Well, the problem with which the "official side" is playing around, is that the common knowledge of cloud creation is opaque. It is not a subject of concrete observation although anyone has experienced fog. If you hike in the mountains you may look to clouds below and when you walk down and get into them they appear as fog.

Clifford A. Carnicom has given an example how to observe cloud creation: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7910#Post7910 . This kind of cloud creation is different from the cloud creation coming out of the haze left by the chemtrails.

But in comparison to mountain climbing the physical conditions of creating "natural" clouds in great heights is more difficult because the temperatures have to be warmer than -40 degrees Celsius and the humidity has to be above 70 % in the same space: (Minute: 1 Second: 28)

Nevertheless, you get from the "official" view following statement: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=10394#Post10394 which is not really new, but in this case it is "communicated" by a Communications Manager at the Federal Aviation Administration. This executive branch approach of explaining the line formation in the sky - in this context the line formations in California, USA - has the purpose to calm the populace by getting the impression that everything is normal as it has been always normal. If it is from the government - it has to be true although common experience in history tells something different. And because the government is democratically elected there may be no reason that the government has something evil in mind. But this is only a partial explanation of that executive branch approach. The other part of the explanation is that of a claim of power about this part of public opinion. It is also known as published opinion which describes more exactly with what we are dealing with. And the term of "published opinion" defines the claim of power to define what reality is and -- what it is not. This "published opinion" is quasi a common base for society how to deal with each other. It is nothing else but a split situation about what is happening in everyday-life. This "truth" is kept very tightly because if it was broken it would have some unkomfortable consequence to the political system itself. It is not only a split situation to everybody, who starts to put questions because of observations made, and also to the executive branch but also this situation has schizophrenic consequences because on the one side the ideology of society is "scientific" and is searching for "truth", on the other side if one makes observations "scientifically" in contrary to the "published" observations it excludes those from "recognition" and "reputation" who observe something different from the reality of the "published" observations. "Recognition" and "Reputation" is the working tool of the executive branch which gives and takes "Recognition" and "Reputation" as it wishes. "Recognition" and "Reputation" is the bread and butter of the scientific community. The schizophrenia expresses itself in the way of thinking when the individual is excluding him- or herself automatically from parts of reality observed which the same individual actually really wants to know about because the "scientific" approach dictates it. These innerpersonal tensions of the curious and searching Scientists are equilibrated through public "Recognition" and "Reputation" as their moms did to them in their childhood. That is the way of peer reviewing. Clifford A. Carnicom showed in public and for a period of over 15 years how science ought to work. He is not living in a schizophrenic context because he has been open for disapproval of his hypotheses at all the time.

Well, how may you prove that what you are seeing is not the formation of usual contrails?

Some try to use an infrared-camera to make the difference in the origin of the clouds in the sky more obvious seeable. Another way could be pursued if one deals with the electromagnetic properties of those clouds to detect indirectly the existence of the "chemical" manipulation of observed clouds because of their consistency.

But it is easier to use the approach of the base of a common rule as an "axiome" like this:
At the usual flight hights for airplanes there are rarely atmospheric conditions of temperatures warmer than -40 C degree and air humidities with higher than 70(60) %. This is the usual "reality".

In the English wikipedia it is described even real compact:
" (...) Exhaust contrails rarely occur below 8,000 m (26,000 ft), only if the temperature there is below −40 °C (−40 °F), and if the relative humidity is over 60%.[3] (...)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

These atmospheric conditions we can describe as "normal".

And if these conditions are normal then there is a question of why there are so many trails in the sky. The answering of this question is possible as it is shown in the video:


The proof has to be the other way around of what is delivered at the moment. Everything is so beautiful when you look to the sky as it was a miracle.
It has to be proven that the atmospheric conditions of the hight of the observed "trails" are the same as it is described above:

- higher than 60 (70)% of air humidity;
- warmer than -40 C degree.

These are the criteria to deal with by characterization the quality of the observed trails.

Although Communication Manager at the Federal Aviation Administration Ian Gregor had the chance - because of his unique information access - in proving his description with information of the FAA he did not, unfortunately. He just told a fairy tale as he would do so to a kid. Maybe he did not understand the topic himself? Maybe he was instructed? Nobody knows it publicly.

If the atmospheric conditions are usual colder than -40 C degrees and less humid than 70(60)% air humidity then there should not exist any longer lasting "Trail"-formation. Period.

If "reality" is like that then there must be another reason for the cloud formation. And the weather modification method of cloud seeding can not be the answer because it is using already existing clouds but it does not create clouds.

The cloud creation out of the chemtrails is created by metallic salts.

The old weather modification method of "Cloud seeding" uses existing saturated air humidity in form of already existing clouds by spreading silveriodide dust which is also poisonous but does not have such an impact on health like the metallic salt humidity sucking method. The particles of the dust of the "Cloud seeding"-method are binding the air humidity of an existing cloud to the single dust particles over a longer period which then turns eventually into raindrops or hail.
The chemtrailing methods are exploiting the air humidity even further than the old "Cloud seeding"-method because of the usage of chrystaline structured metalls. That way the not-saturated air humidity can be utilized to form clouds which don't have the purpose of bringing rain to a dry geographical area but to enhance the reflectivity of the earth. This has to been seen within the "CO²"-dogma which is the base of the "scientific" argument.
As Dane Wigington argues: The venus has twice the reflectivity and is nevertheless uninhabitable.

The usage of metals in these advanced - but extremely poisonous - weather modification methods have even a more advantageous feature than that of the "Cloud Seeding"-materials: The formatted clouds can be manipulated electromagnetically. This kind of manipulation remembers to the manipulation with the mouse moving the cursor or file or directories on the desktop around how it is wished. Therefore this idea is not that far away from "reality".

The cloud creation out of the dust of metallic salts has the feature of sucking humidity BELOW of 70(60)% air humidity. The result of that procedure is that the atmosphere is getting drier and drier and drier.

This process is described by Dane Wigington in California where there is a many years old drought over the state:



Why California? Well, the weather drives from the West to the East and begins for the USA quasi in California.


Infrared-Camera would be probably the adequate equipment to visualize the difference between "normal" clouds and chemtrail-clouds.


You ought to contact Scott Stevens.


"CERN Courier

Oct 26, 2010
Making light of opaque matter

Light passing through complex materials, such as biological tissues, can undergo such thorough multiple scattering that even though it gets through, any image is so degraded as to render the media effectively opaque. Now Sylvain Gigan and colleagues of the Institut Langevin in Paris and the Universities of Paris 6 and 7 have shown that measurements of the complex scattering matrix can invert the multiple scattering. This allows them to 'see' an arbitrary object through such opaque media. The technique will work with any degree of complexity of scattering and could find applications in biology and medicine.
Further reading

S Popoff et al. 2010 Nature Communications 1 doi:10.1038/ncomms1078.
arxiv.org/abs/1005.0532. "
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/44108


Ian Gregor (FAA)