The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 363: EYE ON THE SKY

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

Jefferey Jaxen reports on Fake Meat’s Free Fall, green energy’s plan to end the automobile age, and is Bayer Headed Toward Bankruptcy?; Del unpacks weather modification with climate engineering expert Jim Lee.Guests: Jim LeeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to I Can Decide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yeah. Let's do this. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Wherever you are out there in the world, it's time to step out into the high wire. Well, here in Texas, it's spring break, which means the perfect day to just go outside and take on that big blue sky. except if there's like a bunch of like lines going like this everywhere you look. I know you know what I'm talking about,

and we're actually going to get deep into that topic later on in the show. But first is time for The Jackson Report. All right, Jeffrey. How are you going to compete with chemtrails today? I can't do it. I can't do it. They're untouchable. But I can give an update on a story that we have been rolling with,

The beats of this story for years now. What am I talking about? I'm talking about Monsanto and their flagship product Roundup. Remember, this company was bought by Bear who inherited just basically a legal noose around their neck with these Roundup litigations. Well, if anybody doesn't know and hasn't been tracking this story, this is what it's looked like in the news of the past couple of years. Take a look. The jury awarding $289 million in damages. Oregon reached a settlement to nearly $700 million. dollars. Here AG will pay more than $10 billion. The widow of a Cambria farmer is suing agrochemical giant Monsanto, alleging the company's roundup herbicide caused her husband's cancer and later his death. Friday, a jury in San Francisco found biochemical giant Monsanto liable for former school groundskeeper Dwayne Johnson's cancer. A California jury ordered the maker of Roundup Monday to pay more than $2 billion to a couple

who claim the popular. Weed killer caused their cancer. Product Roundup led to his diagnosis of terminal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsano product gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Developed lymphoma. His wife, brother-in-law, and father-in-law, all affected by non-Hodgachkin lymphoma. Roundup gave them cancer. Johnson's lawsuit is the first of hundreds against Monsanto,

alleging it knew the weed killers link to cancer and failed to notify the public. The state of Oregon said Monsanto knew for decades. decades, how toxic one compound was in its products. Monsanto was purchased by German-based Bayer in 2018. Bayer inherited Roundup lawsuits when it bought the St. Louis company Monsanto. Bayer has argued its products are safe and has repeatedly defended the Monsanto deal. More than 13,000 similar lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto nationwide. So where are we at right now?

Well, this is the big headline here. And this really may represent a tipping point in this story. This is the title, Bear slumps after 2.25 billion roundup trial loss. You go into this article, it says the verdict by a Philadelphia jury is the largest so far in five years of litigation over the herbicide. The stock fell as much as 5.7% in Frankfurt trading, and it's down almost 70% since Bear acquired Roundups at Maker Monsanto in 2018. Wow. So short, I mean, it's one of the worst business choices of all times in his Hey, I got an idea.

You know, why don't we merge our pharmaceutical company with the big ag company, Monsanto? You have to imagine someone's like, you do know they've got this pesky little problem with this product roundup, right? Ah, don't worry. Can't be that big a deal. Exactly. And we're seeing, you know, we're seeing the disconnect between investors and really just people that have been watching mainstream news and the alternative community. What once was the alternative community, a lot of people knew about rounds. Roundup. And I would imagine a lot of mainstream investors did not know about Roundup, the regulatory

capture, and how all of these science journals were really not showing the true toxicity of this herbicide. So this is a really come to Jesus moment, if you will, for this company. So shortly after that Roundup case, that $2.25 billion, you started seeing headlines like this, Bear cuts dividend by 95% as it wrestles with Roundup woes. So they're now offering investors only the legal minimum required under German law, which is 12 cents per share. They're going to do that for the next three years. So again, you already have really not happy investors. So this isn't going to make them happy at all. They brought in a new CEO, Bill Anderson last year. So he's up to his neck really trying to restructure this company. So let's just continue to go through the headlines. And this is

chronological. So the next headline after this one, we have financial times. Bears breakup looks inevitable. We've never seen reporting like this. And it says the German conglomerate continues to nurse, a giant hangover from its disastrous $63 billion takeover of Monsanto agreed in 2016. It's grappling with total debt estimated at 42 billion euros. One of the biggest product liability cases in corporate history plus a pharmaceutical is a growth problem. So they have two companies here. They have the pharmaceutical arm of this and the agricultural arm.

So there's talking about a split in here. They're not going to go through with it yet, but it's on the table. They're trying to maybe split off the agriculture and the pharmaceutical part. to isolate this contagion, if you will, this corporate cancer. But at the same time this is happening, we had just a couple of years ago, the EPA Environmental Protection Agency here in the United States, they made their final rule, like an updated rule on glyphosate. And they said, you know what, it's fine.

It doesn't harm humans. It's not carcinogenic. And a group of people took them to court. And this was the headline that came out of that court ruling. Federal court rejects glyphosate registration decision because EPA ignored cancer risk, endangered species risk. So they completely ignored. They must reevaluate this.

So it basically says in there, if you look into the article, it says, as to its cancer conclusion, the court concluded that EPA flooded its own cancer guidelines and ignored the criticisms of its own experts. Where have we heard that before? This seems like an ongoing. I mean, this is what happened with the fluoride conversation. They ignored their own experts. So the EPA has to go back to the drawing board, court ordered, and at some point, they're saying 2026 they might come out with this.

And, you know, who knows at this point. But we see the games up. It's really being battled and legal in the courts. But at the same time, there's a bill that's moving through. And this is one of the headlines. This is from a friend of our show, Carrie Gillum. She's writing for The Guardian. She wrote this article here.

It's an abomination, battle brewing over proposed U.S. laws to protect pesticide companies. This is the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act. So what it's attempting to do when you really get into minutia of that act, it's going to try to provide a barrier for local and state authorities from implementing their own restrictions on the pesticide. But also it's going to attempt to block some of these legal claims, perhaps all of the legal claims if it goes through. So this thing's working its way through end of 2024 or 2025,

maybe in the farm bill. It might get inserted. But that's something to really look out for. So I mean, I hope people are just tired of this. a defunct product. How do you deal with it? Don't fix the product. Don't get rid of the product. Just buy some government officials and pass a law that no one can sue you and then get back to business as usual. We've watched this with the vaccine program. Now they're literally, we're going to create a, you know, a pesticide court where if you're injured, Monsanto gets to walk off

in the sunset and the government will tell you you're crazy. We don't have any evidence that your cancer is being caused by the, you know, the glyphosate or whatever. I mean, it's just this whole thing. This is supposed to be the United States of America. We're supposed to have the most transparent system for the people, by the people, and instead it's just for the corporations, by the corporations. It's really gross. And all of these stories, one of the reasons we report on them is there are roadmaps for

us to really understand how these corporations maneuver. So there's the legal aspect, obviously. There's the public opinion and the media, and then there's the political angling of this all. But it seems, you know, we always talk about this Dell. It seems like there's a quickening happening. It's coming quicker and quicker. And that's why we're raising the alarm so much about the COVID shots and really investigating those on the front end.

So we don't have to deal with this back end stuff like this for so long. But it does look like it's coming to a head here. And so let's slow it down for a little bit here for this next segment. Literally, let's slow down the speed limit. And if you're in Wales, you're seeing this headline here recently, Wales first UK nation to drop speed limit from 30 miles per hour. And so you start to look into this. We're going to pack this story a little bit.

Why are we talking about speed limits? Well, there's a little bit of a story beyond this. And just to get into this a little more, let's hear from some of the people in Wales and how do they feel about this? Take a listen. All right. Speed limit in Wales, as you know,

has been slashed on all residential roads as of yesterday. In a UK first, the Welsh government has lowered most speed limits in urban areas to a default 20, 20 miles an hour or 32 kilometres an hour. For the Welsh government, it's about improving safety, with a change expected to result in 40% fewer collisions and encourage people to get around in other ways, like cycling or public transport. It's very frustrating.

I've noticed on my commute to work, even on roads that are not 20 miles an hour, the traffic is backing up. We've now got a petition of 450,000 people who say it's a bad idea, get rid of it. It's keeping the traffic really terrible. anywhere you travel like maybe 10, five minutes, it takes you like over half an hour. I'm rather skeptical since they slow down things like commutes and emergency services and can ultimately reduce the productivity of the nation. With any traffic jams, anything like that, it'll be going along as a snail space.

People have been driving in these areas for years. It's just going to be too hard to change and it will cost a lot, I think, to get all the remapping and all the signs, and I just think it's overall not a good idea. I don't know what they're complaining about. If you pass a 20-mile-per-hour zone all over America, I'm sure we'd be just fine. God, they're so up Titan whales. Where do you got to be? It's very difficult to go 20 miles an hour and not go over the speed limit.

There is. Anybody's ever tried that. So there is a petition. It's petition here. We want the Welsh government to rescind and remove the disastrous 20-mile-per-hour law. almost 470,000 signatures there. That's a huge population, a huge part of the Welsh Welsh population, the working population, especially that's commuting. And so you're seeing this here. And of course, the government's coming out as quickly as possible. And they're saying this in

the headlines, Welsh 20 mile an hour speed limit is a success claims government. Yeah, we made it. We did it. How are they measuring success going in the article? They're saying, well, people are starting to slow down a couple miles an hour here or there. So the whole idea of this, the proposed idea on the front end was slow people down, there'll be less traffic accidents. That's the idea. So it's a health benefit. That's the front end. But then you start looking at articles like this. The city 30 model wants to reshape European cities. Is it working? And you go in here, it says data from cities that adopted the city 30 model all point to improvements in terms of road safety and life quality. Listen to this. However, isolating the actual impact of the policy is a difficult task,

said Anna Bernoulli, senior researcher at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. She says, generally, the 30 kilometers per hour speed limit is part of a wider plan to promote sustainable mobility. I was researching this the first time I've ever seen that word sustainable mobility. We'll go back to that in a second, which can involve other measures such as bike sharing programs or structural changes. These measures are often enforced simultaneously, so it's hard to understand how each one of them contributes to the overall result. I'm trying to say that you're going to share the road better with a bike because you're going to be reduced to moving as fast as a bicycle. Is that what I'm going to understand as part of this process?

Yes. So they're using sustainable mobility. So you look at the word sustainable, you go into the agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals. It's all about sustainability, but you look in there, and the word sustainable mobility is not in there. So they're actually adding this term into the popular culture to try to really shift the focus to get people. of their cars, get them on, you know, basically on public transportation or bikes. But it's interesting because the quote in there from the senior researcher at University of Rotterdam says, it's really working, but it's hard to quantify how it's working. So we don't really understand

this. And so what this all goes into is something called climate reductionism. So I don't know, it's giving me the giggles. I'm just imagining with all the problems in the world, can you imagine and everywhere you're going, you're just being forced to drive 20 miles an hour. The drinking must be going through the route must be people lined up in bars like, I can't take it. I mean, it's my mind. I mean, it's so aggravating. Just everywhere you go, everyone's just, you know, crawling along at 20 miles an hour, you know.

It's safer. It's going to be safer, apparently. But we don't really know how much safer, but we know they're slowing down. So the word climate reductionism is thrown around a lot. but basically this is tying everything into climate. And I know a couple weeks ago you talked to Dr. Judith Curry about this, you know, anything that is a detriment to humanity, well, it's linked to climate. So this is the front cover of Time magazine and it really says it all.

And this is really 2021. Time front cover. The climate is everything. So this is what we're talking about. So now let's wrap this in. It started out, the lower speed limit started out with, well, you know, it's going to have left traffic accidents. But now we go to this article. In a win for climate, urban speed limits are dropping. So now we're leaving the UK and coming to the US. Cities across the US are following Seattle's lead with speed limits dropping from Denver and Minneapolis to Washington, D.C. and Hoboken. Although these changes are motivated by the need to reduce deaths and injuries from car crashes, there's a growing recognition that they also benefit the climate. It goes on to say

safety and environment goals go together. They're inevitably interlinked, says, Vennu, Nani, the chief safety officer of Seattle Department of Transportation. So here's where it gets crazy. We're going to bring it back to California where a lot of maybe undesirable stuff if you're a motorist happen. And here's one of them. Government is trying to propose a solution to this, not just on a road sign, in your car. California bill would make state the first to require in-vehicle speeding limit devices.

This is the hill. It says this device would restrict the speed of a car to 10 miles an hour above the speed limit. with specific exceptions as indicated by the bill. Emergency vehicles, for example, would be exempt as the California Highway Patrol could authorize the systems disabling in certain cases. There's so much wrong with this. Intelligence speed limiters, that's what they're being called.

Smart speed limiters, which the state... I mean, I don't know if you really even need this thing. I was just in Los Angeles, and you'd be lucky to be able to hit 20 miles per hour most of the time. The traffic there is so insane. I lived there. It's wild to go back. I even said, I'm going to meet someone at about 4.45 on Friday over in Burbank or something.

And then I got to the traffic. It's like, oh, what are you thinking? You're not going anywhere at 445 on a Friday, let alone like over the hill in the Burbank. I had to cancel and make the meeting for the next day. But, I mean, people in California, they're used to, you know, five miles per hour for a few hours. Right. And, God, what would you do? I mean, it seems like they probably should have some type of solution is if you're in your private vehicle and you actually do have an emergency you have to speed for. I don't know that works, but going back to this article.

Intelligent Speed Limitors, they're called, which the state center, this is Senator Wiener, our friend, referred to as speed governors, prevent vehicles from surpassing a certain speed by harnessing GPS and onboard camera data to determine limits on a specific roadway. So, and remember in this article it says the California Highway Patrol could authorize the systems disabling. I thought there was a conspiracy theory that they could turn your car off. But really, we're talking about going from lowering

lowering speed limits to just getting people out of their car, essentially. And this is what California is proposing. Check out this new idea that's happening in California. Col de Sack is the first community in the U.S. designed specifically for car-free living. Co-founder Ryan Johnson said it's what Americans want. In the U.S., we've been building the wrong kind of housing for 100 years. We've built sprawl and it's created car dependency,

and it's made us lonelier, less healthy, and less happy. and what people want is to live in walkable neighborhoods. Now, retail, restaurants, and close to 200 apartments in the first phase, no cars means no parking, no garages, no parking spaces, so more space for social areas. The complex is strategically located right next to the area's light rail system. All residents get a free pass. The first 200 also get a free electric e-bike, and a partnership with lifts gets them discount rides. You know, to each their own, if you want to live in a carless city, go right ahead.

What it gets scary is like when you're seeing in Wales, when they start mandating these things, these 15-minute cities and no speed limit, no cars. You know, it's to each their own, but keep it away from me. Exactly. One of the things we shall remember is the lesson from the COVID response was the digital passports and the ability not to use some of these public transportation systems and just even go to the store. and get groceries without having your vaccine. So really what happens when there's another pandemic, which we're being told may happen. So there's a lot of questions. Public transportation is your only transportation. Guess who has to comply whatever the public mandates on you. I mean, it's, you know, it's crazy. All right. And so with this idea of,

you know, agenda 2030 and all of these checked boxes that are trying to be checked off in one way or the other, I saw this headline and it made me really start to dig into this story here. And let's talk about food now. We've talked about food for quite a, quite a long time on the show and what, you know, how to eat healthy food, and then the switchover. Tyson Foods, one of the biggest meat producers, is investing in insect protein. This is one of the largest food companies in the world is recognized as a leader in protein. And if you go into this article, it says Tyson is not only taking a minority stake in the company, but is working alongside it to build a factory. This is the insect protein company. That facility will use animal waste to

feed back soldier flies, which will then be turned into food for pets, poultry, and fish. Tyson did not disclose the financial specifics of the deal. So technically they're not feeding this to people, but they're feeding it to the poultry that the people eat and your pets and fish that people eat. So you start looking into this and it's like, okay, this is really interesting. Why are they cozying up to this to this insect protein company? Well, I mean, you could say, well, it's sustainable and this is another way just to eliminate they waste. Okay, but then you see headlines like this. Tyson is closing four plants as chicken

sales slump. And you go into that article, it's actually six plants. This is four additional plants in rural towns. And then a headline here out of Reuters, U.S. reduces beef exports as cattle herd shrinks, squeezing Tyson foods. So you can see there's a play here on meat. And we know that we're supposed to know that eating meat is bad for the environment. So there's a lot of angling going on that appears to be really hurting these companies. And so I think back in 2017, you saw Bill Gates really enter the picture for the first time hard and make this proclamation with his funds. Bill Gates headlines an all-star list of investors pumping 75 million into meatless burgers.

So that was in 2017. Gates went into impossible foods and then beyond burgers, beyond meat, basically, is another company that invested in both of those. is Bill Melinda Gates Foundation. So in 2019, Beyond Meat goes public. Here's the headline for that as sales of plant-based meats rise. And these are supposed to be the answer. Insects, plant-based meats,

this is how we fight climate change and this was gonna be the future. But then you have Bill Gates kind of slipping out the back door a little bit before the crashes. So Bill Gates Foundation quietly cashed out beyond meat stock before its epic crash. So he made his money on the way up. He kind of financed this.

But after when public, he was out the door. And so this whole industry is having a huge problem now, this fake meat, if you will. Beyond meat is one of the leaders, or was one of the leaders, I should say. But you're now seeing headlines like this. Class action lawsuits alleging beyond meat,

deceived customers about protein content will be combined in Chicago. So they're having a lot of issues with that. Beyond meat, there's several lawsuits going on there, also about their ingredients, not being natural, and then also deceiving investors. So they have some problems here. Bill Gates, however, he's still on the circuit over the last couple of years talking about this.

Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef. This is an MIT technology review. And listen to this quote. Sometimes you just fall off your chair, but it is Bill Gates. He says, I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference. And the claim is that they're going to make it taste even better over time. So I know it tastes bad now, but just keep eating it.

told me they're going to fix it. Amazing. There's a big rib-eye fake beef steak. Yeah, and this is happening. I mean, this is really happening. So you look at in this article, it looks at the venture capital that's really trying to fund a lot of these to get this fallen fake meat industry up on its feet. And this, this chart here, she kind of really tells a story.

You see in 2017, the first blips of this, 2019, Beyond Meat was the initial public offering of the stocks. And then in 2021, you see it peaked, but then here we are, they're just tanking at this point. Wow. So these, and so this perhaps is one of the reasons that the insect companies, fake meat companies are having to kind of go in with big, like Tyson meats, big corporations, because they really are not finding the venture capital on their own. They're really not being able to make it on their own. And this headline shows that right here, beyond meat wannabes are failing as hype and money fade. And it says unreal food and its pursuit of an eggless egg.

mastered food stopped developing vegan bacon. The meatless farm halted its plant-based sausages. The great shakeout in the world's fake meat sector is here and it's widening. It says with shoppers put off by excessive processing, nutritional value and taste, a growing list of alternative protein companies are shutting down, laying off staff and selling themselves. Industry observers say more turmoil is coming before the sector stabilizes. Well, it would be interesting if it does stabilize because this is really, it seems like just an appetite shift for the American public and for other people as well. But the attack on meat and meat processing plants is not over. So this just happened last week. New York Attorney General

sues Meat Packer JBS over climate claims. This is the world's largest beef producer. And this is the New York State Attorney General. And they're accusing it of misleading the public about the impact of their environmental goals. So they're saying that this is Letitia James. And everyone should know that name. Been in the headlines a lot for the dealings with Trump. But now she's going after the meat industry. And it's interesting because this is a Brazilian-owned meat industry, headquarters in Colorado.

And she's basically saying in this lawsuit that they didn't really have a viable plan to reach net zero by 2040. So we're going to go ahead and push some legal action on them. And it's going to be a burden for them. But the company itself, JBS, says it aspires to meet net zero goals by 2040. there's a lot of other companies that are doing this, but this is something that's in the future. They haven't even gotten here yet. So this is a very interesting in telling lawsuit about what type of focus, the Attorney General of New York is focusing on a meat industry or a packing industry, processing industry out of Brazil that may be hurting the rainforests, which are all admirable issues.

But, I mean, in this whole context of this conversation and the attack on the meat processing plant, and just meet in general for climate change, it seems like this might be politically motivated. Who knows? But you start reading the lawsuit. It's like reading Agenda 2030 from the United Nations. It's really line for line. It looks like it's coming right out of that.

Yeah, it's really amazing when we look at this. And like I said, whatever diet you're choosing out there, I absolutely believe in freedom. And, you know, everyone's got some guru telling you something different. I have like five different people telling me five different ways to eat. right now as we speak. But one thing I want to say is this, that this idea, these Bill Gates characters, these World Economic Forum, globalists, Attorney General in New York, your job is not here to force me to comply into eating a certain way. You know, this is what living in a free country

is all about. And frankly, Jeffrey, one of the things I love is that inadvertently, as we report in these things, we show you why freedom actually does work, why free market forces end up finding the right path, the right light at the end of the tunnel, because all of these things come at us. They all got subsidized and get pushed by Washington Post, New York Times, all these newspapers. But in the end, what happens? Just like the electric cars were reporting every other week. It's just a slumping market because in the end, the market doesn't want it.

And so this shows you that voting with your dollars matters, folks. And as much as watching a high-wire episode every once in a while, have you screaming at the television set, just bring it back and recognize that, you know, recognizing these things are happening, talking to your friends and avoiding buying one of these things, and maybe even, you know, rib your friend a little bit when they try to order one at the restaurants and say,

are you really going to eat one of those? You have any idea what's in that? If you ever ask yourself, how are they making that? Lab-grown meat, seriously? I'm going to have the rib-eye. Thank you. Anyway, obviously, we're having an effect on these conversations. We're not that asleep at the wheel.

People are doing okay. We're not as stupid as they think we are. And slowly but surely the market starts proving that out. Jeffrey, great reporting. Thank you for keeping us up to date on all of these crazy laws and issues that they're trying to bring. But the people are prevailing and it's really exciting every time we get to celebrate that part of these stories. So take care. Happy spring break and I'll see you next week.

All right. Thank you so much. All right. Well, look, you know, I say it all the time. This show is like no other show. We don't have any sponsors making this happen. Obviously, what sponsor would go with us, right? Bug companies?

They're not going to, you know, go with us. Pharmaceutical companies. These are not the things that, you know, we get supported by. We get supported by you so that we can bring you the truth when nobody else is. And I say this all the time. I know you're paying your cable bill. You're not hiding it from me. And you're going and you're letting you.

play in the background like it doesn't affect you while it's lying to you 24 hours a day. Lies, deceit, propaganda. Well, I'm not going to tell you to stop doing it. I know you want to get your sports channels and things that come along with it, but here's what you can do. You can actually make a difference in the world. Vote with these dollars. Vote with the dollars you give to I can.

That helps us do this work. Not only do we report on things that nobody else is covering in mainstream news, Then we also take your support and we fund lawsuits to stop this craziness in its tracks. When it comes to wanting fresh meat or how about raw milk, we get involved in lawsuits for Amish farmers. All of these things are things that we're involved in. You make it possible for us to make a difference in the world. And so if you haven't taken the opportunity, why don't you decide to make this the week that you actually make a difference in the world? So put down that fake burger.

And this week instead, why don't you take that money and donate it to I can? The $6 or $7 a month would really make a difference. We love it when you become a recurring donor. That way we know what lawsuits we can get involved in, how many reporters we can send out there to get our stories. We're asking for $24 a month for $20.24. But honestly, anything you can give makes a difference. And I want you to know what it feels like to be a part of making a difference.

so that every time we talk about the legal wins or the next great achievement, like returning the religious exemption in Mississippi, that's not possible because of me. That's not even possible because of Aaron's hearing. That happened because of those of you out there that decided to just give a few dollars every month. That's what makes the difference. That's what changes the world. Become a part of the informed consent action network.

We're going to make it easy. Type 72022. and write in the word donate, and we will send you a link right away to make that as easy as possible. One of the big conversations that you have all asked us to investigate is these pesky lines you keep seeing up in the sky. Now, there's a lot of conversations about this, and I've told you before, I'm a skeptic on all sides. I'm a skeptic on all sides of every conversation until someone can prove to me otherwise. I need evidence. I need facts. So there's a lot that we know. There's a lot that's reported on. But is that the entire story? That's what we're going to get into today. Is this the only thing

we should be worried about when it comes to chemtrails? Water officials in the Inland Empire want to make it rain. In China, they're waging war on the weather. A drought so severe, they're firing rockets into the sky to make it rain. Lasers now could one day manipulate. rain and lightning. They're using science of the process called cloud seeding to increase the amount of rain in some areas. We physicists are firing trillion-watt lasers into the sky to actually precipitate rain clouds

and actually bring down lightning bolts. This is potentially a game changer. Pilots target clouds full of moisture and ejects small amounts of an inert chemical. Then, the water in the cloud condenses around the new particles and gets heavy, falling to the ground as precipitation. as precipitation. Drones and rockets are used to sow silver iodide into the clouds. The substance has a similar structure to ice and changes the cloud's structure to increase the chance of rain. When we have good chance for a cloud, we send the aircraft to that location. Go under the cloud, start to release all the salt will go inside the cloud. The droplets will become bigger and start to rain. So does cloud seeding cause flooding? Is it responsible for damaging rain?

Is silver iodide a harm to our health or environment? The science and the experts say no. Since the 1940s, people have been seeding clouds and watching the effects with their own eyes. Since the 1946 experiments of Dr. Vincent Schaefer, we have known that some clouds can be modified through seeding to yield additional precipitation. We're not really playing God.

I think that's really overstating what we're doing. Human activity affects the weather all of the time. We're being very specific and targeted environmentally friendly. Well, it's my honor and pleasure to be joined right now by weather modification expert Jim Lee. Jim, we here in the high wire, we've been doing, you know, an investigation really starting to look at chem trails, con trails, whatever you want to call it.

And in part of that investigation, a lot of people reached out to us and said, you've got to check out what Jim Lee is saying about these issues. And so just to start off, you know, when people look up in the sky and they see these checkerboards that are, you know, going across the sky and then they start turning these clouds, a lot of people will say that didn't used to be that way. That is a clear sign that those are chem trails, that they're spraying toxic poisons in the sky. Is that what these are in your mind? Well, this is probably the most common question that I get. And I ended up doing probably a two-hour video on my YouTube channel at Climate Viewer on YouTube called I Remember Blue Skies. In my personal opinion, there always has been a cloud problem. And this is based on newspaper articles that we've gathered 850 newspaper articles back to the 1850s. And the earliest documentation we have on, you know, planes making clouds,

covering out the sun is 1948. And in 1958, Palm Springs, California, actually got into it with the Air Force because they said basically their entire tourism industry is predicated on having sunshine-filled skies,

yet our skies looked like a mob of exuberant skyriders blocking out the sun. And a month later, the U.S. Air Force had a meeting, with the city officials of Palm Springs in 1959 January. And they basically explained to them, there are skyways or highways in the sky. And you are at the intersection of all air traffic on the west coast.

So either, as they put it, live with the vapor trails or move the city of Palm Springs. In 1970, the state of Illinois and New Jersey sued the airline. industry for blocking out the sun. Secretary of Transportation James A. Volp actually stepped in to mediate the lawsuit and try to settle it out of court. And the airline industry agreed to install new burner cans or fuel injectors

to reduce particulate emissions over the state of Illinois, New Jersey, promising this would reduce what they called at that time smoke pollution of the sky. So the word Kim Trail comes about circa 1997. That was the first time it was used on the internet. The very first article about Kim Trails was specifically about JP8 jet fuel and how it markedly increased the amount of clouds in the sky. And this is due to the conversion, all NATO countries converted from gasoline. to kerosene and what they called one fuel for the battlefield or the single fuel concept.

This dramatically increased the amount of metal nanoparticles in the atmosphere. So that's why, in my personal opinion, though there have been longstanding complaints, there is a market increase from 1996 to present in the number of visible trails that hang out everywhere. And you got to split this 50-50. On the one hand, we have a long history of the United States Air Force, the United States Navy, creating clouds from scratch with something called carbon black dust. On the other hand, we have commercial aviation, which uses, you know, that pollutes the sky,

and that is black carbon or soot. Carbon black is manufactured. Soot is what you get when you go on a Boy Scout camp out and you burn wood. Soot is a cloud condensation nuclei. So it's carbon black dust. So there's this semantic problem that we have. And the most common argument is this. Contrails disappear.

Kimtrails. Stick around. The problem is this is an argument based on slave speech. Slave speak is language that maintains a master slave relationship. It is the use of high-level descriptors, which are highly argumentative, have different meanings to different individuals based on their individual perceptions. So what I try to do, I try to use the lowest common, you know, level of language. Because whereas you and I might, if I say orange or apple, basketball, you know what I mean, I know what I mean, we don't have to have a lengthy discussion about it. But when you say words like good, evil, God, government, vaccine, they have many different meanings to different individuals.

and it's based on their own personal perceptions. So chemical trail, con trail, chemical trail. It's a trail of chemicals. Contrail. They'll say it's just water vapor. It's condensating. It's condensation.

The problem with that argument is, and you try this at home, ask that chemtrol, condensating on what? Because water doesn't just condensating, on itself. It has to have a seed. That's how clouds are made. So whether it's intentional or unintentional, whether it's accidental or it's covert, you still need some form of chemical. You need three things to make a cloud. You need a seed. You need water vapor and you need some kind of ionizing

radiation or static. So without that seed, there's nothing for it to condensate on. Without the water vapor, there's nothing to freeze. And without that static electricity or what's normally galactic cosmic rays, you don't have the three ingredients to make a cloud. So persistence happens in some cases naturally, which has happened since World War II. They've had the Appelman chart. One of my good friends as a meteorologist was in the U.S. Navy. And he would go out and throw radio signs and based on the Appelman chart, tell a guy, yo, Maverick, before you fly the F-14 Tomcat, back to the aircraft carrier, you might want to avoid this region, which is called an ice super saturated region, because if you fly through that, you're going to make long-lasting

persistent contrails, which are going to lead the enemy right back to our position. This is something that most people don't consider. If you're in the military and you've got a F-117 stealth bomber, do you think they want white lines pointing at it when they're flying over Iraq? They don't. So in military systems, they actually have contrail suppression systems. It's basically any freeze for the exhaust pipe. Alternatively. And this is where everybody wants to get into the rub with this.

They're like every single plane on the planet is. geoengineering. Every tick-tac toe I see is geoengineering. And I say for that to be true, you need to back it up with observational data. You don't need to just say, Edgar Allen Post said this pretty famously, believe none of what you hear and only half that you see. I live by that mantra. So I understand that my perceptions can skew what I view. That's why, you know, the name of my website is climate viewer. I want to look at things from a macro perspective. And when I look at the macro of this, you have David Keith funded by Bill Gates, and Bill Gates says,

yo, David, how much would it cost to do this geoengineering, solar geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection thing you're talking about? And around 2010, he got with Aurora Flight Sciences. They came up with a bunch of estimates, and they estimated between 100, as few as 14 747 jets. So if it only takes 14 planes to geoengineer the entire planet, what are the other 130,000 flights per day doing? That's where I want to, you know, where I'm at, I deal,

I'm a, you know, pathological skeptic, if you will. I know that people watch this show, think that, you know, I know I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but the truth is, is I'm skeptical on all sides of a conversation until I see enough science to decide otherwise. In this conversation, I'm still searching for a lot of evidence. And, you know, you're making a point that I'm, I always think, which is, look, you know, I know that we have studied weather modification. I know that it's been used before, even as far back as Vietnam. My question is, are all these lines I'm seeing in the days that I see them a part of some giant program across our nation and I guess the world where there's little sprayers. Here's the question.

There's little sprayers that I've seen in some of these videos that are releasing, you know, cloud seating, whatever it is, trying to block the sun, all the different reasoning. to me that would just be so incredibly expensive, and it looks to me like the same patterns I would imagine that commercial airlines are making. And then I think about the photos I've seen of these airplanes with these giant tanks of liquid inside of them, and I think I don't see any room for luggage in there. These are what are called ballast tanks.

Ballast tanks, generally speaking, almost exclusively, are for testing flights before they're commissioned for public use. So in those tanks, and you'll see the pipes running along the ground, there's a lot of water. And the purpose of this, famous one, Trump travels through Kim Trail plane. And that was actually the Boeing 737 Dreamliner before it became public. In that plane, they had the ballast tank. And it's to simulate, for lack of a better word, a large person rapidly moving around the cockpit.

It's to simulate luggage or heavy, you know, anything in the cargo bay, rapidly moving around to try to throw the plane off balance. So there's a rugged set of tests that have to be done to each plane. And these are the most common misused images for the Kim Trail community. Again, ballast tanks, pipes in between, all run. You see the passenger seats at the front. The purpose of this is literally to try to throw the plane off balance. And anybody can go look these photos up. And I have never been sent a photo that I have not been able to track down.

In fact, some of them even have like patent numbers right on the bottle. And it's like, dude, you didn't even read the number and look it up. Here's the patent for flight testing. That's not to say that there aren't aerial specifically designed aerial spraying platforms. Youngstown Air Force Base is a good example where the C-130s have oil dispersant and what's called adulticide sprayers. Everybody always cites evergreen aviation, specialty corporations that are designed to either do firefighting, oil dispersant, or adulticide deforestation.

And adult aside for those who don't know is mosquito spraying. Okay. So for example, after Katrina, Youngstown Air Force Base had their C-130s out spraying chemicals to kill mosquitoes. Now, is that good for you and me? I don't think so. But at the same time, they believe that they call this disease vector control. So often those images are misappropriated. They're like, look, here's the United States military with their spray tank.

tanks. But C-130s aren't going to be doing geoengineering, which kind of brings us full circle to the semantics of all this. What is geoengineering by definition? Great. Let me just lock it down for someone because we've been done a lot of talking here. So what you're saying is you don't believe when I'm seeing these lines in the sky that dissipate that that's a sprayer releasing something. you're saying that in your research that that's jet fuel. That's what jet fuel does. You know, the exhaust of jet fuel, the soot is what is creating that collects, like particles in the sky that are collecting the water, which then freeze. And then that turns into this serious clouds.

You're saying that the reference to these go all the way back. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm saying 98%. I always leave room for everybody's favorite, you know, punch. bag the CIA because the CIA was involved in Operation Popeye weather warfare or Vietnam. The CIA did Operation Nile Blue to deny rainfall to Cuba to kill Castro sugar crops. The CIA in front of the CFR said geoengineering is a good idea.

The United States government has deemed climate change a national security concern. So if you see white unmarked planes spraying, you know, God knows what up there to geo, for the specific purpose of geoengineering, I'm pointing the finger first at the CIA, then at private corporations. I'm going to make that honestly very clear. However, every single chemical that has ever been attributed to chemtrails that everybody's ever complained about can be found in jet fuel. and its additives. I think you have, you sent us this graphic of the periodic table basically showing all these chemicals that are known to be in jet field. This is metals detected in jet exhaust.

And this leads to a question. I'm really glad you provided this because this is the question I've been asking, you know, aluminum and beryum and all these things that they say, you know, is what is falling down from the sky. We see it on our plants. We see it, you know. this tests have been done, I've been asking, but I mean, this is jet fuel. It's got a lot of this stuff in it already, right? Right. It's kerosene. So the less refined a hydrocarbon-based fuel is the more

natural metals will be in it. A great example of this is ship tracks. Now, ship tracks are international shipping and up until 2020 when the international maritime organization banned bunker fuel they were running on what's called heavy fuel oil and heavy fuel oil is the bottom of the barrel of the you know the cycle of producing gasoline as you climb that ladder and you get up to kerosene which is a paraffin up to gasoline and even you know higher cleanliness, let's just put it that way, you refine out a lot of these natural made metals. But for Jet A, which is the predominant jet fuel in America, Jet A1 is the predominant fuel in the rest of the world, every single one of the chemicals that everybody's finding in their

rainfall samples has been admitted to by peer-review journal studies, single particle mass spectrometry, directly behind an engine on a runway. Soot is covered in graphene. Okay. We'll start there because this is the biggest, one of the biggest topics is graphene lately. Soot is laminated in graphene and it has sulfuric acid around it because SO2 becomes H2S. that's sulfuric acid inside of the soot particle, the black carbon is all of the metals that are on that periodic table. Soot is the cloud condensation nuclei that the water condenses on. So whenever you're, when we're talking about the buildup of atmospheric aerosols from fake cloud, I like to call them artificial clouds or plane farts because I'm so.

know, I get so annoyed by this Kim Trail versus Contrail versus geoengineering versus nanobots, morgillans, all the other crazy stuff that I hear. At the end of the day, they're artificial clouds. That's the takeaway from this. Whether it's a Kim Trail or a Conrail, once it fans out and it covers the sky, it is neither. It is a Cirrus cloud. That goes back to what geoengineering.

is the idea of geoengineering originated the term 1977 by Cessoray Machete. He specifically was talking about CO2 sequestration. 1991 Mount Pentatubo erupts. 1994, Lawrence Livermore National Labs gets involved. And they say, what if we were to spray sulfur into the stratosphere to mimic what Mount Pentatubo did? That's the originating.

of the modern solar geoengineering or stratospheric aerosol injection ideology. Which is what we hear when we hear Bill Gates on all of these things. And so, you know, to be clear then, what you're saying is these are chemicals. They are in the sky. They are not good for us. The question, you know, is whether it's being delivered by a sprayer or it's in the jet fuel, I think even more simply put, is it on purpose? or is it on accident?

Is it just a part of, you know, airline travel in most circumstances? I think you and I would both agree. There's definitely studies that are being done. I would have to imagine our military or CIA has not given up on the idea of being able to start a hurricane and wipe somebody out or create a drought. I have to imagine all of that type of investigation is still going on because in my mind, anything that would be a great weapon, our government is not going to be the last ones developing it, we're going to be the best at it. But, you know, does that mean that we're,

what we're seeing is a purposeful trail being left to either dumb us down or poison us or block the sun? And what you're saying, these things are, you know, I think we could, could I say this? Those chemicals are not good for you. They could potentially be dumbing you down, affecting your brain, affecting your breathing. They are. Can be blocking the sun, can be having all of these sorts of issues, you're not saying that that's not happening. What you're saying is it is an accidental byproduct of modern jet fuel and aviation for the most part. Except. And I've been waiting for this curveball, now that we've got to this point. Yeah. In 2009, in 2001, we'll start there. When 9-11 happened, they grounded all flights for three days. And a couple of

guys at Langley Research Center basically studied the fact that, hey, here's a rare opportunity. We don't have planes making clouds all day long. What changes in the atmosphere are going to occur? And what they found was the diurnal temperature range greatly widened. What that means? If it normally during the day, you have a 70-degree day and a 50-degree night, instead during this cloudless sky, We had a 70 degree day and a 40 degree night. So about a 10 degree difference in the nighttime. So that led them to believe that, in fact, the clouds that are being created aren't cooling the planet. They're actually net warming the planet because they're creating a blanket over the sky.

So this was kind of a turning point because there were all these assumptions made up to this point that, hey, this is, good for, you know, stopping global warm and global boiling, you know, the whole CO2 scheme. Yeah, let's block the sun and we do ourselves a favor. Got it. Yep. But in reality, it only works during the daytime, which led me down a new rabbit hole to prove the single word, to sum up your question in a single word, the entire Kim Trail conspiracy boils down to intent. So I wanted to prove intent with commercial aviation. I already know intent with the military.

I already know that, you know, the military, Dr. Arnold A. Barnes from U.S. Air Force Phillips Lab. I have FOIAs. I have all of this on the weather modification history timeline on climate viewer.com that they can create and suppress Contrail Cirrus on demand using carbon black, and the purpose for doing so they claim is to block spy satellite optics and improve nighttime operations. So the idea that they could block out Chinese spy satellites by creating clouds,

or like in the Iraqi desert storm, when the Iraqi Republican Guard just got their butts handed to them and came out with their hands up and everybody was so confused, well, when you block out the moon at night and we have night vision, it's kind of a one side of fight. Right. So that's why the military say they do it. But back to why the commercial aviation, the 130 to 150,000 flights per day, the 15 million barrels of jet fuel per day, just in the United States that are burned. I wanted to find that smoking gun, that memo, that intent. And it came to me in 2010 at an ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

Colloquium on Climate Change from the world's leading expert on contrail physics, Ulrich Schumann. He's from Germany's DLR, they're NASA. At the end of his little thesis, he said, we want less warming, more cooling contrails, predictable for operational planning. That was a smoking gun for me, and that really opened my eyes

to what the nefarious agenda behind all this was. I started to see intent, but I needed more evidence to prove intent. The EPA basically Obama administration was trying to regulate greenhouse gases coming out of airplane emissions, and they're using the Clean Air Act. I'm not going to stand for this.

So I called them, I wrote into them, and I said, no, you guys asked if there was going to be any public hearing. I want a public hearing. And they called me back and said, you're the only person who's responded. We, you know, you don't have to come here. You could just write us a letter. And I was like, no, I had the recording of the actual phone call. It's absolutely hilarious. I said, no, I think I'd rather a public hearing.

And after which, you know, basically the International Civil Aviation Organization, the pilots administration, friends of the earth. All of these NGOs had to show up. So I figured I'd bring five of my friends. And I brought four people from the Kim Trail community who don't think exactly like me. Because my favorite saying is the day we all agree is the day we could all be wrong. So I wanted to bring five different perspectives, mine plus four other people. And we went up to Washington, D.C. and gave them what four?

The state of purpose of this hearing is to consider the full range of pollution generated by aircraft. You, the EPA, claim the authority to regulate aviation emissions under the Clean Air Act, a law that should protect us from the aforementioned poisonous pollution. There is evidence to show that persistent contrails do in fact warm the earth. Contrails do change the climate. Pollutants from aircraft that need prohibition is causing serious negative health impacts to many forms of life. The EPA and Obama administration are ignoring the global outrage over the most visible climate change concern from airplanes. Cloud creation.

You must do more than pass the buck back and forth between other three-letter agencies. We are counting on you as the protectors of the environment to act. The Obama administration, while everybody was having the Trump-Hillary Clinton election, you know, wall-to-wall coverage. Everything always happens while nobody's looking right. The Obama administration signed the Federal Alternative Aviation Fuel Emissions Pact with the European Union, China, and the ICAO. This can be summed up in just a couple words, biofuels for contrail control, which goes back to what Ulrich Schumann was saying,

to change the chemical constituents coming out of jet aircraft so that there's less warming more cooling contrails. So I got in touch with the guy at the FAA who was testing the biofuels. His name is Dr. Rangasai Halthori, that he is the head of the FAA's Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative. And I specifically asked him, and I sent him the documentation. I said, what did Ulrich Schumann mean by less warming, more cooling contrails, predictable for operational planning. He says, and he plays it off, but at the end of the day, he says, we want more contrail-induced Cirrus clouds by day and none by night. Wow.

This is, this is intent. I have this signed in writing directly from the head of the FAA's ACCRI. So now I have these two dots that I've got here pointed together. plus the biofuels thing. Now you look and you see American Airlines pairing up with Google artificial intelligence to route planes around contrail forming spaces in the sky. These are called ice super saturated regions. Basically, Google AI and goes back to what Ulrich Schumann

had actually created in 2010. He produced something called COSIP. the Contral Cirrus prediction tool. COSIP has evolved to be part of what's called the next-gen transportation system in America. That's what makes all the tick-tac-toes in the sky. It is a supercomputer that routes all the flights, and inside that supercomputer is a subsystem called the Aviation Environment Design Tool,

AEDT. in the AEDT, it tells planes at what altitude to fly, how much fuel to burn, all of these things. And it takes in environmental concerns into how it routes flights. So when you compare and when you sum it up, you got Schumann, less warming, more cooling contrails, Rangasai Halthori, clouds by day, none during the night. what did the Biden administration just can't come out with a report on solar radiation modification what three areas of study did they say they want to focus on stratospheric aerosol injection they call it solar radiation modification marine cloud brightening we can get into that if you

want I'm going to skip it and Cirrus cloud thinning so what you have here is is a grand conspiracy between the scientists who are trying to, as they would put it, mitigate global warming impacts from aviation. But in reality, what they're doing is they're turning what's been 60 to 80 years worth of pollution into an active geoengineering program. All right. So let me just for people, this is super fascinating because I'm sure as you started, we have a bunch of people watching saying, this guy's got to be working for the CIA. He's trying

to convince me that there's no such thing as chemtrails and that this is all just a natural byproduct of, you know, jet fuel and that there's not geoengineering going on. But you have come full circle in, you know, in saying, no, here's what could be done and what you're, I think you're lean to. Let me just mirror it back. What you're saying is the natural function of jet fuel in the right circumstances in these right pockets of humidity that if it goes through, it will leave this trail, you know, collect the water, turn to ice particles, and turn to these clouds. We know that we can fly in different spaces and go around these and not have trails or not as many trails that would dissipate during the clouds. And so what they realize now, and I know that there's now

lost. Some states are looking at eliminating these con trails and there's discussions on whether they cause global warming. But what you're saying is since all these particles do create these clouds, that there are officials that are now looking at running in a computer system that could easily say on a day of flight, we want to block the sun during the day. So we're going to change the height or whatever

that we're flying all the planes across that area in to create contrails that are technically, if you wanna call them chem trails, they have chemicals in them, making this, but it's a natural byproduct, but where you're flying the planes decides whether you create them and whether you're blocking the sun. And then at night, they're going to fly on a different set of patterns to avoid putting out these clouds so that they don't hold and trap the heat on the earth. And so all of this technically is a form of geoengineering, but all it's doing is rerouting planes to create it

as the natural byproduct of the chemicals that are in their fuel. Did I explain that fairly? clearly. You summed it up well. So I'm going to introduce a new term to you. Okay. This is called Earth radiation management. Earth radiation management is the idea that the heat trapping effect of high altitude cirrus clouds, noctilucent clouds, necruous clouds, that these clouds can trap heat at the earth surfaces. So we have the troposphere. And then the divider is the tropopon. pause and above that is the stratosphere. Typically, planes fly right near the tropopause. Okay.

Okay. And what the Indian Space Organization found was that jet fuel emissions, the black carbon from jet fuel emissions, were found at 18 kilometers in the stratosphere. The reason we know this is because black carbon from jet fuel burning is very unique because it's spherical. Carbon black is a centiform. It's actually shaped like grapes. So they know that this black carbon came from planes.

And the Indian Space Organization was specifically looking into this because it was damaging the ozone layer and changing their monsoon season. So David Keith said he wanted to make what's called photophoretic engineered nanoparticles for geoengineering purposes. Photopheretic meaning self-levitating. So what we have in this case is not only people trying to create clouds by day, none by night intentionally. We have the unintentional side effect,

which has been going on the entire time, that the tropopause is not at the same altitude everywhere in the world. The closer you get to the North Pole, the lower it is. which means that if a flight is flying at 40,000 feet over South Carolina, it's under the tropopause. It's in the troposphere. If it's in Canada, it's likely already in the stratosphere. So all of its chemical constituents are being injected into the stratosphere. The Indian Space Organization found 10,000 black carbon particles per cubic.

centimeter. There have been so many metals found in the stratosphere at this point that the propaganda media are now trying to say space junk reentering the atmosphere is the cause of the metals they're finding in the stratosphere, which is complete hogwash. I mean, this is the spin room. And the issue just so people, because we've been doing some investigations into this, And one of the things that started bothering me about our investigation is if you were really trying to block out, you know, the sun like Bill Gates wants to do, you wouldn't spend fortunes flying planes, you know, down in the troposphere because that fall, everything you're doing is going to fall to earth within about two weeks or so, was what some of our investigations show. Two weeks to two months. All right, two weeks to two months. But if you get it up in the stratosphere, in the stratosphere, it's just going to, you know, hang up there.

And how long do you say if it's in the stratosphere? So two to four months in the troposphere, the same chemicals, if they were put in the stratosphere, their residence time would be two to four years. Meaning that if we stopped all flights today, the geoengineering that has occurred as a result of nanoparticle, of metal migrating into the stratosphere, it would be a minimum of two years before the sky is cleared. So I want to make this crystal clear to people. Geoengineering is sky whitening. Okay?

It's the idea of making the sky whiter. When you look outside and you look straight up and you see a blue sky, and then you look at the horizon, and you see a milky white horizon. That is whitening of the sky. So I'm going to take it a step further. Chuck Long from NOAA, Earth Systems Research Lab. That article you showed earlier, accidental geoengineering, that comes from Chuck Long because he did radiation budget studies all across America.

He called this clear sky daylight brightening. He said that the sky was getting brighter because of a subvisual ice haze generated by aircraft emissions in the stratosphere. So this doesn't classify as a cloud. This is the disconnect between everybody referring to just clouds that they see as geoengineering, and the fact that the sky is continually getting wider. It's getting wider because reflective particles have been building up for decades now in the stratosphere. And every single day that we have another 130,000 flights, the concentration gets thicker.

That's the biggest problem. You said barrels or gallons, what did you say in America alone per day? Just in America per day, 15 million barrels of jet fuel per day. Before COVID struck, it was 19 million barrels per day. And these are rough estimates that I've been able to gather. They don't really make this kind of data public. But global economy.com has some direct information from the fuel people. So this is a massive amount of fuel.

And people will go, well, but Jim, cars dwarf that, right? We're breathing way more nanoparticles. If we're sitting in rush hour traffic behind a bunch of catalytic converters, you're breathing way more, they're going to hurt you way more. And I say to them, what makes this. situation unique is that they're literally trying to change the radiation budget of the entire planet through intentional control of the clouds that are created and the buildup of aerosols in the stratosphere under a flawed ideology right there the quotes we would like to have more

contrail-induced clouds during the day none during the night less warming more cooling this agenda is very clear. This, in my opinion, proves intent beyond the shadow of a doubt. And you see it through the testing of biofuels, for those who aren't familiar with what biofuels are. There's two main branches, Haifa and Fisher Trope. They do things like chicken fat grease to jet fuel. Oil seed crops like the Camelina plant or J. Trofa plant, they even say, spoke about using J-Trofa plant, blended with nanoparticles of aluminum to increase the

thrust of the engine. Landfill waste to jet field process. If you look up FT biofuels or federal alternative aviation biofuels, you're going to see some pretty crazy stuff. In fact, the world's first hydrogen, completely hydrogen-based plane did a test flight just a couple months ago. And they're doing all of this because at the end of the day, the airline industry is up against the climate cultists who will have their carbon taxes.

And the airline's carbon tax, if you include the heat trapping effect of nighttime Cirrus, would be tremendous because the Cirrus effect dwarfs the CO2 emissions of airplanes, which I told the EPA in 2015, nobody wanted to listen. They're listening now, and they're trying to turn this into a carbon offset or a carbon credit. So they're basically saying when we're creating chemtrails during the day, we're bouncing the sun back, so we should get some carbon credits for that because that's not heating the earth. And if they can at night, then release those clouds that'll let the heat escape. Now this exhaust that there's spray everywhere, they can say it has a global benefit because we're actually using it in a way that benefits humanity, which gets into this whole global warming insanity that we have around all this.

We could get really deep in the weeds on how intricate this all gets. Why did this become important to you? I mean, you know, I have kids. I mean, I think about the future. Why does sky whitening, which makes sense to me. You have two things. You have planes that are clearly coming, you know, close to this line of the stratosphere, sometimes dipping into it with exhausts is staying up there.

You also said these black particles because of their shape, they're round, that when they get heated, they can lift up so that can they get pulled up into the stratosphere, even further in the top of the troposphere. Why does all of this matter when, you know, for us? What does it mean to humanity down here on earth and what we're doing? Well, for me, you know, the birth of my daughter in 2009 was a kind of a game changer for me. So I was already, you know, reading a lot of things that made me go, hmm. And suddenly I felt the need to, you know, try to do something better.

I was a Boy Scout. I was taught to do a good turn daily. I figured, you know, I should, you know, do something about this because I care about, you know, our planet. I've always cared about our plan and I just never been motivated enough to do something about it. And when I got started and I started with geoengineering, I moved on to weather modification. We cut it off at 1850 because we wanted to specifically start with the history of weather control and move forward. This is important to me because I want my daughter to be able to experience nature. And I've now had a second daughter, so 114, 17.

I want them to grow up in a world where at least the sky has stars in it. And the projections today are that if this pattern continues, if population plus number of flights per day, plus buildup of aerosols, there's a BBC article saying by 2050 telescopes will be worthless. Wow. When I read things like that, I go, I want my daughter to grow up to be able to see the stars.

You know, her children should be able to see the stars. I do not want our planet to end up like Venus, because a bunch of freaking technocrats want to control global rainfall patterns and have their hand on the thermostat of the planet. So that's the driving factor behind this. And to all those naysayers out there are saying, but Jim, Kim Trails, I'm going to say it to you like this. My modus operandi.

In 1950 through 1970, the United States Army Chemical Corps of Engineers were spraying zinc, cadmium sulfide, radioactive particles all over America. One of the biggest was Operation Large Area Coverage, where they literally flew a plane from one coast to the next, spraying radioactive material all across America. In downtown St. Louis and poor black neighborhoods, they were spraying schoolhouses with radioactive particles. They followed these people until their death and then got they exhumed their body, you know, got their thiroids to measure how much zinc cadmium sulfide was left in their body. And this was all to simulate nuclear warfare and how nuclear particles, you know,

this was during the fallout days. The reason I bring this up is because those Kim Trails of the 1950s through 70s with what was called the Manhattan Rochester Coalition. It was a Manhattan Project spin-off. They didn't admit to it until 2008. Yeah. So if you want to sit around and wait for the government, the CIA, or whoever, to admit that they are currently using these unmarked planes for geoengineering purposes,

I'm 47 years old now. I don't want to be 89 years old in a hospital bed. you know, on CNN, and suddenly they're like, the government today admitted that in the 2020s, they were, you know, doing an experiment to cool the earth. I don't want to wait that long. So if you'd like to wait that long, you go right ahead. I'm going to go ahead and operate on that which I can prove in a court of law. Yeah. And right now we're seeing that up in New Hampshire with the attempt to ban geoengineering. I've been contacted by part, the legal team up there.

I've spoken with Representative Jason Gerhard and tried to help steer them in the right direction so that they can make some headway in a very terminology-driven world. So getting through this legalese and trying to make regular people understand this is a tough job. Let's get to the answer then. So, I mean, obviously, I mean, one of the arguments could be, boy, it sounds. like you're going to be joining the WEF Globalist to limit air travel and make all of us stay within 15 minutes of our house. I know that that conversation could be sparked by this, but would it be safe to say that

one of the things we could do at least is lower the planes so that are not so close to our stratosphere and releasing permanent particles, but keeping particles that fall to the earth? Is that a part of this conversation at all? or am I just, you know, going in the wrong direction here? I mean, honestly, that's probably one of the better ideas. The thing I said about 10 years ago was, be careful what you wish for. Because while everybody's complaining about the clouds, the alternative could be worse. So when they banned bunker fuel in ships, they switched to biofuels,

something called VLSFO, very low sulfur fuel oil. They literally call this the Frankenstein fuel now. So though it does not produce as many marine stratocumulus clouds, Kim Trails over the Pacific Ocean. The pollution it actually makes now is probably more poisonous, more dangerous. Right. So you may end up in a scenario where public outcry demands that they stop making clouds altogether. In the anti-free, they have to stick in, you know, in the exhaust pipe,

until they come up with a bet. Tesla's of the sky is actually worse, you know, the solution's worse than the problem. Right. I don't know what they're going to do to solve this pollution problem. What I do know is that we need data

and we need transparency and accountability. So that's the direction that I'm going with this. When they banned weather warfare in 1978, they did not make any way to catch somebody, doing weather warfare. When they banned upper atmospheric nuclear explosions with the limited test ban treaty, they created the comprehensive test ban treaty organization in the international monitoring system. It is infrasound recorders and seismographs so that when Kim Jong-un rocket man fires off a nuclear bomb, they can triangulate until within like a five-mile radius

when and where he violated the limited test ban treaty by blowing up a nuke. They never created a process to catch somebody doing rogue geoengineering, meaning illegal geoengineering, and they never created a process to catch somebody doing weather warfare. So my solution is called the Environmental Modification Accountability Act, which would require that an addendum to the United Nations ban on weather warfare include transparency. you must tell us before you modify any weather, anywhere, the world at any time, in real time, on a map so the public can see it. And create a sensor network to detect chemicals in the atmosphere, chemicals in the rainfall patterns,

chemicals that we can recognize as intentional weather modification chemicals. Simultaneously creating a citizen-powered network. Because just like after Fukushima, they turned off the EPA's radnet. the radiation detection network. What good is government sensors if they can just flip them off whenever they're up to no good? So I want a citizen-powered network of, you know, rain sample, all sky cameras. I call it the climate viewer for your backyard. I intend to do a, you know, fundraising thing to actually build this machine,

put it in your backyard, connected to a real-time monitoring website, like climate viewer.org, my climate viewer 3D globe, and be able to show in real time what chemicals are falling where and when so that we can trust but verify. But that's not good enough because I don't know about you. I hate the United Nations. I'm like Dave Chappelle on the United Nations. What are you going to do, United Nations?

Sanctuary me with your army. Oh, wait, you don't have one. I guess you better shut the heck up. Just like with what's going on in New Hampshire, trying to draft, make a draft legislation that explains to people all of the things that we briefly discussed here and come up with a language to where individual states can ban geoengineering and start the process of gathering data on, you know, what's in the, you think that's air you're breathing and what's in the rain coming down. Because without that data, proving damages is not

possible, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He came to my hometown. And all I wanted to get out of RFK was, will you ban geoengineering? Because I understand, I don't care what your beliefs on climate change are. If you believe CO2, fine. Fly a kite. You know, don't drink, you know, soda with bubbles in it. Fine. I don't care. But hands off Mother Earth, hands off my sky, do not block sunlight. That will change rainfall patterns worldwide. That will kill people. The only thing stopping the legalization of geoengineering as a running program in the public is, as they put it, how to pay the dead people. Now, I don't like the idea that geoengineering governance will rest in the United Nations, where the only thing holding it up is picking winners and losers and deciding who may never get

rainfall again. This is the analog to volcanoes. When volcanic eruptions happen, rainfall patterns change worldwide. They know this. So if you start a geoengineering program, which we've had one going on for decades, we're only two or three very large volcanoes away from throwing that radiation budget off so badly that we have a modern ice age, aka Snowpiercer, the film. So let me understand that.

So you're saying now with the amount of particles we already have in the stratosphere, we're getting so dangerously close that a couple of volcanoes could just do the job. And suddenly now we are really struggling, to get enough sun to the earth to we're not we're on some sort of solar winter then let me be blunt and i don't like to do fear porn but this is it global cooling is way more dangerous than global warming global warming we can adapt we can overcome we are going into a solar minimum

the sun cycle is getting weaker and weaker if you don't educate yourself if you don't educate yourself if you you're part of the climate cult, fine. But I suggest you might want to go listen to somebody like Dr. Willie Soon or do some education, CO2 Coalition.org. You know, learn about how the solar cycles have been left out of all these IPCC reports. Learn about how the temperatures come from urban heat islands and not rural locations, how the data is skewed. It's very easy to skew data.

So in the case of we're already headed into a solar minimum. They have these climate clocks now ticking all around the globe. Their countdown timer conveniently ends in 2029, just in time for Agenda 2030, which would coincide with the next solar minimum. So I've just been, if you want me to put my conspiracy hat on, I will. The global elites would like to geoengineer the planet just in time to take advantage of the global cooling that will already. occur and declare themselves the savior of man from global warming because they know it's already

going to cool. And all of this climate carbon scam, global boiling coming out of the Pope's mouth, all of that is about control. And if you want to be controlled like a robot, if you want to go back to COVID-19 lockdowns, you haven't even heard about climate pandemics and the lockdowns that they want to do over the climate. You're familiar with these, right? I am familiar. We've been talked about these things on the show at friend. I'll be honest. We have an international body of scientists and investigators that we meet with and we talk about these issues. And a few of them have been saying during COVID, this is the beginning. They are going to start trying to do this with the global warming issue. I'll be honest. At first, I was like, no way. And now we are

definitely hearing that language. We're hearing at Adavos. We're hearing it. We're hearing. it out of the WEF. So I agree with all of that. And so they're playing this game, you know, they're trying to control us. They know that they, they've watched the cycles. They know when this clock ends. They're going to try and claim a victory. But they could, they're putting us dangerously close to actually really blocking too much sun at a point where it's not as strong and we really need it. And then we have a real problem on our hands. Is that what, Is that a sense of what you're saying? All right.

That is very correct. So that's the part of this that gets my goat. Even Alan Robach, he's a geoengineer. He went to a meeting on geoengineering. And this is probably the most priceless quote I've ever heard out of a geoengineer's mouth. He went into the room and it was like almost 100 degrees in the room. And they're all sitting there talking about controlling the temperature of the planet. And he thought to himself, we're talking about controlling the temperature of the planet, but we can't control the temperature of the room we're in right now.

I mean, the hubris of these individuals, the fact that cloud seeding was invented in 1946 by Benson Shaver, Irving, Langmire, and Bernard Vonnegut. And since 1946, they have not been able to prove to the National Academy of Sciences or any other body that cloud seeding has scientific efficacy. meaning it is repeatable, provable. You can say in advance what's going to happen. There's too much chaos in the climate. There's too much chaos in weather. It's completely unpredictable. So how could you possibly predict what's going to happen

if you loft 10 million tons of sulfur, aluminum, titanium, diamond dust, or calcium carbonate? David Keyes, Scopex program at the Harvard Solar Geoengineering. program. They specifically moved on to what's called calcium carbonate because they say, oh, it'll take care. It won't destroy the ozone layer, but it'll cool the planet. The problem is even David Keith admits, well, you know, if we put a million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere like I'm, you know, estimating that we should do, I admit that will kill many tens of thousands of people. but it is our hope that we would save more lives than we would take because global warming.

This is a really important moral point. So if I made a decision or if there was a collective decision to do a geo-insuring program and you put, say, the kind of program I think makes more sense would put about a million tons a year. But let's say, you might end up killing many tens of thousands of people a year as the direct result of that decision. I think that has moral consequences. I don't sweep another rugs. This is a case where I take this much differently from Allen and think it's a much more serious issue.

Now, it's true that as part of doing that, you would hope that the overall benefits of human mortality would be so that you would save many, many more people than that. This eerily reminds me of Robert Oppenheimer. And most people have heard the I Am become death part of that interview. We knew the world would not be the same. Few people laughed. A few people cried.

Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu, is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form, and says, now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. I suppose we all thought that one way or another. What they didn't hear was the full interview. At the beginning of the interview, Oppenheimer says,

They hoped, or other people hoped, that it would put an end to this war, save countless lives, and that on the whole we were inclined to think that if it was needed to put an end to the war and had a chance of so doing, we thought that was the right thing to do. Well, you know, it was our belief as scientists. that if we created this weapon, that many more lives would be saved than taken. Right. I mean, look, we see this.

I just, you know, there's so much stupidity in science right now. We're talking, you know, atomized vaccines, highly infectious vaccines, that everybody basically man-made disease will start sweeping the planet because they know better. Now we're talking about, you know, man-made weather, affecting, you know, the clouds, All of this, you know, really is scary. There's so little science and there's no real respect for chaos theory or the fact that you have no idea how damaging the long, you know, in the long term effects of what are happening here. So in the end, just to sum this up for those that really are, you know, have been caught up in this chem trail experience and watch this show. And I've promised them we are going to investigate this to the edge of whatever we can find.

on what we can prove. This idea when someone says to me, I just want to get rid of the lines in the sky, that that could be done by just changing, you know, where the planes are flying. And in some ways it may stop the clouds that reflect the sun during the day or trap the heat during the night.

But in the end, whether you're seeing the cloud or not, the same amount of chemicals that are coming from this exhaust is falling to the earth. are breathing it and it is most definitely affecting your health. At the end of the day, this is the point that's lost on almost everybody. Yes, the build up of nanoparticles in the atmosphere go through chemical process changes as they fall to the earth. What goes up must come down and it will come down eventually.

What's been in the stratosphere will be coming down for the next two to four years minimum. them. We haven't even breached less than a percent of what we could talk about as problems related to this. SpaceX, sounding, sounding rockets, all of the other things that are lofting chemicals into the high atmosphere. So it's going to be raining down on us forever, whether you see a cloud or not. That is a big problem that nobody's willing to talk about. Instead, they want to focus on, you know, more Gellons and nanobots and, okay, yeah, nanobots been talked about. Might be possible. More Gellons.

Okay, might be possible. Why don't we focus on the big picture that we can prove and try to put a dent in this airline industry, which has been unregulated forever and is poisoning the entire planet? That's where I'm trying to be pragmatic. It makes perfect sense to me. I've done the same thing with vaccines. The same thing with vaccines. There's nanoboxygen oxide, all these things. I've put these things under microscopes, electron spectrometry. And what I'm saying is it's not that there's not research on nanobots that could be injected to you and control your mind. But so far I haven't seen them. And there's enough problems with this product that is killing people worldwide that I think we can actually get in and stop them and do something about it. I don't. need to go that far into my imagination, into things I cannot prove to actually make a difference here. That's why I think what you've said today is really fascinating. The journey you've taken me on, you know, at first I thought, oh, he doesn't believe there's any, you know, geoengineering going on. You're just using a different delivery system. That's a fuel-based delivery system versus

sprayers that are releasing it. And now we see if it's a natural occurring, they can move them, they can change the fuel. All of these things are taking place. It makes a lot of sense to me. And you're absolutely right. What we need are regulatory agencies in this country and around the world, but certainly we live in the United States of America that stop hiring, you know, the professionals from the industry to run their, you know, to run the oversight on this.

They're always going to be the benefit of the airline versus the benefit of the humanity. Same thing we do with vaccines. I'm really tired of farming. pharmaceutical products being tested by the industries that are going to make, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars from them. I want, you know, I want professional experts that are, you know, blocked from this revolving door to go in a regulatory agency and out to go make, you know, millions of dollars for themselves.

Like we saw Scott Gottlieb do and these people do into the FDA, out to, you know, Exxon, into CDC, out to Pfizer, all of these things. and the same thing with FAA, all of it. It's the same problem. It's the same revolving door from representative to lobbyist or representative to the lobbyist. With the airline industry, you've got to think about it this way. All those boys flying to Davos certainly don't want their private jets taken away. And if you look at ADSB exchange on any given day, they're color-coded by altitude.

And you know who's flying at 45,000 feet every single time? it's the private jets, almost exclusively in the stratosphere. So private jets, these same guys that are going to preach to you, they're directly flying in the stratosphere no matter where they are in the globe. So they really don't care. Is the answer just because I want to sort of wrap this up, are you saying we have to stop flying as much? Or is there something we could do to actually have less chemical?

in the sky and less particles gathering in the stratosphere. This is the heartbreaking part for me because I've read all their internal documents. I've read their outward, you know, propaganda. And they readily admit that, you know, getting it's kind of like Tesla, you know, even Elon Musk admits that it's going to be, you know, several decades before we can transition to an all electric grid, you know, to power all electric cars. And the same is true with the airline industry. They're trying to transition, but good luck.

You know what I mean? When you've got planes that are literally 30, 40, 50 years old still flying people around today, you can only imagine how much red tape they're going to have to go through to get to a place where we actually have batteries that are light enough that can hold enough energy and produce enough thrust and people trust it, then have zero emission planes that aren't making clouds. And even then, you know, you got aerodynamic controls, which is another subject.

I don't see a very good solution for any of them. The pollutants are going to be there. What I do see as a problem is them taking, you know, taking away sunlight because not only is it affect our ability to see the stars, not only is it driving people crazy online, it's affecting vitamin D absorption, It's affecting the solar energy sector. Isn't it ironic that the oil producers that make the jet fuel are making the clouds that are making you less money on your solar panels?

I mean, that's a whole story in and of itself that we won't get into. But right now, these same climate cultists that want to say, we're all about saving the Arctic. they are literally in a race for melting the Arctic to get to the oil and gas under the Arctic. It's called the New Cold War. So everybody's talking out of both sides of their mouth. All I want to do is get transparency on this. And when I spoke to Dr. Rangasai Al Thorei, I said it simply. When I pointed the cloud and I say Kim Trail and you point at the same cloud and you say Contrail,

we are both right. and that doctor laughed out loud and he said, I see your point. Why can't the average public understand that semantics is what's destroying the ability to have an honest conversation about what's going on or do anything about it? And we saw this at the New Hampshire geoengineering ban attempt this month. and when they went back for round two with different, armed with different terminology, it seems like they're getting a good outcome and they're maybe actually going to pass

a geoengineering ban in New Hampshire. But at the end of the day, without verification, without the ability to collect these chemicals and prove beyond a shadow of it out, what's landing in your backyard and what you're breathing, we will never, ever be able to prove damages, take action against these people. So that's where, you know, my solutions are based in gathering more data, just like you did, Del.

You know, go with the facts, go with what you can prove, and worry about the nanobots and the more gallons and all the other crazy things later. Because otherwise, you may be just, you know, betting on a horse that's never even going to make it on the track. Those are all really great points. I think we're aligned in the approach to making the world a better place, transparency. We got to demand that our regulatory agencies actually do studies and hand us the information. The same thing you can't keep avoiding doing, for instance, a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study and then tell us that all the autoimmune disease is not caused by the vaccines. There's no way that you can say that. There is science and studies that could be done that can

get us to these answers. And you're right, I can't prove it. It's all anecdotal, but I know how it could prove it and when you're avoiding doing those studies, I think there's a reason why. And so every state that's going to attempt to pass laws that maybe, you know, put humanity back in the driver's seat, it's been a real education today. I want to thank you for your incredible body of work. Where do we follow? If we want to follow all that you're doing, what's the best place to check out the stuff that that you're doing? You can go to climate viewer.com, add climate viewer on YouTube, Rumblebitchewood Odyssey, Twitter, Facebook, all the usual places. But yeah, climate viewer.com has links to all my social media and stuff like that. And then climate

viewer.org is my separate website where I do mapping and real-time data acquisition from all the government sensors, satellites, and all that sort of stuff. At the end of the day, like, I want people to take away from this. Today, we only spoke about Kimtrails in a little bit of geoengineering. We didn't discuss anything about weather warfare, laser lightning rods, ionospheric heaters, the myriad of other programs going on. People only focus on cloud. So of all the things that I've ever talked about in 20 years now, I've never gotten an argument or pushback on any of them because everything I've said has been peer-reviewed and quoted by sciences. But on this single issue, Kim Trails, it has been the most taxing, painful experience of

my life because people have such strongly held beliefs. As Carl Sagan famously said, it is simply too painful to admit to yourself that you've been had. And that's where a lot of people are. They don't want to admit that they could have possibly fallen for, you know, being taken for a fool. I was. I was one of you 15 years ago and it took me understanding language, perception management, and mind control through high level descriptors to pull myself out of that funk and dig

deeply into this topic. As a probably you have, Del, you have to be able to look at stuff minus your ego and understanding the terminology in front of you. So I'm flipping between peer-review journal science to, you know, go get a definition and then back. And now, oh, now I understand what graphene laminate means. Laminate, like laminated, it's a, you know, coating around the black soot. Okay, let's move on. So there is graphene coming out of the back of planes.

It's in the jet fuel. And they're admitting to it in a peer-review journal entry, 75% of man-made metals in these Cirrus clouds. So you can literally just pile it on the desk of a representative and go, argue with all of these people because they're saying it openly. All we're saying is do something about. Well, I'm glad you're out there. I'm glad you're attempting to do something about it.

That's what it means in this world taking action. We've got to take action. So thank you for your time today, Jim. I really appreciate it. And we'll talk to you soon. I appreciate you having me on, Del. I'm a big fan, and I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very little known topic. All right.

I hope that this resonates with you. It does. We'll do it again soon. Take care. Thank you, Del. You know, we love to get in the weeds. That's what we do, and that's what makes you special. Well, some of you even like to read and go even deeper.

That's why we have our online magazine called The Informant. Check this out. The Informant has arrived. Our online monthly magazine. The Informant Curate. It's the best from I Can and the Highwire, keeping you up to date and informed on our biggest news, science, legal actions, and more. We're doing that for you with really great writers we're bringing in. This is really a gift to all of you that support our work.

It doesn't matter how much you donate, if you are a recurring donor, then you get this online news magazine. We want you to feel what it feels like to be a part of the change, and the informant is going to be our gift to all of you that are doing that. Just go to I can decide.org slash the informant. Get caught up, stay informed with the informant, exclusive to monthly donors. Go to I can decide.org slash the informant. Well, you know, I'm curious. I'm going to go back and watch the comments on today's show. I wonder how many of our followers bailed out thinking,

oh my God, he's going to say climate change isn't real next or something that the chemtrails aren't real. And honestly, when I was being peop. pitch this story. I mean, this is one of those moments where I thought I understood it. I thought I understood where Jim was going to be coming from. And I thought, well, maybe to let us off the hook a little bit, I mean, if there's not sprayers putting that in the sky, you know, we can maybe relax a little bit. And I don't know how many of you are sitting there. And maybe it's got to sink in. But this is even more terrifying than anything that I could have imagined. It's worse. It's worse if they're actually just deciding, you know, is our government deciding to put the airplanes at certain levels

so that it's trapping heat and causing all sorts of problems? And meanwhile, that jet fuel does have toxic chemicals that are dropping on us and changing our environment, changing our world. I mean, all of this is really quite disturbing. So I don't know about you. I had a, that's a really wild ride I just had there in that interview because it did not go where I was expecting it to go. And it just shows you sort of preconceived ideas, right? How many of you just thought, oh, I know where this is going? And then you're like, whoa, holy cow. Very well thought out ideas there. And look, as I've said on the high wire, you have to take this information in. And if you're questioning all that you just saw, then you better be on our newsletter. You better be able to download all the information we're just

talking about, all of the documents that were discussed so that you can read it yourself and say, hold on a second. I'm not sure I trust that guy, Del. Good. Good. That's what you're supposed to be. That's what I am. That's what I do. I'm skeptical, man. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about anything. And so I need evidence. I need science. I didn't know where it started, where it ended. Who funded it? You know, and you start getting these little red flags in there. And some of these conversations about, you know, planes with sprayers and, you know, the hundreds of thousands of these airplanes that they would have to take to do that across country has not been lining up with my Occam's razor perspective, which is the simplest answer must be true. I feel like some of this

feels so much more complicated than it would need to be. No doubt they're manipulating or whether they admit to it. But how are they doing it? What if they're just using regular passenger planes? These are all things that I don't think you're going to find anywhere else. And you can decide whether you agree with it or not. We're not here to tell you what to think. We're trying to show you how to think. How you do your own investigation like Jim clearly has been doing on his own. In the end, I hope it sparked your thoughts. I hope it makes you think twice. It also gets you to start thinking, maybe I need to get involved with my government. I got to look at what they're working on. Are they being transparent about everything that's going on here? So what the

Highwire is all about. We're going to keep finding interesting stories that interest us and dig deeper into places no one else has gone on a topic. We're not just going to say yes because every other conspiracy says this is the way it works. That's not how we work. We actually believe in science. We believe in investigations. And as I've said before, a lot of times like chemtrails, I will still say, I don't think we've locked in on the exact answer. But instead of waiting until we do to bring the exact right person to manipulate you so that you agree with us, I'd rather interview people that are out there that have differing perspectives so that you can see how they answer. Are they right?

Are they wrong? Do I trust them? Did that make sense? That's what this is. It's a live investigation happening right before your eyes. And we love that you're a part of it. I hope to see you continuing on this journey with us next week on the high wire.