, we are facing an epidemic with toxicity, like never before seen in the world.

Now, onto the topic of this blog post.

Does Aluminum exposure cause Alzheimer’s?

Well, what is Aluminum?

Aluminum is a natural metal that is found in the earth’s crust. Its now around us in ways we can’t quite even comprehend. Its basically everywhere. Now the science community like to say this that it is indeed everywhere too, but they forget that it wasn’t as prevalent as this 100 years ago! It was always in the soil and some was found in the air, but now its also found in our foods, cosmetics, medicines, and homes.

Many power plants and other industries put loads of aluminium particles into the air. And whilst we do ingest a lot of it through what we eat, we now are also having aluminum added to many everyday items! This is where the problem lies, that its not just found naturally its being added on purpose to cosmetics, food and medicines. Some are saying there’s now also huge levels of extra aluminum in the air, due to ‘GEOENGINEERING’.

Most of the public simply do not know this stuff!

When something is found around us so much, its only natural our bodies will also then contain these metals and chemicals. Whilst some levels of course is normal, increased levels is not always safe for an individual, and many studies are showing this to be very true. As you will soon discover, studies have been done on deceased Alzheimer brains and high levels of aluminum have been found in their tissues.

When you understand that aluminum is a proven neurotoxin (which even the scientists don’t deny) and that its found in so many aspects of our lives, then you can perhaps understand that there comes a point when a high level of aluminum becomes a problem (for some people) because the brain just can’t handle anymore of it. Its like slowly drinking alcohol, you might not feel the effects at first, but the more you have, the more likely you are going to behave strangely and eventually feel unwell.

Whilst our body can naturally detox things to a degree, we are not like bottomless garbage bins that can handle having chemicals piled into us. There comes a time when its too much. And many people now have bodies that are already struggling to cope with the amount of chemicals in their bodies.

Lets look at what Sense about Science said in relation to aluminium contributing to causing Alzheimer’s.

Alzheimer’s Society says:

“There is no evidence that aluminium causes Alzheimer’s disease. Aluminium is found in protein build-ups associated with Alzheimer’s disease, but that doesn’t mean that this is due to too much aluminium being present in the body – the same is true of other metals.”

I love how they made such a sweeping and ‘final’ statement to really throw people off the scent. ‘The same is true of other metals’. Oh really. Have you studied all the other metals in relation to Alzheimer’s then and have you studied the effects other chemicals have with several other ones, or what about the thousands of others we have in our environment and therefore in our bodies?

Lets now exam what the ‘other side of science’ is saying about whether or not Alzheimer’s is being contributed to by Aluminum.

A study published on the highly esteemed peer reviewed medical journal site, pub med stated in the abstract of a study by Professor Chris Exley (who by the way seems to be doing a lot of research into the effects aluminum and other metals are having in regards to causing Alzheimer’s and other health problems – so he’s one to pay attention to i’d say – click on his name to read his further studies!):

Aluminium is neurotoxic. Its free ion, Al3+ (aq), is highly biologically reactive and uniquely equipped to do damage to essential cellular (neuronal) biochemistry. This unequivocal fact must be the starting point in examining the risk posed by aluminium as a neurotoxin in humans. Aluminium is present in the human brain and it accumulates with age. The most recent research demonstrates that a significant proportion of individuals older than 70 years of age have a potentially pathological accumulation of aluminium somewhere in their brain. What are the symptoms of chronic aluminiumintoxication in humans? What if neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease are the manifestation of the risk of aluminium as a neurotoxin? How might such an (outrageous) hypothesis be tested? You can see the link for this study here:

And its also very interesting to note that when you type the following keywords Aluminum Alzheimer’s into pub med, 988 studies come up! Of course not all are going to support the hypothesis that Aluminum can cause Alzheimer’s but if you have the time, check out how many actually do! Looks like there’s a lot of concerned people (Scientists!) with some compelling proof, right? And, from what I have been reading their have been scientists that have been very concerned about Aluminium for the last 100 years!

Now it’s also worth saying, am I the only person in the world saying that aluminium could be causing alzheimer’s? No, of course not! Could it be that I have read books, and studies on the same subject matter, and that I also listened to Doctors and Scientists speak out about this very valid health concern in the world today? Yes! Am I lone horse, saying something that no one else knows? Of course not. The numbers on ‘this side’ are increasing every day. And its purely because of Science! The medical studies that have proven certain things in relation to chemicals to be true!

In an article appearing in the Townsend Letter for Doctors (November 1993), Dr. Michael A. Weiner, executive director of the Alzheimer’s Research Institute summarized our present understanding of the dangers of aluminum exposure when he stated:

“aluminum has been known as a neurotoxic substance for nearly a century.The scientific literature on its toxic effects has now grown to a critical mass. It is not necessary to conclude that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease to recommend that it be reduced or eliminated as a potential risk. It is the only element noted to accumulate in the tangle-bearing neurons characteristic of the disease and is also found in elevated amounts in four regions of the brain of Alzheimer’s patients.”

In the past, there hasn’t been many definitive studies that proved this link but last month, a study came out that was undertaken by Professor Exley from Keele University in the UK which showed that they had found ‘unequivocally’, high levels of aluminum in the brain of a deceased Alzheimer’s sufferer. The deceased had been exposed to aluminum at work. (1)

Another subject in the study, also a British woman, who had died of Alzheimer’s was also found to have high levels of aluminum in her tissues. Approximately 16 years before her death, there had been an industrial accident near where she lived where 20 metric tons of aluminum sulphate had gone into the local water supply. So its highly likely the lady literally drank herself to developing Alzheimer’s.


Interesting to note in this image that the ‘alzheimer’ brain reduces greatly in size and looks like its been eaten by something. What could do this? Hmmm perhaps something that eats away at nerves and tissues? What has been shown to do this? Aluminium! It is a selective neurotoxin that attacks the nerves.

And in a story seen in the Daily Mail article titled Top Scientist Links Disabilities with mother’s exposure to mass poisoning in 1988 Professor Exley, (mentioned previously in this article) has been investigating other concerns associated to this massive spill of aluminum sulphate (in case you are wondering why its added to our water supplies it’s to make it appear clear) which happened in Camelford North Cornwall back in 1988. Instead of this chemical going into a storage tank, it was added directly into the water supply without the publics knowledge.

Many locals then went on to drinking this highly toxic water. One of them was Sarah Matta, now a mother to 7 children. After being unsure as to why so many of her children were seriously unwell, Sarah got in contact with Professor Exley (who is one of the UK’s top Scientists in relation to bioinorganic chemistry) to tell him what had happened to her and her family.

6 of her 7 children have disabilities which sound suspiciously to me, like problems that can occur from toxicity. Between them they have: possible autism, developmental problems, speech problems, and anxiety. Sarah herself had blood tests taken and was found to have aluminium levels 20 times higher than is normal.

Professor Exley is extremely concerned that others who were also in contact with the poisoned water supply may have harmed themselves, including their children through their exposure. He told the Daily Mail:

”Aluminium is toxic. Studies in animals show that if you feed mothers aluminium in the water supply, the offspring will exhibit developmental problems.”

I find it interesting we have Science bodies (with very dubious funding connections) talking about Aluminium as being ‘nothing to worry about’ yet a highly esteemed scientist who is an expert in his field has been studying this chemical for many years and is discovering many alarming connections. And it’s interesting to note that he is not gaining anything out of saying Aluminium is dangerous! Yet as you will read below, could it be that Pharmaceutical companies and chemical companies have a lot more to lose?

A Film maker also became so concerned about Aluminum and how it has invaded our lives, that he made the film The Age Of Aluminum – you can see the full movie below this post, I highly recommend you take a look. The film exposes environmental disasters that have happened in the UK, South Africa and Hungary due to the Aluminum Industry. The film features an interview with Christopher Shaw who is a well known neuroscientist. He shares his concerns about the effects Aluminum is having on human health:

“Many researchers are beginning to accept that aluminum has some sort of role to play in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Whether it does in others is still an open question, but Alzheimer’s is really coming into focus and it’s fairly clear that the body burden of aluminum from all the sources to which humans are exposed may be contributing to Alzheimer’s disease.”

And Dr Joseph Mercola stated in his article First Case Study To Show Direct Link Between Alzheimer’s and Aluminum Toxicity that Aluminum heads straight to your brain:

Aluminum is to your central nervous system as cigarette smoke is to your lungs. Scientists are clear that toxic metals damage brain tissue and lead to degenerative disease by producing oxidative stress—and aluminum is one of the worst offenders. With Alzheimer’s rates skyrocketing, today’s multiple avenues of aluminum exposure are of great concern. Just as with particles in the environment, once aluminum is in your tissues, your body has a difficult time releasing it. This toxic metal serves absolutely no biological purpose, so the less of it you ingest, the better.

Once in your body, it travels around easily, unimpeded, piggybacking on your iron transport system. It crosses biological barriers that normally keep other types of toxins out, such as your blood-brain barrier. Over time, aluminum can accumulate in your brain and do serious damage your neurological health—regardless of your age. Aluminum toxicity may be doing as much damage to our children as to our seniors.

I could continue on and on about this subject. I could link to the studies proving the concerns. I spent about an hour writing this, I don’t have time to go into it more, but oh boy, I easily could. All that I would urge you to do is, do your own research, look for non government, non pharmaceutical, non chemical company funded studies. That’s where the truth lies. I’ve written a fair bit more about this subject in my book.

Many Alzheimer’s organisations are often funded by the drug companies who make the medications for the treatment of this awful disease. And many of these drug companies also add aluminum to their medicines.

People like myself are simply trying to educate people about decreasing their exposure to Aluminum, and to encourage them to detox their body with proven metal chelators. If the public started doing this on a huge scale, then perhaps its worth considering, would the Alzheimer’s drug industry fall apart? Is this why there is such a huge denial amongst the mainstream Science industry? Whilst some say Aluminium accumulation is not the only cause of this brain disease, it is quite possibly a huge factor.

Another area where a lot of aluminium is also found, is in the vaccine industry as its used as an adjuvant. When you take a look at the chart below, and see how much money is tied up with vaccinations, you can quickly understand that the purchase of Aluminium for just these medicines alone, is actually quite hard to fathom, and therefore, if someone is threatening that industry for fears around its safety, there’s going to be people fighting very hard to keep it all quiet.


Chart 2

And, Alzheimer’s is not the only neurological problem Aluminium can cause. It is now also being linked to causing Autism and other neurological problems. Christina England, investigative journalist for Vactruth writes:

A recent study conducted by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic revealed that the more vaccines that children receive containing the adjuvant aluminum, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems in the future.

In 2013, in their paper, published by Springer Science+Business Media, titled Aluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, they revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum. [2]

And in another study titled Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe? also by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic their abstract states:

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.

So it seems that Aluminum exposure and harm, can come from many different ways, and is very much something to seriously have concerns about. And its alarming if you look a bit deeper at other medicines such as common antacids, taken by millions of people around the world for indigestion, calls for even more concern. Talcid, which is made by Bayer which contains an aluminum derivative clearly states on the insert that:

‘long-term use of high dosage may lead to aluminum deposits in bone and nerve tissue. This may lead to brain damage (dementia) and anaemia. In the case of renal insufficiency and long term use of Talcid necessitates regular check of patient’s aluminum levels’

WOW, right from the horses mouth. The drug company is clearly stating that aluminum can cause dementia! Yep, now you know that they know.

It’s a little bit sinister isn’t it, that these ‘Science’ websites are trying to discredit little old me – who receives no funding from anyone I want to ad, yet they don’t even know what they are talking about. Have they read the package insert of antacids and other medications containing Aluminium derivatives I wonder?

And if anyone wants to dispute that Vaccines aren’t proven to cause autism and mentions Dr Wakefield being a fraud, then why are these 28 studies published in highly esteemed medical journals showing the same findings as his? Sense About Science are the type of organisation that say there’s no link, yet LOOK right here, there’s proof that it is true.

Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research:

  1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
  2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
  3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
  4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
  5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
  6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
  7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
  8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
  9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
  10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
  11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
  12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
  13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
  14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
  15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
  16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
  17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
  18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
  19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
  20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605
  21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
  22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
  23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477
  24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
  25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
  26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
  27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
  28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

This where I found writing this article so much fun! For those that are interested in Sense About Science; they say they are a charity and pretty much rely on outside funding and guess where most of it looks like it comes from? Pharmaceutical and chemical companies. And, yes, I’m being a bit lazy here, as I’m just cutting and pasting this next section from wikipedia and it is a bit out of date, but I think you will see what I found is enough to prove my point!

Funding for the trust has been increasing. Some is derived from industrial organizations engaged in scientific dispute, clinical trials and research for which SAS is supportive (e.g. genetically modified crops) as well as major publishing houses. For example for the fiscal year ending 5 April 2008, the trust received £145,902 in donations. Disclosed corporate donations comprised £88,000 with pharmaceutical company Astra Zeneca donating £35,000. Previous donations included other pharmaceutical industries such as Pfizer. This dependency has now been diminished since for the fiscal year ending April 2010, the trust received £183,971 in donations of which only £17,500 was derived from the pharmaceutical industry (Unilever and G E Healthcare), in 2011 the amount diminished further to less than 6% funding derived from industry sources (the trust received £268,184 in donations with £15,000 from industry) with the rest derived from Science Bodies and individuals.

And, I’ve also now found the direct link to Sense about Science’s funding, please check out their huge list…” — (END QUOTE) Source: http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/07/02/making-sense-of-science-aluminum/

Who Can We Trust?

The corporations and irresponsible scientists that profit at the expense of our health and environment? Who can forget hearing about the historical ad, “DDT Is Good For Me-e-e!”? disinformation shills (a.k.a. trolls) that attacked it in defense of DDT. Look at their outrageous comments, and the fact that the video in the article was “removed” on youtube. Those are classic , obvious once you learn their strategy and recognize their “cookie cutter” format. “Forum Posters” are hired by PR Companies contracted by corporate profiteers, to infiltrate social media, gang-stalk/remove or discredit information in an attempt to sway public opinion.  The truth about DDT, its marketing spin/public acceptance, mass spraying from planes, then subsequent BAN, are outlined in the video below.


Despite what corporate profiteers would like us to believe, why would we trust them after their continual duplicitous marketing “spins”? Why would we think that present day aluminum being put into vaccines and our global atmosphere via geoengineering research projects (mass aerial spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium & sulphuric acid nanoparticles), is any different? Let’s keep connecting the dots until the pattern is clear for all to see, trust your own eyes.

Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/

Alzheimer’s Association is associated with biotech/vaccines/Gates/Monsanto etc., and as we know, Gates is simultaneously funding GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH. If we look closely, the conflict of interest is glaring –  http://www.biotech-now.org/health/2014/06/alzheimers-association-offers-part-the-cloud-translational-research-grant-program#

Following the money always leads to where the truth lies. Gates plays Bridge for Alzheimer’s Research 6/2014, and has a vested interest in Geoengineering Research, a.k.a. ALUMINUM (with sulfate, barium, strontium) NANOPARTICLES AERIALLY SPRAYED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. Given the scientific research concluding aluminum and Alzheimer’s, isn’t that a conflict of interest” AND perhaps the reason Alzheimer’s Association suddenly denies an aluminum connection?

Source: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140606005865/en/Bridge-Players-Nationwide-Unite-Raise-Money-Alzheimer%E2%80%99s#.VEgvrleCCnU

Establishing the connection of BIOTECH to Alzheimer’s research: http://dhmri.org/assets/NCRCSolutionstoGlobalChallenges.pdf

International Science Leaders

National Science Foundation

National Institutes of Health

American Cancer Society

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ** GATES FUNDS GEOENGINEERING (and ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH) http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/01/bill-gates-funding-geoengineering-research )

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Alzheimer’s Association; advance Alzheimer’s research

 Full list: https://lsn.osu.edu/funding

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Institutional Conflicts of Interest an ongoing problem.


Intentional obfuscation in the mainstream at will of its funders, furthering the agenda of the controlling powers, and conflict of interest in medical research, and all facets of our world, is evident if we simply dare to pay attention and think outside the box. ~Rebel Siren – Exposing Corruption and Crimes Against Humanity

Additional References

For more information on aluminum hydroxide in vaccines: 

Aluminum Hydroxide Adjuvants In Vaccines – Is It Safe?

Dr. Shaw holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology, a Master of Science degree in Medical Physiology, and a PhD in Neurobiology - click photo to go to his biography.
Dr. Shaw holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology, a Master of Science degree in Medical Physiology, and a PhD in Neurobiology – click photo to go to his biography.

In the video below, Dr. Christopher Shaw discusses the toxic effects of aluminum in vaccines and the severe rise in neurological disorders among the population such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, ALS & more. His extensive research concludes that Aluminum, which is present in most of our vaccines, (as well as our global atmosphere via geoengineering), is the main culprit causing ALS and Alzheimer’s symptoms in laboratory mice. Dr. Shaw’s professional profile; education, experience, qualifications: http://www.neuraldynamicsubc.ca/profiles/shaw.html

More Information On Aluminum Toxicity


Krisha McCoy MSc
Krisha McCoy, MSc

Krisha McCoy holds a Master of Science degree in Nutrition Communication from Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. She completed her undergraduate degree in Nutritional Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

Krisha has worked as a nutrition researcher, and is an accomplished health and medical writer, with her work appearing in a variety of print and online publicaitons, including the Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter, HealthDay News, and Livestrong.com, and is a member of the American Medical Writer’s Association.

Aluminum Toxicity (Aluminum Poisoning)
by Krisha McCoy, MSc

Aluminum toxicity occurs when a person breathes in high levels of aluminum from the air, or stores high levels of aluminum in the body.

Eat foods containing high levels of aluminum
Live in dusty environments
Live where aluminum is mined or processed
Live near certain hazardous waste sites
Live where aluminum is naturally high
Receive vaccinations containing aluminum.”

Aluminum Nanoparticle Toxicity In Our Global Atmosphere May Also Cause Heart Attacks?

Alumina nanoparticles may cause coronary disease as well as being a contributing factor of dementia/Alzheimer’s

Nanotechnology is a rapidly growing industry that has elicited much concern because of the lack of available toxicity data. Exposure to ultrafine particles may be a risk for the development of vascular diseases due to dysfunction of the vascular endothelium.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18456438

Geoengineering Is Big Business

NOVIM – Climate Engineering (decade long SWCE short wave climate engineering research including field experiments beginning in 2009), pay special attention to their site photo entitled, “comtrails” (with an “m”) and notice how the streaks match what we often see in our global skies: http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering

CLICK HERE to go to Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals UK, associated with UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara) Nanotech Department, and Novim.

NOAA – A Bibliometric Analysis of Climate Engineering Research: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Belter_Seidel.WIREsClimateChange2013.wcc229.pdf

Council On Foreign Relations – Workshop On Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering 2008http://www.cfr.org/projects/world/geoengineering-workshop-on-unilateral-planetary-scale-geoengineering/pr1364 Briefing Notes – http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_041209.pdf

NASA – Von Karman Lecture with Riley Duren, Principal Engineer and Chief Systems Engineer for the Earth Science Directorate at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory discusses at length, the hazards of GEOENGINEERING:

For More Information On The Dangers Of Geoengineering And How To Get Involved

Global Skywatch

Agriculture Defense Coalition

Geo-Engineering | Thrive

Aluminum Oxide Particles – Chemtrails Spraying in California


Chemtrails Project UK – Campaign to Ban Chemtrails and Geoengineering

The Heartland Institute of Chicago EXPOSED by Yale University

The Heartland Institute of Chicago EXPOSED by Yale University


Yale Climate Connections

The Heartland Institute of Chicago EXPOSED (along with others).

“Strange Bedfellows? Climate Change Denial and Support for Geoengineering”

By David Appell

Original Article Published October 30, 2013

Yale Climate Science
click here for original article

Potential benefits of geoengineering, despite attendant risks, appeal to some interests showing little concern for the seriousness of the climate change issue generally. What goes here?

These days, an article headlined “Geo-Engineering Seen as a Practical, Cost-Effective Global Warming Strategy” would hardly be surprising.

But what is surprising is that the headline came from a group denying global warming exists: The Heartland Institute in Chicago.

Well-known for its aggressive contrarian position on manmade global warming, and widely lambasted for its “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” billboard featuring a picture of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, the Heartland Institute might seem unlikely to propose a solution to a problem it doubts exists. So why did the group run an article on geoengineering in the December 2007 issue of its newsletter Environment & Climate News?

Written by David Schnare, at the time an EPA staff scientist and now a director at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., the article is based on testimony Schnare gave to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works earlier that same year. Schnare mentions the ease, speed, and relative low cost of geoengineering schemes like injecting sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere, called solar radiation management (SRM). In particular, Schnare in that article cited research by scientist Ken Caldeira* of Stanford University (and now also the Carnegie Institute) and concludes “reducing greenhouse gases will cost around 2 percent of the gross domestic product, while geo-engineering (by putting reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere) will cost about one-thousandth of that.” Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen’s 2006 article helped pave way for more serious consideration of geoengineering options.

But Schnare’s article, written just a year after Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen’s seminal and controversial 2006 article calling for serious active research into solar radiation management, ignores the many complications, side effects, and unintended consequences of SRM that worry many. Crutzen had specifically mentioned undesirable destruction of protective stratospheric ozone. And SRM does nothing to stop ocean acidification, instead creating a world never before seen, high in carbon dioxide while relatively low in temperature.

Only in the last sentence of his article did Schnare casually advocate a vigorous development away from carbon-based energy sources, writing “the most sensible approach would be a mixed strategy of geo-engineering…and vigorously developing a transition from carbon-based energy, to include research on scrubbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

Despite this article and others, and at least one presentation at its annual conferences, “Heartland doesn’t have a position on geoengineering,” according to Joseph Bast, the Institute’s president and CEO.

‘The Lomborg Maneuver’

The Heartland Institute is hardly alone in considering geoengineering as a solution to a problem it basically doesn’t see as a problem in the first place. Bjorn Lomborg and ‘Lomborg Maneuver’ — opposition to ‘real-world’ actions, but support for more radical approaches?

In recent years, Bjorn Lomborg has often downplayed the threats from climate change while pushing geoengineering as a short-term solution. So too have Newt Gingrich, the former EPA staff economist Alan Carlin, and the American Enterprise Institute, which earlier this year posted a seminar calling solar radiation management “an evolving climate policy option” on its website…a site chock-full of climate contrarianism.

One environmental group has taken to calling this straddle the “Lomborg maneuver” — “switching from opposing real-world action on climate change to supporting the most extreme possible action on climate change.”

How might one reconcile such seemingly contradictory positions? and why do they often come from politically conservative individuals and organizations? In his recent book, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, Clive Hamilton argues that this pair of positions maintains the dominant power structures of society, especially the roles of the energy mega-corporations that have a great deal to lose from any shift away from fossil fuels.

Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, writes “…these results are consistent with the more general argument that conservatives tend to take a more hierarchical view of society, as a natural order in which some groups are dominant and some subservient. Like a patient who will accept the doctor’s diagnosis only if the illness is treatable, a solution to global warming that does not destabilize a person’s worldview — but in fact validates it — makes recognizing the problem palatable. As the identity of conservative white males tends to be more strongly bound to the prevailing social structure, geoengineering is the kind of solution to climate change that is less threatening to their values and sense of self they are consistent with the ideas of control over the environment and the personal liberties associated with free market capitalism. Just as the need to defend a cultural worldview makes conservative white males prone to repudiate climate science, so that worldview will make them prone to support geoengineering solutions”.–

Hamilton cites research by Dan Kahan of the Yale Law School and others showing that facts must accommodate one’s cultural values if they are to be accepted. Kahan calls this the cultural cognition thesis — that cognitively, cultural values come before facts in assessing many public risk conflicts, and to be accepted, facts must accommodate those values. Kahan concludes “as a result of a complex of interrelated psychological mechanisms, groups of individuals will credit and dismiss evidence of risk in patterns that reflect and reinforce their distinctive understandings of how society should be organized.” Australian professor Clive Hamilton sees geoengineering as less threatening to conservatives’ ‘values and sense of self.’

This thesis helps explain many of the current sharp divisions over public policies, especially those with scientific origins such as climate change, vaccinations, and genetically modified foods. Those with values that place more emphasis on the individual would be expected to dismiss environmental and technological risks if solving them requires restricting industry and commerce. Those who more highly value egalitarianism and community are generally suspicious of capitalism’s disparities and its emphasis on individual initiative, and they therefore are more likely to advocate top-down regulation of commercial activity.

In the context of climate change and geoengineering, Kahan and his colleagues found that making their study participants aware of geoengineering’s potential to address climate change, while making them aware also of restrictions of carbon dioxide emissions, helped to overcome the cultural polarizations that dog the climate change issue. The researchers found too that their study subjects exposed to geoengineering ideas — in particular those who more highly value individualism were slightly more concerned about the risks of climate change than those who were not exposed.

All people are prone to the cultural cognition thesis, especially those at the more extreme ends of the spectrum. But not all realize that the thesis goes both ways. For instance, the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg — who often downplays the risks from climate change (he recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “OK, things have gotten a wee bit warmer outside”) while advocating a geoengineering approach — accused “global warming alarmists” of advancing solutions that appeal to their core cultural values. In an interview last year with RightWing News.com, Goldberg said, “One of the reasons why conservatives are right to be suspicious of global warming is that it confirms the exact same suite of policy approaches that these people were arguing for when they were worried about a population bomb. You know, managed scarcity, throw a wet blanket on capitalism, manage the economy.” But Goldberg did not acknowledge that his own beliefs and ideology might influence his attitude and approach to the climate problem no less than those he was criticizing.

Not Without Risks

The reality is that geoengineering itself carries risks, raises difficult ethical considerations, and poses the possibility of unintended consequences, so it is not the slam-dunk first choice solution to problems posed by a warming planet.

Ironically, some of those who say climate is too complex to be forecast, or who criticize models used in climate science as being incomplete or inaccurate, seem to have no trouble advocating geoengineering quick fixes which themselves carry climate and environmental complexities, or which would require extensive modeling to understand implementation and implications.

All geoengineering schemes have unwanted side effects, and some can be significant. Solar radiation management by aerosol injection into the upper atmosphere, for instance, mimics large volcanic explosions, like the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption that caused about one degree Celsius of global surface cooling for a year or two (returning to normal over the succeeding three years).

But that eruption also caused a 10 percent drop in worldwide precipitation, because it reduced evapotranspiration rates over land, and that situation didn’t return to normal for about three years.

There are concerns too that solar radiation management would reduce the essential Asian monsoon or cause drought in Africa. A recent modeling experiment by Simone Tilmes, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and colleagues found regional rainfall reductions of up to 7 percent when geoengineering reduced incoming solar energy so that climate forcings were at a pre-industrial level even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels quadrupled.

There is another large cost to geoengineering by solar radiation management: once undertaken to reduce temperatures, it must be kept up essentially forever or warming will resume in a very rapid and dangerous fashion (see figure on original post). Andrew Ross and H. Damon Matthews, in a study published in Environmental Research Letters, found that temperature would rise by up to 0.76°C in the first year after termination of a 40-year (2020 to 2059) SRM project, with up to another degree in the next two decades.

Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change. Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews. 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045103. Permission: IOP Publishing Ltd, under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA license.

Such abrupt climate change can shock ecosystems, especially affecting marine biodiversity by giving advantage to mobile or opportunistic species. It would be even more abrupt and dangerous if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to rise ever higher. Such threats would hang heavy over future generations, obligated to pay billions of dollars every year to continue to manage solar radiation for an increasingly out-of-kilter planet they did not create, having to carry the burdens of rapid and abrupt climate change were war, revolution, or economic distress to force a halt to the risk management effort.

And these are hardly the only reasons that geoengineering, though tempting, may not be the best solution to climate change, as scientist Alan Robock of Rutgers University wrote in his “20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea.”

‘Laudably Honest’

Of course, not everyone sees a problem with favoring a certain solution because it aligns with their cultural values. “I think it’s laudably honest,” says Eli Lehrer, president and co-founder of the R Street Institute, a Washington-based thinktank that, in its words, “supports free markets; limited, effective government; and responsible environmental stewardship.”

“Many want to use climate change to talk about a pre-existing agenda,” says Lehrer, who accepts the scientific evidence of manmade climate change and favors a carbon tax. “They may well be right. I’d like to do it too.”

Lehrer sees geoengineering as a common sense approach deserving of research, but to be undertaken only if the problem proves severe enough. “It’s probably the best solution to an extreme situation,” he says, adding that a goal of zero carbon emissions is not achievable or “worthwhile.” He disagrees with actually doing geoengineering any time soon, calling the potential adverse impacts “extreme and potentially dangerous.”

Humans vs. Nature

Since Crutzen’s 2006 paper, geoengineering is no longer a taboo subject, feared even for polite discussion, because it can offer an alternative way out of a nagging carbon problem — bariatric surgery instead of strict dieting.

Many scientists now are seriously exploring solar radiation management and ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, philosophers are weighing the moral and ethical dimensions of geoengineering, and even a few environmental groups have opened their minds to concepts once considered anathema. The newly released IPCC Working Group I Fifth Assessment Report mentioned geoengineering for the first time ever.

Geoengineering solutions retain the idea of human’s technical mastery over nature. Instead of human societies changing to accommodate the natural world they rely on, climate engineering — consciously or not — is the view that nature can be fundamentally bent and manipulated to accommodate humanity. Wresting with nature is, in a very real way, the story of human development, and taming the wild world has brought some (but by no means all) wealth, relative comfort and ease, and freedom from basic wants. At the same time, that insistence on control now poses risks to the planet as the most fundamental stage on which that existence plays out.

“There is something increasingly desperate about placing more faith in technological cleverness when it is the unrelenting desire to command the natural world that has brought us to their point,” Hamilton writes in the last chapter of his book. “Unless we understand why a certain kind of rationality seems to have failed, appeals to more reason are quixotic. After all, the separation of natural and human history and the dominance of a certain form of calculative rationality were each products of the same Enlightenment process.” — end

SOURCE:  http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/10/strange-bedfellows-climate-change-denial-and-support-for-geoengineering/

We can only speculate that The Heartland Institute of Chicago’s duplicitous actions are the direct result of funding by the fossil fuel industry, (big oil, coal, et al). They no longer disclose their funders to the public: “Regrettably, listing our donors in this way allowed people who disagree with our views to accuse us of being “paid” by specific donors to take positions in public policy debates, something we never do. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors. This is standard practice by nonprofit advocacy organizations regardless of their philosophies.” http://heartland.org/funding

However, according to other sources, there is a definite monetary connection to big oil, coal, tobacco, and the pharmaceutical industry, (among others):

“The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget, although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland’s overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan. Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.

MediaTransparency reported that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.] In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was “$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade”.

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil. In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland. Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris, Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters. The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link between anti-global warming skeptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health”.

As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it. The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as “particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart.” Heartland has stated that its authors were not “paid to defend Wal-Mart” and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.

In 2012, following the February 2012 document leak and a controversial advertising campaign, the institute lost substantial funding as corporate donors sought to dissociate themselves from the institute. According to the advocacy group Forecast the Facts, Heartland lost more than $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year. The shortfall led to the Illinois COAL lobby sponsoring the institute’s May 2012 climate conference – the “first publicly acknowledged donations from the coal industry.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

There is prevalent double-dipping in the crude world. For example: “BP – Deceiving The Public About Geoengineering”: https://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/bp-deceiving-the-public-about-geoengineering/

ICCC3 June 2009 VIDEO: “The conference’s key message, global warming is not a crisis was delivered directly to the nation’s capitol and elected officials”.

ICCC4 July 2013 VIDEO: “Reconsidering the science and economics”.

If The Heartland Institute and BIG OIL have their way, the planet will be rendered an uninhabitable wasteland, and all life, including the human species, will be EXTINCT. Shouldn’t we take better care of our home? HOME, the documentary: http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU

More about The Heartland Institute: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/heartland-institute/

One South Wacker Drive #2740, Chicago, IL 60606

PHONE (312) 377-4000, EMAIL think@heartland.org

PROPAGANDA formal definition:
prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, spin, publicity; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.


Russell Brand Exposes Trolls/Shills a.k.a. “the furious five” FOX NEWS


Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney Back Oil Shale – Climate Progress

Shale Markets, LLC / Global Oil and Gas News, Marketing

Report: Fox News LIES about climate change 93% of the time


Weather derivatives and weather risk management

BP Oil – Deceiving The Public About Climate Science and GeoEngineering | Rebel Siren


Francis Mangels – Retired USDA Biologist with the US Forest Service – Scientific Findings, Lab Reports Conclusive Evidence of Climate Engineering

Francis Mangels – Retired USDA Biologist with the US Forest Service – Scientific Findings, Lab Reports Conclusive Evidence of Climate Engineering

Mr. Francis Mangels’, retired USDA Biologist with the US Forest Service (35 years), scientific findings:

GEOENGINEERING  — What We Know as of 7/7/14, +70 lab reports, photo/objective evidence, logic, facts, research, and scientist observations:

LAB/FIELD REPORTS — Normal rain is zero ug/l metallic elements, pH about 5.6.

o A lined pond (guzzler) near Redding has about 375,000 ug/l of aluminum. We are concerned that deer and wildlife drink this water. USFS ignored letters.

o Sugar Pine Canyon Creek, Redding, CA has 4,600,000 ppb of aluminum (normal soil 15,000 ppb) in upper and lower stream. Fish losing scales, ulcerous, sick.

o Sisson meadow pond sludge water in Mt Shasta has 12,000 mg/kg of aluminum, and pond is fed by city spring water, but exposed to sky (sample taken at outlet).

o Mt. Shasta City Park spring water had 1540 ug/l of aluminum in 2009. Other streams have more. Aquatic and terra insects about 20% of numbers since 2007.

o Since terrestrial insects are now very low, song bird populations are also very low. Road and window kill birds or wildlife are very lean, diseased, or cancerous.

o Fish and insects died in Cold Creek, Mt Shasta. Aluminum, lead, arsenic. Of 200 trout stomachs examined in 2014, none had an aquatic insect, 95% had nothing.

o Strontium, barium, and aluminum are often found in soil. “Dust” does not explain high amounts in the rain or snow, nor zero, nor concentration above soil numbers.

o Outside soils in Mt. Shasta area in 2007 have over 1.6 % or 16,000 mg/kg of aluminum. Soil is 13000 mg/kg (1.3%) aluminum under my house, likely natural.

o Snowdrift near McCloud on Mt Shasta at 8000’ has 61,100 ug/l aluminum, 83 of barium, and 383 of strontium, over 4 times that of protected soil.

o 2013 rain report in Mt. Shasta gauge is 13,100 ug/l aluminum, 130 barium, 138 strontium. Undrinkable by state standards, 13 times the allowable limit.

o Lab reports of storms range from 0 to 30 ug/l in rain with no spraying to 13,100 ug/l of aluminum; always positively correlated to jet spraying (national info).

o Mt. Shasta samples were taken by a USDA scientist with legal water sampling experience and MS degree; he uses a plastic USNWS rain gauge on a 7’ pole.

o Samples show a direct relationship to contrail density: More contrails, higher Aluminum, Barium, and/or Strontium in water; also boron, titanate, and arsenic.

o Zero readings of any elements prove our samples are not self-contaminated.

o The Mt. Shasta city water report indicates that aluminum, barium, strontium, lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, boron, and chromium are not found in city water yet.

o Other states show high Al, Ba, Sr, As, B, Pb, Fe, and Mn, but any may be zero.

o Iron/manganese may be meteor dust. Lead is from planes or old leaded gasoline.

o Some have higher Al, Sr, or Ba, or zero on any, so formulas may change.

o Radioactivity in rain was tested with a Geiger counter, no abnormal indications.

o Some readings may be the result of local polluting industries. However, results are nationally correlated to jet spraying, over 90% with no local factory source.

o Fibers that appear instead of dust have Welsbach elements; they are a spray error.

o Geoengineering activist sites posting scientists’ data after the UV report was then crashed 8 times by hackers (military/corporate). Activist sites have over 12 million hits. Debunkers only 175.

o Ultraviolet B is up 1200% of normal. UVA also up. UVB causes skin cancer and sunburn, and cell death on plants. Nanoparticles destroy ozone.

o Mutagenic effects on corn, ovaried tassels, tomatoes. Tree top and bark damage evident, notably betulaceae, tulipifera, deodars, maples. Grapes, legumes immune.

SAMPLING PH – From USDA 1983 Soil Survey Siskiyou Co. and rain reports.

 When contrails are inactive, rain is under 6 pH. With activity, pH is 6.5 to 7.5.

 The pH of rain is directly and nationally related to contrail pre-storm weather front spraying. Over 600 tests have been made, and this pattern continues.

 Coniferous Douglas fir forest north of Redding, CA was tested by USDA Soils specialists Komar and Jim Collins at 7.4 pH. He said it should be 5.5 for the soil.

 Normal acidity for Mt. Shasta area Deetz 125, 126 soils, a habitat of acidic black oak and mixed conifer forest, is 4.5-6.0. Now it is 6.5-7.5 pH in over 400 samples.

 About ten samples were taken by meter in McCloud, CA of yards, oak forest, and gardens. They ranged from 7.0 to 8.5, or un-naturally alkaline. pH papers agreed.

 The St. Francis organic garden and lawn in Mt. Shasta was 5.5 pH in 2003, now 6.5 to 7.0. Soil is 10-20xs more alkaline. The pH papers, meters, kits all agreed.

 Garden compost is black oak leaves, acorns, and ponderosa pine needles (acid), maybe mixed in grass. Sulfur slightly lowered pH.

 A pH increase is likely oxides, hydroxides, and carbonates of Welsbach elements.

 Contrails boomed during George Bush years 2000-2008, especially after 2006 and pH increased remarkably in soil and rain in those anti-environment years.

 Garden production declined for acid-soil-loving vegetables; potatoes, tomatoes. Most root crops declined in Deetz soils, but unpredictable in neutral Diyou soils.

 Some metallic cations are toxic to biological systems, and could explain 90% loss of aquatic insect populations in 4 headwater streams. Less change below springs.

 Natural insect variations occur, but not an 80% loss, particularly of diptera that live in sediment deposits in streams, where toxic metals accumulate.

 The metals, etc. are not from China, and scientists on Mt. Rainier verified it.

 The three main cations (as nanoparticles?) cause endocrine/enzyme malfunction. They are the basis for, or act similar to, prion diseases such as “mad cow.”

Sufficient evidence indicates correlation with neurological, lung, and bone diseases, particularly in children as autism, asthma, and in adults as Alzheimer’s.

Breathing and neural problems increased after spraying, esp. elderly and children. Autism 1/15,000 to 1/50, Alzheimer’s is now 1 of 3 a plague in 2013 says CDC.

 Five pet dogs refuse to drink rain/snow water, but insist on tap water. Witness!

 Similarly, neural, skin, lung, cancer, or endocrine problems are now frequently reported in cats (meticulous groomers), dogs, and horses (drink pond water).

MILITARY CONTRAIL OBSERVATIONS – Observations, telescopes, retired military.

 In telescopes, contrail jets have few side windows, and usually military kc135 or kc434s. Some contract Boeing 737s have belly/wingtip nozzles. Video/pics available.

 Some contrails are multi-colored; often the middle streak shiny blue, brown, dark gray, but outside two are white. 2 or 4 engine jets, often with 3-6 trails, some offset.

 San Francisco Flight Aware says over 30 jets per day over Mt. Shasta are normal, about 100 West Coast. Odd patterns happen, at any altitude, but should be unusual.

 Heavy spraying days are often just before weather fronts, and mostly military jets. A weather lady on TV-12 remarked on this 11/24/10 and was fired.

 Contrail jets are most active dawn to dusk. Commercial jets do not usually leave persistent contrails, but military jets almost always do. Some jets contrail at night.

 Cloud formations and combinations are changed, new, and unusual since 2003.

 Before 2000, skies were typically a deep blue. Now skies are typically whitish haze or gray-brown blue, and true blue is unusual due to high elevation jet pollutants.

 In the 1950s to 1980s, a normal contrail was maybe 30 jets long and disappeared. Now they last several hours to all day, especially since 2003, or George Bush years.

 Some jets emit a ball of smoke over 5 degrees in diameter, and the contrail begins. If it were a lens of cold air, it would not be a ball, but fade in or out. Impossible display.

 Some contrails appear to have particulate matter streaming down out of them, much like fireworks displays, leaving trails of smoke as the particles descend. Smoke balls.

 Some contrails converge to a point, often over Mt. Shasta, then re-align, cross, curve, grid format, or radiate (asterisk-like) out from the mountain. Atypical flight variants.

 Two-engine and four-engine jets leaving 3 or 5 line contrails, with nozzles seen in mid-belly or wings. Military jets leave persistent contrails, usually in odd numbers.

 Pro-military congressmen and USFS claim contrails are harmless. Results of certified mail/phone: no answer, ignorance, security reasons.

 Many locals and USFS indicate lightning is more violent after jet spraying, esp. width and number of bolts. The number of thunderstorms is below normal and erratic.

 Heat of condensation in physics indicates micron-sized particles reduce rainfall. California is in a drought since spraying began, as rain transfers to Eastern USA.

 Contrail composition measured in rainfall is the same as indicated in the San Diego conference Feb 20 and in Welsbach geo-engineering patents used by military jets.

 Geo-engineers at the Feb. 20, 2010 meeting in San Diego saw D. Keith admit on camera that spraying may have terrible consequences. They don’t know.

 The military says that “engine erosion” causes metals in contrails, but won’t say more (military secret). Do engines wear out to require an extra 20 million tons Al per year?

 Solar collection panel efficiency remarkably decreases with contrail spraying, robbing investors of their just share of solar electric power up to 50%. Industrial jeopardy.

 At “What in the World Are They Spraying” viewing in Redding, CA 12/10 a full panel of medical, ex-military, solar experts, and scientists affirmed it before over 500 people.

 Weathermen report consistent upper atmosphere conditions, but one day has 50 trails and the next day none, can one believe all jets cancelled? Where is consistency?

 Once a year, we watch two jets fly at a giant thunderhead, melt a 1-mile blue hole in it, fly through it, and the storm falls apart. What a drought-causing weapon!

 Many photos are available of straight lines, X’s, grids, circles, squares combos in high clouds, and in nature this is impossible; a military weather weapon system.

 Only the military industrial complex has funding capability; a black hole budget ($1.3 trillion) and control to be able to do geoengineering at $5 billion per year.

 Mud rain in Chico, CA on 5/14/12 had 58,000 ug/l Al, 480 Sr, and 413 Ba. “Never seen it before. Hard to get off,” the newspaper said, “Dust in rainy weather.” Oh?

 We observed a military jet 1/2 mile away spraying Shasta via nozzles, returning over precisely the same route ½ hour later, not spraying (no time to land), routine pattern.

 Why would all these scientists be making this stuff up about climate and geoengineering effects? A fact is a fact is a fact, not a belief or opinion.

This is revised as new reliable observations and data are available. By Francis Mangels.

Thank you again, Mr. Mangels, for the outstanding scientific work you have shared with the Rebel Siren BLOG, and for your bravery in facing the disinformation trolls that targeted and attacked you. I am honored to publish your report and look forward to more from you in the future.


Council on Foreign Relations- Unilateral Geoengineering Briefing Notes 2008

Novim – Climate Engineering 2009

NOAA – Bibliometric Analysis of Climate Engineering Research – 2013

National Academy Press – Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (2015)

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Journal Content for Solar Radiation Management

Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research since 2007

Climate Engineering Conference 2012

Has The anti-Geoengineering Movement Been Hijacked? – Michael J. Murphy

Former USDA Crop Loss Adjuster Rosalind Peterson Keynote Speaker At 60th Annual UN Climate Conference 2007 To Address Weather Modification, Geoengineering, and Jet Fuel Pollution

Documented Government Experiments on US Citizens

With this kind of information revealed, excluding the paid shills (cult trolls) how can anyone still deny that weather modification / climate engineering is possible?…

Unethical Experimentation In the US (Wikipedia is not my first choice for information, however, they have compiled a legitimate and verifiable list of unethical human experiments – always do your own research and share information widely): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Lisa Martino-Taylor, PhD, Dissertation Abstract: http://gradworks.umi.com/35/15/3515886.html

Full 838 Page Dissertation (pdf format, slow loading due to the amount of pages): http://gradworks.umi.com/3515886.pdf

US Radium clean up is taking decades: Uranium Contamination In Navajo Nation “Five Year Plan” AND – the EPA’s “five year plan” turned into a 40 year plan: Clean Up Of Toxic Uranium Legacy Taking Decades by Green Fire Times

Dynamic Aviation (aerial spraying, one of many aviation companies that perform aerial spraying services and with the following list of customers, it’s unlikely that they spray only pesticide). Its Customers:

Dynamic Aviation Customers (where the above information was obtained, click this link to verify): http://www.dynamicaviation.com/our-customers/

Dynamic Aviation AERIAL APPLICATION (Again, Dynamic Aviation is only one of many aerial companies contracted to perform aerial chemical spraying): http://www.dynamicaviation.com/flight-solutions-and-services/aerial-application/

NCAR/UCAR EOL “Development, Deployment, Data, Discovery – Research Aviation Facility has been in operation since 1967, serving the NSF geosciences community by providing research platforms and expertise in airborne installations and measurement techniques”https://www.eol.ucar.edu/about/our-organization/raf 

NCAR/UCAR EOL – PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICEQuote: “Are you thinking about a field study in a remote part of the world that requires international agreements and clearances?  Are you a researcher who has a great scientific idea but little experience in planning and implementing a multi-agency, multi-facility and multi-scientist campaign? Are you overwhelmed by the prospect of having to make logistics arrangements for a “measurement super site” in a location where little to no infrastructure exists?“:  https://www.eol.ucar.edu/pmo

Geoengineering Megaprojects are Bad Planetary Management, Feb 2009: http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering/.

Feasibility of Space-Based Monitoring for Governance of Solar Radiation Management, Summer 2011: http://www.aerospace.org/2013/07/31/feasibility-of-space-based-monitoring-for-governance-of-solar-radiation-management/

Koch Bros (big oil profiteers/climate skeptic funders) Weather Derivatives: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1999/11/22/story7.html

Geoengineering and the Science Communication: A Cross Cultural Experiment (Yale Law) 2012: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=faculty_publications

Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars – Science & Technology Innovation Program Nov 2011: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf

Royal Society of Chemistry – Energy & Environmental Science, March 2011: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2011/EE/c1ee01256h#!divAbstract

History and Problems in Weather Modification Ronald B. Standler Scientific Attorney, 2002: http://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm

Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative – Partnership of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Royal Society, and TWAS, the world academy of sciences: http://www.srmgi.org/

HARVARD – Stratospheric Aerosol Injection for Geoengineering Purposes  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.U41E..05T

Edgewood/Aberdeen Army Experiments on Military Personnel:

From 1955 to 1975, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps conducted classified medical studies at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. The purpose was to evaluate the impact of low-dose chemical warfare agents on military personnel and to test protective clothing and pharmaceuticals.” — (see link below for more)


Rebel Siren understands that information should be shared, not hoarded or “sold”, therefore, everything published on Rebel Siren is sharable, no cost, and accessible to everyone in the world. ~Peace

Scientist, Family Man, and Facebook Troll?…

Scientist, Family Man, and Facebook Troll?…

Neil Penn Facebook Profile

Meet Neil Pennington a.k.a. Neil Penn, Scientist, Family Man…  Troll.

Neil Pennington wears many hats, one of which is an active “troll” on facebook by way of a separate account with a shortened version of his name “Neil Penn”. In fact, “Neil Penn” happens to be on a list of known offenders that go around targeting people & awareness groups that he and his denier cult cronies “disagree” with, attempting to bait honest people into a debate to “prove them wrong”, disrespecting others’ right to share information; as well as, slandering leaders in the awareness movement using classic “character assassination” tactics attempting to “discredit” them in order to cast doubt on harmful aerial spraying happening globally. Why anyone would waste valuable time harassing people on facebook?

Well, it turns out that Neil Pennington is, in fact, a purveyor of dirty, unsustainable, profit-over-people, industrial activity since he profits from performing acoustic assessments for mining (coal,/gold), fracking, drilling, etc.; given this, it’s no surprise that he is a dirty energy troll/pro-geoengineering advocate, but what IS a surprise, is the amount of time he spends on facebook seeking out and attacking others. Neil, business owner and father of three, where DOES he find the time?

Below is a disallowed comment “Neil Penn” made on our article: https://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014 The Cult – Jim Jones’ disciples had nothing on these guys Again, why a “professional scientist” continues to resort to this level of immaturity, or find the time? The last line of the comment he wrote below is slightly amusing, yet disturbing that this man has any kind of clout in the world. Judging by his comment, as well as his unrelenting troll attacks on facebook, it appears that Mr. Pennington failed to learn socially acceptable graces during his vast “education”. This begs the question, if along with his GPA, his behavior was also a factor in why it took him so long to finally get his BS degree? This man serves as a classic example that education is not the same as intelligence.

While viewing the screenshot below, keep in mind that our “cult” article made absolutely NO reference whatsoever of “the scientific community being a cult”. To clarify, science isn’t the problem, irresponsible pseudo-science that puts profit above sustainability of the planet, is a catastrophic problem on a global scale; yet, the focus of our article is to raise awareness of the strategic troll attacks rampant on social media by the DENIER CULT (trolls/shills/brainwashed-masses) spouting text-speak about “contrail formation” disregarding actual scientific data relating to climate engineering, weather modification, or any other reality based information. Trolls demand “evidence”, then reject it when it’s presented.

Notice how Neil Penn refers to geoengineering as “the chemtrail hoax”, twisting it around in classic troll fashion. The term “shill” and “troll” are interchangeable, especially in his case. It’s too bad that Neil Penn is a willful accomplice to crimes against humanity, other than that, judging by the playful nature of his comment, he seems like a relatively fun guy. Anyone that’s an avid Monty Python fan can’t be all bad… can they? Let’s take a look.


According to his IP location, (a matter of public record), Neil Penn is based near Sydney, Australia, capital of New South Wales, not far from Newcastle, coincidentally, so is Neil Pennington, who often condescendingly boasts about his vast education and being a hot shot business owner. Where does Neil find the time for such rampant troll activity? Most educated people that own businesses are far too busy providing for their families to create fake accounts and go around harassing others on social media. If we examine Neil “Penn” a bit closer, we find that he seems to have nothing but time to devote to harassing others, rather than to his family. He created a (subsequently removed) facebook “fraudster” page that targeted an anti-geoengineering leader, as well as contributing to several other known fake pages.

Why do these “trolls” purposely seek out, target and attack others with whom they disagree? Who in their right minds operates like that? If you thought someone was a conspiracy nutter would anyone waste their valuable time seeking others out just to try to prove them wrong? Neil Penn and his accomplices exhibit blatant discrimination that should not be tolerated in social media forums.

The answer as to WHY becomes clear when we analyse their strategy (political tactics), motivation (purveyors of dirty, unsustainable science/paid forum poster shills/brainwashed deniers), and personality type (narcissistic disorder). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324 AND  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

Spectrum Acoustics Pty Ltd

Neil Pennington’s public facebook profile below:
(excluding the public profile photo at the time of this publishing of his three beautiful children in the pool).

Neil Pennington Facebook Page

Below is “Neil Penn’s” facebook profile. Nice deep BLUE sky, Neil, photoshop much? Where do skies exist on the globe look like this anymore? Not where any of us live, that’s for sure, even if it starts out blue, within a couple of hours, is COVERED in persisting, spreading, lingering, sprayed HAZE. Could it be that this beautiful photoshopped sky helps prove his far-fetched point that global climate engineering isn’t happening on any level, including experimentation?

According to Neil Penn and the rest of the denier cult “debunkers”, experimentation isn’t possible, has never, nor ever will, happen; despite the fact that experimentation is how science works. Anyone that has ever taken basic science in school, knows that experimentation is the essential element to any scientific project, this includes climate engineering. These trolls constantly speak of “science”, yet provide NONE, with the exception of regurgitating contrail formation text-speak inapplicable to what we observe in our global skies. What do YOUR skies look like in your part of the globe?

Neil Penn Facebook Profile

Neil Penn and pals target anyone and everyone that they believe has any influence raising awareness. They seek out and strategically attack their intended targets, opting to kick people when they’re down, often resorting to making things up if they can’t find anything else to exploit and pick on; is that their “job” perhaps? Either way, these narcissistic, psychotic trolls openly exhibit classic bully mentality with the maturity level of a twelve year old. Neil Penn is known for his insults, name calling, and general low level troll behavior you wouldn’t expect from an “educated business owner”, unless of course, he’s a raging sociopath with too much time on his hands.

A couple of Mr. Pennington’s projects that are of public record. I wonder if Australian environmental groups were too keen on these?




Looks like there have been some serious environmental issues regarding the Dargues project: 




Apparently, business is slow for Neil Penn and why he spends so much time internet trolling. Does he realise this is a prosecutable offence? http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4259/internet-trolls-can-be-prosecuted-under-australian.aspx

Lord Neil Pennington
Lord Neil Pennington

Primary definition of the word, “propaganda“:
prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.


Photo Credit: Monty Python Life of Brian.

NP the mud covered prophet
If the mud fits…


Featured Image Source: https://www.ipredator.co/michael-nuccitelli-psyd-internet-trolls/

Hook, Line, and STINKER – Can You Smell The Disinformation Bait?

Hook, Line, & STINKER – Can You Smell The Disinformation Bait?

Climate Engineering, weather modification and weather warfare is more of a reality than you may think. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the profiteers of such programs would spend big money and go to great lengths to keep the public in the dark by way of propaganda to prevent public outcry that would be the only thing to have the power to put an end to their profitable but destructive programs. That said, is anyone else suspicious of the viral video, “BUSTED Pilot Forgets To Turn Off Chemtrails While Landing” below? Or am I the only one that smells the disinformation bait?

Whether the video of the “busted pilot forgetting to turn off chemtrails while landing” is real or not is irrelevant since it clearly has been used as a setup for a “debunking” attack. Considering that the disinformation campaign has successfully turned the word “chemtrails” into a trigger word, labeling anyone who questions the official narrative a conspiracy theorist, purposely associating such a label with Bigfoot, aliens, “moon hoax”, etc., these notorious “debunkers”, (disinformation shills associated with the two notorious junk sites ran by gaming programmer, Mick West), seemed to have “debunked” the video before it even came out, and that smells fishy. See excerpt below and click orange link for full article about how the CIA coined the term “conspiracy theorist” to control mass perception:

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations(a.k.a. psyops) or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit. The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by …  propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

SOURCE: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

Given this, is it really so far fetched to consider this ploy is being utilized to this day by profiteers of climate engineering and other potentially disastrous profit above people programs to prevent public outcry?…

In the video of the “busted pilot”, it does appear that spray nozzles may be in full operation as the plane descends, (could be chemical spray, jet fuel dump, or a good Photoshop job), either way, the swirly mini-tornadoes that appear is a scientific phenomenon called, “Wake Vortex”, making over-zealous activists an easy target for the “debunkers”. This is the focus of the “debunkers”, of course, and there are countless webpages of disinformation sites “proving” this. Newsflash, “debunkers”. It is important to remember how disinformation works, it’s an intentional concoction of truth & lies constructed to manipulate and deceive an honest public, negatively influence opinion, suppress awareness and ultimately prevent outcry, because they know that “an ignorant public is a compliant public“.

This video is sourceless and virtually unverifiable, making it a prime target for a “debunking” ploy. Perhaps it’s real, perhaps it isn’t, the fact is that we’ll never know. It is entirely plausible that the “debunkers” planted it themselves as an attempt to appear credible while making those sharing it look gullible & foolish, with the ultimate goal of discrediting the entire movement; a well known political disinformation tactic. Indisputably, shills get recruited to infiltrate social media for these kinds of purposes: Definition of an internet shill

Climate engineering field experiments are not only possible, but probable, when we dig beyond the mainstream disinformation.

Novim Climate Engineering Streaks
NOVIM Climate Engineering Research “Comtrails” – what a coincidence.

For example, this is the site photo of the scientific research company, Novim, contracted by a team of geoengineers, including Ken Caldeira and David Keith, in 2009 to do a decade long agenda of climate engineering “research” including field experiments: http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering Doesn’t this photo look amazingly like the heavy persistent streaks we often observe in our sky? Novim entitled their photo, “comtrails”, their technical term for chemical-contrails so as not be confused with “chemtrails”, a trigger word used in the mainstream, previously referenced as exotic weapons in Bill HR2977 introduced by Senator Dennis Kucinich, October 2, 2001, (B)-(ii): Bill H.R.2977 HR107th Congress (2001-2002)

Let’s use our critical thinking skills and ask ourselves, since Novim, (along with other research companies), have been researching climate engineering including field experiments for the past five years during their ten year agenda that began in 2009, isn’t it possible that the heavy persistent streaks we often observe in our global skies are indeed the result of climate engineering field experiments, and that “denial” is a tactic used by the “debunkers”, (shills), in the mainstream to convince the public it isn’t happening in order to keep it covert and prevent public outcry?

Because, in all the “debating & denial”, there has been no mention of how science actually works, (other than generic inapplicable text-speak on how water vapor contrails are formed). In science, a hypothesis is formed and experimentation follows. Therefore, it stands to reason that geoengineers wouldn’t submit their ideas for implementation, as they continue to openly do, unless they have first tested them. Watch the clip of Geoengineer David Keith on Colbert Nation where he admits his solution is to dump 20,000 tons of SULPHURIC ACID into the stratosphere: Geoengineer David Keith on Colbert Nation

The disinformation shills’ (“debunkers”) logic is deeply flawed and their outlandish demand for unattainable “proof” is a tactic used to distract and create doubt. Anyone that has taken basic science in school understands that field experiments are an integral part of any scientific endeavor. Scientific Method. Notice in this basic science flowchart that experimentation happens TWICE in order for the conclusion “final statement” to be reached.


However, according to the “chemtrail debunkers“, geoengineers do not follow the basic rules of science and are not now, nor have they ever been, performing any experimentation whatsoever, haha.

Why waste time on the mainstream pseudoscience junk sites ran by a gamer that fancies himself a “debunker”, when we can bypass the mainstream hype and through scholar searches find credible sites such as, “Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals”, and ask ourselves, would they really put this much time and effort into something that hasn’t already been field tested to some degree? Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals Research: http://www.iagp.ac.uk/iagp-research

Take time to watch the NASA Von Karman Lecture with Riley Duren, Principal Engineer and Chief Systems Engineer for the Earth Science Directorate at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. entitled, “Geoengineering and Climate Intervention – What We Need To Know“, he explains geoengineering in understandable terms, and at one point, states that anyone can perform field experiments if they have the motivation and the resources. Given this information, it’s entirely possible that global climate engineering experiments have indeed been occurring insidiously, adversely, affecting our health and environment. Denial of the “possibility”, is either the highest form of ignorance, or intentional deceit to dupe an honest public.

Videos such as the ‘pilot/chemtrail’ that suddenly go viral and immediately get “debunked” are often intentionally planted to discredit the awareness movement. To avoid this trap, stick to solid, reputable information such as the links provided in this post.

If you’re going to share links on social media, trust your own videos & photos or ones whose source you can verify. Please be wary of suddenly viral stuff floating around on the internet with no references or traceable location, including memes, photos, and videos. Do not be so quick to share them, because it isn’t helping increase awareness if it ultimately discredits us.

Regardless of whether that video is really of a pilot that “forgot to turn off his chemical spray nozzles”, a normal jet fuel landing dump, or a disinformation plant that’s been Photoshopped, the fact remains climate engineering experiments are happening and plenty of solid information backs it up. It doesn’t take an expert in aviation or atmospheric science to look up and notice the abnormal crisscrossing persistent contrails lingering in the sky, whitening it and blocking the sun.

Believe your own eyes, trust yourself, and refuse to fall for the mainstream peer pressure of the “denier” herd mentality due to the rampant PROPAGANDA that has infiltrated our social media, because that’s what they are counting on.

Learn more about the tactics of rampant disinformation trolls plaguing us online for the sole purpose of spreading propaganda: The Cult- Jim Jones’ Disciples Had Nothing On These Guys



Primary definition of the word, “propaganda“:
prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.


Redding’s Record Searchlight Allows Editorial Skewing of the Shasta Board Meeting

Redding’s Record Searchlight Allows Editorial Skewing of the Shasta Board Meeting

I wonder if the Record Searchlight, along with all the other disinformation media sources, are forgetting that there is a documented video of the entire Shasta County California Board of Supervisors Hearing of July 15, 2014. No matter how hard the media tries to “spin” it, the video below is what REALLY happened. Aside from one or two random people that misrepresented the issue (inevitable in any public forum), the expertise, credibility, qualifications, and solid reputation of the primary speakers, and most of the volunteer speakers, were entirely overlooked by the Record Searchlight, as was the fact that the Board voted unanimously to investigate geoengineering based on said testimony and concrete data presented therein.

The video speaks for itself.


JULY 15, 2014


“Record Searchlight” – Shasta County’s Most Disreputable News Source

The “Record Searchlight” is not only perpetuating propaganda, but is an accomplice to crimes against humanity by allowing the blatant disinformation editorial below to be published. They have put themselves in a position to be held liable in the future by willfully aiding and abetting this global crime.

After the Record Searchlight’s support of the demeaning response to the moving speeches and compelling testimony given by experts in the fields of science, aviation, medicine, military, agriculture and more, it is clear that they are contributing propagandists, intentionally spreading disinformation.

Hundreds of people in attendance bore witness to three hours of an unprecedented presentation of FACTS, irrefutable data, statistics, laws, and photos, with heartfelt stories by the concerned citizens of Shasta County, CA, many of whom are experts in their respective fields. This included visiting speakers from other regions in the United States, and as far as Spain, to offer support by sharing their experiences with global stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. This is not an issue to be marginalized as the Record Searchlight has chosen to allow.

The “spin” below is the known disinformation tactic of false association using the old CIA coined term “conspiracy theorist” angle to deflect focus from the truth for the purpose of suppressing awareness to prevent public outcry. It’s pure PROPAGANDA. Anyone with the ability for critical thinking can see through this disrespectful, misleading “pseudo-news” editorial, and Record Searchlight’s flagrant disregard for the health and well being of the public, including that of their own readers by supporting the following “editorial”.

Redding's RAG
Click here for the editorial below, published by Redding’s most biased pseudo-news

Editorial: Time wasted on frivolous conspiracies  6:00 PM, Jul 17, 2014

“Surely you’ve seen those suspicious contrail patterns in the sky, and, by golly, they seem to be increasing and hanging around way too long. Did you know they can cause a variety of ailments from cancer to fibers growing out of your skin to just feeling downright punky? In case you haven’t heard, those contrails – those in the know call them chemtrails – are the result of your government’s attempts to “geoengineer” your environment. So despite the obvious health problems they’re causing for themselves and others, government operatives (we’re not exactly clear on who “they” are) are secretly pumping heavy metals into planes at public airports and military bases and those planes are dispersing the poison into our atmosphere.

And because what goes up must come down, those poisons are dropping back down on all of us, polluting our air and water and causing climate change. Did you know that the drought is a myth? It’s kind of dry this year, but geoengineering is making it seem worse than it is. Gives us a headache just thinking about it.

We suspect some of the Shasta County supervisors are still nursing their own headaches after listening to hours of passionate conspiracy theories at Tuesday’s meeting, which generated what might have been the biggest turnout for a board meeting in recent history. It was bigger, even, than the State of Jefferson presentations earlier this year. People were literally sitting on the floor.

Supervisor Pam Giacomini put the item on the agenda and, as is their collegial custom, the other supervisors went along with it. Giacomini has said her constituents asked to be heard. Chief among them is Dane Wigington of Bella Vista. For years he’s been pushing his theories to anyone who will listen and he runs geoengineeringwatch.org. Wigington orchestrated the lineup of “experts” who spoke to the board Tuesday and guaranteed a big crowd by previewing his presentation at a local tea party meeting Monday night. When it was finally over, Wigington and company were pleased. Elected officials had finally given them a very public platform for their theories. But now they’re spinning the story that the supervisors actually supported them.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth. The supervisors have absolutely no authority or responsibility to conduct an investigation into chemtrail conspiracies. Not one of them said he or she agreed with the theories. Supervisors did vote on a motion — and the vote was unanimous. They’ll forward the information presented by the crowd to the state and federal environmental protection agencies and will send along videos of the four-hour marathon meeting so state and federal officials can see the emotion-packed presentations with their own eyes. Finally, they asked county Resource Manager Rick Simon to take a look at whether the county can test for heavy metals on a nano-level and how much that might cost.

Basically that puts the issue in the staff’s hands from now on. The supervisors gave folks their say and they’re done with it. We think it was pretty generous of the supervisors to listen to the presentation in the first place. They don’t have jurisdiction. They’re busy people and four hours is an awfully long time to devote to something you can’t do anything about. They don’t automatically owe constituents a platform, especially on a half-baked theory that’s repeatedly been debunked by credible scientists.

Think about it. Seriously. Even if mad government scientists didn’t care whether they were poisoning us, why would they do themselves in at the same time? Seen a lot of scientists walking around in gas masks or chemical suits lately? By the way – contrails, even those that spread out into strange patterns and linger longer, have been around since World War II or earlier. There are lots of old books, newspaper articles and other accounts and plenty of authentic photographs to prove it. Next time something like this comes to their attention, even if lots of people seem to support it, we hope the supervisors graciously decline to play host.

That’s exactly what the Redding City Council did Tuesday night in a consensus reached at Missy McArthur’s suggestion. They let their staff know that they do not want to discuss geoengineering or anything related to it. Good call. Here in the real world, we have actually problems that urgently need our leaders’ attention.” — end.

The people’s response:

“Record Searchlight editorial reflects desperation. Mainstream media’s job is to spin or otherwise hide realities that are not helpful to the “official” narrative of the government and government agencies. Marginalizing the legitimate and verifiable concerns of local citizens when those concerns go against “the grain” is business as usual for media corporations. Isn’t it interesting that the Searchlight’s editorial never even mentioned the primary and indisputable concern brought forth by the citizens in this meeting?

There is a recent and indisputable heavy metal contamination all over the North State (and the world). The Supervisors were presented with 30+ lab tests proving this contamination locally, all testing was done at a state certified lab. There is also the issue of very dangerous UV radiation which is not being reported by agencies. This fact is also indisputable and there is peer reviewed science study to back it up. Again, not a word about this from the Searchlight. And the editorial’s mocking of “experts” as if they were not qualified is patently false.

Did they mention the credentials of those speaking? No. No mention of the USFS biologist, the California Fish and Game biologist, the former defense industry expert, local physicians, former commercial pilots, etc.

The roll of mainstream media today in too many cases is to hide the criminal behavior of the government. “Scripps-Howard” owns the Searchlight, this broadcasting corporation has a history of close cooperation with government agencies, this is well documented for anyone that takes the time to investigate. The Searchlight editorial on the July 15th supervisors meeting wreaks of ideology, spin, and bias, this should be a big red flag to all.” — end

Thank you to each and every concerned citizen that stood brave in the face of adversity to address the Board, you are truly commendable and should serve as a shining example to the rest of the world. Our deepest appreciation for your collective efforts to protect humanity and our planet. ~Rebel Siren


Redding Record Searchlight, 1101 Twin View Boulevard, Redding, CA 96003

Phone: (530) 243-2424

email form: Contact Record Searchlight

Contact the Record Searchlight and let them know how YOU feel about their propagandized “spin“. Of course, the disinformation trolls have probably already contacted them to say, “job well done”.

PROPAGANDA formal definition: prop•a•gan•da, präpəˈgandə/noun 1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view; “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”. Synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, spin, publicity; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie “the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda”; the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”.

~Rebel Siren

 In 1967 the CIA coined the term “conspiracy theorist”. Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit. (The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976).

SOURCE: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-the-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-as-a-way-to-attack-anyone-who-challenges the official narrative


BP – Deceiving The Public About Geo Engineering

BP – Deceiving The Public About Geo Engineering

BP - Deceiving The Public About Geoengineering
“Gulf Oil Spill” – Ocean Portal Team, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History (click photo)

“We decided to change our name to “Beyond Petroleum” because it isn’t just land and sea that we destroy with our unsustainable oil drilling, exploitation, and depletion of finite natural resources, we also do our best to destroy the sky, climate, and ozone layer, damage people’s health, and wipe out wildlife”…

The above quote ought to be BP’s so called “green” slogan… Green as in ill, not earth friendly.

Click Orange Link For Article: BP Bids $42 Million For NEW Gulf of Mexico Drilling leases (as if they haven’t done enough damage to the Gulf already)

How much disinformation are we routinely being fed in the mainstream? PR (public relations) and marketing companies downplay disinformation by referring to it as a “spin”, or an “image”, but in reality, it’s a lie. In other words, an intentional tactic of deceit designed to be a gross propagandized manipulation to influence public opinion for the sole purpose of furthering the agenda and profit margin of corporate profiteers, with no consideration to any future health or environmental impact. Let’s take a look at “it” in action, using “big oil” company, BP, as an example. Remember when they changed their name from “British Petroleum” to “Beyond Petroleum”? Nice marketing “spin”, BP, not transparent at all. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/20/fossilfuels-energy (if the links do not open in a separate window, use your browser’s back button to return).

BP’s catastrophic Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast spill recently hit its 4 year mark. Did aerially sprayed chemical dispersant “Corexit” solve the problem, or have long term damages been swept under the rug? This is an informative blog from 2010, with input and comments by actual Gulf residents about the extreme toxicity of “Corexit”: http://summerburkes.com/2010/07/corexit-and-agent-orange-not-so-different-just-ask-monsanto/

For a current status of the Gulf, here is a detailed update entitled, “Four Years After The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, The Gulf Is Still Suffering“, (but grab a box of tissues first, I cried while reading this): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/20/3428269/bp-oil-spill-four-year-anniversary/

Oil Spill Shore
“Chemical Dispersant Made BP Oil Spill 52 Times More Toxic” – Mother Jones (click photo)

If we take some time and start connecting the dots, the smoke begins to lift and the connections become clear. Monsanto, (Bill Gates, Monsanto shareholder, funds climate engineering research 2010): http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/01/bill-gates-funding-geoengineering-research), Nalco/Monsanto VP/CFO Carl Casale, and Nalco’s nanotech chemical, “Corexit“, used in the BP Deepwater Horizon spill “clean up”. According to this detailed declaration of accountability with several verifiable references, BP is nothing short of a criminal entity: http://declarationofaccountability.com/problems-and-solutions/gulf-accountability   The images of BP’s devastation to the Gulf of Mexico are absolutely heartbreaking.

“A Deadly Toll: The Gulf Oil Spill and the Unfolding Wildlife Disaster” – Center for Biological Diversity (click photo for article)

The revolving door keeps on “spinning”, this is Carl Casale’s Forbes Magazine profile: “On October 31, 2013, the board of directors of Ecolab Inc. announced that it has appointed Carl M. Casale to the Ecolab board effective December 5, 2013. Since 2011, Mr. Casale, age 52, has been president and chief executive officer of CHS Inc., (CHS Inc. is a Fortune 100 business owned by US agricultural coops). Previously he spent 26 years with Monsanto Company in various management positions before being named Monsanto’s Chief Financial Officer in 2009. He was a member of the board of directors of Nalco Holding Company from 2008 until its merger with Ecolab in 2011“.–

“Eco-lab”? The name alone is an intentional disinformation “spin” since it’s designed to conjure up the notion that this company is ecology minded, when in fact, that couldn’t be further from the truth. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-11-28/ecolab-s-nalco-dismissed-from-lawsuits-over-2010-bp-spill

Ecolab, (formerly known as Nalco, manufacturer of toxic “Corexit“), self description: “A trusted partner at more than one million customer locations, Ecolab (ECL) is the global leader in water, hygiene and energy technologies and services that protect people and vital resources. With 2013 sales of $13 billion and 45,000 associates, Ecolab delivers comprehensive solutions and on-site service to promote safe food, maintain clean environments, optimize water and energy use and improve operational efficiencies for customers in the food, healthcare, energy, hospitality and industrial markets in more than 170 countries around the world“.–


This is an excerpt from a Takepart article entitiled, Corexit: An Oil Spill Solution Worse Than the Problem?” “Kolian, 51, is convinced that his illnesses were triggered by a chemical product designed to disperse petroleum in water, a substance euphemistically marketed as Corexit. Now, three years after the disaster that left some 210 million gallons of Louisiana crude and 1.8 million gallons of dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico, a growing body of evidence supports his contentions“: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

“Corexit” makers are claiming to be a leader in “sustainability and food safety“? That sounds about as believable as the Monsanto “spin” of “feeding the world”, while patenting nature, bullying farmers, dominating the global market, and systematically destroying our organic crops, soil, and future sustainability, with their genetic mutations and warfare herbicide.

Corexit Plane

BP is included among the big oil companies notorious for funding “climate denial”, (along with the Koch brothers, except when they profited from Koch Weather Derivatives, of course): http://exiledonline.com/the-koch-brothers-dark-lords-of-derivatives/  and Exxon, (while openly calling climate change an “engineering problem”), http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-exxon-climate-idUSBRE85Q1C820120627, et. al, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-funds-contrariness-on/   Yet, when we dig a little deeper, we find that BP is simultaneously on the list of acknowledgements in Climatic Research Unit, “one of the most popular sources of climate research and data“: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

Also, according to this ETC Group GeoMap, BP is first on the list of participants in a climate engineering program of “greenhouse gas mitigation”! http://www.etcgroup.org/files/PDFs/GeoMap-References.pdf So, BP, which is it, are you a climate science denier or a climate science supporter? Make a choice, you can’t be BOTH.

And now, after all of that, BP has a drone?! “FAA Green Lights BP Drone“: http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2014/06/10/faa-green-lights-bp-drone   Excerpt: “The Federal Aviation Administration announced Tuesday that permission for the first commercial drone flights over U.S. soil had been granted to BP energy company and drone-builder AeroVironment“. — Connect the dots: http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2013/10/weather-modification-climate-change.html

Also: Exxon Under Investigation For Possible Climate Lies

Our world has many ills, but unless we dare to look beyond the heavy veil of disinformation and see clear to prioritize, and address the most urgent issue of global climate engineering programs being funded and politically manipulated by BIG OIL, coal, biotech (big ag), et al., we’re wasting our time.

No matter where you may stand on the “climate debate”, the bottom line is, if we do not put our energy into saving our atmosphere, nothing else is going to matter because our planet will be rendered uninhabitable and all life, including the human species, will cease to exist.

Planet earth’s poor stewardship at our hands may naturally heal over time if we stop allowing industrialized pollution to run unabated and start cleaning up our mess; however, in the meantime “we” will have been successful in perpetuating chaos, suffering, and mass extinction… For what? A few measly bucks?


–Updated January 26, 2016