"Everyone talks about the weather,
but nobody does anything about it."
|
Points to Ponder: Government Correspondence.
|
 |
Anyone who has attempted to receive responses from elected representatives and others in Government know that, especially if it involves something "sensitive" you are going to "get the run around." I believe that we have done fairly well to progress as far as we have - you be the judge.
|
|
This all started in May of 2002 with a question to the local Liberal member and, finally, in late June, I actually received a reaction to my question - the response recorded on my voice mail was on the lines of: "Are they spraying potatoes or corn?"
We cleared up that point but still, some six weeks later, I had received no answer from my representative to my original simple question: "I am troubled by the aircraft flying over my property at high altitude and spraying chemicals that are degrading my health. I understand that this activity is referred to as "chemtrails". What is the Chrétien Liberal government doing about it?"
Well, I thought that the potato issue was clarified, but no - the messenger came back with much the same question once again: "Do you have potato fields around there where they may be spraying the potatoes... I've had somebody ask me that..."
I then attempted to provoke a more meaningful response and apparently succeeded. I had sent along a couple of useful images in an attempt to emphasize the difference between low and high altitude aerial spraying.
I received the following e-mail (now after seven weeks or so...) which I believe clearly demonstrates that the Liberals have no intention of revealing anything truly meaningful to the electorate on the subject of chemtrails:
Subject: RE: Chemtrails question for Paul DeVillers M.P. - #3
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:02:19 -0400
From: "Diane" <diane@pauldevillers.com>
To: "Brian Holmes" <G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca>
July 5, 2002
Dear Mr. Holmes:
Thank you for your correspondence from July 4, 2002, regarding aerial spraying.
Since this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, I have transferred your file to the Ministry of Natural Resources in Barrie. I trust this office will answer your concerns promptly.
Thanks again for having taken the time to share your concerns.
Sincerely,
Diane Kloosterman
The Office of Paul DeVillers, MP
Simcoe North
(MIDLAND)
|
|
|
Of course, I had been asking all along about high altitude spraying by large jet aircraft and if "aerial spraying" is a provincial responsibility why waste my time taking the question at all? I think the answer to that is obvious.
|
|
But, much to my surprise, I actually received a letter dated 18 July 2002 from Mr. DeVillers along with a cc: of his correspondence to The Hon. John McCullum, Minister of National Defence - the essence of which was:
"Please find attached correspondences from a constituent, Mr. Brian Holmes, regarding aerial spraying and aircraft activity over his property.
Mr. Holmes believes that the chemicals being sprayed through "chemtrails" are affecting his health. I trust you will respond to his concerns promptly."
I understand that another constituent, using much the same expressions of concern, has received a similar response but her file has been forwarded by Mr. DeVillers to the office of the Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Health. I wonder why?
|
|
Almost a month later I was impressed to receive an e-mail acknowledging that the DND had my file on hand:
Subject: RE: Chemtrails questions for Paul DeVillers M.P.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:49:59 -0400
From: dnd_mdn@forces.ca
To: G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca
On behalf of the Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, forwarded by the Honourable Paul DeVillers, Secretary of State and Deputy Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons.
Please be assured that your correspondence will be reviewed.
Sincerely,
Deborah Mac Culloch
Manager
Minister's Correspondence Unit
**Please note that this e-mail address does not accept replies.**
|
|
|
A reply has been received by e-mail over the name of the Minister:
Subject: RE: Chemtrails questions for Paul DeVillers M.P.
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:31:19 -0400
From: dnd_mdn@forces.ca
To: G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca
CC: diane@pauldevillers.com
Dear Mr. Holmes:
A copy of your e-mail concerning condensation trails over Canada was forwarded to me by your Member of Parliament, the Honourable Paul DeVillers. I received your e-mail on July 26, 2002.
I am advised that the phenomenon you describe is normal and that the Department of National Defence is not delivering any foreign substance into the atmosphere. Condensation trails are formed when water produced by the burning of jet fuel cools very rapidly as it comes into contact with cold air and, in effect, forms a cloud. Typically, condensation trails form at higher altitudes where the air is much colder. When the air is stable and there are no strong winds, these vapour trails are persistent, and tend to spread slowly over a long period of time rather than disappear rapidly.
I appreciate being made aware of your concerns. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely,
The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.
MCU2002-05695
cc: The Honourable Paul DeVillers
**Please note that this e-mail address does not accept replies.**
|
|
|
My response to the above e-mail was sent by Canada Post. It is in the form of an open letter:
Thursday, 05 September 2002
The Hon. John McCallum, P.C., M.P.
National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
MGen. G.R. Pearkes Building
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
KlA OK2
Re: Chemtrails - spraying in our sky.
Dear Minister:
On 28 August I received an e-mail over your name with the subject: RE: Chemtrails questions for Paul DeVillers M.P.
Thank you for this response which was related to my original question of May: "I am troubled by the aircraft flying over my property at high altitude and spraying chemicals that are degrading my health. I understand that this activity is referred to as "chemtrails". What is the Chrétien Liberal government doing about it?"
Your reply was, in part: "I am advised that the phenomenon you describe is normal and that the Department of National Defence is not delivering any foreign substance into the atmosphere. Condensation trails are formed when water produced by the burning of jet fuel cools very rapidly as it comes into contact with cold air and, in effect, forms a cloud. Typically, condensation trails form at higher altitudes where the air is much colder. When the air is stable and there are no strong winds, these vapour trails are persistent, and tend to spread slowly over a long period of time rather than disappear rapidly."
I thank you for your explanation of contrails but what I (along with many other citizens) am seeing, experiencing, photographing and describing are not "normal" contrails.
With all due respect your advisors are in error. In fact, they are either misleading you or are ill informed. The chemical spraying "phenomenon" is not normal contrails. I, personally, can provide ample proof of that fact.
Nevertheless, I do not entirely disagree with your statement that "the Department of National Defence is not delivering any foreign substance into the atmosphere" - or at least not the sort of foreign substances we are discussing here. The Canadian armed forces do not have the resources to carry out this type of mission. That is why your people are claiming, in effect, "It's not us!"
This sort of response from DND is nothing new. After NDP Defence critic Gordon Earle presented a petition signed by 550 Espanola residents to Parliament in November 1999 demanding an end to aerial spraying by commercial or military aircraft, foreign or domestic, which appeared to be making many people sick, DND eventually replied, "It's not us." This is recorded in Hansard.
Let me provide you with a short description of just one chemtrail spraying experience I have witnessed: We have observed some of these aircraft in sufficient detail to clearly see that they have no markings. I am sure that you would agree that most airlines display quite gaudy livery - easy to identify across the sky. Also airlines do not fly unmarked light silvery gray jet aircraft at ten thousand feet zig-zagging (being flown like a fighter aircraft!) in front of, and equidistant from, dark "threatening", low cloud formations directly over our nearby town of Penetanguishene while all the time leaving behind a very large dense white er... "contrail".
With my wife and two others in our company I witnessed just that at 5.15pm Wednesday, 3 July 2002 - needless to say a warm Summer evening. Let us not quibble about the altitude - it was certainly not forty thousand feet. Once, when the aircraft was banked towards us on a turn, I saw the side cockpit windows on this large four-engine jet but there were no passenger windows along the side of the fuselage. Therefore, clearly it was not a passenger aircraft. In fact, to my relatively untrained eye, it was a military type KC135R usually assigned to air-to-air refuelling duties but on this occasion I could see no refuelling boom folded up in the rear. There was certainly no Maple Leaf insignia on display. The aircraft proceeded towards the East at this same (relatively) low altitude until out of our sight.
The dense plume of spray from the aircraft lingered low in the sky for a considerable time and it was discussed with many others we met before all of us boarded our cruise vessel. Others present at the town dock had seen the "fly past" of the aircraft itself. I consider these above facts alone to be irrefutable evidence of aerial chemical spraying activity.
Quite obviously the "normal phenomenon" of contrails do not form at such relatively low altitudes in warm weather. Your e-mail contrail explanation included: "…condensation trails form at higher altitudes where the air is much colder." In fact, NASA and meteorologists acknowledge that, for even short-lived condensation trails to form, temperatures must be lower than about minus 60 degrees Celsius at the aircraft altitude. We are familiar with seeing jetliners flying over this area at very high and therefore cold altitudes with "natural" pencil-thin condensation trails being formed that then soon dissipate. Most likely the low altitude and behaviour of this particular aircraft was illegal according to standing air traffic restrictions. The operation of aircraft without ready means of visible identification is also illegal. I cannot imagine any organization flying large multi-engine jet aircraft back and forth in the sky at perhaps a cost of US$10,000.00 per hour to simply spray plumes of "water vapour"! Indeed, all the evidence suggests that it is anything but water that is being sprayed.
After taking a number of photographs of the chemtrail spraying activities over our rural home this Spring I published them, along with descriptions and comments, on our family web site. This has since been expanded somewhat with new pages and additional recent chemtrail spraying photographs being added on an ongoing basis. This is simply one of thousands of such web sites. The Holmestead chemtrail pages are receiving many thousand of visits per month with approximately 50% from Canada but many other countries are represented along with the US military. Perhaps they appreciate my contribution of the photo intelligence?
I suggest you visit the web site personally if you are looking for some direct and unfiltered local Canadian information in regard to chemtrails. Go online to: http://www.holmestead.ca/ and if you explore you will find some correspondence from Government and others, including this letter in the form of my response to your e-mail of 28 August which is already there. So therefore, please consider this to be an open letter.
In the Maclean's of 26 August, Peter Newman closed the preamble to his interview with you by stating: "John McCallum's credentials are impeccable, and he knows the future of his country is at stake." I look forward to receiving your personal full, intelligent and truthful explanation of chemtrail spraying in our sky. Unfortunately I must say, that from what I have heard from you so far in regards to the chemtrail issue, I fear for Canada.
Sincerely,
Brian Holmes
|
|
|
|
|
In November I received a reply personally signed by the Minister:
Dear Mr. Holmes:
Thank you for your letter, received on September 12, 2002. I apologize for the delay in replying.
In your letter you describe unmarked, light silvery-grey jet aircraft flying at 10,000 feet in zig-zag patterns. Photographs of these aircraft would be very useful in determining their origin and whether they are civilian or military. Without such tangible proof it is difficult to comment on your observations. After reviewing the contrail pictures on your Web site, and others, the air staff has concluded there is nothing to indicate that these contrails are anything more than harmless vapour trails, as explained in my correspondence of August 28, 2002, to you.
The Midland VHF Omni-directional Range is located approximately 20 kilometres from Penetanguishene and is intersected by five high-level airways. I understand that these airways are used by hundreds of aircraft every day, flying to Toronto, London, Hamilton, and numerous locations in the United States and Canada. On a busy day, with the right atmospheric conditions, these aircraft will form contrails that could accumulate and remain in the sky for several hours.
The Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada have not been involved in activities such as you describe in your letter, nor would we allow any other party to conduct any form of aerial activity that could endanger the health of Canadian citizens.
Once again, thank you for your letter.
Yours sincerely
The Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.
My comments:
Once again a totally unproductive, duplicitous, dismissive denial. One would think they could do better than that. The "air staff" appears to have a mental block on this subject.
There is no attempt to address the issue of low flying spraying aircraft observed by multiple witnesses. At least we were not told we must be imagining these things. But next time have the highly specialized camera equipment handy! After all you have all of fifteen seconds to grab a shot or two.
For what it is worth, the Midland beacon mentioned is actually a touch southwest of Orr Lake at N44 34 54 W79 47
35. On the compass, 147 degrees from the local Huronia airport about 8 nautical miles. It is about 30km to the South of the Holmestead and because of the ridge of high ground (plus the tall pines) on our property few spraying aircraft are seen in this direction. All of my CT aircraft photographs have been to the North, East and West - and of course directly overhead!
We also see the airliners (leaving normal contrails) to the West over Georgian Bay which I assume are using the similar Wiarton beacon. We - and other local skywatchers - have seen the airliners in the sky at the same time as the military type aircraft have been in the same sky at a lower altitude laying the typical CT plumes.
Perhaps the air staff would care to check into that.
Finally, in the above letter, the statement "nor would we allow any other party to conduct any form of aerial activity" is quite ridiculous given the pathetic state of Canada's armed forces and our total inability to defend our borders. So how you folks going to stop 'em?
|
|
|
|
January 2005: This is the latest official version from the Canadian Government for the reasons we are seeing these plumes in the sky.
|
January 2005:
Dear (Concerned Canadian):
Thank you for providing the Honourable Jean-C. Lapierre, Minister of Transport, with a copy of your correspondence of November 24, 2004, to the Honourable Pierre S. Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs, regarding aerial spray programs. I appreciate this opportunity to respond on Minister Lapierre's behalf.
At the outset, I should state that Transport Canada's first priorities are safety and security. The department's mission is to develop and administer policies, regulations and programs for a safe, secure and efficient transportation system.
With regard to your specific complaints on October 28 and November 6, 7, 15 and 19, 2004, I have been informed by Civil Aviation, Ontario Region officials that they have not received any other complaints or information from other sources with respect to these dates.
As you may be aware, contrails are triggered by an increase in the relative humidity that occurs in the engine plume. This increase in humidity, which is due to the mixture of warm exhaust gases with colder ambient air, produces a visual contrail, especially at high altitudes. In addition, contrails are becoming more common as a result of more efficient engines on modern aircraft. The exhaust from these new engines is much cooler than the exhaust from older engines, and results in the formation of contrails in warmer air. A modern aircraft can leave a contrail in the same airspace where an older aircraft would not because the atmosphere is not cold enough to condense hot exhaust gases from the older, inefficient engines, but can be cold enough to condense the cooler exhaust gases from newer, more efficient engines.
I would like to emphasize that contrails can persist depending on atmospheric conditions, including upper stability and wind conditions. I should also explain that contrails formed by aircraft on intersecting routes at different altitudes may, from the ground, appear to form patterns, though thousands of feet may separate two independent contrails. Parallel contrails may be formed in the same manner by aircraft travelling in parallel routes separated by thousands of feet. These patterns can be quite common in areas of heavy traffic. There are numerous air routes over the Ontario region and turns of 30 to 90 degrees would not be unusual for aircraft following these routes.
Transport Canada is not aware of any specific health impacts associated with contrail formation. The study of the impacts of contrail formation on the environment is still ongoing and will focus primarily on their impact on cloud formation. At the request of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepared a Special Report on Aviation on the Global Atmosphere. Transport Canada actively participated in the development of this report, which was released in June 1999. You may wish to refer to Section 4.5 of the Executive Summary of the report, which specifically addresses contrails and their impacts. The summary is available on the IPCC website at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
The IPCC report will help to shape the ICAO's efforts to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts fall into three categories: technology and standards, operational measures and market-based options. Action initiated under the technology standards category includes monitoring developments in characterization and measurement of emissions, such as particulates, which could be relevant to contrail production. In addition, the U.S. National Weather Service Forecast office has a website that offers additional information at http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/contrail.php?wfo=fgz.
With regard to your concerns about U.S. aircraft flying in Canadian airspace, if you feel that a violation has occurred, I would suggest that you gather as much information as possible regarding the flight such as date, time, direction, and any visible aircraft registration marks, and report the violation to NAV CANADA online at service@navcanada.ca or by calling 1-800-876-4693.
I trust that the foregoing will be of assistance. Thank you for writing to the federal government.
Yours sincerely,
Emmanuel Morin
Special Assistant - Ontario
c.c. Office of the Honourable Anne McLellan, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Pierre S. Pettigrew, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Dr. Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Andy Mitchell, P.C., M.P.
|
|
|
|
Being a fair sort of fellow I thought that I should give the other folks a chance too, so in early June 2002 I sent this same question to the Leader of The Official Opposition, Steven Harper. Specifically, I wanted to give him the opportunity to state the Alliance position on "chemtrails".
There was a typically Ottawa silence for quite some time but finally an e-mail response arrived:
Subject: (Blank)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:55:16 -0400
From: Office of the Leader of the Opposition <OLO@parl.gc.ca>
To: "G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca" <G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca>
July 23rd, 2002
Brian Holmes
140 Thunder Beach Road
Concession 17, Township of Tiny, RR #4
Penetanguishene PO, ON L9M 2H7
G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca
Dear Mr. Holmes:
Thank you for your e-mail message of June 11th to Stephen Harper on the
subject of "chemtrails."
I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail message to our critic for the environment, M.P. Bob Mills for his review and consideration.
Thank you once again for taking the time to share your concerns about this matter.
Sincerely,
Deborah Campbell
Assistant to the Leader
cc: Bob Mills, M.P.
/rl
|
Note that the Alliance think that it is an environment question. Here is the contact page of the Bob Mills, M.P. web site in Red Deer, Alberta: http://www.bobmillsmp.com/contact/contactindex.htm
|
|
I responded to this message from the Alliance on 26 July 2002 to inform them that the Liberals thought that this was a Defence and Health issue. I also brought them up to date on the web site developments. Here is a further message from the Alliance in response to that:
Subject: (Blank)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:39:39 -0400
From: Office of the Leader of the Opposition <OLO@parl.gc.ca>
To: "G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca" <G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca>
August 30th, 2002
Brian Holmes
140 Thunder Beach Road
Concession 17, Township of Tiny, RR #4
Penetanguishene PO, ON L9M 2H7
G.Brian.Holmes@sympatico.ca
Dear Mr. Holmes:
On behalf of Stephen Harper, thank you for your response to our e-mail
message of July 23rd.
As requested, I have forwarded your original e-mail message to our critic for national defence, M.P. Leon Benoit, and to our critic for health, M.P. Rob Merrifield, for their review and consideration.
Thank you once again for taking the time to share your concerns with us regarding "chemtrails".
Sincerely,
Deborah Campbell
Assistant to the Leader
cc: Leon Benoit, M.P.
Rob Merrifield, M.P.
/rl
|
|
|
One might think that the Alliance would jump on this issue but here is an interesting side light that was sent to me by a respected member of the "sky watching" community out on the West Coast. I had been asking if anyone had received any sort of feedback from the Alliance. I have taken the liberty of including here most of the 30 June 2002 reply I received:
"At one point late in the last federal election, I was approached (e-mail) by a member of the Alliance's election committee to perhaps even fly immediately to Ottawa as they were considering using chemtrails as a last ditch issue against the Liberals. Needless to say they didn't. My subsequent attempts to make further contact with the Alliance received no responses.
I have received the usual polite letters from my MP, and gov't ministers acknowledging receipt of our correspondence. Many Alliance members have seen (a chemtrail demonstration) video.
But that's it."
I think that I shall set aside my thoughts on the implications of this to some other time...
|
|
The official Canadian Chemtrail Petition (If you wish to see this page it will open in a separate window - it may be kept open, minimized or closed to return here.) that was prepared for presentation to Parliament was first formally submitted to the Canadian Alliance in the person of the Official Opposition Party's critic for the environment, Bob Mills, M.P. - see earlier mention above.
After some delay and a number of phone calls to his office I received a letter from Mr. Mills dated 17 April 2003 stating in part: "At this time I will respectfully decline to present it (the Petition) in the House of Commons."
There is no obvious reason for this rejection except perhaps that, as suspected and demonstrated by their actions, the Alliance have full knowledge of the illegal aerial spraying and are cooperating with the governing Liberals on the issue.
Hardly functioning as "Opposition"!
|
February 2007: A note is in order here that since these above comments were originally written much has taken place in the Canadian political scene. After a party merger and other political maneuvering the "opposition" party became the Conservative Party of Canada with Prime Minister Stephen Harper leading our country with a minority government.
Our new local Member of Parliament is Bruce Stanton and to date he has not been approached for his, or the Conservative government's, position on the illegal high altitude spraying of unknown substances by large military type aircraft - commonly referred to as 'chemtrails'. I would not expect it to be any different from what we have seen before.
|
|
One of my "skywatcher" friends had her questions passed along by our Provincial Conservative MPP to Chris Stockwell, Minister of Environment and Energy. Here is the response - it provides another useful explanation of what contrails are all about:
"I have received a copy of your e-mail of June 27, 2002 to Mr. Garfield Dunlop, MPP for Simcoe North, regarding your concerns about "chemtrails".
Chemtrails, also known as contrails, short for condensation trails - are the icy trails of condensation sprewed(sic) out by airplanes as they fly In the sky. The trails start out as clouds of water droplets and small pollutants from the plane's engine, as well as a small amount of gases. The gases soon dissipate and within seconds, the droplets turn to ice crystals. These crystals hook up with more and more moisture in the atmosphere and become visible to someone standing on the ground as markers of where the plane had been.
The concerns you have raised regarding this issue fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government under Transport Canada. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport Canada, and I trust that he or a member of his staff will respond to your concerns.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our government's attention."
Collenette? You might think he would know something about aircraft wandering around in our skies - whatever they are up to...
|
|
My "skywatcher" friend from above received another response - this time from the federal Minister of Transport. This MoT letter was copied to the federal Minister of Health, the Minister of Defence, our local federal and provincial MPs and the Ontario Minister of Health as above. Sometimes I feel we are over governed. It too contains a pathetic denial and standard explanation of condensation trails.
"The Honourable A, Anne McLellan, Minister of Health, and the Honourable Chris Stockwell, Ontario's Minister of Environment and Energy, have forwarded to the Minister of Transport, the Honourable David M. Collenette, copies of your electronic mail message of June 27, 2002, to the Honourable Paul DeVillers, M.P., and Mr. Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P., regarding your concerns about contrails. Minister Collenette has asked me to reply on his behalf, and I apologize for the delay.
As Minister McLellan explained in her response to you, contrails are formed by water vapour emitted from aircraft when the increase in relative humidity that occurs in the engine plume reaches 100 per cent. When warm, moist exhaust gases mix with the colder, less humid ambient air, ice particles are formed. Most of the ice particles in contrails come from water naturally present in the atmosphere, while jet engine exhaust produces only a small proportion of the water that forms the ice.
The reason contrails are becoming more common is that modem jet engines are more likely to generate contrails and are capable of creating contrails at lower altitudes than their older counterparts. This is due to the fact that the exhaust of the newer engines is warmer and has a greater amount of water vapour available to form a contrail.
Contrails are typically visible at cruise altitudes in the upper atmosphere. Their appearance varies, depending on the location of the sun and the colour of the sky. They evaporate quickly if the humidity is low, and persist or grow if the humidity is high. Upper air stability and wind conditions also affect the persistence of contrails.
The department is not presently aware of any specific health problems associated with contrails. A study on the impact of contrails on the environment is still in its infancy and will focus primarily on how contrails affect cloud formation.
Allow me to assure you that safety is Transport Canada's highest priority. Indeed, the department makes every effort to ensure that all aspects of air operations, including emissions from aircraft, are safe and within regulatory limits. Aircraft engines are required to meet very stringent emissions standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). To minimize the impact of aircraft engines on the environment, ICAO constantly updates these standards to ensure that aircraft engine manufacturers use the best available technology.
I trust that the foregoing will help to alleviate your concerns. Again, thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Sgnd.Brian Klunder
Special Assistant - Ontario
C.C. Office of the Honourable A. Anne McLellan, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Paul DeVillers, P.C., M.P.
Office of the Honourable Chris Stockwell, M.P.P.
Office of Mr. Garfield Dunlop, M.P.P."
This is a more imaginative response (hence the long delay?) than the DND.
A couple of points - as if you need them:
1. Not ALL jet aircraft have been fitted with "newer engines". If the explanation is that contrails are now more common then surely it would be the due to the fuel NOT the engines.
2. These aircraft are clearly military - at least "non-commercial". They are NOT on regular flight paths and are generally NOT at jetliner cruising altitudes.
3. These so-called "contrails" have been seen when humidity is very low yet still "persist".
4. No attempt is made to discuss the low level CT aircraft that have been observed by many Canadians. See my DND open
letter above.
|
|
Just for interest I have placed this here as it really is "government correspondence".
Photograph by Scott Dagilis
We are fortunate to be represented by a very dedicated Provincial Member of Parliament in the person of Garfield Dunlop who acts as Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier and is also Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
On Friday, 18 July 2003 Mr. Dunlop made the trip out to the Holmestead to discuss the issue of "illegal aerial spraying by large military type aircraft of unknown substances". We examined original photographs and documents plus watched a chemtrail video. Overall it was a very productive meeting.
Mr. Dunlop asked what I wanted of him and I replied nothing at this point except that he remain informed and alert about our concerns especially as I had every expectation that "chemtrails" would become an election issue at some point in the future. Nevertheless he started musing about how he might phrase a question in the House!
|
|
Another meeting - this time with the Hon. Paul DeVillers MP.
May 2004: Currently (at the time of writing) we are fortunate to have as our representative in Liberal Ottawa the Hon. Paul DeVillers.
He has more than ably served as Member Of Parliament for this community since 1993 and has "risen in the ranks to, for example, become Deputy Leader of the Government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien plus Secretary of State / Minister of State (Physical Activity and Sport) and has been either Chair or has sat on a number of important Parliamentary committees.
He must know every one of his many constituents by name - I have never encountered a person who has such a recollection of names, dates, times and places - but that is another story.
Hon. Paul DeVillers MP with our Shaddo - now one of his most dogged supporters! Scratch my ear please!
After a number of exchanges with Mr. DeVillers' office over the last couple of years, and with his assistance in forwarding my communications to various Ministers on the subject of the illegal high altitude spraying by large military type aircraft of unknown substances - commonly referred to as "chemtrails", I invited him to visit the Holmestead and discuss my concerns one-on-one from our own local perspective.
Although there is no doubt that I could have spent all day on the subject we had a frank, informative - but too brief - meeting Wednesday, 19 May 2004.
I asked him directly why he was here. He replied: to hear my concerns and hear of my "chemtrail theories".
Fair enough!
In front of us I had two computers with large monitors displaying a combination of the www.Holmestead.ca web site plus a slide show and a CT video or two!
After the first hour he was now asking: but someone must be doing this for a specific purpose?
I consider that progress.
As I said - I could have gone on all day and then some…
We touched upon the NWO connections and the "attention" that we had received here at the Holmestead from black helicopters and so on. Also, I presented samples of the Holmestead.ca web site statistics showing many visits from US Government and Military plus others - he too wondered why? A simple rural family web site such as this is receiving such attention?
Towards the end he had an interesting story to tell - I had just told him that I thought that he was an honest man but that the Ottawa "scene", or "political system" if you wish, might corrupt anyone.
His story concerned his position on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. (Mr. DeVillers' background is that of a lawyer) and that when representatives of the Canadian "secret service" - CSIS have presented themselves for questioning before the Committee the Members are repeatedly frustrated by the responses that the question cannot be answered because it is a "State Secret"! OK - I have taken a small liberty there with that actual term because that is a lead in to, or a definite confirmation of, my Holmestead.ca page on "State Secrets - State Lies". Nevertheless (according to Mr. DeVillers' report) that is the essence of the answers that have been received in this Parliamentary Committee from CSIS representatives: "I can't answer that because it is a secret - so there!"
In fact, so frustrated have the Members of this Committee become that they have considered ways in which to a select a couple of Members who might be "sworn to secrecy" under the Security of Information Act and so be able to more effectively meet their mandate to provide "oversight" of the security service on behalf of the Canadian people.
But there is a catch - perhaps Catch 22 - and that is that the Members are our representatives and so must (or should) report all their findings to the citizens.
Anyhow, it is a very revealing story.
Upon his departure from the Holmestead I provided Mr. DeVillers with a number of CT related documents for his further attention - I hope that he explores them and also where they might take him as a politician or as a member of the community at large.
Some informative chemtrails related reading for Mr. DeVillers.
Where does all this lead? I have no idea - but sooner or later (one way or another…) the truth of this whole criminal chemtrails aerial spraying story will be revealed.
|
|
June 2004: After visiting Holmestead.ca - and in particular reading this government correspondence page - Rob Walton decided to do something about it! Click on the image to take you to his page. The page will open in a separate window - it may be kept open, minimized or closed to return here.
|
You are invited to contact us at the "Holmestead".
|