Recent legislation targeting geoengineering projects sparks a fresh debate about the long controversial topic of weather modification. Here we dive into the history of such projects to expose the truth.
A bill has passed the Tennessee state legislature which aims to target the controversial subject of chemtrails, or more specifically the concept of geoengineering.
Chemtrails is a loosely defined theory which postulates the deliberate dispersal of potentially toxic chemicals into the atmosphere by governments or corporations with nefarious intentions, often through an aerosolized dispersal method via airplane.
Typically alleged to be pursuant of agendas regarding population management/ depopulation, or weather modification — more commonly referred to as geoengineering; A controversial science aimed at manipulating the weather. — Proponents of the theory assert that the white trails seen emanating from aircraft at high altitude contain hazardous chemical components. Whereas debunkers assert that it is simply water vapor and condensation.
Sponsors of recent legislation in Tennessee believe there’s more to it.
The bill, SB 2691/HB 2063, sponsored by Rep. Monty Fritts, R-Kingston, and Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, asserts it is “documented the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere, and those activities may occur within the State of Tennessee,”.
Emphasizing the legislations intent on banning the practice, it adds; “The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited,”
The bill passed in the states Senate on Monday, March 25th and was sent to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, The Tennessean reports.
Far from being the first bill of its kind, in March of 2022 similar legislation was proposed by lawmakers in Rhode Island’s General Assembly. The Clean Atmosphere Act (H7787) sponsored by Rep. Robert Quattrocchi (R), Rep. Justin Price (R), Rep. George Nardone (R), Rep. Sherry Roberts (R), and Rep. David Bennett (D), took aim at geoengineering projects and the potential negative impacts such projects could have on the health of Rhode Islanders.
The bill stated plainly —
“It is the legislative intent to preserve the safe, peaceful use of Rhode Island’s atmosphere for people, the environment, and agriculture, and to expand upon climate efforts, by regulating weather modification and other large-scale, atmospheric activities and prohibiting those which are harmful. The general assembly finds that many atmospheric activities harm human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, aviation, security, and the economy of the State of Rhode Island. It is, therefore, the intention of this legislature to regulate hazardous atmospheric activities as further set forth by the terms and provisions of this chapter.”
Similarly in late 2023, a bill known as The Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act (HR1700) was proposed in the New Hampshire legislature’s Science, Technology and Energy Committee sponsored by Rep. Jason Gerhard (R) and Rep. Kelley Potenza (R) with the stated intent of “Prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition.”
While the aforementioned bills saw little success, attempts at halting geoengineering has been more successful outside of the United States.
In January of 2023, Mexico became the first nation to openly acknowledge the documented potential hazards of geoengineering and halt future experiments pending further investigation, just weeks after geoengineering startup Make Sunsets launched weather balloons releasing reflective sulfur particles in the stratosphere.
Despite this and many other examples, the validity of geoengineering is often dismissed and mainstream media continues to outright deny “chemtrails” as nothing more than mere “conspiracy theory”.
Indeed, the aforementioned report from The Tennessean would go on to outright lie to their readers, either through ignorance of the writer or a deliberate act of deception, by claiming that the theory of chemtrails has been debunked, citing statements from a Harvard University research group who said “We are confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement albedo modification outdoors.”
As we will see later on in this report, this is a statement of blatant obfuscation.
At this point it’s important to acknowledge the use of the term “conspiracy theory” as a thought-terminating cliché. Defined as a form of loaded language intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance, stopping an argument from proceeding further in order to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic.
Since 1967 the use of the term “conspiracy theorist” as a thought-terminating cliché to quell dissent has been popularized by the Central Intelligence Agency following the publication of Dispatch #1035-960, disseminated to agency assets within the mainstream media with instructions of how to discredit those critical of the Warren Commission following the assassination of president John F. Kennedy.
In recent years the use of the term conspiracy theorist as a means of attempting to discredit those critical of establishment narratives has become much more frequent.
Regardless of this, the fact is that conspiracies do exist. A conspiracy simply implies that two or more individuals plotted to do something. Just because something is a conspiracy, even if it may be a theoretical one, does not make it inherently untrue. Rather, it necessitates further investigation. Something ceases to be a theory whereupon there is evidence. Evidence makes the theory a fact.
And the fact is there is plenty of evidence about the reality of chemtrails and / or geoengineering.
As recently as 2016 the concept of geoengineering via the aerosolized dispersal of chemical compounds for the purposes of combating climate change has begun to receive mainstream acknowledgement.
That same year CIA director John Brennan would speak at the Council of Foreign Relations regarding the subject of geoengineering via stratospheric aerosol injections —
Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
The following year in 2017 geoengineering would continue to receive mainstream attention. As in March The Guardian would report a team of Harvard scientists would begin the world’s largest test of geoengineering by releasing particles into the upper atmosphere. The report would also include statements from scientists critical of the project.
“But solar geoengineering is not the answer,” …. “Cutting incoming solar radiation affects the weather and hydrological cycle. It promotes drought. It destabilizes things and could cause wars. The side effects are many and our models are just not good enough to predict the outcomes”, said Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Later that year conspiracy theory would continue to turn into conspiracy fact as the US Congress House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy would go on to hold a hearing regarding the subject of geoengineering and weather modification titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,”.
In 2018, the normalization of chemtrails geoengineering would continue to further creep outside the realm of mere conspiracy theory as CBS News would report: Controversial Spraying Method Aims To Curb Global Warming — “A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That’s the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.”
A year later the mainstream media would continue to outright advocate for the use of geoengineering in the wake of a Bill Gates funded project at Harvard University to spray particles into the sky in an attempt to dim the sun. With CNBC publishing a video titled How Bill Gates-Funded Solar Geoengineering Could Help End Climate Change. The video is nothing short of an infomercial for chemtrails.
In the last couple of years Harvard, Gates, and company have continued to move forward with these plans. However in some cases meeting resistance. In 2021 Sweden, where some of the experiments were set to take place, pulled out of the project, citing divide among the scientific community regarding the effectiveness of geoengineering.
Whereas in 2022, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) quietly revealed a five year plan to spray particles into the sky tucked within the thousands of pages of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Of course, detractors may assert that all of these examples are either still only hypothesis or remain in the stages of early development yet to be fully implemented. However these are only a few modern day examples of these programs, the historical examples of such operations having taken place are in fact just as numerous and prove that this phenomenon is more than a century old.
The Los Angeles Times has previously reported the saga of Charles Hatfield. An early pioneer of geoengineering, Hatfield was hired by the City Council of San Diego in 1915 to produce rain in order to mitigate a severe drought.
Though his exact methodologies remain unclear, what is known is that Hatfield and his brother would build a 20 foot tower and go about releasing an unknown concoction of chemicals into the atmosphere. The Times reports that the ensuing rain storms generated by Hatfield were a disaster. Creating a downpour that lasted for an entire month, resulting in 30 inches of rain and destructive flooding throughout much of the area. Destroying the dam, washing out roads, lifting railroad tracks, causing property damage across the region and killing an estimated 14 to 50 citizens.
The practice of geoengineering to create artificial rain, known as cloud seeding, has been one of the most common forms of weather modification both inside and outside of the United States.
The South China Morning Post has often reported weather modification efforts by the Chinese government involving cloud seeding operations in the mountainous regions of Tibet, combining a network of fuel burning chambers as well as particles released by aircraft to induce rain and snow.
What’s more, SCMP has also previously reported on a study from Beijing’s Tsinghua University showing that weather modification programs were used to improve weather conditions ahead of the Chinese Communist party’s centenary celebration in 2021. The Independent also reports this same tactic was used during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
China’s own Meteorological Administration openly acknowledges that the Chinese government has been actively engaged in weather modification operations for the last 60 years.
Similar projects have been utilized elsewhere.
In 2010 an $11 million project on behalf of the government of the United Arab Emirates in Abu Dhabi generated more than 50 rainstorms throughout July and August which produced hail, gale winds, and lightning, reports Arabian Business.
In Africa, the Nigerian government has undertaken similar cloud seeding chemtrail operations in response to severe drought.
In addition to these operations a number of officially admitted military projects have also been documented throughout the decades.
Some of the earliest projects of these kinds began in 1947 when the US military along with corporations such as General Electric began experimenting with ways to control hurricanes. Notable among them was Project Cirrus, in which records indicate multiple hurricane manipulation experiments were carried out in multiple locations across New Mexico, Washington state, New Hampshire, California, and New York.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in an article discussing a similar operation nearly two decades later known as Project Stormfury, one hurricane that was seeded during Project Cirrus in 1947 inadvertently changed course, slamming into the coast of Georgia.
“Despite its ambitious nature, the successful seeding didn’t come without consequences: the hurricane, which had initially been tracking west to east and heading out to sea, reversed its path after it was seeded and made landfall in Savannah, Georgia, causing local destruction.”
Whereas programs such as Project Cirrus and Project Stormfury were primarily focused on redirecting or reducing hurricanes, two more prominent programs which were used by the US military during the Vietnam War had direct combat applications and much more aggressive agendas.
Operation Popeye was a weather modification chemtrail program carried out by the US Air Force under the direction of the CIA from 1967 to 1972 in Vietnam and Laos with the intended goal of extending the monsoon season, thereby disrupting communications, supply lines, and troop movements in North Vietnam.
According to a 1972 New York Times article by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh titled Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon By US, prior to Popeye the CIA had already previously successfully tested similar operations in Vietnam as early as 1963.
According to interviews, the Central Intelligence Agency initiated the use of cloud‐seeding over Hue, in the northern part of South Vietnam. “We first used that stuff in about August of 1963,” one former C.I.A. agent said, “when the Diem regime was having all that trouble with the Buddhists.”
“They would just stand around during demonstrations when the police threw tear gas at them, but we noticed that when the rains came they wouldn’t stay on,” the former agent said.
“The agency got an Air America Beechcraft and had it rigged up with silver iodide,” he said. “There was another demonstration and we seeded the area. It rained.”
A similar cloud‐seeding was carried out by C.I.A. aircraft in Saigon at least once during the summer of 1964 the former agent said
The alarming prospect of weather warfare would quickly prompt a response from the United Nations, and in 1976 the UN General Assembly would adopt the Environmental Modification Convention as a part of the Geneva Convention, banning the use of weather modification as a weapon of warfare. Despite this, the United States government would continue to look towards the development of weather weapons and a means of expanding their regional control, as evidenced by proof of concept documents released by the US Air Force in 1996 titled Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning The Weather In 2025.
However a secondary Vietnam-era program had much more sinister ramifications compared to its weather modification cousin. Operation Ranch Hand was an ecological warfare program which lasted from 1962 to 1971 and dispersed chemtrails of various herbicide compounds, most notably Agent Orange, said to be “one of the deadliest concoctions ever created”, indiscriminately against combatants and civilians alike in North and South Vietnam.
The potency of the deadly compound was used to defoliate jungle areas, destroying crops as well as potential hiding spots for the Viet Cong. But the chemical had a much more disastrous effect, essentially doubling as a biological warfare agent, compounds such as Agent Orange resulted in devastating health effects not only for the enemy combatants and Vietnamese civilian population, but US service members too. Leading millions to develop various illnesses such as cancer, heart conditions, leukemia, skin diseases and more. As well as second, third, and fourth generations of those affected by the herbicide being born with debilitating birth defects.
Unfortunately, if you believe that these programs would only be used on foreign enemies halfway around the world you would be mistaken.
Before Operation Ranch Hand, before Operation Popeye, before Project Stormfury, the United States government was already secretly discussing methods of weather control as a means of dominating the Cold War. And during such time amid conversations of weather modification, another project focused on testing yet another chemtrail program on unsuspecting American citizens, using them as lab rats for biological warfare experiments.
Operation Large Area Coverage was a mass biological attack simulation carried out by the United States Army Chemical Corps from 1957 to 1958 as a part of a broader series of experiments carried out via the Radiological Weapons Program which resulted in the poisoning of thousands of Americans citizens. Throughout the American Midwest from the Gulf of Mexico into Canada, it covered thousands of square miles, with the chemical compounds being dispersed over large populations via chemical trails released from aircraft, as well as sprayer machines mounted on rooftops.
The goal of the experiment was to test dispersal patterns of biological agents and involved releasing compounds known to be radioactive and carcinogenic, primarily zinc cadmium sulfide, among other harmful bacteria. Tens of thousands of Americans were unknowingly exposed to these compounds.
Two cities where these tests were concentrated – St Louis, Missouri and Corpus Christi, Texas – received such heavy plumes of the contaminated aerosols they created an artificial overcast over the cities. When inquiries were made to the military as to the cause, they lied. Informing residents that the artificial fog was merely a smokescreen test. To this day St. Louis residents suffer from adverse health effects allegedly attributed to the experiments they were subjected to, ranging from respiratory illnesses to cancer.
Finally, one last piece of evidence worth discussing before we conclude is the topic of whistleblowers. If such covert spraying programs exist shouldn’t there be someone from the inside who has come forward and blown the whistle? The earlier mentioned article from The Tennessean makes that same point.
It would be fairly simple for a single individual to reveal the existence of the program using leaked documents, photographs or hardware, said Harvard.
Clearly the authors didn’t look too far because there is in fact a whistleblower who has come forward on the subject, over a decade ago.
Kristen Meghan Kelly is a US Air Force veteran having spent nine years active duty working in the field of bioenvironmental engineering as an industrial hygienist. Part of her job was to track and monitor the use of chemicals in the military and their effect on health and the environment.
After learning about the chemtrails “conspiracy theory” she set about to debunk it once and for all, however the evidence she uncovered led to exactly the opposite. Eventually Kristen came forward as a whistleblower exposing these covert programs. In the interview below she speaks with independent journalist Luke Rudkowski about her experiences.
Although technically anecdotal as she does not provide any smoking gun documents or photographs, her verifiable credentials as a veteran of the US military combined with the plethora of evidence presented here absolutely establishes precedent of credibility that warrants further investigation.
Whether or not one believes Kristen, the information presented in this article does seemingly serve to corroborate her statements.
At the very least one thing is absolutely a conspiracy fact, governments and corporations do incontrovertibly possess the desire, the technology, and the capability to carry out these programs, and have verifiably done so in the past.
It is time that the mainstream media pundits and the public at large stop denying the reality of weather modification and other covert chemical spraying operations. We must begin to have a serious public dialogue about the scope with which these programs may or may not be currently operating without our knowledge and the potential impacts that these kinds of programs may have on our health and environment.