Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering

Traditionally we've had a vampire problem...

Appropriately enough, it looks as though H5480 may be "rising from the dead", but repurposed from a chemtrail-based bill to one that actually addresses real geoengineering proposals.

Wil Burns, co-executive director of the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, has redrafted the bill, as H7578, to make it more scientifically rigorous.

http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2016/08/...-7578-the-climate-geoengineering-act-of-2016/

Q&A with Wil Burns, Ph.D.
Content from External Source

  • What backstory do people need to know about this bill?
This bill was originally introduced into the Rhode Island House of Representatives by Representatives Karen MacBeth (D) and Justin Price (R) in 2015. It appears that the original impetus for the bill was Representative Price’s embrace of the so-called “chemtrail conspiracy,” the purported plot by the government and/or corporations to use aircraft to spray chemical or biological agents into the atmosphere for various purposes. The bill failed to clear out of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee in 2015. It was “held for further study” in its 2016 incarnation in the same committee.

  • How were you involved?
In early 2016, Representative MacBeth approached me to review the bill, and we agreed that I would engage in a re-draft. I emphasized that I did not believe in chemtrails, and that the bill should focus on responsible oversight of potential research into climate geoengineering that might transpire in Rhode Island. Because the sponsors’ primary concern appeared to be the risks posed by solar radiation management, we also agreed that this would be the cynosure of the bill’s re-drafted language. As is true with most legislation, compromises had to be made. There is language in the bill that I consider a bit overblown in terms of its characterization of climate geoengineering research, but this is the nature of politics. In the end, I felt that the bill provided some salutary mechanisms to both ensure scientific and public oversight.

  • What did you hope to achieve?
I had two purposes: Firstly, I was hoping to help draft legislation that would serve as a model for discussion of what national legislation or international governance might look like in terms of regulating geoengineering research and potential deployment. This obviously won’t be the ultimate province of sub-national actors; however, state legislation often provides a model for national legislation and regulations. Some of the elements included in the bill, such as thresholds for regulatory interventions in terms of research, and environmental impact assessment, are elements that should be included in national or international governance approaches. The contours of these elements is certainly subject to further debate, but it was my hope that this bill would provide a foundation for said debates.

Secondly, I thought that a “live” bill would help to stimulate discussion among both policymakers and the public about climate geoengineering in a way that hasn’t happened to date, with geoengineering largely residing in the theoretical realm for most people. I subscribe to the theory of “anticipatory governance,” meaning that it’s critical to engage stakeholders early in the process of the discussion of potentially momentous decisions.

  • In your words, what would you say the takeaway from all this is?
Ultimately, the primary people testifying about the bill were those who equate climate geoengineering with “chemtrails.” As a consequence, I think the bill wasn’t really given serious consideration by the Rhode Island House Environment and Natural Resources Committee. It is anticipated that the bill will be re-introduced in the future. Hopefully, members of the geoengineering community will weigh into the process.
Content from External Source
 
it looks as though H5480 may be "rising from the dead", but repurposed from a chemtrail-based bill to one that actually addresses real geoengineering proposals.

That's would seem like an ideal outcome for most aspects of the chemtrail conspiracy. There has certainly been some occasional movement in that direction, like with Jim Lee, sort of.

Geoengineering is something that might be done in the future. It's important that the public are informed about the topic (and about anthropogenic climate change in general) so that political decisions can be (oh so very slightly) more science based rather than ideology, fear, and popularism based.
 
That's would seem like an ideal outcome for most aspects of the chemtrail conspiracy.
Unfortunately, if the bill passes, I suspect that the chemtrail believers will ignore the fact that most of their language has been stripped out of it, and seize on the (revised) bill as proof that they were right all along.
 
Unfortunately, if the bill passes, I suspect that the chemtrail believers will ignore the fact that most of their language has been stripped out of it, and seize on the (revised) bill as proof that they were right all along.


Looks like you may be right.

RI Law.png

From geoengineeringwatch.org today:

Rhode Island State Representative Justin Price continues to show a level of courage and determination that is almost nonexistent in the halls of elected government officials at any level. In February of 2016 Geoengineering Watch published a report detailing the ongoing efforts by Rhode Island legislators to bring exposure and accountability to the critical issue of global geoengineering/climate engineering programs which are decimating the biosphere and the entire web of life. GeoengineeringWatch.org supplied climate engineering informational materials and educational DVDs to the legislators and committee members. A compelling short video testimony from the 2016 Rhode Island Legislation hearing is below.
Content from External Source
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/anti-geoengineering-legislation-effort-in-rhode-island-continues/

Much of the language in the earlier draft of the bill is gone. The new bill seems much more tentative [my emphasis]

It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:

SECTION 1. The general assembly finds and declares as follows:

(1) Solar radiation management and climate geoengineering research is in an extremely
early stage
, but if unrestricted and unregulated, could have an economic impact on the state by potentially allowing increased amounts of air contaminants and air pollution throughout all areas of the state.

(2) Solar radiation management and climate geoengineering approaches could also have a negative impact on the state's economy, as well as environmental, soil, water, and air quality, posing unforeseen and potentially deleterious public health risks.

(3) Geoengineering could have a negative impact on the state by upsetting the complex natural balance in nature, because scientists do not fully understand the vast interconnections between various species and their environments which make life habitable on earth.
Content from External Source
 

Attachments

  • H5607.pdf
    44.1 KB · Views: 618
But it still says geoengineering is a crime, and you must pay $5 million and get jailed for 15 years for every day you are geoengineering in Rhode Island! :D
 
Last edited:
But it still says geoengineering is a crime, and you must pay $5 million and get jailed for 15 years for every day you are geoengineering in Rhode Island! :D
In some ways it might be a good thing if the bill passes. When contrails continue it just might get the message through that contrails are not geoengineering.
 
The bill has been re-introduced.
https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H6011/2017

RI H6011 | 2017 | Regular Session
Rhode Island House Bill 6011
RI State Legislature page for H6011

Status
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: Introduced on March 24 2017 - 25% progression
Action: 2017-03-24 - Introduced, referred to House Environment and Natural Resources
Pending: House Environment and Natural Resources Committee
Text: Latest bill text (Introduced) [PDF]

Summary
Regulates "geoengineering" of the global environment.

Title
The Geoengineering Act Of 2017

Sponsors
Rep. Justin Price [R]

History

Date Chamber Action
2017-03-24 House Introduced, referred to House Environment and Natural Resources
Content from External Source
PDF: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText17/HouseText17/H6011.pdf
 
Rhode Island legislation has passed a resolution to set up a 5-member commission to work out regulations for geoengineering by next April.
https://legiscan.com/RI/rollcall/H6011/id/676749
Bill Title: House Resolution Creating A Special Legislative Commission To Study The Establishment Of Procedures To Regulate And License The Intentional Manipulation Of The Global Environment Through Geoengineering (creates A 5 Member Commission To Study And Provide Recommendations On The Regulation And Licensure Of Geoenginerring, And Who Would Report Back By April 2, 2018, And Expire On June 2, 2018.)
Content from External Source
 


(a) Process. Any person seeking to implement, conduct, or engage in any form of 25 geoengineering within or above any area of the state shall first submit to the director of the 26 department of environmental management an application for a license to engage in a specific type 27 of geoengineering.

Content from External Source


(6) Glacier-reflecting blanket deployment;

Content from External Source
Do they have a lot of glaciers in Rhode Island? http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText17/HouseText17/H6011.pdf

Maybe they're just hoping it will act as a sort of template for world-wide legislation of geoengineering activities.
 
The bill has been re-introduced.
https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H6011/2017

RI H6011 | 2017 | Regular Session
Rhode Island House Bill 6011
RI State Legislature page for H6011

Status
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: Introduced on March 24 2017 - 25% progression
Action: 2017-03-24 - Introduced, referred to House Environment and Natural Resources
Pending: House Environment and Natural Resources Committee
Text: Latest bill text (Introduced) [PDF]

Summary
Regulates "geoengineering" of the global environment.

Title
The Geoengineering Act Of 2017

Sponsors
Rep. Justin Price [R]

History

Date Chamber Action
2017-03-24 House Introduced, referred to House Environment and Natural Resources
Content from External Source
PDF: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText17/HouseText17/H6011.pdf

But very different from the previous version. This one was apparently co-authored by Rosalind Peterson (RIP). I think Jolie Diane DePauw has also had a hand in this.

In response, the Geoengineering Act of 2017 H6011 was co-authored by Rosalind Peterson http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org and Susan Clarke, introduced by Representative Justin Price in Rhode Island State. Its a national and international legislative initiative to end the programs that use technology to artificially manipulate the Earth’s natural systems such as spraying atmospheric aerosols and controlling weather with electromagnetics. Here is the text of that bill
Content from External Source
http://inothernewsradio.com/podcast/in-other-news-january-8-2017/
 
An update of sorts: it looks like some of the language in this bill has resurfaced in a new Rhode Island House Bill, HB5866: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ri/2023/bills/RIB00025420/#billtexts

This one has been introduced by Robert J. Quattrocchi, David J. Place, Michael W. Chippendale and a couple of others.

The language in it reads as if they have taken every conspiracy theory that could find and decided to ban it. It includes the Marvin Herndon coal fly ash theory, as well as implant chips and all sorts. (Herndon’s trademark use of the word “biota” is present and correct!)


15 (ii) Carbon black or black carbon releases: Deliberate, atmospheric releases of soot are
16 used to produce artificial weather events. In particular, aerosolized coal combustion fly ash liberates
17 dispersed aluminum, which, when absorbed into human and other bodies, is a primary factor in the
18 pronounced increase in neurological diseases and the widespread debilitation of Earth’s biota.
Content from External Source

2 (xxi) Per the William & Mary Law Review, the enabling of the Internet of Bodies (IoB), a
3 “mesh” or grid through which every human and most animals would contain worn, ingested,
4 inhaled, and/or injected chips or sensors of micro to pico size with transmitting antennas, with every
5 body functioning as an internet node with thousands of internal datapoints, toward complete
6 warrantless surveillance and control, even by foreign entities, with constant biometric data
7 collection and loss of autonomy under an overarching Artificial Intelligence, in violation of the
8 U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment as well as the Rhode Island State Constitution’s Article I,
9 §7.
10 (xxii) Vulnerability of communications signals from the potential for solar flare alteration
11 or demolition of space-based solar power systems.
12 (xxiii) Electrical grid is vulnerable to attack through the hackability of the “smart” grid and
13 “smart” devices; Intense microwave radiation spikes transmitted from the “smart” grid, inclusive
14 of “smart” meters, could spark fires, in addition to harming health and the environment.
Content from External Source
etc etc etc…
 
New Hampshire is at it now.

https://legiscan.com/NH/drafts/HB1700/2024


12-F:5 Penalties and Enforcement. An entity or individual who engages in a hazardous atmospheric activity or any entity or individual who uses an unmarked or unidentified aircraft or other vehicle or facility to carry out SAI geoengineering, weather modification, cloud-seeding, or other polluting atmospheric activity:

I. Has committed a felony and shall pay a fine of not less than $500,000 or be imprisoned for not less than 2 years, or both;

II. Shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which violative activity has been conducted, repeated, or continued; and

III. Shall be deemed in violation, and subject to the penalties of RSA 125-C, RSA 125-D, and RSA 125-I, and other applicable pollution laws of the state of New Hampshire.

12-F:6 Public Participation; Reporting.

I. The department shall post advertisements in newspapers of general circulation and on the departmental Internet website to encourage the public to monitor, measure, document and report present, potential and past incidents that may constitute stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), cloud seeding or other polluting atmospheric activities.

II. An individual who presents evidence of SAI geoengineering, cloud-seeding or other polluting atmospheric activity under paragraph I shall email or otherwise write and send to the commissioner of the department of environmental services, New Hampshire county sheriffs, or to any state public official any of the following:

(a) Evidentiary photographs, each separately titled as an electronic or hard-copy document, with the respective location from which, and, if the content is from other than a measuring device, the direction in which, the photo was taken, with its time and date; and

(b) Collected samples with photography, videography, audiography, lab tests, microscopy, spectrometry, metering, and other forms of evidence shall similarly be submitted in writing to the department of environmental air resources division of compliance, New Hampshire county sheriffs, or to any state office, or any state public official.
Content from External Source
 
An update of sorts: it looks like some of the language in this bill has resurfaced in a new Rhode Island House Bill, HB5866: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ri/2023/bills/RIB00025420/#billtexts

This one has been introduced by Robert J. Quattrocchi, David J. Place, Michael W. Chippendale and a couple of others.

The language in it reads as if they have taken every conspiracy theory that could find and decided to ban it. It includes the Marvin Herndon coal fly ash theory, as well as implant chips and all sorts. (Herndon’s trademark use of the word “biota” is present and correct!)


15 (ii) Carbon black or black carbon releases: Deliberate, atmospheric releases of soot are
16 used to produce artificial weather events. In particular, aerosolized coal combustion fly ash liberates
17 dispersed aluminum, which, when absorbed into human and other bodies, is a primary factor in the
18 pronounced increase in neurological diseases and the widespread debilitation of Earth’s biota.
Content from External Source

2 (xxi) Per the William & Mary Law Review, the enabling of the Internet of Bodies (IoB), a
3 “mesh” or grid through which every human and most animals would contain worn, ingested,
4 inhaled, and/or injected chips or sensors of micro to pico size with transmitting antennas, with every
5 body functioning as an internet node with thousands of internal datapoints, toward complete
6 warrantless surveillance and control, even by foreign entities, with constant biometric data
7 collection and loss of autonomy under an overarching Artificial Intelligence, in violation of the
8 U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment as well as the Rhode Island State Constitution’s Article I,
9 §7.
10 (xxii) Vulnerability of communications signals from the potential for solar flare alteration
11 or demolition of space-based solar power systems.
12 (xxiii) Electrical grid is vulnerable to attack through the hackability of the “smart” grid and
13 “smart” devices; Intense microwave radiation spikes transmitted from the “smart” grid, inclusive
14 of “smart” meters, could spark fires, in addition to harming health and the environment.
Content from External Source
etc etc etc…

"Internet of Bodies"? That is a new one to me. Checked a number of acronym finder websites, two of them did have it listed. But both of them listed as a source for it as OTHER acronym finder websites.

Searching the internet on that phrase did return a bunch of items using that name, so there are people using it. Mostly it seems to be an extension of, or subset of, the Internet of Things (IoT).

Expect to see IoB coming soon on your favorite conspiracy website.
 
An entity or individual who engages in a hazardous atmospheric activity or any entity or individual who uses an unmarked or unidentified aircraft or other vehicle or facility to carry out SAI geoengineering, weather modification, cloud-seeding, or other polluting atmospheric activity:
note that this language says "hazardous OR geoengineering", which means it can remain unclear if geoengineering is hazardous or not.

I'd have thought "hazardous atmospheric activity" too vague to be enforceable.

And if the geoengineering is not hazardous, is it constitutionally allowed to prohibit it?
 
I'd have thought "hazardous atmospheric activity" too vague to be enforceable.
Indeed. Would seem to, in something close to context, maybe include having a fire in your fireplace or driving a combustion-engine car. Ignoring context a bit more, might include skydiving or (horrors) flying a large kite.

And if the geoengineering is not hazardous, is it constitutionally allowed to prohibit it?
Not sure I can come up with any Constitutional requirement that an activity be shown to be hazardous before it can be prohibited, but I am not a Constitutional scholar.

Or, looking at it from the other end, most any activity comes with at least SOME potential hazard... so there's that...
 
One of the sponsors of the New Hampshire bill is state representative Jason Gerhard.

Gerhard has an interesting history, according to Wikipedia:
On June 8, 2009, Gerhard purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition. The next day, Gerhard bought necessary ingredients for manufacturing pipe bombs. The pipe bombs consisted of cylinders of pipe filled with explosive powder, with space for a fuse to be inserted; twenty-one pipe bombs were found. On July 30, 2010 Gerhard was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment.
Content from External Source
Following the link to the court judgement, it seems there is more than a hint of the sovereign citizen about him:
They primarily argue that only New Hampshire, and not the United States, has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes occurring in Plainfield, New Hampshire. They also argue that there is no venue in a federal courthouse in Concord, New Hampshire. Their theory is that either the United States must buy the land on which the offense occurred or the land must have been ceded by New Hampshire to the federal government for federal criminal laws to attach. Defendants' murky and confused argument seems to posit that this federal prosecution entails a violation of the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire and that these defendants may assert whatever sovereign rights New Hampshire has. The claim is utterly frivolous and has been rejected before by this court and others.
Content from External Source
This impression is strengthened by a visit to Gerhard's own website, which features this prominently on the front page:

1704906463640.png
 
And yet another bill, H7295, has been introduced in Rhode Island, with big chunks of language almost identical to the New Hampshire bill.

Notably, the text of this bill seems to define "pollutants" as... well, literally everything. Solid, liquid, gas, acid, alkali, "chemical", any form of electromagnetic radiation, or nuclear radiation...

"Pollutants" means any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant, contaminant, or substance including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, aerosol plumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic pulse, sound waves, sound pollution, light pollution, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, and/or waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.
Content from External Source
 
And yet another bill, H7295, has been introduced in Rhode Island, with big chunks of language almost identical to the New Hampshire bill.

Notably, the text of this bill seems to define "pollutants" as... well, literally everything. Solid, liquid, gas, acid, alkali, "chemical", any form of electromagnetic radiation, or nuclear radiation...
Go ahead, explain to them that oxygen and nitrogen are chemicals, and blow their little minds. As a fair-skinned redhead I find sunlight to be a "thermal irritant", and unless you count the very air itself, sound is not a "substance". This is so poorly defined as to be completely unworkable. It's just asking for people (can I use the term "nuts"?) to come forward claiming that the neighbor's microwave is the reason they break out in hives, or electromagnetic fields are the reason the dog ran away.
 
Last edited:
artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, electromagnetic pulse,
Wow. Are they planning to shut their whole power supply grid down? Or how do they account for people's desire to have 'artificially produced electric fields' as a fundamental part of modern existence. Can anyone call the pollution reporting hotline on their mobile phone to make a complaint about this matter, while it's typed up on a computer and the file stored in the cloud? My irony meter just went 'Spoing'...
Go ahead, explain to them that oxygen and nitrogen are chemicals, and blow their little minds.
Ann K, that is taking candy from a babe. When politicians try to introduce scientificalitatiousness into anything, this is the outcome.
 
New Hampshire bill HB1700 was effectively killed yesterday by the House Science, Technology & Energy Committee, who voted 16-3 in favour of an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) motion.

The Legiscan page hasn't been updated yet.

I'm sure the fact of the bill being killed won't stop it being shared as some kind of "proof" - after all HR2977 is still being cited by chemtrail believers even now, after more than two decades.
 
This week Tennessee has moved closer to becoming the first state to actually implement a “chemtrails bill”, although the language is less conspiratorial than some.


Tennessee lawmakers have passed a bill banning the release of airborne chemicals that critics say is inspired by "chemtrails" conspiracy theories.

The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.
It doesn't explicitly mention chemtrails, which conspiracy theorists believe are poisons spread by planes.

Instead it broadly prohibits "affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight".

The Republican-sponsored bill passed along party lines on Monday. If it is signed by Tennessee's governor, Republican Bill Lee, it will go into effect on 1 July.

The bill's backers were spurred on by a government report released last year on solar geoengineering, which is the idea of cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. The White House, though, has said that there are no plans "to establish a comprehensive research programme focused on solar radiation modification."
Content from External Source
The bill is HB2063. It’s worth pointing out that the attached Fiscal Memorandum states that the financial impact of the bill would be negligible because “It is assumed that the action prohibited by this legislation is not currently occurring in this state, nor will it in future.”

At least one Tennessee representative was not happy about the bill:

In a joking response, John Ray Clemmons, a Democrat from Nashville, introduced an amendment that would protect fictional beasts.

"This amendment would make sure that we are protecting yetis, or Sasquatch or Bigfoot, from whatever this conspiracy is that we're passing in this legislation," he said during debate.
Content from External Source
 
The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.
It doesn't explicitly mention chemtrails, which conspiracy theorists believe are poisons spread by planes.

Instead it broadly prohibits "affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight".
Yay! Tennessee cracks down on climate change! The new bill makes it illegal to burn fossil fuels in Tennessee! :p

(or would, if it didn't say "express purpose".)
 
Last edited:
Article:
The sense of urgency to enter legislation establishing a governance framework for geoengineering and forms of weather modification like SRM (solar radiation modification), SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection) and other aerosol injection practices are in response to a White House document titled Congressionally Mandated Research Plan and Initial Research Governance Framework Related to Solar Radiation Modification.

The article reports in detail on the arguments supporting the bill, though I expect the site to have the obvious bias.
 
the attached Fiscal Memorandum states that the financial impact of the bill would be negligible because “It is assumed that the action prohibited by this legislation is not currently occurring in this state, nor will it in future.”
In other words, "We are passing a meaningless bill", with the subtext "because it makes it look as if we are doing something for the money you pay us, and appeases all the Q-Anon voters".
 
Can't really argue with the bill. I'd personally support such a bill for the sky above me.

But I don't think the bill prohibits airliners producing persistent contrails.

I wonder if they've any idea how they're gonna deal with the complaints that I'd expect them to receive considering airliners are still gonna be producing persistent contrails. Cos whoever complains ain't gonna want to be told they are just persistent contrails.

Hopefully a fun one to watch.
 
Can't really argue with the bill. I'd personally support such a bill for the sky above me.

But I don't think the bill prohibits airliners producing persistent contrails.

I wonder if they've any idea how they're gonna deal with the complaints that I'd expect them to receive considering airliners are still gonna be producing persistent contrails. Cos whoever complains ain't gonna want to be told they are just persistent contrails.

Hopefully a fun one to watch.

Well, Tennessee already has a law regulating cloud seeding. It was passed in 1967 and came into force the following year. The law requires anyone wanting to carry out cloud seeding or other weather modification to apply for a licence, and give public notice:

The licensee shall cause the notice of intention to be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper having a general circulation and published within any county wherein the operation is to be conducted and in which the affected area is located, or, if the operation is to be conducted in more than one county or if the affected area is located in more than one county or is located in a county other than the one in which the operation is to be conducted, then such notice shall be published in like manner in a newspaper having a general circulation and published wtihin each of such counties. In case there is no newspaper published within the appropriate county, publication shall be made in a newspaper having a general circulation within the county.
Content from External Source
As confirmed in the recent hearing, nobody has ever applied for a licence in Tennessee.


As you say, it will be interesting to see what happens when the law comes into force in the summer and the skies don't look any different. If the chemtrailers kick up enough of a fuss, perhaps state officials will be forced to make a public pronouncement that contrails are nothing to do with the prohibited activities.

<sarcasm>
And I'm sure the chemtrailers will believe them 100%.
</sarcasm>
 
This is the first I've seen of someone claiming that this bill (which isn't in effect yet as far as I'm aware) has cleaned up the skies of Tennessee...

Apologies if I've linked wrong and stuff...

No More Airplane Trails in Tennessee After it was Banned by Law​


As we have reported here on this website (1), the state of Tennessee has passed a bill that forbids the use of geoengineering in their state. Here’s a video from a citizen from that state who shows us what a sky used to look like, when contrails were just that…contrails (5). I want to thank Ineke (6) and Willem (7) for the video below.
From -> https://gondolath.org/2024/05/12/no-more-airplane-trails-in-tennessee-after-it-was-banned-by-law/
 
This is the first I've seen of someone claiming that this bill (which isn't in effect yet as far as I'm aware) has cleaned up the skies of Tennessee...
Tennessee is a large state with a heck of a lot of rural area that is nowhere near an airport. I live smack dab between two international airports, yet I can still find skies without contrails. Magic! :D
 
Capture.JPG
I guess it's a win for everybody if a law is passed to ban chemtrails, and chemtrail believers think it worked and stop believing they are seeing chemtrails...
 
This is the first I've seen of someone claiming that this bill (which isn't in effect yet as far as I'm aware) has cleaned up the skies of Tennessee...

Apologies if I've linked wrong and stuff...


From -> https://gondolath.org/2024/05/12/no-more-airplane-trails-in-tennessee-after-it-was-banned-by-law/

A very easy claim to disprove using daily satellite imagery on the Worldview website.

Obviously the bill hasn't yet come into force but if we look at imagery from well after the bill was passed at the beginning of April we can see plenty of contrails over Tennessee. Eg here on April 23 there are lots of clearly aged persistent contrails over eastern Tennessee.

1715874940004.png

Plenty of those rippled "frequency" clouds too (aka altocumulus undulatus). Screenshot from May 13.

1715874577794.png


If I hadn't given up gambling, I would happily bet a large sum of money that they will not magically disappear after July 1, either.
 
It could be a worrying start to block more research.
But also a sign that authorities are willing to take action against real experiments, even the release of small amounts of plain old sea salt. So the fact they don't take action against "chemtrails" is further evidence that chemtrails are not real.
 
At least one Tennessee representative was not happy about the bill:

In a joking response, John Ray Clemmons, a Democrat from Nashville, introduced an amendment that would protect fictional beasts.

"This amendment would make sure that we are protecting yetis, or Sasquatch or Bigfoot, from whatever this conspiracy is that we're passing in this legislation," he said during debate.
Content from External Source
Luckily, yeti is still protected from American nationals in Nepal, assuming the 1959 regulation forbidding the killing of a yeti outside of a self defense emergency is still in force.
 
Back
Top