GEL FALLOUT REPORTS

GEL FALLOUT REPORTS

A honey like substance was splattered on a witness’ windshield while she was driving in California in April 2000, as well as on the car’s windshield behind her. The woman took photographs that are shown in this paper, and a small sample of this material was sent to Clifford Carnicom for analysis. There is fibrous material in the sample as well. This occurred under a clear sky with no obvious reason for this material to have landed on this car. Of note are two similar instances of what appeared to be identical materials observed, one in July 2000 in Albuquerque New Mexico that was experienced by Clifford Carnicom, where a material landed on his car windshield that was similar form and color to that of the samples sent to him previously. Another report from a witness in North Carolina claimed in August 2000 that a very similar material was found on her car windshield.
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT INVESTIGATIONS

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT INVESTIGATIONS

A ground fiber sample received previously in November 1999 is observed and pictured in this paper under a microscope and black light, and is compared to other known and unknown synthetic fibers. A notable thing from this observation is that the ground fibers show a low level of fluorescence, whereas the synthetics compared to show a high level of fluorescence. The ground fiber samples also showed sub-micron diameter, and high levels of adhesiveness and elasticity. Additional data and feedback of the current investigations underway with UV light is most welcome.
MICROSCOPIC PARTICLE COUNT STUDY NEW MEXICO 1996-1999

MICROSCOPIC PARTICLE COUNT STUDY NEW MEXICO 1996-1999

Driven by repeated observations of aerial spraying in the United States in the years from 1996-2000, a statistically significant study of airborne microscopic particle count data from the State of New Mexico was conducted, with approximately 175,000 observations of hourly monitored data from five stations in the state analyzed. This statistical test has been designed to question the difference between the data of 1999 (Data set 1) vs. the combined data of the three previous years from 1996-1998 (Data set 2). The results show that there is a significant statistical difference between the magnitudes, averages, and variances of the two data sets. The conclusion to be reached from this study is that the microscopic air particle count in the state of New Mexico in 1999 is significantly different from that of the preceding three years, and that this difference is directly correlated with the observations of aerial spraying that have taken place during this same time period. The results of this study form a further basis for criminal investigation of the documented spray activity and for congressional hearings on this subject.
EPA CONTINUES TO BE ‘UNAWARE’

EPA CONTINUES TO BE ‘UNAWARE’

A lengthy letter from the EPA, sent to a concerned citizen and copied on this page, is a complete denial of the possibility of aerosols and aerosol operations. The letter speaks a common theme of denial that the spray lines, witnessed by an increasing number of people and spreading out across the sky, are simply normal contrail exhaust from aircraft engines.