Did anyone ask you if it was ok to experiment with our climate and environment?

(An article from 2011 – is this experiment ongoing?)

An experiment starting next month in the U.K. will pump water one kilometer into the air to test a new climate-cooling method that eventually could deliver sunlight-reflective sulfate particles into the stratosphere

Do you think anyone would have the courtesy to inform DEFA that this has been going on – or are DEFA already informed? Could it be that making the claim that climate change is a security threat means that those in the know have to sign the
Official Secrets Act? Is this why all governments just clam up and deny?




So there we have it. While we are constantly chided about our carbon footprint and reminded how we are the cause of global warming, these guys conveniently forget to mention that they have been polluting the earth for decades. All harmless stuff of course! Just like fluoride and asbestos and DDT and all the other materials which we have been assured are harmless. Above all – who gives these guys the right to decide who will have rain, deluge or drought? This is what the sky trails are all about. What we observe is geoengineering in progress. The biggest elephant in the room.

The Biggest Elephant in the Room

A look at last night’s presentation:

Wilful Blindness – Margaret Heffernan gives us a fascinating insight into human nature and how people would prefer to turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room:

What does aerial spraying look like? The following time lapse video provides an insight into how the spraying is carried out and the appearance of atmospheric spraying. Please note these are  NOT normal contrails. I lived under a flight path and contrails never, ever lingered and spread out. They disappeared in minutes:

So that was Vancouver. Do we see this in the Isle of Man? Look up. I can supply many more images:

036 066 033050

Why are they doing this? Cloud seeding has been going on for decades. Geoengineering methods aka as Solar Radiation Management and Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, amongst other terms, are also in use. In parts of the US the public is paying for this with a surcharge on utility bills:

Wouldn’t the meteorologists notice something? Only those who can think for themselves. Scott Stevens also has the courage to speak out:

Still sceptical? Well, even NASA talks about the chemtrails they use. It seems an awful lot of people are able to mess about with the sky.

Must watch. Dane Wigington, with a background in renewable energy, was stunned to discover that his solar array in California was not producing enough upload. Not enough sun in the sunshine state? His investigations showed why this is. He has put his life on hold to get this message out. This video pulls it all together. The damage to the planet is appalling and ongoing. And now they seek approval to come out of the closet and really go for it:

Comments welcome, but denials won’t do. We know we are being sprayed. We know that cloud seeding and the associated disastrous results have been going on for decades. We know that the Isle of Man skies have changed. Denials are meaningless. We need transparency. My belief is that those in the know are requested to sign the Official Secrets Act. The US makes references to climate change being a ‘security threat’. We need to know why certain flights leave lingering trails. Who gives these people the permission to spray us? Did you?

Oh and by the way: The former Premier of British Columbia does have the courage to speak out:


Engineer the Climate and Kill the Planet?


  • Global dimming
  • Trees and plants withering
  • Bee colonies collapsing
  • An increase in chronic illnesses and allergies

Is there a ‘hidden’ source of pollution? Why is this question stonewalled by governments worldwide? How can we effectively engage in dialogue? Discussion of this topic:

Wednesday 21st August,

Old Friends,

Finch Road, Douglas


(No admission fee. Donations to help cover costs would be appreciated)

Note: The topic of Solar Radiation Management (aka ‘chemtrails’) is far from being a conspiracy theory. Now admitted by NASA scientists as well as weather forecasters, discussion of aerial spraying is long overdue. It affects you and your family. This topic cannot be ignored any longer.





Get them young and ensure they accept indoctrination and petty controls. This is one way of ensuring the population becomes as compliant as possible. A police officer in the US threatened a class with instant jail, without notifying parents, if they misbehaved in class. We are told fear plays a big part in the US educational system:

Presumably, this primes the next generation to heed the persistent paranoid warnings emanating from the US government. But life is terminal. While we may do our best to ensure we live as long and well as possible it is surely pointless to spend our time on earth worrying about how it will end. We are wasting precious living time. However, the constant warnings can be used very effectively in keeping the masses under control and conditioning the children to fall in line is an obvious necessity to this end.

Did you watch Make Me a German last night? While the British family attempting to integrate into the German way of life in a short time may have had one or two difficulties adjusting to German lifestyle, the issue of  the upbringing of children was not one of them. The mother commented very positively on the fact that children were playing outdoors in nursery school (they were climbing trees) instead of spending the day under artificial light. The fact that children do not start school until they are seven and the shorter school day, sometimes ending around 11.30, which prevents many mothers from working outside the home was viewed by the British mother in a very negative light. She obviously prefers the British trend of permitting the State to effectively bring up the children. It’s a set up. Base a mortgage on both salaries and then the mother is obliged to continue working full time when children come along. Choosing to work is one thing but for many British parents there are no options available.

Children enter into the care of the state at an early age. This state care now extends to dictating what the the children are to eat and of course, what they are to wear. and arguably, how they are to think. Unlike their German counterparts, British full time mothers often feel apologetic for not working outside the home. While the German homemaker takes a pride in raising the child for a good part of the day  and enjoys providing wholesome food and outdoor activities.

Maybe this lifestyle has become so alien that few Brits could even contemplate it. Many prefer the ‘recognition’ of their colleagues to playing a major part in the upbringing and general good health of their families, or so it seems. It is a personal choice but in my opinion pursuing a career when children are still in nappies demands a huge sacrifice of family time (which can never be recovered). This is tragic enough but by far the worst side of this is that British parents have little input in their children’s lives in comparison to some other countries. The state steals the child at an early age, it seems to me. But is the state doing a good job of child care and raising children? A comparison of British teenagers with their counterparts from other countries suggests to me that this is not the case.

Is constant interference from the Nanny State really what we need? Wouldn’t increased personal parent input be more desirable? As long as we accept that the state steps into raising our children from an early age then nothing will change. But maybe that’s the intention.

Women’s lib. Was that about a mother’s right to work or were there other reasons for the CIA funding contribution to this cause? The late Aaron Russo was a former friend of Nick Rockefeller:


Why did the Department of Social Care adopt the discredited Every Child Matters system of referrals? More to the point  – who was responsible for instigating it? The public rejected it. The Minister distances himself from this ‘mistake’, which occurred prior to his appointment. Nobody now wants to be associated with it in any way. Nor is anyone inclined to name names or explain how it was introduced, it seems. So who introduced it? And how was a non-statutory board brought into a highly sensitive situation? All this happened quite by chance? Of course not. We need names.

The transcript of the recent Tynwald Standing Committee on Social Affairs Policy Review confirms that the Every Child Matters policy ‘ tended to engender additional referrals‘ . We are further informed that ‘we had a culture out there which was tending towards adopting the Every Child Matters agenda.’ and that the agenda ‘had the unfortunate impact of very broad referral criteria.’ Resulting in 959 referrals from which only 60 cases required further action, it seems. Consequently, these working practices necessitated ‘the use of many, many agency social workers’. It seems that ‘Government invested a lot of time and effort in generating support for Every Child Matters’ . So why does the department not simply pull the plug on a highly unsatisfactory system? Mr Robertshaw asserts that this might result in missing a genuine case. However, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that over-burdened social workers could well overlook a genuine case, having difficulty distinguishing wood from trees.

We are reminded, that a birth rate of around one thousand children per year almost equates to the referral quota. In response the committee was advised that multiple referrals from various agencies could apply to one child, which raised the question of who monitors the quantity of children referred in comparison to the quantity of initial referrals. Response? It seems the department doesn’t know. The Speaker also raised the issue that innocent families were being stigmatised and suffering as a result of the system in use, which we discover, is not ‘refined or defined in statutes‘.

The transcript contains references to the ‘terrific turnover of staff‘ in the department, with a total of 51 agency social workers  employed over two years. From those 28 did not stay here. In turn raising the question of why we import social workers rather than training locally. We learn that the department is presently the subject of an external investigation to be conducted by the Scottish Government Care Inspectorate, itself presently embroiled in the introduction of Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) – a seemingly more intrusive system than ECM. Indeed, many believe it will generate more over-referrals than its Isle of Man counterpart, ECM. However, we are assured that ECM practices would not be reintroduced as ‘It was a mistake. Everyone understands and recognises it was’.

The system was an import  – no surprises there! Copied and pasted, as usual? With the words Gloucestershire County Council appearing on the department’s website the question of the suitability of procedures for our island community was also raised.

Amongst all these issues, however, one point is of particular concern. The Protecting Children Board ‘does not operate under statute’. This surely must be causing government a headache. There is no statutory basis for this board which deals with highly sensitive matters. What would happen if someone decided to contest this? How does PCB operate? It is not a department of Social Care. ‘it actually goes through to the Chief Secretary’s Office‘!  And is it registered for Data Protection? It seems not.

The Speaker:

I think the implication of what the Chairman (Brenda Cannell) is saying is, of course, unless the board operates according to statutory policy, given the experience of people being incorrectly sucked into the Child Protection arena, then if the procedures operate without statute, there is going to be some difficulty in defending those procedures in court of law if they are operating without statutory authority.

The Chairman concluded that the Committee would follow things up with the Chief Secretary’s Office (Laughter) [Not my comment  – this appears in the transcript. Manxasthehills.]

… it is of concern that there is a group of people sitting with this level of involvement without being protected by statute and appear to be answerable to nobody other than the Council of Ministers. (The Chairman).