JEFF RENSE INTERVIEW
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
www.carnicom.com. 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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: www.carnicom.com, 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
Jeff: We have a total of three hours. I've given you the whole
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
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
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
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
Clifford: First of all- "policy". Really, I have no interest in
policy. I have interest in obligation and law.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 www.carnicom.com. Be
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
www.rense.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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: www.carnicom.com 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: 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
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
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.
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
End Part I
Jeff Rense Interview with Clifford Carnicom
Part II: Chemtrails and Electromagnetism
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
www.carnicom.com 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
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
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
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."
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.
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
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
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
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
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, www.carnicom.com, 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
Jeff: All right. We're right back with Clifford Carnicom. Plumbing
the depths, or the heights, of the chemtrail mystery. Go ahead
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
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
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,"
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Bariumblues.com