Nicola Molloy wrote: > > Posted by > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FROM SIGHTINGS > http://www.sightings.com/general/bl.htm > > Chemtrail Breakthrough... > Via Blacklight? > EUREKA! I think I've found it ... in blacklight? > By Djembemon > Source: Chemtrail discussion board at > http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=578. > topic > 4/15/00 > > > Well, last night after work, after a long week pondering the almost > unfathomable efforts of the chem sprayers (and being doused heavily > at > least several times during), I think I may have had a small > breakthrough. > > First came Grif's informed tip to "look into" Barium Titanate > (BaTiO3). That has proven useful and seems to be on the right track, > though the exact mechanism and "synergistic" or "activating" effects > have yet to be determined. We at this board seem, however, to be in > agreement that this is at least one component of that which is being > sprayed with such abandon overhead. > > Then came my observations early last Saturday morning of bright chem > "cloudlets" descending upon Atlanta from some point south of the > city; > they were fairly easy to spot in the night sky because of a soft > luminescence, and also by their colorful (refractory) properties. > > And just a couple of days ago I marveled at Gary's topic/posted > account of the "rip in the sky!" which he observed, only to discover > that this was the leading edge of a long, fat chem cloud backlit and > luminescing by moonlight alone! (Or would this be "lunarlescing"?) > Anyway, he said it was really bright and unusually lit. > > Then moondog, one of our resident "perfessers", posted some specifics > on the refractive index of Barium Titanate and found it to be highly > refractive, even among many such refractive substances (it weighed in > at around 2.5 - nearly double the refractive index of water or > ethanol, and higher even than that of glass; refer to moondog's post > in Gary's topic, "Just when you think you've seen everything in the > night sky!" for specifics and explanation). > > So, to summarize to this point, we're looking for something which is > pretty darned small ("powdered", for size purposes, though it is not > "ground" in manufacture), very refractive (splits light passing > through it into constituent wavelengths), an enhancing mechanism for > certain wavelengths of light, and quite possibly transparent (think > about the other items on moondog's original list - air, water, > ethanol, glass). > > So just how DO you locate something so small in a "haystack" like > this? > > Well, as it happened, I took a little trip (non chemically enhanced, > thank you) back to my early days and broke the Black Light out of the > storage closet. No, the fluorescent Hendrix poster and velvet Elvis > stayed carefully tucked away; I was looking for another type of > adventure, and I believe I found it. > > "UNDER BLACK LIGHT" (or near-ultraviolet) I figured, "this barium > titanate just might show up." And if my initial observations are > correct, then show up it did. > > And MAN did it show up. There wasn't "that much" of it on my person, > but it was there - glowing like ABSOLUTE MAD under black light UV > (small patches of it were fluorescing more than the charged dial of > an > old toxic-glow nuclear-waste watch face!). > > I wasn't sure what I was looking for at first. I'd spent a lot of > time > "under" black light in my youth -- for far less serious reasons -- so > when I first saw the "patches" on my hands, I thought them to be just > soap scum (bar soap leaves these streaks naturally - it just doesn't > rinse off well; also, many bar soaps contain titanium, a whitish > substance, for coloring). I basically don't use bar soap at all (home > or work), but just to prove to myself what I was looking at, I very > thoroughly washed my hands with liquid soap after this initial > observation. > > When I returned, the little fluorescent blobs (actually, > HYPER-fluorescent is a much better description) were still emitting > light as strongly as ever and still in their original positions, > completely unchanged by my attempt to "rid" or rinse myself of them, > even though I knew exactly where they were by having seen them > moments > before. (Soap scum, by the way, does rinse off with warm water, as > it's fat/lipid-based, so is soluble in any sort of grease-cutting > environment.) I noticed one "patch" on my adam's apple and several on > my hands - the only "exposed" areas of my body during the drizzly > rain > that particular day [it was cloud-dripping chem scum yesterday]; > there > were no other "patches" anywhere else on my person that I could find. > > As well, these "patches" -- small dots or relatively small > agglomerations that resembled glowing paint drops -- had seemed to > "migrate" of their own design into the normal cracks and crevices of > my hands (though their presence was not limited as such). They were > also somewhat difficult to "rub off" even under black light, being > amazingly persistent. > > The other thing I noticed was the presence of several very small > "filaments" - essentially micro-filaments, or tiny "broken threads", > on my hands - which seemed to glow almost as much as the "patches". > > The filaments were somewhat numerous, and while not quite as visually > "spectacular" as the patches, they were most unusual indeed. Whenever > I turned the room light back on to see if I could find any of these > "objects" on my person, they simply "disappeared". Turning the room > light off and letting the black light do its stuff brought them back > in full, lighthouse-beaming clarity. > > I did this for quite a while and was trying to comprehend what lay > right before me, as I was still a bit uncertain. > > After many such trials (and, after 3 or 4 thorough attempts at hand > washing, only succeeding in dimming the patches somewhat - I might > add > that most of the filaments survived hand washing as well), I decided > to try yet another experiment. > > I went to my closet and just randomly pulled out the sweater I had > been wearing last Sunday at Piedmont Park; remember, my original post > on this [Atlanta gets blanketed overnight..., particular post of > 4/9/00 stated that while in the park, I could not detect the chem > odors, but became unusually tired and sleepy; unknown to me, another > friend of mine was at the park too, though he inexplicably became > quite ill while there and had to leave because of illness; later that > evening I detected very heavy chem odor on my blue jeans - though > very > little odor on my sweater - and at the time attributed this to the > jeans being cotton (and therefore quite absorbent) and the sweater > being an acrylic (not too absorbent at all). My thought for the post > was that the chem-stuff seemed to be very persistent at ground level. > > Well, as chance would have it, the exact sweater I wore last Sunday > was literally COVERED with these UV-glowing (otherwise infinitely > transparent) micro-filaments. > > I didn't believe it at first. I thought that I must be seeing some > type of fabric "dust", or something similar. Yet none of my other > clothing appeared to have the filaments, or at least not to the > degree > as I was finding on that particular sweater (the comforter on my bed > had a light dusting of the same, though). > > On LIGHT-COLORED CLOTHING, incidentally, the BaTiO3 is virtually > undetectable by UV light (this includes light colored jeans); the > contrast range is too narrow to permit one to "see" it, even though > I'm sure it's "glowing" madly. > > The micro-filaments themselves were also difficult to physically > handle, some of them being quite "persistent", almost embedded in the > fabric of the sweater, while others seemed to be "on the surface" and > could be plucked off. These were very small, yet very visible under > my > black light all the same. I was also struck by the fact that even > though it had been several days since I had handled the sweater, the > microfilaments I had found earlier on my hands that evening MATCHED > EXACTLY in size, shape, reflectivity, transparency, and other > characteristics THE MANY, MANY MICROFILAMENTS I HAD FOUND ON A > SWEATER > OF "KNOWN QUALITY" - that is, I had been wearing it outside for an > extended period during an exposure day. [MIND YOU, I only detected > the > spray odor on my clothing later that same day - no visible signs of > chem-trails, as we've come to know them, seemed to be present in the > sky on that particular blue Sunday.] > > So, on my person, I had detected persistent "patches" (probably > formed > from drying raindrops on Thursday as well as persistent and residual > "microfilaments" on a sweater worn during a "normal-looking (but > otherwise exposure) day. > > The fluorescing characteristics of each are fascinating. They start > glowing about their complete portion long before they are even > directly in the light path, and will do so even if you have a > moderate-wattage incandescent bulb lit simultaneously (just for > inspection purposes). They also "respond" very quickly to black light > "stimuli" - meaning they need no "charge" time, they "peak" as fast > as > you can bring the light over - and put forth an amazing glow for > something so absolutely invisible under normal sunlight illumination > -- or for that matter, under standard household or office lighting. > > PRE-REQS: - You'll need a very dark room, or a room at night with a > standard-type light which can be switched off. - You'll need some > type > of black light source - either a fluorescent tube-type fixture, or an > incandescent "screw-in" bulb, both of which are readily available > through lighting and novelty stores. - Your skin should amply magnify > the light difference of these patches and filaments if theyre > present; > for clothing, however, dark clothes are best; light clothes tend to > reflect a lot of the light on their own, reducing the effective > contrast and making it virtually impossible to see the glowing > patches > or microfilaments; I later checked two pieces of light-colored > clothing Id known to have been exposed to chem-stuff to verify this. > - > A good mirror is essential as well, for personal inspection. > > Give yourself a few minutes to "get used" to looking at things under > the black light - everything appears kind of "weird" - eye and skin > color, you'll notice unusual "markings" on yourself that disappear > under normal light, colors may change completely, etc. You may even > notice the familiar "soap scum" left from waxy/oily residues in the > soaps you may use. Not to worry, just give your eyes time to adjust. > > Ill be very curious to hear what we find through direct observation > like this. For myself, things that stood out were the following: -- > how the microfilaments had migrated about my person and living space, > turning up in well-lived-in areas, but being almost completely absent > in others (at one point I felt all verklempt from the sheer > violation!). -- how the web-like imagery weve used to describe the > airborne trails (as they are dropped and begin to spread out) still > holds up; the microfilaments, when you study them quite closely, are > all remarkably similar in size and general characteristics -- they > look as if to be very tiny, crooked parts of a cobweb which simply > broke apart and blew onto your clothing with the wind. -- how very, > very fluorescing these tiny patches and filaments seem to be, keeping > in characteristic with BaTiO3s almost unique abilities to virtually > magnify certain wavelengths of light. -- how tenacious some of the > filaments were, and how extraordinarily persistent some of the > patches > were, as if they had been formulated or mixed originally in a solvent > base (!). > > Its not the most wonderful feeling, spotting persistent chem-goo on > ones own person -- but I think wed better learn how to do it, and > possibly even get good at it, if for no other reason than to > understand the amount of exposure were being subjected to. > > This may also make possible certain types of homemade tests or > "experiments" possible. (moondog - is there any other type of test we > could conduct on these probable chem-leavings to determine or confirm > the presence of Barium Titanate?) > > This still leaves many questions unanswered, but it may prove to be a > good starting point... (debunkers should try this, too -- though Im > not at all interested in your late-stage denial / convoluted > theories, > since we may now have physical evidence AND the means of both > collecting samples and proving it...) > -------------------------------------------------- > -------------------- > NOW HERE IS A RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST: By Moondog Djembemon, I > applaud your efforts and intelligence. I think you may well have > happened upon something important, although honestly I do not know > what it is yet. At the risk of sounding like I am just trying to > debunk you, which I am not, I have to say that I do not think at all > that this means BaTiO3. In fact your findings point AWAY from BaTiO3. > Let me explain, but also again say that what you have done is > fabulous, and that this is how science gets done, and answers rise to > the surface. > > I cannot be absolutely certain, because I do not have any information > about batio3 (easier to type in lower case) in front of me yet, but I > do NOT think it fluoresces. Let me explain what flourescence is, how > it is different from refraction. > > Fluorescence is an electronic excitation of electrons by incoming > light, generally visible and/or UV. In order to have fluorescence, > the > compound must have energy levels of the electron orbitals with gaps > that are less than or equal to the energy of the photon coming in, > AND > the resulting excitation of the eletrons must be followed by a rapid > electronic relaxation back to the ground state. This relaxation kicks > out a photon of energy equal to or less than the energy gap the > electrons fell. Energy must be conserved, and the energy of the > incoming photon must translate into energy of the photon coming out, > plus any vibrational energy that is the result of the relaxation of > the electrons. > > The reason UV lights make blacklight posters glow is because the UV > light is more than enough energy to excite the paint molecules to the > higher energy level, and the gap on the way back down for the > electrons corresponds to energy in the visible region of the > spectrum. > The relaxation is what is known as quantum mechanically "allowed", so > it is VERY fast. Thus the posters glows, but only as long as the UV > light is shining on it. > > Detergents today do something similar with compounds called > "whiteners" or "brighteners", which are dye molecules that absorb > high-vis/low UV light, and then kick out a photon in the visible > range. They look bright because they are actually emitting photons. > But they do not glow in the dark because the photons that would be > kicked out, kick out immediately, all at once. > > This is different than glow-in-the-dark substances, which also absorb > vis/UV light, but the relaxation process is "forbidden", which means > it is slower, and the photons kick out in their own sweet time, even > long after the insident light is removed. This is phosporescence. > > This is VERY different that refraction, which is the result of a > slowed speed of light inside a crystal. There is no fluorescence in > refectraction, in general. Ionic compounds that do not have organic > parts generally do NOT undergo fluorescence. The energy gaps for > electronic excitation are just too big, generally far beyond the UV > range. Fluorescence generally requires an organic component, such as > a > dye molecule. The filaments might be simply clothing fiber filaments > that are dyed with a fluorescing dye, which is very common. > Electrical > conductance or piezoelectric properties, also, do not at all imply > fluorescence. And neither does optical conductivity, which may seem > strange, but if you think about it, it makes sence. Photoconductivity > would actaully require just the opposite, as light is conducted > through a substance, not getting kicked out as fluorescence. Someone > correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think I am. > > I can say with almost complete certainty that what you are seeing > fluoresce is NOT batio3. > > And this is the bad news, because if it is not batio3, than what is > it? This doesn't mean that batio3 is NOT present, it just does not > fluoresce. But many GE pathogens and pathogen simulants DO. Strep > Fluorescens is a prime example. Genetically engineered pathogens > often > will have a fluorescent "tag" used to track the behavior of the bug. > I > feel this is more likely, unfortunately. Read Horowitz's "Healing > Codes" or Leonard Cohen's "The Eleventh Plague" to read more about > tagged simulants. > > These would not generally be filaments, however, but some organic > conducting polymers can fluoresce. Again, they are organic, with > alternating double and single bonds, and the nature of these long > chains is to delocalize the electrons over long distances, which adds > to the electrical conductivity, and also lowers the energy of > electronic excitation, making the electrons more suseptible to light > excitation and then possibly fluoresces. > > I abslolutely think we should continue with this UV analysis of our > houses, clothes, etc. I think it is leading to some truth, but we > must > NOT jump to conclusions without deep thinking about the underlying > principles. > > One last unrelated point, I am doing a photochemistry lab in my > organic chemistry class this week. Basically you mix some compounds > in > a solvent, and then put the mixture in a test tube, and set it in a > sunny window. Light with wavelengths shorter than about 250 nm does > not pass the glass walls, or the window pane, but the reaction > happens > at around 300 nm, so all is ok...as long as those wavelengths are > getting through from the sky. This was my concern. What if the spray > is masking UV light? High UV won't make a difference here, as the > reaction is a low-UV reaction, but what if the low-UV is being > defected? How will I explain this to the students when no reaction > occurs for any of them? Well, I can say with certainty that 300 nm > and > longer wavelengths ARE getting through, as all reactions are > proceeding nicely. > > Let's keep this foot in the door with the blacklight effect. I think > you are definitely onto something big here. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Your high school sweetheart-where is he now? With 4.4 million alumni > already registered at Classmates.com, there's a good chance you'll > find her here. Visit your online high school class reunion at: > http://click.egroups.com/1/3139/6/_/815724/_/956198688/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
