1. You might stand a good chance of debunking some nut cases who have produced a video, BUT…
    If I remember right…hum-mm, yeah. There is a story about you Dr. Ed in the 1960's contracted to help alter weather conditions in South East Asia (Vietnam) to seed clouds and cause massive rainstorms over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in an effort to slow down or stop the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) infiltrating supplies of weapons, material and men to South Vietnam over the Ho Chi Minh Trail system.
    Rumor has it that you were apart of that operation and whether you can neither confirm nor deny, evidence and fact and a History Channel Series conclude that your early formulas on cloud theory were indeed used to do exactly that, ALTER WEATHER. Now these plans were designed to equip aircraft with the ability at dumping minerals and chemicals in the atmosphere to generate weather to enhance the Monsoon. Making the season come early and violent.
    Now we can conclude by using the slang terms, "Chem Trail", that this program is evidence of weather modification carried out by the U.S. Government. This "Chem Trailing" or dumping of minerals and chemicals to enhance or to change cloud formations was an early pioneering by man at atmospheric alteration.
    The effect of the operations was a huge success. The North Vietnamese Army suffered great losses in Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam during the unusually heavy rains of the late 1960's.
    So to your credit, you might of saved thousands and thousands of South Vietnamese and American lives by preventing that war material from being used against us.
    Question: You deny your involvement in a government program centered around your early research in cloud formations and the possibilites there of to alter weather and influence man kind?

    1. Dear Mind Farmer,
      Thank you for recognizing my experience in atmospheric physics and weather modification, and for doing a pretty good job of describing Operation Popeye.

      To answer your question, I am quite open about my being the only civilian participant in DOD’s top-secret Operation Popeye. You can read about it in my bio.

      Before that, I managed Nevada’s Desert Research Institute’s airborne weather research program. And after that, I was Program Manager for the National Science Foundation Weather Modification nation-wide research program. And as an aside, my MA Thesis in physics at Dartmouth dealt with an early version of HAARP.

      The bottom line is I am very aware of reality in weather and climate and how it can and cannot be modified. I have seen so many real contrails that I can readily tell you the things you claim are “chemtrails” are contrails in different weather conditions.

      Therefore, I am one of your better resources when it comes to explaining to you why the chemtrail claims are pure pseudo-science bunk.

  2. Dr. Berry, it is such a shame when you finally begin to shill for the dis-information propaganda elites. Next you will tell us that since there was no conclusive evidence that JFK was NOT shot by Oswald the Warren Commission report was completely factual.

    1. The delusional chemtrails “awakers” are also mentally disturbed people. We should pray for them and especially their families. Very difficult to be around these narcissists.

    2. Dear Glenn,
      Are you interested in truth or fiction?
      I produce the truth when it is available and question claims that people do not substantiate. You have made unwarranted assumptions in your haste to criticize my article.

  3. Who is the "expert" you talked to about CKST? In the above article you do not hesitate to name individuals. If the information concerning CKST is true, then why not identify the individual you build your foundation upon? Please share his name or you run the risk of your argument being moot.

    1. Dear Rhoda,
      In my preparation of my article, I did not have time to get permission from this expert to use his name. It was a private conversation, not an interview. So just as I would guard your privacy, I must guard his until I have his permission.

      But more important is your assumption that my argument would not be valid unless I reveal his name. Your assumption is incorrect because I do not rely on what I said of his opinion in my argument. I make no argument for or against the Water Compact.

      My argument is that we must listen to qualified people who disagree with our opinion. Do you disagree with this? Your answer is not dependent upon knowing the name of the expert I talked to.

  4. One of the things I respect you for is that you do not hesitate to lay out your supporting facts concerning specific issues for all to read and debate. I am an ardent supporter of the scientific method and understand how that method can be, and is, circumvented. One of the few disciplines that have not demonstrated this is Physics: See Sokal Hoax.

    You have written articles, such as the above, that allow your peer group and others to investigate further by supplying facts and your sources. In doing such, you allow others to follow your thoughts.

    I can appreciated that you don't have "his" permission. However, what you have done is given unsupported thought, other then an ghost "expert", on a subject that is of great importance to the people of the state of Montana with a silent qualifier of "believe me".

    I applaud your conviction to not use names without permission. I would request that you contact your "expert", ask for his permission and then allow your readers, and on this subject, peer group, to formulate their thoughts.

    You did include a qualifier that you did not know if the "expert" is correct concerning the CKST compact, but you refute another's opinion on the subject by analysis of her beliefs in chem trails. How are we, as a peer group, to know that the "expert" does not believe the same?

    1. Dear Rhoda,
      Well to answer your question, he does not believe in chemtrails. However, I question whether this fact is important to our discussion.

      I have not presented a case for or against the Compact. I have only presented reasons to question the claims that the Water Compact is not good for those whom it will affect. Therefore, I have no obligation to defend the Water Compact.

      But I do have to defend the reasons I question the case against the compact.

      I question the case against the compact because I cannot find any valid claims against the Water Compact. I can find valid questions about the compact, but I cannot find any valid slam-dunk criticism against it.

      My primary reason for disqualifying Dr. Kate is that her interview presented no valid reasons to not support the Water Compact. Instead, she presented only alarmist claims against the compact, like it is a government conspiracy to depopulate northwest Montana. These, as you are aware, don’t cut it as rational objections to the compact.

      My hope is to put together a good summary of the pros and cons to the compact in the next weeks. I am not sure if I can actually do this, but I will try.

  5. I rest my case. A debate on the compact facts would be futile. It will be determined by the courts.

    What is not for debate is whether or not our form of government is representative. If this is true, then, is it the wish of the people of Montana to have such compact passed by the legislature?

    One very interesting thread of this discussion might be money; billions. I question the morals of many elected officials.

    I have little doubt about whom the "expert" is.

    1. Dear Rhoda,
      There are two ways to debate a subject. One is to present evidence and an argument. The other is to have no evidence or argument and to rely on an “expert.”

      The problem is even if I named an “expert” you would likely reject the expert because you would not agree with the expert. So that line of debate gets us nowhere.

      I prefer the direct evidence and argument method. I did that and you could not hold up your side of the debate.

  6. People can see with their own eyes. Our natural weather is being controlled and manipulated. Water samples again and again come back with high amounts of chemicals. JFK's speech on controlling the weather was spot on. The California Drought is absolutely engineered. Open Your Eyes.

    1. Dear Look Up,
      The global warming folks say the same thing. The problem is there is good data that show our weather is completely normal. Data trumps your feelings.

      The California drought is also normal. I did an analysis in 1991 that predicted the California drought would reoccur in 2013 to 2016, and again from about 2025 to 2035, based upon normal expectations. That my first prediction has turned out to be correct suggests my assumption of normal weather is correct.

  7. Dr. Ed ; Question, why is it these planes are all unmarked, and the fly in a pattern east and west , then north and south all with in one hour. If conspiracy exist, it is because of government doing stupid things.

    1. Dear Fred,
      The claimed chemtrail jets are above 30,000 feet. You must have very good eyes to see that they are unmarked. Those planes flying east-west and north-south are different airline flights. Some could be military or private jets.

  8. Ed,

    I tend to share your skepticism on this issue, and I frequently doubt friends of mine who advise me to read or watch up on "chemtrails." However, I should direct you to a Billings Gazette article from February 16, 2007. The article was entitled, "Foursome hopes to boost snowfall," and subtitled, "State contract pays for pilot program to seed clouds."
    The article reports that "The husband-and-wife team of Jody and Erin Fischer, as well as Jason Goehring and Brook Herridge, make up a foursome from Weather Modification Inc., based in Fargo, N.D. They have been stationed in Riverton since early January and are contracted to stay through the end of March.
    Using a Piper Cheyenne 2 airplane complete with flares and probes on the wings, pilot Jody Fischer and co-pilot Herridge, fly over the Wind River Mountains and run cloud-seeding missions with hopes of producing additional snowfall, which would increase the winter snowpack and improve the runoff in the spring.
    At the appropriate time, the flares are lit and they release chemicals into the clouds, hoping to produce a reaction that will create snow."

    The article continues. Here is the link: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regiona

    1. Dear Roger,
      They are using a standard weather modification technology we used in the 1960’s but with better equipment and measurement. They are competent folks doing the cloud seeding. As they point out, there is only a small window where their cloud seeding can work and that is when they have intermediate-size storms that do not produce much precipitation and that have supercooled water droplets, which means water droplets that are cooler than -5C but still not frozen.

      They are using silver idodide flares developed at the Naval Weapons Center in China Lake, California. We also used silver iodide flares in Operation Popeye but the clouds and therefore the seeding technique were entirely different from seeding a winter storm.

      But this has nothing to do with the chemtrails people claim they see. This is a standard winter cloud seeding operation.

  9. weather modification is legal in Montana by Statute. There are statutory requirements which must be followed but none the less it can be legal. Also check out the "Ethics in geoegineering" program at the University of Montana. Yes that is correct, at the U of M is a panel of intellectuals from around the world whom are engaged in the process of selling geoegineering to the good people of Montana. Disgusting little people

    What is most important to take from the ranting's of "Popeye" er ah Little Eddy is that he is trying to tell you, without actually coming out and saying it, is that he is in fact Godless. See he believes in the "scientific" method which in his little mind excludes God. Of course he forgets one little important fact about his "science" and that is that science is based on faith. Yes, without faith science would not be possible. Many of his little models are based in the first part on faith based assumptions.
    Go deep into little eddies past and I think what you find should prove very interesting. Maybe he too will develop a little depression caused by his work in the field of killing other humans on this earth.
    Little Eddy does not care for human life like most of us do. Oh sure, he and his comrades will tell you how if it were not for benefactors of the U. S. like he and those comrades we would all be just a bunch of boots kissing communists right now but don't believe it. Do your own research on the "Manhattan Project" that Eddie is always bragging about and dig deep and hard to truly understand what it is that Eddie stands for.
    Eddie is in fact a "Temporal Coadjutor" which is a pretty way of saying that little Eddies rants and raves are designed to bring in the new fascist state and then new world order.
    He IS a Fascist.

  10. You are a fucking moron. Typical Shill article, one or two weak points about condensation, and then right away dive into Aristotle and Aztecs. Why don't you read about Solar Radiation Management, the patents, panels being assembled to govern the spraying, and look up next time you go out. They must be paying you, but you still are a moron. You're getting sprayed too, by the way, condensation bullshit stories, or no.

    1. Dear Todd, I challenge you to provide one spec of evidence that the so-called chemtrails are poison being sprayed on the population. You can't because there is no evidence.

      For example, it would be a piece of cake to take a private jet with sampling equipment into one of your so-called chemtrails and bring back evidence that it contains "poison." Yet in all the years the chemtrail freaks have complained about being poisoned, no one has done this simple test.

      Since you apparently believe in something for which there is no evidence and such evidence, if it existed, would be easy to collect, then it sounds like you are the moron.

  11. Dear Glenn, Your comment suggests you are a true believer that our government is spraying poison on us by using so-called chemtrails.

    Why don't you and your brother chemtrail belivers hire a private jet, equip it with simple sampling instrumentation, then fly up and collect some chemtrail particles, and come down with some evidence your belief is true?

    Don't you agree it is nonsense to believe in something for which you have no evidence and the evidence, if it existed, would be easy to collect?

  12. You say: “Contrails persist longer when the air at their altitude is more humid and cold enough to cause water droplets to turn to ice. Spreading is dependent upon natural turbulence.”

    Ok if that is true, then surely these data sets on the site can show that humidity across the world has raised enough in the last 11 or so years to the point that we see these chemtrails all the time.
    It is possible, but is it one of the reasons we see so many long, slowly falling ones?
    It clearly isn’t because the air is colder than it was 37 years ago, as shown by these data sets.

  13. Here is an interesting tidbit i came across recently – something the chemtrail believers might find jarring if they are willing to accept information that contradicts their beloved theories.

    On Netflix you can find a documentary “Memphis Belle” by William Wyler. He filmed bombing missions into Europe during WW2. At 25:02 into the film, he is filming out the window at other bombers in the formation. They all have big, consistent contrails, and then like a light switch they suddenly stop.

    I recall one of Dane Wigington’s films where this sudden stopping of con/ “chem” trails was presented as “proof” that they were spraying, perhaps switching to an alternate tank when one became empty.

    There is another recent netflix documentary “behind the curve” about flat earthers. In this, one of the fools inadvertently demonstrates the curvature of the earth in a simple experiment and STILL won’t accept anything that contradicts his beliefs. And there you have it.

    I appreciate your work Dr. Ed, but don’t expect anything other than blathering irrationality and angry personal attacks like Todd S. Heaven forbid anyone would actually contradict their cherished beliefs in favor of empirically verifiable facts!

  14. Just found this page, and I was indeed entertained. My comments on so-called “ChemTrails” to willing listeners is that anything volatile enough to be a toxin is also pretty easy prey for UV to break it down before it even gets to spread, and that anything spread out at 30,000 ft will (a) never make it to the ground, and (b) certainly won’t land with any sort of precise targeting. Then I explain that if you want to kill a population, the simpler method — no fear of giving “them” ideas — would be to pack it in a truck with vents taking in local air and releasing it with the “Chem” in it, thus getting accuracy and less UV loss, as well as a huge reduction in expense, by just driving it through towns.

    I was a Math major at Dartmouth, but every class slot I could fill with Physics found me in the Physics labs, even in my senior year.

    And I have fond memories of John Kemeny, for sure. I was on the Kiewit staff for a couple of years, and was assigned to support the Mix 1009 simulator for Math 48.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.