Main Page

The original page is here.  I've reproduced it in a larger font for easier reading online.

Nov 27 2001

Jeff: Hi again, and welcome back. I wish I had a dollar- well, even ten cents- for every email I've received dealing with the chemtrail issue. And I'm not like our guest tonight, Clifford Carnicom, who has spent so much so much of his life pouring over data and poking his nose, and his intelligence, and his wisdom into this most perplexing of problems that has been with us now for a little over three years. This chemtrail phenomenon has caused friendships to break apart, probably caused marital strife that we'll never understand the extent of; it has caused arguments, it has caused heartache. But more than that, it has caused apparently illness, poor health and- I'm sure- more than a couple of cases of terminal illness in people whose immune systems have been compromised going into this thing or were dragged down by whatever has been going on.

For those of you who have seen them, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I would urge you to go to Clifford Carnicom's website: it is   Click on "Chemtrail Crimes and Cover-up Documented", and start reading. But before you start reading, look at the pictures. Prepare to be amazed. And then maybe things for those of you haven't really noticed chemtrails before will start to fall into place. You'll remember that: "Gosh, gee, I did see something like that- and this is what it was?" Yes- this is what it was. And back tonight for an update on this most perplexing, and at times, certainly enraging of apparent government operations being conducted in this country, over our heads and into of our bodies, is Clifford Carnicom himself. Welcome back Clifford. How are you?

Clifford: Good evening Jeff- very well, and thanks very much for the opportunity to speak with you again. I know it has been a little while.

Jeff: Sure. Well, a lot has been happening. And you have, again, at your own time and expense, been working this issue as much as any human being could do. We know chemtrails are real. We don't know exactly what's going on- if in fact there is one program underway; maybe: there may be several. We just don't know. Clifford Carnicom's data on the website is overwhelmingly compelling. We are going to talk about much of that tonight and we're going to focus on the electromagnetic, the EMF aspect, of what may be involved with this most visible of phenomena. Clifford, what's been going on lately, in the last month or two? Have reports stayed the same as we've headed into late fall and approaching winter, or is there a change?

Clifford: In terms of general character- at least from the sense I have from reports as well as locally- after Sept. 11 events, the skies were refreshingly clear, I would say, for probably two weeks to three weeks. About a three week period elapsed, and then it almost seems as if all hell broke loose because things got real heavy for the month or two
after that.

Jeff: That's true.

Clifford: So whether you're dealing with a make-up situation for lost time - that might be one question - I would certainly say there has been no decrease in the level of the program, other than there was a hiatus due to a national event of that magnitude and particularly involving aircraft.

Jeff: Sure. I remember the e-mails pouring in from people in the Portland, Oregon area saying they had never been sprayed harder and more often than they were, as you say, several weeks after September 11th when the program was reapplied, as it were, to the landmass of the continental U.S.- and of course to other areas around the world. It's
not just here.

Clifford: Right. You know, one of the reasons I wanted to speak - and I really appreciate the opportunity - is because I really haven't had time to keep up with all the material posting on the website. There's been some material which at least appears to be consolidating or converging towards some centralized theme, but I'm simply not able to keep up with it on the website. And I thought it would be helpful, at least, to get the new material out there for people to begin investigating for themselves, and to potentially set some directions for further research and activity and activism by people.

Jeff: Yes. That's one thing that's important to remember always: that Clifford is asking for your help. If you want to become involved in this, the more the merrier, and the better we can approach this subject. With more data, more people looking, and Clifford always happy to help. His website, again, is a treasury of data and will open the door for many of you who want to take this a little bit further.

Quickly, though, back to September the 11th and shortly thereafter, Clifford, I had a number of e-mails from people who reported there were some spraying activities underway when the skies were supposed to be clear of commercial traffic. Did you get many reports about that?

Clifford: I certainly encountered the reports. I know there was some satellite imagery that people had referred to. I think it's unfortunate, but this is one of the cases where you see the results of never having had a centralized network on this- and that's very deliberate- where everything is operating on a grass roots level, in order to bring attention. But that's an occasion when, if there was an organized framework in place, that would have been an opportunity to document the events that were occurring. I think as it is, again, we are faced with fragmentary, grass roots, isolated accounts - but exactly to that effect in some areas. That wasn't the case here in Albuquerque by any means, or Santa Fe. The skies were conspicuously clear for several days and really up to a couple of weeks after:
very light air traffic.

Jeff: I saw recently, again, another aircraft, too high for me to identify. But it was spraying along, and then turning it off and turning it on just like a skywriter would. It's amazing when you see it. It would make a believer out of many, many people. And it has, in fact, when you watch that going on.

Clifford: Right. And the help that I'm speaking of, referring to, is really beyond you know the point of someone simply sitting there observing that. Truly there's been a legitimate need for professional, what I would call professional involvement and assistance for some time now, and I think that will only be accentuated tonight. This is a very serious issue and there is a need for professional involvement in very highly technical fields and well as medical fields and chemistry and this type of thing.

Jeff: Correct. You know, to tie this in- and I really don't know how to do it very adroitly at this point in time…but to look at what has happened in the country politically since September 11th in terms of the restriction of our freedoms, the basic nullification of, certainly, portions of the Bill of Rights by the anti-terror or Patriot bill, which was passed -- and I again want to remind you - by the House of Representatives without even having seen that bill in print, friends. Shame, shame, shame on the men and women who voted for that without even having read it. But I don't know ultimately if we'll find a linkage or not. I just don't know. But I do know that whoever is doing chemtrail operations in deploying whatever it is they're deploying, are in some way at some level connected with the so-called shadow government that is really pulling the strings behind this country.

Clifford: Yes, and the word 'complicit' I guess has to come to mind at some point, from my side. I guess if we have the luxury, there were a couple points I wanted to mention before we got into the main directional topic, very much related to what you're speaking of. And that is that I did want to bring attention to a page you posted about a week ago, roughly. When I saw that page, to me it was immediately apparent that it was important enough to present it at the top of my site. And that is the page that related to the FBI flyer on the U.S. Constitution, if you recall that. I think every citizen in the country needs to be aware of what has happened - in this case, from a law enforcement point of view - that has literally classified individuals who defend the U.S. Constitution, and/or make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution, as a terrorist threat. I think that's a sad state of affairs, and it shows a mindset which we all need to be aware is in place. If you recall, one of the shows that you and I did was devoted almost exclusively - or at least in large measure - to constitutional issues.

Jeff: Correct.

Clifford: So, by no means will I exclude myself in any way, and I hope that all American citizens will not exclude themselves, and will consider themselves to be defenders of the U.S. Constitution. I hope that we are all intimately familiar with that document, and become more so than we are now. I will continue to make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution, and I will continue to defend the Constitution. I think it's a gross injustice to the American people that such a flyer by a national law enforcement agency was ever even presented.

Jeff: It was in fact created by the Phoenix FBI office and circulated to all law enforcement in the state of Arizona. It made its way around the country. This happened actually several years ago, subsequent to the Oklahoma City bombing. But as Clifford said, the mindset was in place. And now, when you look at the new definition of what they called "domestic terrorist" or "domestic terrorism", you really start to worry. And if you're not worried, you're misinformed, and you'd better catch up real quick. Be right back with Clifford Carnicom in just a minute. I'm Jeff Rense, glad you are here, and please do visit my website for real news, all the time, at  .


Jeff: Once again, the website to bookmark and continue to go back to and take your friends:, and look for the Chemtrails Investigation that has been so beautifully presented over such a long period of time. Heroic is my term for the work that Clifford has done for all of us in trying to bring the truth forward to what is being done over our very heads. Okay Clifford, go ahead, and let's get into it.

Clifford: Thanks, Jeff. Do we have a couple of hours tonight, do you think?

Jeff: We have a total of three hours. I've given you the whole program.

Clifford: Okay, at least I don't need to rush within an hour or so.

Jeff: No no, we've got until 10:00 Pacific, 1:00 Eastern.

Clifford: Okay, thanks. We'll see how that develops. The second item is a small item to catch up with, but it's not any less important, in terms of timing. I looked up today and I see that we spoke on the 20th of June. I think that was the last time we spoke.

Jeff: That long ago? Wow!

Clifford: Five or six months ago, right. So, there have been some things that have transpired in between. I'm going to try to catch up, and build up into the main topic of electromagnetics. (First): a small item, but important, on the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. If you recall, there was a rather extended chronology of a sample of materials sent to that agency- to the head of the agency; that material being sent by certified mail, that material not being acknowledged to exist by that agency, and no reference to it whatsoever. Even though it was physically known to have been accepted.

A year and a half transpired. On the day that we spoke last time, June 20th- I wasn't aware of it at the time- but on that day the EPA issued a letter, which I posted on July 5th of this year. In that letter, after a year and a half of no acknowledgment, no action whatsoever, on a request to have that material identified, the EPA sent a letter basically disavowing any interest, any obligation, or any responsibility to identify that sample. Their keystone sentence in that letter is the following. I don't think we covered this, that's why I'm bringing it up. The statement is: "We would like to take this opportunity to inform you that it is not the policy of this office of the EPA to test or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of material or matter." A very interesting statement, if you look at that.

Jeff: Unbelievable!

Clifford: First of all- "policy". Really, I have no interest in policy. I have interest in obligation and law.

Jeff: Unbelievable!

Clifford: And their duties to the public.

Jeff: It seems to me they are a public servant, aren't they, Clifford? Isn't that sort of what they are all about?

Clifford: That was my understanding. I worked for the federal government for 15 years, and that was certainly my understanding when I worked there. The other interesting word in that sentence is the use of the word "unsolicited"'. Meaning that unless they ask for it, they have no obligation to identify unknown material that is of concern to citizens for their health and their environment.

Jeff: I wonder if that pertains to anthrax?

Clifford: Right, exactly. So for the sake of continuity I wanted to make this action known to the public, and also to re-emphasize the fact that a year and one half elapsed before they responded to this. And by the way, if you look into that response, it apparently was due to a Freedom of Information Act filed by a third party. So they apparently
decided they didn't want their hands on this material anymore.

Jeff: It's critically important to underscore the fact that this note from the EPA is not negligence, it is not incompetence - this is part of the cover-up, another example, in what you just heard Clifford read, of how the government is no longer serving us- we are serving it. At least that's how the bureaucracy seems to look at it.

Clifford: That correspondence is all available on the site for people to read for themselves- the certified mail and the whole story.

Jeff: Pass it around and whatever.

Clifford: The whole story is there. With that taken care of, the next topic that emerged was in the end of July. Funny how it takes so long sometimes to do what seems to be obvious in retrospect. But in terms of this sampling, it's very difficult for lay people to get their hands on aerosol material that apparently is down to sub-micron to micron range.
It's very, very small. Air filters have been used- there has been some work with HEPA filters. But for whatever reason, I took up the idea of collecting rainwater and distilling this rainwater: basically concentrating rainwater samples.

And that was done for several months in the middle of the summer. In June we were getting a lot of rain. I presented a page on this, and I guess the simplest thing I can say is that people should look at these photographs: the page starts with "Rainwater Metals". In the end I'd use a quart or about a liter and cook it down to just a few milliliters. But they started out being about 40 milliliters, down to about 3 milliliters: about a 10-to-1 concentration. And it absolutely astounded me when I started to see what was residual within this rainwater.

Jeff: May I ask how you reduced it, just for our listeners, so they understand how you would bring that down, from 40 down to 3?

Clifford: Sure. I did it by distillation. I simply hooked up a very simple distillation setup in a flask, heated that water, and drew the water out the top where it cools down. The process of distillation in its simplest form is what I used. I drew off the water: heated underneath with an oil lamp, an alcohol lamp, the water eventually will evaporate.

Jeff: You grabbed that moisture and condensed it back down. All right, we're going to find out what was in that water. And this is called "rainwater", friends. Remember when you were a kid and we all used to go outside and open our mouths and let the raindrops go in? Or maybe we'd do that with snow. You might not want to do that quite so readily anymore when you hear what Clifford has found in rainwater falling all over these United States. Be right back in just a minute with Clifford Carnicom.


Jeff: OK, right back with Clifford Carnicom, who is explaining how he reduced rainwater down to a workable quantity through distillation. Real simple- OK, we've got that Clifford- go right ahead.

Clifford: Yes, and understand Jeff that the purpose here was not to collect the water. It was to collect the solid materials that exist within the water. So, the simple counterpart is simply to boil the water off. The reason I was distilling it is that I didn't want it to be contaminated in any way, so I just kept it all sealed. In essence it's quite simple, quite evident, and quite plain: there is a tremendous amount of metallic material that shows up in this rainwater. You don't need a PhD to tell you that what is found here is metal. The photographs are there.

Actually what's going on is that you're just seeing things over and over from different angles. But this is such a simple technique. It was very sad to me when I saw this because the amount that is in there is really amazing to me. If you check the ph of this material, it's extremely alkaline. This fits with the rainfall samples done months prior to that, that involved the whole nation, taking tests. It's simply there. There are two photographs there, very clear, for people to see. I've prepared a video of it so that people could have the benefit of motion if they want it. It takes a little while to download, because I wanted the quality of the imagery high enough. But it's just evident and clear as can be. I have air filter samples that were done over the last year and a half. They say the same thing. You have three or four things, saying it over and over and over. Here you can just plain see it. Several months ago I also took straight rainwater, and after it settled, allowed that to crystallize. I had the same thing occur in terms of the presence of magnesium, apparently- to my best identification- showing up. So, this is simply a simple method. This was also repeated by another individual. It's amazing how few professionals seem to make themselves available for the work that needs to be done in the testing.

Jeff: Yes. We've got tens of thousands of people at the university level and outside of that who could step in here and verify, quantify, and help you assay all these materials - in their own geographical locations, with no trouble at all. And yet, so few do.

Clifford: Absolutely. And it's not even so few - it's none, apparently. Unfortunately. There are no formal tests that anyone will step up to the plate and perform publicly.

Jeff: Even some of the skeptics you'd think would step in and say: "I'm going to prove this guy wrong."

Clifford: It's all open. There's a lot of talk that goes around, but it's all open, and nobody conducts the tests. Whether it's the federal government, whether it's professional citizens, whether it's universities - nobody will conduct the tests. You have to ask why.

Jeff: That's that great malaise that they're counting on, that somnambulant state of American culture.

Clifford: The obfuscation and distraction that takes place is incredible, when it's very simple: The material is just there. We had another citizen on the east coast by the name of lookinup who's actually done some pretty amazing work also. That's a pseudonym for her on the message board. This individual performed the same tests in her area and got identically the same results, and was equally astounded and amazed as to what she found on the other side of the country. So, continuously over a long interval of time, we have the same data showing up, over and over and over. And that is the presence of metallic particulate matter in the atmosphere, in extraordinary amounts. It's up to you whether you want to take a look it, but the fact is it's there. You can see it and do the work for yourself if you
have doubts, or feel the need to test any further, which we all do. This is rather an important junction point, because there is a certain time that it registers in the mind. You're not dealing with an air filter, where it's really hard to see this material. It's just plain there.

So, over the next month or two I was taken in a different direction and it became much more an analytical approach. It was the problem of saying: All right, we know the material is there. We've got to try to get a handle on how much is there.

Jeff: Before we do that, Clifford, can you tell our listeners a little bit more about what it was you found in that sample?

Clifford: Yes. About this discussion, there's a whole set of succeeding photographs that were taken under the microscope.

Jeff: We've got a lot of folks who aren't on-line. I don't want to leave them behind.

Clifford: What I did, again, from the lay point of view, was that under the microscope I did the best work that I was able to do. I performed a series of chemical tests to try and identify this material to the best of my ability. Like I say, I invite all others to perform their own tests. The results of my work are through fairly common and simple reagents that are available, and my studying chemistry books and such. My best analysis thus far is that it appears to be magnesium: I actually end up with a magnesium oxide. If you remember that this material was heated in a test tube, it's not a surprise at all that if you have a metal, an oxidized form is going to take place. My best analysis of the dominant material is that it appears to be a magnesium oxide. Like I say, the professionals can come in and do their work, but that's what I end up with.

I also end up with a pretty strong case for the existence of aluminum. You have to look at the photographs and make your own judgment, but these materials have unique shapes. Aluminum is interesting. In the books I have on aerosols, the mechanics of aerosols show it as a spherical particulate shape, which is a little bit unusual. Most of them are not. Mostly things are cubic or hexagonal or whatever, but this spherical shape is listed as a photograph for aluminum. There is a set in there that shows these things. Sulphuric acid appears to make it the most visible. It's almost transparent. But if you look at those photographs under a microscope, you'll see these spherical shapes.
They measure about two microns in size. It's incredibly small. There are a lot of them there, but visibility is very difficult. Sulphuric acid seems to enhance and isolate it, and there's a great deal of it in there. All I can say is: My work indicates the strongest candidates for further examination and identification would be magnesium compounds
and aluminum compounds.

Jeff: And we're talking, again, about aluminum down to viral size.

Clifford: Yes, incredibly small. It's very difficult with my equipment to get that magnification but I did, I got it up to 2000X with the equipment I use.

Jeff: Well, amazing work. Okay, and it's all online for you if you have an interest in this and you'd like to take this to professional or lay people and say, "Here it is. What do you think of it?" We would encourage you to do that. It's all at Be right back.


Jeff: I got a nice e-mail from George. I won't identify him by last name, but thank you, George. Let me read this, Clifford:

"Hi Jeff, I was surprised to see the rainwater metals video on Mr. Carnicom's page. I did the same thing here in Alberta, Canada last summer after three days of heavy chemtrail activity. Here in Alberta it rains like clockwork every evening during the summer. I evaporated mine off using a vacuum pump down to one-half atmosphere, to prevent the heat from making any chemical changes. I had the sample analyzed by a colleague at the university where I teach. The results were astounding: from aluminum oxides, barium oxides and hydrates, titanium carbonates, alum, to long-chain polymers, it was considered by my colleague to be quite toxic in the concentrations I had distilled it down to. That would be 10,000-to-1, one liter down to .5 ml. I have HEPA filters in all my rooms now. I'm going to follow this research up next summer with lake and river samples. I suspect I will find similar, if slightly
less concentrated, forms. Thank Mr. Carnicom for his work. We need more people like him to wake people up.

Thank you very much, George, for that. And I'll send this to you, Clifford, for your files.

Clifford: I'd like the full statement. I appreciate that very much, because part of the game is to corroborate things from different sources. I can simply say from a lay level in summary, from numerous methods and sources over several years now, what appears to be our primary candidates for examination. These would be at least four metals: barium, magnesium, aluminum, and calcium. In addition, apparently the polymer fibers are another whole separate
topic worthy of discussion.

Jeff: This can't be just jet exhaust accumulating at the higher levels.

Clifford: No, the fact is: it's there. At some point we have to get plain and simple, and the fact is, the material's there. It's been injected into the air in large quantities.

Jeff: Got it.

Clifford: And it's having its effect. You know, people can play their games for years, but at some point we're going to get past that also, and get behind the driving agenda of this program. But each of us does have to go through that process of education ourselves. I'm simply saying in my case it's time for more detailed work, and for the nation to decide what it's going to do about this.

Jeff: The nation meaning you and I and all the wonderful people listening in. Let me read that one paragraph again from this e-mail, just to underscore what George has found. He said: "I had the sample analyzed by a colleague at the university where I teach. The results were astounding. From aluminum oxides, barium oxides and hydrates, titanium carbonates, alum, to long-chain polymers, it was considered by my colleague to be quite toxic in the concentrations I had distilled it down to. I have HEPA filters in all my rooms now." So, there it is: You don't want to be drinking rainwater, folks. It's not what it used to be, as they say.

Clifford: And unfortunately you have to now extend your considerations to the environment, and what the effects are to the environment. If it's toxic to drink it's not necessarily so hot for our world, as well.

Jeff: Exactly. We've got to stop thinking in little compartments. It's all one piece, folks. And if it's in the rain, it's in the rivers, it's in the lakes, it's on the land, it's in the plants, it's in our food: it's everywhere.

Clifford: Thanks for bringing that up, as well as examination of the specific materials. It's interesting, where that led. That was a very important part to talk about- the identification I've been able to make, and the subsequent corroboration from other sources and other locations.

The next topic to turn to, very analytical work, is basically all pretty much theoretical- based on observation, empiricism, deduction, and analysis. It was the question: all right, since we know the material is in the air now - no need to play that game forever - how much is there? So, the desire was to try and come up with some kind of
quantitative estimate as to how much is there. And that ends up being a very difficult problem, because we don't have anybody out there measuring it. It's very simple if you have the right support and equipment and people behind it.

Jeff: Sure.

Clifford: Equipment exists for particulate counts and this type of thing, but I don't have it. Mostly what I have is my mind, and I have to try and solve the problems as best I'm able to. This one was another session of pretty serious and extended thought, and in the end, the problem centered around visibility. It's pretty interesting that in the end things are really quite simple. It's a matter of getting to them in the right way. But there is a direct relationship between visibility in the air and what is called the extinction coefficient. I use terms in math- and I'll always try to explain it in a couple of ways - but I do want to get the terms out and the numbers out, so that people know the legitimate research does need to be done.

There is a quantity called an extinction coefficient. Basically, it stems from the idea of the attenuation of light. If you send a beam of light through particles, that beam of light will be attenuated. It will be attenuated in an exponential form. And the magnitude by which it attenuates or decreases is expressed through a quantity called the extinction coefficient. I started to look into this, and basically to learn about it, and see how it can relate towards trying to come up with an estimate of the amount of materials in the sky. One of the first interesting things was how difficult in general it has always been for me to get hold of some databases that I think should be available.

There is a device called a nephelometer. I've never seen one; I can only read about it, thus far. It is a device which measures the extinction coefficient. So, I started looking around and researching for databases. I found all kinds of information telling about what it is, and that such things are being measured by numerous people. Numerous government agencies are measuring these particles all the time. But then when I tried to find databases I found them very difficult to find. I couldn't get the raw data. By data I mean current, real-time data on measurements that are being taken by official sources. After quite a bit of looking, and coming up pretty much empty with respect to real, hard-core, raw data, I found one source. The University of Maryland had their data up on the Net. So I started to look at the actual numbers that were there. And these numbers were concurring with the visibility situation, and the deterioration of visibility, that we find ourselves in. There's a whole separate topic that you and I have already discussed, I think, regarding the change in the visibility standards from 40 miles to 10 miles.

Jeff: Oh, yes.

Clifford: The fact that in a clear desert environment you can easily see 90 to 120 miles, and we have visibility commonly being reported at 10 miles- in fact, a maximum being set at 10 miles. It's actually ludicrous and absurd for people to say that the visibility conditions of our atmosphere have not changed dramatically over the last three years in direct correlation to these aerosol operations.

Jeff: Exactly.

Clifford: Again, as with the rainwater metallic particulates, it's a matter of at what point do you wish to accept it. We have mountains here: a big set in Albuquerque about 50 miles away and another set 20 miles away. You ought to be able to see these, and double. And we have many, many cases where you literally can barely see these mountains 20
miles away now.

Jeff: Friends, this is not smog. We're not talking smog here. Let's get that straight.

Clifford: Not at all- the stuff is just there. I mean, it's that simple. And so my question is: How much is there? The one data source I found was, sure enough, corresponding exactly with the estimates of visibility that were expected, in relation to this measured quantity called the extinction coefficient. It was also out of hand. It was not what you would expect it to be. The visibility is much lower than it is expected to be. Also, the sources I have say visibility is expected to increase during the summer months, and here it was that the visibility was decreasing during the summer months. So, this was one of the first times where I had a known relationship between visibility and a quantity which can be measured, and fortunately which I was able to find at least one contemporary source for at a university.

The extinction coefficient by itself doesn't do much for us. But, as with a lot of my work, it is composed of a series of stepping stones, where one thing will lead to another and another, with enough thought and deliberation. The next part of this chain - and it's a very important one - comes when you have the extinction coefficient, which, remember, is directly related to visibility. You can consider those two things hand in hand. Once you have that, there is within it what is called the theory of light scattering. There's a whole theory of science called light scattering. It studies how light is attenuated, and what happens to light when it goes through particulate matter, in exactly the kind of setup we're talking about. It's a very involved, important branch of science. If you start studying that science you will see that there are relationships that have been established. Remember, these are all models, and all or much of science is based on models. There are relationships between this extinction coefficient and/or visibility and - this is what's important - the number of particles in the air and their size. And that is a very important link to make.

Jeff: Okay: the number of particles in the air and their size.

Clifford: The number of particles in a given volume of air and the size of the particles that are there. And that is a very crucial link to make because here's what you're saying. You're saying: I can only see so long. If I can only see such and such a distance, in theory I should be able to determine, to make an estimate, on the amount of material that's there, and how big it is in the sky.

Jeff: Got it. What's blocking my view. Okay. We're going to pause and listen to what they commonly call "news" for a couple minutes. We'll be right back with Clifford Carnicom to follow this latest update on the chemtrail controversy, as it affects each and every one of us listening in and participating tonight. We'll pause and take a few minutes off. While we away if you are on line do go to and take a look at the raft of new material up there. There are some very compelling stories, especially today- especially as the web gets thicker.


Welcome back- we're talking chemtrails with THE man tonight, Clifford Carnicom. For all of you who have been looking up these past three years and at the very least experiencing that wave of emotion that runs over people - many emotions, not just one. There is anger, there is certainly anxiety, there is fear, there is rage, there is confusion, and there is a feeling of helplessness. There is a whole raft of things that people have described to me, and I have frankly felt myself, looking up. I remember the very day when the reality of this hit home. It really is a profound and life-changing issue. It's not a joke. We're talking about some of the hard and fast scientific data that Clifford Carnicom has assembled for all of us tonight.

Clifford, if you might, for listeners who have joined us, go back and read that vile EPA response very quickly.

Clifford: Sure, I do have it. And this is just one sentence which I consider a key and critical sentence out of their response. The sentence is this, coming from the U.S. EPA: "We would like to take this opportunity to inform you that it is not the policy of this office of the EPA to test or otherwise analyze any unsolicited samples of material or matter. Accordingly, we are returning the sample to you under separate cover."

Jeff: I guess that means if somebody came across what they thought was anthrax, or had good reason to think it was anthrax, you'd send it to the EPA and after a year and a half they'd just send it back.

Clifford: That's right. There is no logic in what has happened whatsoever and there is no public service, as is required.

Jeff: Nope. Okay, go right ahead, my friend.

Clifford: Thank you, Jeff. I see in my typical lagging fashion I am through page one of eight on my notes. So I will obviously have to adjust a little bit as we go. We're talking about analytical work, with the objective being to make an estimate of how much material was in the sky.

Jeff: And why we can't see as far as we ought to be able to.

Clifford: Yes. How much and how big it is. In summary, there are established relationships between visibility and the amount of particulate matter in the sky. Of course, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but this is the basic relationship. There are by necessity certain estimates that will be required in order to solve that problem, and that's what my work is about. On that particular page I think it's called: Air Quality Data Requires Public Scrutiny. I won't go through the details of the math here, but let me say that what I did, what I attempted to do, was to take what I would call a very conservative approach. In other words, attempting to err on the safe side and be very conservative in my estimates. I'm doing that deliberately because I truthfully don't want to try and skew the results to give some ridiculous, absurd number. I want a conservative estimate of what is in the sky, and to see if it would make sense.

Now here's where some numbers come in, but I'll say it in text or literary form and then I'll give the numbers. In literary form, what I found that was my estimate of particulate matter in the atmosphere exceeds the limits established by the Environmental Protection Agency for atmospheric quality. That's what I found: that the estimates exceeded the maximum values permitted by the EPA. Now remember, this is analytical work. I don't have the instruments. Every individual has to go through my reasoning and my process to see whether or not they think it makes sense or not.

Jeff: Got it.

Clifford: Just in terms of the numbers, in terms of comparisons, I did a particulate study a couple of years ago when this issue first started to come up. The number I ended up with at that point was 39 micrograms. Just for a point of reference, the EPA limit for what's called ten micron or less size is 50. Call it 50 as a reference number. Through
studying data from '96 to '98, I found the number being at 39. In 1999, the data I analyzed showed the number being at 46. And the estimate that I have arrived at through this very conservative approach, which I will keep re-emphasizing, is at 60. So, this is another stage of accomplishment, which is again subject to cross-examination by all parties of interest. Nevertheless, for the first time I have an estimate as to the physical amount of material. You're talking mass at this point: the actual physical amount of material in the sky. There are several factors that affect that process. The color of the haze is a very important one. And you will notice as we talk there will always be cross-linking between these topics, more and more as we go along. I'd like to suggest one thing tonight, if I'm able to get through this material. It is that it appears to me there is a unifying theme beginning to develop between the different disciplines I have been involved in studying. And this will lead strongly into the electromagnetic consideration.

But at this point you're saying: Okay, you've got metals there and you have an estimate of how much of it there is. That's an important step in the process. I'm sure that a couple of months elapsed, because a lot of times I'll do my work, I'll think; and it sits for a while, and then it associates with something else later on. Many, many months ago I had encountered a term within scientific studies that caught my interest because it appeared to be relevant. And that was one of a plasma. I suspect we mentioned the subject at one point in our earlier interviews. What happens is: one begins a study of a plasma, and it becomes less and less esoteric the more one studies it.

Plasma is an ionized gas. It's electrically neutral over a large area, but not electrically neutral on a local scale. It is a gas which is ionized, which has charged particles in it. It's not esoteric. Actually, something like 99% + of the universe is in a plasma state. The Earth is an anomaly, in a universal sense, in that most of the universe is ionized gas. The Earth is denser and doesn't qualify. But plasma is a very real thing. You can think of it as an electrically
conductive gas. The simplest visual, physical example I can give people would be that of a neon light tube, a fluorescent light tube. This is a gas that has electric currents sent through it, which causes a physical and chemical reaction producing light. So, it is a very physical thing. It's not just a Star Trek term. The more and more I study, the more and more I have come to accept it and finally start to get used to it. This state of matter, considered the fourth state of matter, is actually dominant. It's just that we haven't been particularly schooled or trained in it, in our solid, liquid, gas teaching.

So, this term surfaces again in my studies because the situation seems to fit. In other words, I have metals in the sky, and those metals have been seen by certain lighting techniques also. You can see that it's there. The material also had very interesting behavior, which we mentioned earlier. It appeared to be ionized. It was very erratic
behavior. It was not linear in its motion at all. It appeared to be electrically charged. And so the term comes up again. The study comes up again. And what's different now is that when you have an estimate of how much material is in the sky, you then begin to analyze that from a plasma point of view. If you assume that there is a gas, if you
assume that there are particulates in that gas, and if you assume that those particulates are of an electrically conductive nature, which is the state of affairs, you now have the essence, the foundation, of a plasma.

Jeff: We have turned the atmosphere into - however diluted it might be - certainly a rudimentary form of plasma.

Clifford: It appears to me that I cannot avoid that conclusion, no matter where I go. Again, I did not drive towards it…

Jeff: You didn't go looking for it. I understand.

Clifford: The same thing happened with HAARP, as we talked about HAARP, and these things you're going to see that start cross-linking no matter where we go. They all start to begin to tie together.

Jeff: We can follow these all the way back to Bernard Eastlund's patents, can't we?

Clifford: Exactly. And the connections become stronger and stronger the more I go into this.

Jeff: Okay. Now all of you, if this sounds a little complicated, it's not. Stay right with us. We're going to pause and come back. Just imagine that the atmosphere is slowly being reworked into a weak, but certainly usable and viable, plasma. And why would somebody want to do that? We have potential answers coming up and much more, with
Clifford Carnicom after this.


Jeff:  is the place to start when you want to try and figure out what those big white things are up in the sky above your head. Of course, now that winter is here storm systems are moving through. However, there are reports of heavy spraying in advance of systems; there are reports of people getting a break in the clouds and looking up and they are still there. I do remember in the area I am located that spraying stopped. I wrote the date down. It was July 16-17. They stopped and they didn't spray a single day for nearly three and a half weeks, and then it started up again. And all during this time, of course, the weather never changed. Nothing changed up there.

All right, Clifford, go ahead. We're talking about some fascinating things, for you latecomers. Clifford has been able to ascertain there is metal in the sky. There are elements up there. Metals, tiny pieces of metals, down to 2 microns, which apparently are behaving in a fashion that would indicate they have been in some way electrified, if you will. And we're talking about a rudimentary plasma that our atmosphere is now appearing to represent. Go ahead, Clifford.

Clifford: Thank you, Jeff. One of my strong suggestions for the evening is that each of us begins to educate ourselves on what a plasma is: on that state of matter. How you characterize it is what I'll try to talk about tonight. And then also: how is it used? What are its applications and what is it good for?

Jeff: All right. Now this is the kicker, folks. Don't lose this. What is it used for? And why would somebody want to do that?

Clifford: Right. And I would only encourage people not to be intimidated by the subject. I dig out the physics books myself. It's important to get to the core, to get an understanding of things. And the math is simply a tool to try and help quantify things.

Jeff: Of course, when we get to the punch line, we must not for a moment leave anybody behind who has been made ill by this. That's not what we're about here. People are being sickened, probably by the millions, for the last three years. And I suggest that there have been more than a few who have died due to complications of upper respiratory
and other issues that have been spawned by these metals that are in the atmosphere now. But again, it's a layperson's endeavor. We will get no support from our alleged government. So, all right, carry on.

Clifford: Thank you. And, again, I will also keep drawing the audience's attention to making these connections, which I know they're very good at making for themselves. There are a lot of people doing a lot of good research. That's hopefully what I can partly accomplish: to set some potential directions to dig into, for people who do have the appropriate knowledge and skills. You can spend a lifetime studying Maxwell's equations alone, which are the foundation of electromagnetics. I don't profess to have devoted my entire life to this subject by any means, but the need is there at the professional level to dig into this stuff. Just to continue to make this subject of plasma real: down at the store the other day, I saw that there are now plasma television sets. This is a very real thing that will be increasingly around us, probably in terms of our being more exposed (to its presence) as we learn more about it.

Jeff: Plasma physics. And where there is money to be made, friends, capitalism rushes to fill the void. Plasma physics is coming home to our homes. You watch and wait and see.

Clifford: Exactly. And I suspect that we will learn that we are surrounded by it. Okay, so you have the thing called a plasma. Then the next part is, well- how do you determine what it is? How do you figure out what it is? And what is it? Maybe I didn't really explain what it is properly. We know what a plasma is. There is this entity that is called the plasma frequency. Now the best characterization that I have of the plasma frequency is it can be considered the natural resonance of the plasma. You know, everything in the world resonates at a frequency. Whether it's the opera singer with the glass, whether it's a mycoplasma, or whether it's the Earth with its Schumann resonance. Everything resonates, and a plasma has a resonant frequency.

Jeff: It varies? Or is it pretty much stable?

Clifford: I think in the end it's probably a very complicated variable quantity, because things are always changing in a plasma state. There's no doubt about it- plasma physics is advanced physics. I can only begin to get my conceptual understanding, and then dig into it to the level I can. But you have whole agencies that do nothing but study plasma
physics. You don't do that unless you have a very complex entity that you're dealing with.

Jeff: Right.

Clifford: Now I wouldn't say it's constant, but part of my work here - and part of my work in general - is to come up with estimates that are reasonable and make sense but give you a starting point.

Jeff: Okay. Even that starting point, once in hand, certainly has to be put on the table with manipulation, with malleability. Can plasma vibrational frequencies be changed, and controlled? And the answer is, probably: yes. But we'll see what happens. Go right ahead.

Clifford: Yes, I would say the answer to that will be undoubtedly yes, that there is a great deal of manipulation. In fact that is a whole science in itself. But in terms of what I'm after, coming up with this estimate -- this thing called a plasma frequency - how do I go about getting a handle on the thing? And how do I relate it to my world around me? If you start studying a plasma frequency and you dig into the math of it, you'll find varying equations and such. And in the end, what are you led to? You are led to the fact that the plasma frequency is a direct function of the amount, the number, of electrons in that gas.

Jeff: Okay. All right, let's hold it right there. The plasma frequency is a direct function of the number, the amount, the density, and the concentration of electrons in that gas - i.e., our atmosphere. Okay, hold that thought and we'll continue in just a minute.


End Part I

Jeff Rense Interview with Clifford Carnicom

Part II: Chemtrails and Electromagnetism

Part II:

Jeff: We are talking with Clifford Carnicom about what's up there; heck- what's in our lungs- let's be realistic about this. Go ahead Clifford.

Clifford: Thank you very much Jeff. And I wanted to thank you again for the assistance you always provide, in helping to make these concepts understandable in ways I may not be able to. I appreciate that a lot. If you have any questions, or you think I am missing something- you caught me several times on things that can be explained further. So don't hesitate if that comes up- I'll do the best job I can.

Jeff: Sure. No problem at all.

Clifford: We had established that this entity called the plasma frequency, which can be considered a natural resonance of this electrically charged ionized gaseous state, is directly related to the number of free electrons within that gas. Now I don't want to lose folks, because what I'm after tonight is making connections. And when I say "free electrons", now I threw a new term in there. But the connection that I am going to suggest to you exists. Because it
does, there's going to be a connection between the number of free electrons and that amount of particulate matter that we said we know is up there. So that's a real important connection that's going to take place here.

Jeff: All right.

Clifford: If you know how much material is within that gas, you can make a reasonable estimate of the number of free electrons that are in that same gas.

Jeff: All right.

Clifford: And that comes from several sources. I'll recommend this fellow named Feynman, who I suppose a lot of people have heard about. The guy is great. His physics books came out in the sixties and I guess he worked on nuclear power projects quite a bit. The guy writes as clear as can be- he's very helpful.

From more than one source it appears to be a rather customary assumption to make that every atom of a metallic material has one free electron available. This is what he as well as other sources has stated. So you can start to make a direct connection and estimate of the number of free electrons that exist in relation to the amount of metallic material that is there.

Jeff: All right.

Clifford: So now that's another step, and an important one. Because now, if you have that estimate, you should be able to come up with an estimate for the plasma frequency of the altered atmospheric state that we find ourselves in. In addition, if you are correct in your analysis, and you understand what's going on, you also ought to be able to arrive at the plasma frequency for the ionosphere. Because we know some things about the atmosphere; it's been studied in great detail. That's a part of what I do; that's how I cross check my work. I started out by looking at the ionosphere to find out how many free electrons are up there. What is this plasma frequency? All I can say is that I have arrived at all these numbers- I've done the work. I end up with a value that agrees quite nicely with what all the sources are saying is a reasonable estimate of the plasma frequency for the ionosphere. And that value- just out of curiosity, the one I came up with- is about 3 megahertz, which is in the radio wave band. Actually, as you can see, it fits quite nicely into the whole discovery that radio waves reflect off of the ionosphere.

Jeff…Yep, up and down: they bounce around the globe.

Clifford: That's an important characteristic of it. So the numbers made sense when I started to look at the ionosphere. I'd like to read this short statement by Feynman to further clarify what is important about a plasma, and especially this plasma frequency. This I think is a very helpful statement. Feynman says: "This natural resonance of a
plasma has some interesting effects. For example, if one tries to propagate a radio wave through the ionosphere, one finds that it can penetrate only if its frequency is higher than the plasma frequency. Otherwise the signal is reflected back. We must use high frequencies if we wish to communicate with a satellite in space. On the other hand, if we wish to communicate with a radio station beyond the horizon, we must use frequencies lower than the plasma frequency so that the signal will be reflected back to earth."

This is obviously a very important interpretation and application of the plasma frequency. Because it's saying: once you know what the plasma frequency is, you can then characterize how electromagnetic energy is going to behave when it is sent through that medium.

He is saying is that he had a critical threshold, and that if you are putting more energy into it than that threshold, then you punch right through it. And in terms of the ionosphere, it just goes right on through into space. But if it is at that point, or less than that point, then it has the behavior of either being reflected or propagated, or conducted through that medium.

Jeff: OK- propagated, or conducted through the medium. Now this is the ionosphere we are talking about. And many of you are saying "Aha." We have heard something about this before, when Jeff has had guests on talking about the HAARP Program. Which is intended to pump up mass amounts of energy into the ionosphere, and which propagates
and changes the ionosphere into a "tool", as it were. We will follow up with more as we continue. We are headed toward a break now. Clifford Carnicom has done some masterful work. I've had another email from George; we will read that, Clifford, when we come right back, in just a minute. I'm Jeff Rense, talking about very important things- things that would probably not surprise Nicola Tesla at all. But which would come as a surprise to Mr. And Mrs. America if they were to realize, or be confronted with the data, that would indicate that our atmosphere is being turned into a large "tool". For what? For the military, for defense, for mass control of one sort or another? Good guesses. We'll talk to Clifford more as we continue.


Jeff: Another follow-up email here, as I mentioned, from George. Thank you again George. He says: "Hi Jeff. I am a certified plasma-cutting/welding equipment technician with the Thermodynamics Corporation, with many years experience with plasma-generation devices. Mr. Carnicom is quite right. Plasma is "the fourth state of matter", and has been harnessed by companies like Thermodynamics to cut and weld anything which is electrically conducted. Electrical conductivity is the key. One of the hallmarks of plasma equipment is its ability, considered a drawback, to generate extremely powerful EMR fields around the plasma stream. It is so powerful that at a distance of a thousand feet, a 70-amp plasma torch can completely block out tv and radio signals. It is one of the reasons that this equipment is not sold for home use. You would wipe out the tv reception in an entire neighborhood." And he goes on; there is more. Let me finish up. Are you there Clifford?

Clifford: I certainly am.

Jeff: OK. I heard another big squeak on the line. I wanted to be sure our connection was still up. He finishes up by saying: "The temperature and frequency of the plasma can be easily modulated by varying the gases used to generate the plasma. We have used argon, carbon dioxide, and even dry, dehydrated, normal air. And by convarying the amperage and voltage applied to the plasma stream." So you see the malleability here- it's extraordinary. "One guess" says George "I have as to why the atmosphere would be being primed for plasma applications is that it would be very simple to selectively prevent the use of specific frequencies for radio communication- EMR. Doing this would be relatively simple if you were able to pump enough energy into the atmosphere. Installations such as HAARP could theoretically provide this sort of energy requirement." That's from George.

Clifford: You're getting some great feedback tonight Jeff, and you can tell that there are some real thinking and knowledgeable people out there…

Jeff: Who appreciate what you are doing, I might add.

Clifford: Thank you, and my hope is that these knowledgeable people come to the forefront and act in the public welfare to expose and disclose those activities which have and are taking place without the participation of the American public. It's good to know that there are people that are taking the issue seriously, as it should be, and
hopefully will be inspired to take action as well. So I really appreciate some of the feedback that you are getting.

Jeff: Well, it's underscoring what you are doing- perfectly.

Clifford: In continuation of this discussion, we tried to characterize what a plasma is, and how you arrive at it, and what its physical interpretation is in terms of resonance.

Jeff: We might also add, Clifford, if I may interject here, that the general thrust of where we are going is that this atmospheric manipulation has been a deployed project for the last 3 years now. This is the application to the atmosphere of apparently what may be very tiny, micron-sized pieces of charged metal and so forth. Or that would
become charged with the proper application of enough energy pumped up into the ionosphere.

Clifford: That's right. Ionization was another study that had come forth some time ago and we also had talked about. The energy from the sun itself is sufficient to ionize certain metals, and those metals are the candidates we're speaking of. So, in the ultraviolet light portion of the spectrum, and even part of the visible spectrum, there is
ionization of metals that can take place. So we may have a source of energy for a portion of operations even in the ambient atmosphere. What I have done is extend the same method- mathematics and reasoning- that I applied to the ionosphere studies, to an examination of the lower atmosphere in its, what I call- altered state.

This means that I have arrived at an estimate for the number of free electrons that are expected to exist within this modified lower atmosphere. I have attempted to the best of my ability to make an estimate of the corresponding plasma frequency for that state. Bear in mind in terms of connections there is a pretty strong one with this. Because this starts with visibility studies, then it leads to mass estimates, and then mass estimates lead to free electron estimates. Free electron estimates lead to plasma frequency estimates, and that's where I'm at right now.

My work in that regard again leads to a number, again subject to cross-examination. But I end up with a number that is at the upper end of radio waves; actually, radar is where I end up. Bear in mind that it's an estimate, the best I can do. But it's an important estimate. Because a part of this is that even though there may have been general
conceptions about electromagnetic energy, you want to know where to put your effort. You don't want to be tracing down gamma rays and X rays, if that doesn't seem to be a primary target. And there's a huge difference. The electromagnetic spectrum is very important to become familiar with, as we study this. Because we want to know where to put our energy, no pun intended, to understand what is going on. So this is a threshold: plasma is a threshold frequency that is an important one to attempt to identify as best we can. What I am saying is that at this
point in my research I end up at- you could call it the upper limit of radar. You have radio waves, then you have radar, and then you have microwaves and then you have visible light. Then you go up into the high stuff- gamma rays and all this type of stuff.

Jeff: So it's sitting right at the top of radar.

Clifford: Yes, I am speaking of a limit at the upper end of radar. And consider leeway- this is hardly exact, what's going on here, so don't rule out microwave frequencies by any means. In fact there are some interesting observations I have made over time which suggest we might be in that borderline area. I'm just saying that this is a
point where I end up, and it's an important threshold to identify. Because it now opens up the question of interpretation and application, in a more specific way than just to say generally- "Hey, they must be doing something about sending energy". This threshold is important in the sense of propagation and/or reflection, as we described earlier.

So the conclusion I would draw from this, if the analysis is correct- and I will always qualify myself- is this. If the analysis is correct, then the interpretation is that you now have a medium in the lower atmosphere (now close to the earth instead of 60 miles up in the sky) that is potentially beneficial to the propagation and to the conduction, the transmission, reflection- let's call it modification and control- of electromagnetic energy at the radar level and below.
And that's a real important part to stress here. Because even though you have a threshold value, that means everything below that and up to that point has many many possibilities for application.

Jeff: Many.

Clifford: So, don't think of it just as a plasma frequency, as though it either reflects or doesn't reflect. I will speak about modulation soon, and you enter a whole range of considerations of use and control of frequencies below that point. Say in the radio waves and such, up through and including radar and/or microwave.

Jeff: Keep in mind also that some of the frequencies in the radio wave spectrum have certainly been demonstrated already to have sometimes profound effects on living organisms. Keep in mind also another image here: the ionosphere, 60 miles high, has somehow, through the possible and apparent spraying of *something,* been either extended all the way down- or a second ionosphere, if you will, has been created at a much lower level, to deal with whatever issues the folks doing all this are intending to deal with. This is again a technology that has been around
for probably a hundred years, conceptually, through the sheer, peerless genius of Nicola Tesla, and is being implemented now as we speak. We have about a minute to the break, Clifford.

Clifford: Yes, that's probably a good breaking point. You are very helpful at your conceptual interpretation and relays to people, in terms of what's happening. And I think you very well describe the general content in a large conceptual way of what it is I am trying to relay. I think you have hit it exactly right on the head at this point so far.

Jeff: Good. All right. And again, on Clifford's website at you can read for yourself, at your leisure, the works of Bernard Eastlund as they may apply to this. We are going during our next hour to look into some very dark and potentially dangerous corners for the future of all of us, in terms of mass mind control, mass
health control, and owning the weather- which is the avowed goal of the Air Force by the year 2025 or sooner. And certainly environmental and climatological manipulations which many feel are going on now, and have been going on for several years at least. When you turn the atmosphere of this planet into your blackboard, into your tool, into your mechanism- and have at your disposal literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of potential applications- it is a little disconcerting to think of who, just who might have that kind of control over our atmosphere. OK we'll pause, and ruminate and cogitate, and come right back to continue our discussion with Clifford Carnicom.


Jeff: Welcome back- hour 3 coming up with Clifford Carnicom. I'm Jeff Rense, and we're glad you are here. We are riding the wave generated by the magnificent research of Clifford. We're getting to the point, I think, of coming up with a real disturbing scenario as to where at least part of this chemtrail phenomenon may have been leading us all,
or forcing us all to go. Clifford, I am going to stand aside. We have got one hour to make a lot happen here in a short period of time. So go ahead.

Clifford: Thank you Jeff. I'll just fit things in as best as I can here. What I would like to do is jump ahead in my outline a little bit, and just give one example of an application I ran into which now makes sense to me. I have to say that up until a few weeks ago or so I didn't really feel as though I had any sense as to how frequencies are used. You know, my knowledge of electromagnetics is limited in extent. I do the best I can. I'm a ham radio operator, but there is still plenty I can learn. I remember saying: "How do you use these frequencies? How do you know what's being used? And how do you use it?"

After I had done this work at the state we have discussed thus far, I ran into a paper which I had seen, and registered, probably five or six months ago. But at this point it now takes on a whole different meaning to me, in terms of an excellent demonstration and example of applying the technologies and medium we're speaking of. Here's the title of the paper- it's technical, but we'll sort of punch through it: "Simulations of ELF Generation Generated by Heating the High Latitude D Region" The translation is: playing around with the ionosphere and generating ELF, extremely low frequency, radiation. Now, a couple of things of interest: guess who the paper is put out by, to begin with. It's put out by the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC- the Plasma Physics Division. The Beam Physics Branch are the folks who put out the paper.

Jeff: What year was that?

Clifford: It's fairly recent- 1999. It's just an abstract. And I'll give you the punch line of what I have been able to understand is going on here. It's really pretty amazing. I mean it fits right in. Now this is a simulation, but simulations are based for purposes of reality at some point. Here's what they're doing. Remember we talked a little
bit about the spectrum, and that the radio is below this threshold frequency that I'm coming up with. They're saying that if you take a radio frequency energy- they call it a few megahertz- and send it into the ionosphere, it causes the ionosphere to heat up. When it heats up, the conductivity of the ionosphere changes. Conductivity is a term I'll talk more about soon. The conductivity of the ionosphere changes, and there is a direct result. As the conductivity varies according to this heating, a current is generated in the ELF portion of the band. Now, what's important about ELF? It's something that you just mentioned. One important point about ELF- extremely low frequencies- is that you are talking about 5 cycles, 10 cycles, up to a thousand I think they call it.

Jeff: That's hertz.

Clifford: These frequencies are established, are known to directly affect biological systems.

Jeff: Yep. 5 hertz, 10 hertz, 5 thousand hertz… Royal Raymond Rife found that the harmonics in Hertzian frequencies in some cases can destroy harmful bacteria and viruses. We do know, and I might raise this very quickly, about Kasnachev's experiments in Russia. Some years ago he demonstrated very clearly that the transmission of disease, and certainly the diseased condition itself, can be manifested by some kind of energy. He supposed it was some kind of electromagnetic energy, and a fascinating experiment was done in a laboratory with two pieces of tissue. Starting with one piece, he separated the tissue into two and put them on either sides of a crystal glass. He infected one piece of tissue with a mortal dose of a bacteria, and watched the other piece- the sister half on the other side of the crystal- become ill with the same physical characteristics but with none of the bacteria present.

Clifford: This is an open door for us to be investigating now- the biological implication of what's going on. When you read the papers from these folks they have their statements out there: "Hey, this is weak as can be, won't cause a problem, at all, not even close."

Jeff: (hah)

Clifford: But I'm just not seeing these papers as being the whole story. Number 1, they're not talking about the consideration of using a modified atmosphere. They're not talking about a medium which is much more conductive than it should be.

Jeff: *Much* more conductive than it should be.

Clifford: The representations of doing no harm- I don't know that they're done in a fair presentation.

Jeff: Well, since when do we trust "them" anyhow? Go ahead.

Clifford: Something that's real important here to me is that it is radio frequencies that are being used to control a current at another point. So the topic here is one of modulation. Modulation is a term we also need to learn about, because this is basically one frequency using or controlling another frequency. And so that's why this notion of
dealing with just radar waves or so doesn't hold. That's not what it's about. You now consider the range of frequencies available to you. You need that special frequency, for basically modification and playing around in all kinds of numerous ways.

Jeff: Yep.

Clifford: Using one frequency to control another, to generate another. And so if you're using a radio frequency wave, as your main carrier or whatever, in the end you may be dealing with ELF waves- which were truly the final objective. Remember ELF waves: their claimed objective is one of communications and such. Also ground probing radar and this type of thing are the official applications of that.

Jeff: The "official applications". That's what they are talking about now: how HAARP may be used to find Osama bin Laden, hiding in one of his caves.

Clifford: Absolutely- that's a part of this. That's a part of this technology. If you can generate ELF - what I am saying is we have a medium surrounding us that appears to me to be sufficient and conducive to that transmission and creation of energy. So that's an application I wanted to mention to open up the door. There are some things we need to be studying real quickly, to learn what is potentially being done to us and to raise the alarm- as is appropriate.

Jeff: Just don't send your complaints to the EPA.

Clifford: Apparently they're not the most favorable agency to actually accomplish anything.

Jeff: Unless they ask you for input- save your time.

Clifford: Right. Do we have time to carry on into the next subject then?

Jeff: We certainly do. We've got about 45 minutes of the hour left and about 80% of that is talk time.

Clifford: OK, thanks Jeff. What I think will start to emerge as the night goes on, beyond these connections, is that we are going to see a merging taking place between things I am measuring, and those things I am arriving at primarily through analysis. And that's really how this whole topic of discussion came about tonight. I just felt as though we've got to get some information out so people can start to dig into it for themselves.

The next topic concerns one of measurement of current. Although each of these exists as a separate topic, side by side, they all establish a connection I simply cannot avoid, the more I understand. What happened was, about 4 months ago, in July or so, I said: OK, we've got this metal in the air. It would seem reasonable to me that I'm
postulating there's a current flowing in the air that shouldn't be there. If that's true, how do I go about measuring that current? Is it possible to measure current in the atmosphere? That was a very interesting problem for me. I kept finding myself going into numerous disciplines, which I knew a little bit about, and then had to dig into and study. Basically I became involved in electrical engineering for about 2 months, concentrating on a particular circuit I designed and modified from a base circuit that I found. The instrument of discussion here is called an electrometer. Measuring atmospheric current is possible. It's not real easy. You can't just go down and buy something- let's say inexpensively. You can if you have a thousand bucks or so, to buy meters, but I don't have that. So to measure atmospheric current through layman resources is a difficult problem, for me at least.

Jeff: All right. It's a great goal; it's an amazing task. We'll find out more from Clifford about that in just a minute. Don't forget his website,, the data center for the chemtrail phenomenon. And you can read again about Eastlund's patents- we'll see if we have time for that. The illness issue is of grave significance and importance- we'll touch on that as well, after this.


Jeff: All right. We're right back with Clifford Carnicom. Plumbing the depths, or the heights, of the chemtrail mystery. Go ahead Clifford.

Clifford: What I did was, I combined the mathematics and studies and some electrical engineering to construct and design what is called an electrometer- a very sensitive electrometer, I might add. An electrometer is a device that is useful for measuring static electricity. It sort of looks like magic until you get the science behind it. It's actually quite fascinating to watch this thing as it is employed. To give you an idea of the sensitivity of this thing, if you were to take a plastic comb and comb your hair, this meter will deflect quite visibly and noticeably- from a distance of five or six feet away is not an exaggeration at all. So if you move a plastic comb five or six feet away from this meter, you're going to see this meter register very easily. That's a fascinating thing to watch, and this meter will distinguish between positive or negative charge.

Just so people understand the general layout, the earth is negatively charged. This is all expected and known. And the atmosphere is generally positive in nature; in fact most of our environment seems to be positive. I think we have an incredible skew that's taking place though, because the air is positively charged, but it's not supposed to be that much. The ratio is 250 to 200, apparently, from what I can gather. So I constructed this device, and I have to say it was a lot of fun. It is just an amazing thing to see this, and to investigate your world in terms of electrical charge: positive, negative, and what's going on around us.

I had the disadvantage of not having enough money to buy a calibrated meter, so I had to somehow try to come up with qualitative data again to attach to this meter. Through quite a bit of work I came up with an algorithm, a method that probably involved about ten steps, primarily using mathematics and the definition of current and charge and this
type of thing. I came up with a method of quantitatively assigning measured electrical flow to this meter. This was quite complex for me, and I wanted some confirmation on it, because what I was doing was a little bit experimental and theoretical. So I actually had to outline my algorithm. I sent it to the Department of Energy for their response,
because they have an active scientist aboard; they run Newton BBS- or whatever. I sent them an inquiry asking: "Is this method sound, what I'm doing? Does this all make sense? " And they wrote me back and they said: "This is beyond the scope of our service."

Jeff: (chuckle) They didn't say "knowledge"- they said "service," didn't they?

Clifford: Yes, so I wasn't able to get any help from them. I also put it up on some electrical engineering boards. Didn't really get any response at all. But curiously enough, about a week ago, I went back and found that one person had left a response, in detail. And he basically confirmed the soundness of the method. So to the best of my ability it does appear to be legitimate, in terms of what I am doing here. Now, atmospheric current does exist. It's known; it's a fundamental physical property of the atmosphere and the earth- the electrical current flowing. It's a very small number we're dealing with. The expected numbers are in the order of 1 to 2 microamps of current. This would be expected to be flowing through the air. Now a hairdryer or a microwave takes something like ten amps, or something
like that. So you're talking about a millionth of 1 amp.

Jeff: Now you'd expect to find that naturally.

Clifford: Yes, yes. This is what should be there, from what I can gather. I actually see ranges from a portion of a microamp up to, say, 1 or 2 microamps.

Jeff: All right. This is what we would expect through Clifford's research to find in the atmosphere.

Clifford: So when I did this work, very systematically, I did it over and over and over. I just kept measuring and measuring and measuring, and applying the algorithm. And no matter what I did, it was pretty much consistent over many days, at different times, in good weather. Here's what I get. I end up at a number roughly 11 to 13 microamps.
Now, again, my work is all open to examination and someone else, if they can help me and tell me I'm wrong, then I'll adjust my ways.

Jeff: So it's ten times what you would expect to find?

Clifford: Yes. This is what I find. What was amazing was how consistent it was, no matter how I did it. Because it involves a differential equation, where you are measuring current over time, using a basic definition. And even though the circumstances changed through the day, the end result was always the same. I would end up at a magnitude, which was dependent upon my analysis and understanding of the circuit I had designed, and that type of thing. All I can say is, this is what I end up with. What happened next was, I just let that thing sit, because I had no confirmation. I had no one to tell me: "Is this real or not?" So I just kept recording the values, and doing the work. It exists as a study, and then I just let it sit. And it probably sat for 2 or 3 months before I start doing the other work that we're talking about, to do with plasma physics.

Jeff: Fascinating. Let's take that point right there and hold it. You see the parallel tracks here that are coalescing, and we'll get where they join in just a couple of minutes as we continue with Clifford Carnicom. I'm Jeff Rense, and we are getting the latest possible into what is apparently going on in many, if not most, places in the world- called "chemtrails".


Jeff: OK. We're back with Clifford. Remember, all the work he has done over the years is being done out of the goodness of his heart, and out of his own pocketbook for all of us. That's the part we need to keep in mind, as we ponder all these amazing things he has come up with. You can tell from listening to the description of how it went about this work, he is essentially large self-taught. This is science standing up and shining as brightly as you're going to see it shine. Go ahead Clifford; we've got the parallel tracks- there are several of them- let's see where they come together.

Clifford: Thank you Jeff. And to keep things in perspective, one source I found on this electrocurrent in the atmosphere says that during a major storm- if you have a really heavy-duty storm going on- you can get up to 10 microamps.

Jeff: That's an electrical storm.

Clifford: Yes. There's a whole lot of activity going on, and things are really charged up there. So what's happening here, if my work is correct, what it's saying is: the results I was getting under fair weather, normal, mild conditions…

Jeff: Should be under extreme weather conditions.

Clifford: Yes. Exactly. There is another interesting thing that has developed. I told you I did this some time ago. It's been sitting for a couple of months. I just picked up the meter again a week or so ago, and started to look at it again. And what's happening right now is: the thing is playing off the scale. In other words, this meter was designed and developed to be very sensitive, within a certain range, and it is a really narrow range. It is really is an incredible thing to watch. But what's happening now is that it appears to me that the current flow may have increased to the point that where my meter is no longer usable. That the circuit needs to be…

Jeff: It's off the scale of your meter?

Clifford: Yes. It appears as though it needs to be redesigned to accommodate a greater magnitude of value. That's the way it appears to me. I really cannot get readings right now, because the time differential is just too short. It's dependent upon time measurements. So that's an interesting side note, after a lapse of a couple of months. We may also take note, as we said, that the aerosol activity has been especially heavy during those the last couple of months.
Now I am in the situation where my meter is going to need to be redesigned to pursue that study.

So you have a measurement taking place that indicates a certain value, which is, let's say, of great interest. Parallel to that, you have analytical studies taking place, which are attempting to examine the fundamental characteristics of the atmosphere as characterized in a plasma state. We have discussed the plasma frequency being one of those fundamental defining characteristics of that state. In addition to that plasma frequency, there is another entity, which is equally fundamental in characterizing the behavior of that plasma. And that is the conductivity. This is another whole line of research and analysis I have engaged in: that is, to attempt to assess the conductivity of this altered atmosphere- in addition to using the ionosphere as a reference point.

Actually what I'm doing is looking at the conditions of the ionosphere- the normal atmosphere, as it has always been portrayed, and of which certain values are available that have characterized that. Then this altered state of affairs I am finding is basically sort of in between these two. I'm arriving at results for defining both a plasma frequency and what's called conductivity- conductivity is like the opposite of resistance- for this altered state. Here's what happens, and this is partly what certainly prompted me to make contact with you again. What occurred was, I ended up with a value for the expected current flow, by analysis alone, which traced all the way back through, to that original discussion we had tonight: from visibility. Remember that whole lineage that takes place: visibility, number of particles, number of free electrons, plasma frequency, and conductivity- current density is what conductivity is called. From that whole lineage, I arrived at a number, in terms of what I see and study around me. That number is
matching exactly with what I was measuring.

Jeff: How shocked were you about that?

Clifford: It was- well, I think you can imagine.

Jeff: Yeah, that's almost overwhelming, to contemplate that.

Clifford: I'm not claiming to be right on everything I am doing. I am claiming to be doing the best I can.

Jeff: It sure brought you into the right room though.

Clifford: Right- to solve the problems that are facing us. And I do like to look at things in more than one way. I do like different angles, and what I am saying is- I am being led to this place of identification and consideration of the electrical properties of the atmosphere being altered in a way which is fundamentally significant. I mean as a property of the earth, of our world: the analysis of data shows to me that it has been fundamentally altered. This can lead to no other consideration than that the propagation of that current is potentially the primary subject and target
matter of the affair to begin with.

Jeff: Wow. Wonder if Mr. Eastlund is listening.

I know a lot of people are, who are very concerned about your headway. Not that they're too concerned about the cat really getting out of the bag. Because most people are pretty well diverted in day-to-day living. Fascinating. An incredible odyssey. We'll come right back and get a final wrap up in our last segment with Clifford as to where he thinks this may be directly leading. And remember, it's all being paid for by us.

Jeff: OK. We're right back with our last segment with Clifford already tonight. It went fast. Here's another note, Clifford, from George. And he says: "What Mr. Carnicom is describing is known as carrier frequency. Carrier waves in the ELF and long wave spectrum have been used, for instance, in CB radio to communicate around the world using skip technologies, whereby a wave is bounced off the ionosphere and recaptured at stations many thousands of miles away. The carrier wave is "excited"- selectively energized. A particular carrier wave is "excited"- selectively energized, to carry a message when necessary. And otherwise it becomes a standing wave, undetectable, until it is energized again. It would be very simple to measure the current in the atmosphere of a carrier wave, using a signal strength meter tuned right directly to the frequency of that particular wave. You need to know the exact frequency and wave length of the carrier wave- otherwise you will need to sample with oscilloscopes until you get a variance in the background. The interesting thing about the whole carrier wave technology is that it needs to be at extremely low power. Otherwise it leaves the atmosphere- goes right through the ionospheric level and heads out into space. With as little as 0.1 watt of power, at wavelengths of 9 meters or longer, you can excite a wave and make it circum-globally receptible, thereby allowing the dispersal of potentially damaging radio frequencies."

Clifford: I think that George is undoubtedly a helpful source and resource for this problem.

Jeff: No doubt.

Clifford: I hope we can make contact. The basic proposition, which is being put forth here, is fairly simple. That is: it is proposed that the atmosphere has been turned into a conductor. That's the argument, which needs either to be proven or disproved. We have to make our priorities, in terms of what is covered in the last few minutes. But as another aside, to do with this business of measurements, I'll also say I have another set of measurements which is important to me. They cause more than a mild level of curiosity in me, and also extend back to measurements which I have just sat idle on. Again, there is no confirmation. I don't have the tools or resources to substantiate it. But it is one of radio frequency measurement. I do have a frequency counter that I was able to acquire. This frequency counter does measure radio waves- actually a broad range of radio waves.

I will say that I am almost continuously and repeatedly monitoring, and finding what appears to be a continuously varying RF signal in the magnitude range of roughly 3, 3 and a half, to 7 megahertz, primarily centered on about 4 megahertz. It is of more than passing interest that these frequencies I appear to be picking up on a sustained basis do correspond exactly to the preferred range of HAARP transmissions. These measurements, again, need either proving or refuting, from other sources and other locations. I did have the meter transported to Colorado, and the measurements were occurring along that trip. I have no meter to compare it to. Am I giving completely erroneous
information? I would like to know, but I know that I am seeing a convergence and confluence of both measurements as well as analytical work that strongly supports the proposition that the atmosphere is indeed in a conductive state.

Jeff: That it has been put into a conductive state.

Clifford: In the end we want the truth- that's what it is all about. I want to say I have been questioning and asking about the other scenarios that are being mentioned. You know, one of the Grand Theories out there is about a global shield for global warming. I started to look at the paper that circulated prominently for that argument. I saw the paper probably several months ago. But I'll tell you, when I read it last week, there was a word that really stuck in my mind as I read that paper. If you remember what that's about, it's about Teller and his proposition that by putting aerosols into the air we can reduce global warming. If you look at the report, what I see is a key word showing up that I have been completely oblivious to before. And the word is "dielectric". The primary thesis of this paper appears to refer to the introduction of dielectric aerosols. Here's what is important: a dielectric is an insulator. A dielectric does not conduct: that is the definition of a dielectric. The aerosols that we are speaking of, that are being identified repeatedly, over and over, are metals. They are conductors. It doesn't fit.

Jeff: Not with what Teller said- no.

Clifford: It doesn't fit. And I found in that same paper that they considered the introduction of aluminum aerosols, and they say that this would be very damaging and would have serious environmental consequences.

Jeff: Ah. Environmental, as in health, potentially.

Clifford: I seriously have to question the viability of that thesis, based upon the data that are available. In addition to that, there are size issues that come up with that. My best analysis indicates a size range anywhere from a half-micron to a couple of microns for primary sizes involved. It has to do with light properties: the light-scattering theories we were talking about- this type of thing. When you start dealing with aerosols that are 10 microns or a tenth of a micron, what I'm finding in these reports about that hypothesis, is about stopping global warming. They don't fit either. So I have two fundamental contradictions showing up right now that I cannot accommodate into the analysis.

Jeff: Doesn't sound like global warming is the answer folks.

Clifford: In addition, if you look at this question of ozone protection- here's a statement. Listen to this statement from another paper: " Aircraft emissions of nitrogen oxides and water vapor add to the accretion effect by creating ice crystals that serve as a base for ozone-destroying reactions." So it also appears contradictory to me that there would be a supposition of aircraft operations to remediate ozone damage.

Jeff: Got it. You don't remediate it- you exacerbate it. I understand.

Clifford: I know we only have a few minutes left. But I guess what I would like to say is that I'm looking for a proposition consistent with all the data and all of the theories. If you consider such suggestions as have been reasonably made, such as weather modification, transfer of particulate matter by design, the illness, health and increasing mortality data that is readily available: the question arises as to why you would use a metal as your aerosol base. Then there are the degraded visibility conditions, which are easily documented. Another side issue, which we didn't have time to talk about, is the whole radar anomaly phenomenon. The visitors who have taken an interest in this information since the research first began are of a strongly military nature. If you are looking for a thesis that appears to be consistent with all of these agendas that have been postulated, the one that appears to me to be the most consistent, the most comprehensive, does by necessity involve the postulate that the air has basically been altered to be a conductor.

Jeff: That means, friends, that our atmosphere has been taken over and turned into a tool by somebody- some group, some faction, some power base- to do potentially many many things. Not all of which are salutary to our physical, mental and environmental well being.

Clifford: "Many many things" is really a key phrase. Because just think in general terms: if I can send energy from point A to point B, that means I can do things. And I can do lots of things.

Jeff: And if I can send energy from point A to world wide- I own the world.

Clifford: So one cannot deny the military implications in the data that has emerged, and the consistency with all of the studies and reports that have been done by numerous citizens beyond myself over a three-year period. Consider the technology of HAARP, which was introduced into my work a year and a half or two years ago. Think of the technology as not occurring up in Alaska but occurring anywhere that the medium is suitable for the transmission. Then I think you have a more accurate portrayal of how the energy is likely to be used. There's no restriction to Alaska on this.

Jeff: Of course not. And a HAARP array can be trucked around; I understand that three or four tractor-trailer rigs can be set up anywhere.

Clifford: There is an array about 40 miles down the road from here. It's quite amazing- like a little mini-HAARP. And who is to say it has to be ground based? The technology allows for propagating this energy in any form you wish, on a local or regional scale.

Jeff: For almost a limitless number of results. It's mind-boggling. Ultimately it is anxiety-producing, when you consider that the people who are in control of this technology, this potential control of the planet- which I think is ultimately where it would lead- are not necessarily benevolent folks like most of us are.

Clifford, would you agree?

Clifford: I would entirely, Jeff.

Jeff: All right, my friend. Thank you. Magnificent work. I salute you- I thank you on behalf of countless Americans for your work. We will talk again soon. Take care.

Clifford: Thank you Jeff. Have a good night.



Main Page