Proposal for a "Chemtrails Information Freedom Aagreement"

[Jay Reynolds]

In the 14 years of this situation, many claims have been made. Much has been left undocumented and unverified and thus unconfirmable. Some appear to be hoaxes, some mistakes, some just rumor or heresay, some could actually have been true but remain in the realm of unknown mysteries because you cannot get to the root and judge anything because the claimant withholds information.

Here are some examples:
1997 Richard L. Finke claims to have a lab analysis of JP-8 military fuel showing it contains ethylene dibromide.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/263-Founder-of-the-Chemtrails-Hoax-Richard-Finke-dead-at-58
No such analysis as ever been presented, yet the claim continues to circulate:
http://www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com/Ethylene_Dibromide.php

1999- William Thomas claims to have lab tests yet 13 years later continues to refuse to release them.
http://contrailscience.com//files/1999 Santa Fe New Mexican E2.pdf
http://www.plowedclouds.com/2011/03/wright-patterson-air-traffic.html

2000-- Clifford Carnicom claims to have communication from two "insiders", yet 12 years later, nothing confirmable has been presented:
http://www.carnicom.com/mgr1.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/mech1.htm

2000-- A. C. Griffith makes claims that he has collaborated wih NSA and CIA scientists to release a report showing barium is in chemtrails, yet 11 years later has never shown anything confirmable:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

2002- Bob Fitrakis claims a Whright Patterson Air Force base scientist told him barium was being sprayed, yet ten years later, no confirmable evidence was ever presented:
http://www.plowedclouds.com/2011/03/wright-patterson-air-traffic.html

2002- William Thomas claims that he has tape recorded conversations with an air traffic controller who admits that chemtrails are obscuring ATC radar, yet 10 years later, never releases the tapes:
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Concerned_over_Chemtrails.htm

2003- Brian Holmes claims to have communication from an "insider", yet 8 years later, nothng confirmable has been presented:
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html


1999 & 2005 - Clifford Carnicom claims to have multiple lab tests of water and a fibrous substance, yet 6-13 years later has never shown them.
http://www.carnicom.com/labstop.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/labtest.htm

I could go on, yet these examples clearly show a lack of progress to say the least, and in fact represent obfuscation. If the claimants had been forthright and either documented their claims, all would have been better off, and progress could have been made.

I propose a remedy to his situation. My idea would be modeled after the US Freedom of Information Act, which requires all US agencies to respond within 30 days to citizen's requests for specific information.

Recent advances of the chemtrails milieu has seen the formation of several coalitions who seem to have some cooperative structures, examples being the "Skywatch" groups, "The Belfort Group", the "Agricultural Defense Coalition", and the "Coalition Against Geoengineering", led by Michael J. Murphy and G. Edward Griffin.

Essentially, a document would be drafted and adopted as policy by these groups and any other interested individuals who would by signature affirm that they would abide by the agreement's terms, and exert influence on anyone making claims to join as well.

I would appreciate any constructive thoughts on this idea, even to the level of writing a draft which could be discussed.

I will be contacting the above mentioned groups and directing them to this thread for discussion.

I did speak to the Chairman of the Coalition Against Geoengineering, G. Edward Griffin, who immediately said he was in favor of openness within the community and would direct his organization to open their records.

The specific agreement I am proposing here was not discussed with Chairman Griffin, it is my own expansion of the idea based on several days reflection on our conversation, but is simply a formalization and expansion of his expressed intent.


Thanks,
Jay Reynolds

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Ok, I'll start. In no particular order.
1. The access to full and free information should extend to all persons or groups worldwide.
2. Access should preferably be through open internet websites to speed availability, avoid cost
and duplication of requests.
3. If any portion of the information requested is redactedor a request is not honored,
the requester should be given a reason why this was done.
4. Requests should be responded to within 30 days of receipt.
5. An individual or group that pledges adherence to the Agreement is eligible to display a logo
or statement that they are party to the agreement.
6. Requests should be as specific as possible, yet broad enough within reason.
7. In general, requests should only be made in response to a specific claim made, not simply a 'fishing expedition'.

Any other thoughts? Please.

 

[tryblinking]

I have to say, I like the purity of the ideals behind this. I really like this idea, and I hope it bears fruit.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Email Sent 10/11/11

Mr. G. Edward Griffin, Chairman, CAG gedward.griffin@verizon.net
Mr. Michael J. Murphy, President, CAG whtagft@hotmail.com
Mr. Dane Wigington danew@shasta.com
Mr. Mauro Oliviera admin@geoengineeringwatch.org
Dr. Francis Mangels bioguy0311@sbcglobal.net

Re: Chemtrails Freedom of Information Request

Dear Sirs,

I recently contacted Ed Griffin and spoke about the need for free and open information surrounding chemtrails. I explained to him that over the 14 years I have followed the subject there have been many claims made regarding lab tests said to be in existence, alleged contacts with scientists, air traffic controllers, and various insider government officials. Many of these claims, if documented, could have advanced general public knowledge but since there was never anything confirmable, no advancement was ever made.

Knowledge of a subject is an ongoing process of collecting information, analyzing it, and coming to conclusions. As new information comes in, the process is repeated and sometimes new conclusions can be made or old ones discarded.
In the cases I cite below, however, though some parts of a story were told, the person who originally supplied the claim of information never completed the process of documenting their claim, in some cases over a decade has passed with no advancement. Conundrums were created, mysteries remain, and unfortunately many people simply accepted the situation or adopted the claims as beliefs even though there was no basis in fact behind them.

Here are some examples:

1997- Richard L. Finke claims to have a lab analysis of JP-8 military fuel showing it contains ethylene dibromide. No such analysis as ever been presented, yet the claim continues to circulate:
http://www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com/Ethylene_Dibromide.php

1999- William Thomas claims to have lab tests yet 13 years later continues to refuse to release them.
http://contrailscience.com//files/1999 Santa Fe New Mexican E2.pdf

2000- Clifford Carnicom claims to have communication from two "insiders", yet 12 years later, nothing confirmable has been presented:
http://www.carnicom.com/mgr1.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/mech1.htm

2000- A. C. Griffith makes claims that he has collaborated with NSA and CIA scientists to release a report showing barium is in chemtrails, yet 11 years later has never shown anything confirmable:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

2002- Bob Fitrakis claims a Wright Patterson Air Force base scientist told him barium was being sprayed, yet ten years later, no confirmable evidence was ever presented:
http://www.plowedclouds.com/2011/03/wright-patterson-air-traffic.html

2002- William Thomas claims that he has tape recorded conversations with an air traffic controller who admits that chemtrails are obscuring ATC radar, yet 10 years later, never releases the tapes:
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Concerned_over_Chemtrails.htm

2003- Brian Holmes claims to have communication from an "insider", yet 8 years later, nothing confirmable has been presented:
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html

1999 & 2005 - Clifford Carnicom claims to have multiple lab tests of water and a fibrous substance, yet 6-13 years later has never shown them.
http://www.carnicom.com/labstop.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/labtest.htm

The above examples clearly demonstrate how issues can be clouded, 'red herrings' can be introduced, and disinformation can be unfortunately passed on unless those who make claims are sufficiently open and responsive to requests for documentation. Sadly, many things remain on the Internet for years past the time the claimant has failed to document them. The first example remains online though the original claimant is deceased, making the whole truth of the inception of chemtrails essentially irresolvable.

I was happy to hear from Ed Griffin as Chairman of the Coalition Against Geoengineering that he was in favor of openness and sharing of data on which his organization bases their claims. I would like to do a complete review of all data collected by the Coalition Against Geoengineering members.

The more complete the data that I have to work with, the more accurate my review will be. CAG has made links to some of the tests online, but according to some statements made by your membership and your website, there appear to be many tests that are missing in your database here:
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/

While there could be more tests available, at a minimum I need the following, which you have publicly cited, to complete my review:
1. All 45 lab tests cited by Mauro Oliviera on 5/27/2009 before the California Energy Commission.

2. All pond and spring lab tests taken at the property of Lynn Dorrah showing 375,000 ugl aluminum, also cited by Mauro Oliviera on 5/27/2009 before the California Energy Commission.

3. Dust lab tests from solar panels mentioned by Dane Wigington in his article, "Diminished Solar Charge Capacities Due to Persistent Contrails"

4. Soil lab tests taken by Francis Mangels showing 1% aluminum cited in his
"Statement on Aerosols and Drought for DOE 5/27/09 in Sacramento"

I suggest that it would be very helpful if these could be made available to anyone within the current geoengineeringwatch.com library, along with the ones currently displayed. I will appreciate your cooperation in getting these tests available online soon.

Sincerely,

John B. (Jay) Reynolds

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Re: above Email Sent 10/11/11
Mr. G. Edward Griffin, Chairman, CAG gedward.griffin@verizon.net
Mr. Michael J. Murphy, President, CAG whtagft@hotmail.com
Mr. Dane Wigington danew@shasta.com
Mr. Mauro Oliviera admin@geoengineeringwatch.org
Dr. Francis Mangels bioguy0311@sbcglobal.net

As of today,
G. Edward Griffin states:
"Hello Michael.
As you can see from the following email, we have received a request from Jay Reynolds who has asked us to publish lab reports to substantiate the claims by field reporters who we have quoted on the CAGE web site. Although the reporters may be reluctant to provide those documents because Mr. Reynolds disagrees with our conclusions and likely will be looking for errors or discrepancies; still, I feel that it is important to comply as best we can. The reason, of course, is that not to do so could be taken as an indication that the data does not exist or that it is too flawed to stand the test of scrutiny. In fact, even without the urging of Mr. Reynolds, we, too, should have a chance to inspect these documents to help us better understand the significance of the data they contain.

The implication of his request is that we should make those lab reports available for inspection or remove the claims from our web site. I agree with that, don't you? Any other course weakens our case.

If you are in agreement, let us draft a letter for our joint signature to send to the field reporters mentioned and request copies of the reports or affidavits they have. You already may have some of those, but it would be wise if we could get them all together so a link could be included at the exact point where their claims are made.

Your thoughts?
Ed "
========================
Michael J. Murphy:
No response.
========================
Mauro Oliviera states:
"Request Denied"
=======================
Dane Wigington states:
"All testing done by me is, and has always been, available on line."
My request was for the 45-48 lab reports he has repeatedly claimed to have taken.
Only these 27 reports are on line:
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/
========================
Francis Mangels states:
"As usual, you ignored our data. If you choose to ignore the data of many investigators, debunk a proven fact with only your opinion, and resort to abuse, I have no interest in you."
Over four months ago, Mangels received my request for data supporting his claim that metals and pH correlated with his sightings of "chemtrails".
Here is what Dr. Mangels(PhD) refers to as his "data":
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/Chemtrail pH reportshasta.doc
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/PHongoingtesting.html

 

[tryblinking]

Well, most of that was as expected. Denial and deflection. But that message from Griffin was a surprise. It would appear he really has - or at least wants to have - confidence in his data, conclusions and overall cause. It looks like he's interested in the truth.

Let's hope he isn't disappointed when he finds it.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Dear Readers,
There is nothing about me personally making this request that precludes any of you from making your own requests or from simply writing these people and letting them know that there is public interest out there towards full disclosure. Though I did make my request on the behalf of the public at large, they could be responding to me in a personal manner. I ask that you stand with me in this effort. The above email addresses are all correct except for that of Dane Wigington, whose address is danewatfrontierdotcom.

 

[Marcel]

"In fact, even without the urging of Mr. Reynolds, we, too, should have a chance to inspect these documents to help us better understand the significance of the data they contain. "

This implies that CEG has just taken the word of the field agents and has not looked at results himself.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Six days and counting since I sent this email, and no response:

======================================
10/21/11
From:
Jay Reynolds

To:
Michael J. Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, Mauro Martins de Oliveira, and Francis Mangels.

In the text below, Mangels says, "Reynolds already has my data about the soils and rain tests". On June 12, 2011, I asked him, "Please provide documentation showing such correlation and I can have a look at it. I do know that independent records of rain pH show nothing out of the ordinary."

To date, Mangels has not provided any documentation demonstrating his claimed correlation of pH or aluminum changing or being in phase with "spraying".

Mangels has also claimed to have soil tests showing two different levels of soil aluminum, and also soil aluminum levels from under his house. To date, he has not provided documentation for these claims.

The only documentation from him are these letters:
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/Chemtrail pH reportshasta.doc
and
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/california/private/PHongoingtesting.html
and
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/GeoEngineeringWhatWeKnow.doc

The last link above contains these statements:
National Weather Service plastic rain gage on a 7' pole in Mt. Shasta shows 500-1010 ug/l aluminum, with highest amounts after a heavy contrail week. With no contrails, it drops to about 30-50 ug/l aluminum in the rain at several stations.
Latest finding is 504 ug/l in rain gauges as of 11/03/10, with moderate chemtrails

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

There are no lab reports showing either 500 nor 1010 located in the test library.
There are no lab reports showing 504 ug/l located in the test library, and none dated past
10/14/2009 for the Shasta/ Siskiyou area.
There are no soil tests in the data library at all, and Mangels claims below of soil aluminum at 1.09 contradicts his statement earlier this year in the last link.
There is no documentation of dates for purported "heavy contrail" events or "no contrail" events. The "several stations" are not identified.

As mentioned previously, Dane Wigington and Mauro have repeatedly claimed in audio and video that they had either 48 or 45 lab reports. The current testing library linked at the Coalition website does not contain all of these 48 lab reports, despite Mr. Wigington's claims in his response that it does. I have also contacted Dr. Lynn Dorroh for documentation claimed by Mauro which has not been responded to. I have requested documentation for pH and soil testing from Mr. Mangels, who has denied my request again below.

Gentlemen, what I have written above is just a small part of the problems I have encountered when trying to make sense of what you are saying. On the one hand you are saying you have documentation, yet when I search for the documentation what I find is incomplete in most respects, with lab tests that don't exist, contradictory claims, unsubstantiated claims of correlations and outright refusal of all my requests.

Mr. Murphy continues to make no response to me whatsoever, and has indeed never responded to any of my emails at any time.

If you cannot do better, I will have no choice but to report these facts.

My readers will be given the facts and will be shown the evidence for your lack of documentation, the contradictions in your statements, and your failure to provide evidence for correlation. I will report my repeated requests for all of what I have asked for, and your repeated refusal to respond to my requests.

My last request will be made here specifically to Mr. Michael J. Murphy, President of the Coalition Against Geoengineering, and Mr. G. Edward Griffin, Chairman.

I request comprehensive answers to the following questions:

1. Is it the official policy of the Coalition to refuse reasonable requests for documentation of its claims?

2. Is it the official policy of the Coalition to make claims which are unsubstantiated?

3. Is this the official repository for documentation of soil, water and pH testing for the Coalition?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/

4. Are these the official approved water testing procedures for the Coalition?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/html/watertesting.html

Jay Reynolds

 

[Jay Reynolds]

"In fact, even without the urging of Mr. Reynolds, we, too, should have a chance to inspect these documents to help us better understand the significance of the data they contain. "

This implies that CEG has just taken the word of the field agents and has not looked at results himself.

Since G. Edward Griffin used the word "we", it also implies that Michael J. Murphy hasn't looked at them either. I'd like to clarify that, but despite repeated attempts for nearly six months, Murphy has never personally responded to any of my emails. If the Shasta Group pulled the wool over his eyes and simply talked their way into having him produce a movie based on their claims, and he never received documentation, he was not being responsible as a self-proclaimed 'journalist'.

If he subsequently talked G. Edward Griffin into likewise merely trusting the claims of the Shasta Group, he was also not being responsible, and given his many decades of experience, there is no excuse for him.

If the above is all true, and the evidence continues to mount that it is, when G. Edward Griffin subsequently solicited the $24,000.00 from his 'angels' to actually publish the movie, he bears the responsibility for wasting their money on faulty information. Here was his solicitation:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100619051640/http://www.realityzone.com/angels.html

 

[Dannyc55]

According to Marcia Kay on the WITWATS Facebook page, the sales of T shirts, videos etc from WITWATS pays for MJM's trips around the world talking about Chemtrails. There would appear to be a few bucks in the Chemtrail Theory continuing.

 

[Mick West]

Interesting. Well, there are nearly 10,000 followers of that page (me included now). If they can average $1 from each person, then that's enough for a few flights.

 

[Dannyc55]

Latest test results issued on WITWATS facebook page,

Chemtrails Project
Rainwater Result from Ojai, CA: Aluminum = 35 ug/l
Like · · 2 hours ago ·

What in the World Are They Spraying? Any chance you can send me a hard copy via e-mail?
about an hour ago · Like.

Chemtrails Project yes, and we figured out what was wrong with the other lab. They weren't testing with EPA 200.8, but rather EPA 200.7, so that is why they had ND. We have many samples that were submitted to this other lab, and now we are going back again but with EPA 200.8 followed.
26 minutes ago · Like.

Chemtrails Project So for this particular Ojai sample, it is also from Basic Lab. I can send you this one, and every other one we get back, if you would like. I also have "web" testing coming back this week from a MA lab and the Carnicom Institute is going to help with the future "web" testing. Please send me your email address (or text it to me, if this is Michael who has my cel #). tks!
23 minutes ago · Like.

Danny Chestnut Snr So that is 35 parts per billion, or 0.035 parts per million. That is almost 1.7% of the max limit set by EPA, or if you want less than 1/50th of the EPA limit of 2 mg/litre.
Seems that there is no Aluminium being sprayed above Ojai then?
A few seconds ago · Like

 

[Jay Reynolds]

On 12/20/11, I spoke at length with G. Edward Griffin. He seemed unaware that the information I requested above has not been posted, and has completely believed Dane Wigington and Francis Mangels when they falsely claimed that everything they claimed to have had is already posted online at geoengineeringwatch.org.

I told him that was certainly not true.

He did tell me that he was unaware that the Zeolite he has taken orally contained aluminum oxide which he has claimed was poisonous, and he claimed that taking the Zeolite had reduced some "heavy metals" in his body.

He did recognize peekay22 as someone whom he has had contact with.

In our conversation, he seemed unaware of the gathering weight of evidence here at metabunk.org which debunks his film, so I sent this to him so that he will be fully informed of our findings.

No response has been forthcoming.
Jay
=============================
From: Jay Reynolds
To G. Edward Griffin
12/20/11



Ed,
Here is a collection of links with my writings and those of others regarding things we have discussed:
The Australian who was stopped by police when he tried to confront a Qantas pilot:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/329-Flight-tracking-Qantas-Airlines-Flight-QF63

Monsanto's aluminum resistant GMO's:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/341-Debunked-Monsanto-s-Aluminum-Resistant-GMOs-and-Chemtrails

Michael Murphy's most recent desperations:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/71-Michael-J-Murphy-s-most-recent-desperation

Aluminum composition of rain and snow:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow

Aluminum oxide in Zeolite:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/24...-Aluminum-Oxide-as-a-Natural-Cellular-Defense

Debunked- Why in the World Are They Spraying:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/300-Debunked-WHY-in-the-World-are-They-Spraying

Regarding my request for Lab Test Results:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot

The claims of Francis Mangels:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination

The claims of Dane Wigington:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/282-Dane-Wigington-s-speech

Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests

Normal levels of barium in soil and water:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/247-What-are-the-normal-levels-of-Barium-in-Soil-and-Water

How did barium get into chemtrails?:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

The Claims of Michael J. Murphy- A Factual Examination
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/172-The-Claims-of-Michael-J-Murphy-A-Factual-Examination

A Conversation with Dr. Lenny Thyme of WITWATS:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/24...quot-What-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot

Debunked- What In The World Are They Spraying:
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

These are the main reasons why I said the movie was botched. You said that your movie shows proof of a "Crime Against Humanity". That is a very strong term usually referring to mass murderers, genocides, etc. As a producer, you bear responsibility for either rebutting or admitting error in your work. I see, however, that you are still selling another movie about Noah's Ark, fifteen years after it was described by one of the researchers featured, David Fasold, as "Bogus", so I don't have much hope for that.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In my letter, I referred to Francis Mangels as a PhD., but that appears to be disputable:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/5151

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Dane Wigington has claimed to have taken 45 lab tests:


On April 15th, 2008, before the Shasta County Air Pollution Control Board, Dane Wigington, a Shasta County resident presented 41 lab tests results (conducted by a certified Redding laboratory), documenting the fact that all 41 lab tests have come back showing a high degree of contaminant levels of aluminum and barium.
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/A...008/09 Guest_Article2_spring_summer_2008.html

However, only 27 reports are on line, not 41:
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/libra...ornia/private/

Dane Wigington's response to my request was;

"All testing done by me is, and has always been, available on line."

Wigington is now claiming, in this audio interview,

"In our county alone, out of about 60 tests, virtually none have been metal-free".
http://irritatethestate.net/show-archives/

So, Dane, where are these 60 tests you are now claiming to have online?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

To: G. Edward Griffin
cc: Dane Wigington

From: Jay Reynolds

Mr. Griffin,
I have been reading the recent exchange of blog postings between you and Dane Wigington regarding your research project using Flight Tracking to identify planes leaving "chemtrails". Today I see that Dane has made another response:

When anyone in a position of notoriety makes outlandish and confusing statements
and assertions on an issue with such gravity, assertions which are not supported by available data,
assertions which cause great confusion for those seeking truth, those assertions must be challenged.

Unfortunately, Dane began by misrepresenting your position on the identity of the planes your researchers found during the survey, in which you clearly said that most, but not all planes were identifable as ordinary passenger jets. He contends that the planes are all military tanker jets, and offered two videos as evidence for it.

The first video is of a KC-10 military tanker, but shows aerodynamic contrails forming across the entire wingspan, yet the video has been altered to claim that ordinary flap track fairings are "spray nozzles". The originators of the video were two USAF pilots playing a prank on "chemtrail" believers, you can hear them speak about the joke in the cockpit as they filmed. The footage has been significantly altered by Youtube user "Tankerenemy" and others who have been involved in several video hoaxes. Though the video does show a tanker jet, this is not evidence of "spraying", but rather of the gullibility of Dane Wigington.



The second video he presents is a very shaky video from the ground, which is claimed to be a KC-135 tanker over the French Alps. I examined the video and captured several screen grabs, which when magnified, clearly show the plane is not a KC-135 but rather closely matches an Air France Airbus-380. I base my conclusion on the livery marking of the tail and the fact that the KC-135's have neither flap track fairings nor winglets.



I think that Dane's protestations against your research survey of "chemtrail" planes are most easily shown to be a moot question because on his own website, he features no photos of tankers spraying, as he certainly would if he could. However, in an article about the government spraying Dane does feature a clearly identifiable American Airlines jet HERE. This makes it clear enough that he is aware that the jets which can be identifed as making "chemtrails" are mainly ordinary passenger planes.



I must say that in my fifteen years of following this issue, though I've heard the claim many many times, I have yet to see a clear instance of a military tanker jet spraying. There were none shown in any of the movies Michael Murphy made, and there are none on Dane's website, though both show identifiable commercial jets such as this Cargolux 747:



Mr. Griffin, one point that Dane makes which I can agree with is about "assertions on an issue with such gravity, assertions which are not supported by available data". You may recall that nearly two years ago, 9/29/11, I wrote to you and requested your participation along with Dane, Francis Mangels, and Michael J. Murphy in a formal Freedom of Information Agreement. I described ten incidents over the past fifteen years in which major figures had repeatedly made claims of significance about "chemtrails" which had never been supported. I urged you to all participate and help move from a stymied conundrum towards a resolution. Though you said you were in favor, and suggested cooperation by the others, unfortunately they did not comply.

Dane's point is well taken, if data is available, it should become public. In a sense, Dane is asking for the data which your research has gathered, much as I suggested he should have done before. I might add that Dane should feel free to produce his own study of this subject. I recently heard a discussion on the Global Skywatch conference call where Dane was told by Mark from southern Utah that he had also been able to identify "chemtrails" coming from passenger jets. That group has hundreds of members and could easily mount a large campaign to gather fresh data in an ongoing basis. I am certainly personally interested in reviewing the information you and others will develop.

In closing, let me renew my call for a Freedom of Information Agreement which, if already put in place, could have avoided the confusion Dane seems to have on this subject. You will find a copy of my previous thoughts about that at this LINK.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I just sent this e-mail to G. Edward Griffin cc'd to Dane Wigington:
======================================

Ed and Dane,
I have been trying to speak with you(Ed) by phone for several months but we haven't connected. I would like to publish your flight tracking study and that is what I have been trying to speak to you about. Below is some work I did this past week on the threats that folks have been archiving at Metabunk. You can find the complete listing of what has been found in the 24 pages here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/advocating-violence-against-chemtrail-planes-pilots-scientists-and-debunkers.251/

In the attached excel spreadsheet, I listed 112 documented and confirmed threats of various sorts by date, name, gender and type. Below the raw data on the spreadsheet are graphs showing the frequency of threats, threats by gender, and threats by type. There were about 200 more threats like these which were not documented well enough to be confirmed at this time or have been deleted by admins, etc. This is around 300 total threats so far that have been found by perusing various sites.

Here are the graphs which emerged when the raw data was analyzed:

[Broken External Image]:https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?u...tt&disp=safe&realattid=ii_143261938df52318&zw[Broken External Image]:https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?u...tt&disp=safe&realattid=ii_14326199c63ffc33&zw
[Broken External Image]:https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?u...tt&disp=safe&realattid=ii_1432619f17273ca4&zw

Ed, what stands out clearly is that the rise in frequency correlates strongly with the beginning of 2011, just after the release of your WITWATS movie, and the exponential rise which has ensued ever since. Your film did raise awareness and provided the inception for what has become a movement perhaps headed beyond what you intended and into the Danger Zone. This troubles me greatly and it should be of concern to you and everyone involved in this issue.

Earlier this year you made some public comments about your study which were dismissed by Dane Wigington and so far as I know were publicly ignored by all the others who might be called leaders in the movement. In November, I wrote to you and Dane asking that the issue of airplane identity be addressed and that your study be published and discussed.

Here is a copy of that letter:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/proposal-for-a-chemtrails-information-freedom-aagreement.267/#post-44668

Dane is aware that ordinary commercial planes are being seen making what all of you call "chemtrails", many of the other leaders are too. Ed, you called on him and others to get this message out:

Tell everyone you know that these planes are piloted by men and women who have no idea of the role they play in this scenario. Tell them that the planes are loaded with innocent passengers who do not deserve to be victims of attacks against the planes they occupy

Dane rejected your call and has continued on as if you never said it. He continues to assert on a daily basis in interview after interview that what are being seen are military jets and never ever mentions your study or that people are seeing ordinary passenger planes. Every week on his radio show Dane's co-host Russ Tanner makes the preposterous claim that it is impossible for ordinary commercial jets to even make contrails at all! Dane doesn't correct him. They claim to have over 14,000 members in their group.

So, at this point none in the movement are actively working to harness the enormous resource of people that you have called to action. No move has been undertaken towards a concerted effort to solve the mystery of what planes people are actually seeing. Most of the effort seems to be an endless search for greater numbers of people to join up. Along the way, since no positive effort has begun to actually solve the questions that people have been concerned about they have responded with predictable frustration, fear and eventually anger. Whether by design or lack of imaginative problem solving no real progress has been made.

The current state of affairs is unacceptable to me, and I hope that it will be for you too. In a perfect world with open communications between stakeholders real solutions to this and the other questions would be posed, responded to, discussed and a path towards resolution could be charted. I have tried to establish a mechanism by which this could take place (the Freedom of Information Agreement) but that was rejected. Open debate was tried but for the most part was also rejected or censored.

As it stands so far, walls have been erected which stymie all of that and so far very little has been accomplished. More frustration, fear and anger. It is no wonder at all that this has resulted in an exponential outpouring of threats and I have no doubt at all but instead a certainty that an eventual incident will occur. Perhaps some actually see that as the only way to get attention and in fact many of the threats seem to be simply ordinary folks trying to get attention or make a name for themselves.

However, as we know there seems to be a large enough population of unstable people out there able and willing to perpetrate horrific acts due to mental illness, passion, etc.. I know that you may assume these threats are being made by "agents provocateurs", but I have researched quite a few and know for a fact that most are completely ordinary public persons, writers, artists, car salesmen, travel agents, housewives. You might even recognize some of the names. Check them out for yourself.

So, in an effort to defuse this situation, I would like to begin by publishing your study. After that, I urge Dane and his colleagues to show that it is either repeatable or not by crowd-sourcing an even bigger effort to track flights and identify planes. There are tens of thousands of people following this issue. They are desperately seeking answers. They need to be put to productive work instead of being left seething in anger. I would like for them to also work on establishing a study to document the planes using telescopic photography which is independent of any spoofing of flight tracking data and will provide positive identification of individual planes by tail number. Once a firm conclusion can be drawn as to the identity of the planes people are seeing, this issue can be re-assessed.

I will be glad to pay you a reasonable secretarial cost for duplicating the raw data you have on hand and after I receive it I will simultaneously publish both the raw data and an analysis on a website. Please help me to do this. Peace and even lives may be at stake.

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds

 

[George B]

Jay, sounds like you have made everything very clear to Griffin . . . if he is rational he must know he is on notice to do the correct thing . . . he either does not understand or he is too vested in his position in the Chemtrail movement and does not know how to extract himself . . . possible financial issues and/or pride involved . . .