Geoengineering – A Message to the Pilots
I often tell my friends that my readers are far more clued up than I am. They do the reading, I do the writing! A reader, Jake, sent me links to two interesting Substack pieces, and we agreed that it would be a fine idea if I did a piece titled “Message to the Pilots” – that is to say, the pilots who are spraying us like livestock with undisclosed particulate matter.
The first piece to highlight is by Iain Hunter, a retired pilot with 45 years’ experience, a fair chunk of which seems to have been with the RAF. He was not engaged in chemtrail dispersal, so it’s not a confession or a whistle blow. It’s a professional opinion. Here is the article:
Hunter went from being highly sceptical of chemtrails to taking the view that “when facts change, one has to be prepared to change one’s mind.” I don’t think the facts have changed, but it’s great that more people are becoming aware of the facts that have existed for quite some time now.
After monitoring the skies in his area, Hunter has concluded that some of the trails he is seeing are “not normal”. He also seems to be persuaded by a series of articles written by a former British Army Lieutenant-General. In that series of articles, the former army General refers to an investigation funded by farmers and landowners into environmental pollution. The investigation may lead to legal action against companies involved in ‘aerial dispersant services’. We can only hope. The group bringing the legal action believes that the pollutants include sulphates, aluminium, barium and other toxic metals.
“So, who is doing it and where are the aircraft flying from?”, asks Hunter. He speculates that:
“It won’t be from a major airport and it won’t be normal commercial flights that are involved in this. The places to look are the smaller, quieter regional airports. One company that might bear examination is 2Excel Aviation.”
2Excel Aviation provides aerial dispersant services under its ‘Special Missions’ offering.
The second article to highlight is by a Substacker based in California, MellowKat, who’d had enough of the aerial chemical spraying and decided to go to the airport to confront the pilots face-to-face. She found one of the pilots responsible for spraying and recorded the 15-minute conversation she had with him. It’s in the link below:
It is this second piece, specifically the recorded conversation in it, that forms the basis for my Message to the Pilots who are dropping their daily cargo of chemicals on their fellow humans. If you know pilots who might be engaged in this, or if you know anyone who might know these pilots, please share this with them.
Message to the Pilots
The Californian pilot’s response to MellowKat is characteristic of blind order-following. I’ve broken down his defence under three main headings in order to provide counterarguments from the perspective of the people who are seeing this in our skies day in and day out, and do not consent to being sprayed like livestock. The sun is so vital to all life on earth and yet here you are, literally stealing the sun from us.
Pilot’s defence #1: I’m not the one to talk to about that
When MellowKat tells the pilot that her community is tired of the pilots dumping heavy metals on them, his instant response is, “I’m not the one to talk to about that.”
The absence of any hesitation probably indicates that he’s given this moment some prior thought. That means his conscience has bothered him enough to have prepared himself for this moment. Or it could mean that, as a professional order-follower, he has simply had a lot of practice in passing the buck.
The pilot repeatedly asserts that the spraying is the responsibility of his supervisor, and not his responsibility.
Dear pilot, you most definitely are the one to talk to, in the same way that a gunman pulling the trigger in an armed robbery is the one the police should be talking to. It’s understandable that people who blindly follow orders would want to distance themselves from the direct harm they might be causing by placing the order-giver between themselves and the victim. In so doing, they are using the order-giver to shield them from responsibility for the harm they are causing.
The wrongdoer feels they have transferred culpability for their actions to the person giving the order – a trusted authority figure. In this way, guilt is transferred and permission to do harm is effectively granted by someone further up the chain.
This is how hierarchies facilitate harm – by overriding the individual’s conscience. If hierarchies serve as a very effective alibi for people who seek to avoid responsibility, the question is: what exactly are they trying to avoid? I believe they are trying to avoid two things:
Thinking carefully about what they are doing based on a formulation of their own moral codes and values system.
Taking full responsibility for acting on those moral codes independently of what others might think.
Together, those two components require mental and emotional effort, and courage. Crucially, it involves taking a risk by acting in accordance with your own conscience and not someone else’s. Blind order-followers hate risk as much as vampires hate crosses.
This fear of risk-taking has, to some extent, been conditioned in all of us by the many hierarchical systems we have to navigate from cradle to grave. We are not born lazy; we are made lazy. Proof of this lies in a minority who don’t comply blindly with orders, but who think first about the consequences, both for themselves and others. The existence of this minority tells us that there are people whose consciences can’t be easily suppressed, and who won’t accept permission from authority as the pretext to harm others.
Blind order-following can be taken to absurd extremes, especially when we consider that order-followers often end up seriously harming themselves. Once self-harm becomes apparent, the order-follower often turns to the very people from whom they took orders, and complains: “I did what I was told. This should not have happened to me!”
This is a futile attempt to continue transferring responsibility and guilt to the order-giver, even when consequences are being suffered by the order-follower. There are at least two problems with this.
First, people who give orders to subordinates to commit harmful acts are not the sort of people who will readily accept blame and guilt when things go wrong. More often than not, they give a great deal of thought to protecting themselves from retaliatory action, while giving little or no thought to protecting you.
Second, deflecting blame and guilt will not cure the damage done. Imagine the most extreme case in which an order-follower ends up facing death or life-changing injury as a result of mistakenly transferring responsibility for their actions to someone else. Ponder the absurdity of an order-follower getting satisfaction by pointing their finger at someone else as they breathe their last breath, saying, “It wasn’t my fault”, while the order-giver is sipping pina coladas on a beach in Costa Rica.
Ultimately blind order-following does not eliminate risk for you or the people you might be harming. It might delay the day when you have to face that risk. The best way to avoid risk is to think for yourself, and to act on your own conscience.
Pilot’s defence #2: Relativising the harm
The courageous woman confronting the pilot in the voice recording explains that she has taken samples for testing and they confirm the presence of pollutants and heavy metals caused by the pilot’s aerial dispersants. His response is that if she drove to the airport, she is a polluter, therefore implying that she is just as guilty as he is.
Again, this is an attempt by the pilot to deflect guilt and responsibility for his actions.
Even if it were true that the pollution from cars is just as harmful to the environment as liberally spraying aluminium, strontium and barium (and God knows what else) from aeroplanes, the latter is a new addition to the list of harms we are causing to ourselves and the environment. Is it really sensible to argue that current harms justify additional harm?
Something is either wrong or it isn’t, and pointing out other harms in order to diminish the harm you are causing is not a credible moral defence. We can either double down on harmful behaviour on the grounds that there are myriad other harms to resolve, or we can say, “I will not make a bad situation worse.”
Pilot’s defence #3: I’m not doing anything illegal
It would take a library of books to record all the stupid and vile acts that governments at some point in history regarded as legal, until they became illegal. If your bar for moral action is statutory law, you are setting a low bar for yourself. What is legal is not necessarily moral. A growing number of people are getting sick of (literally), and angry about, being sprayed with undisclosed chemicals by people who are ‘just doing their job’. Here are some questions I have for you that relate to consent and harm, as opposed to legality:
To what extent has your judgement been affected by the amount you get paid for each flight?
If you were not a pilot, and if you weren’t being paid a decent amount to disperse undisclosed chemicals into the biosphere, would you readily consent to someone else doing it to you?
Do you think there is a possibility that you could be harming people by spraying chemicals whose long-term effects on humans and the biosphere are not known?
Before you accepted the job to dump chemicals from the sky, did you ask the people giving you orders if they had conducted research into the environmental and human safety of the materials being dispersed?
Do you yourself know the precise chemical composition of the materials you are spraying? Do you know how these materials interact with humans, animals, plant and marine life over time? Have you considered asking your employer for this information?
Do you believe that the materials you are dispersing are safe simply because you yourself have not fallen ill yet? Can you be sure that these chemicals are not slowly causing illnesses and environmental damage that will manifest over time? What if the damage is irreversible?
Is there a precedent in human history to show that widescale dispersal of these chemicals into the biosphere is safe? If not, why are you doing it?
Bottom line:
Pilots all around the world are dropping thousands of tonnes of undisclosed chemical materials into the planet’s biosphere, under persistent denial by our governments, and with no way of knowing what the health and environmental consequences are going to be. This is sheer lunacy.
All the Freedom of Information Act requests sent to the authorities who should be in control of widespread chemical dispersal have elicited denials. And yet we know that aerial chemical dispersal is happening. There is no informed consent to this, and there never can be a society-wide, blanket consent to something that affects every single member of society. The fact that it is not possible to get consent for indiscriminate exposure of the public to potentially hazardous materials with this kind of intensity means there is no ethical or moral basis for doing it.
Whatever good you may think you are doing, it has not been consented to by everyone who is affected. And because of what you are doing, ‘everyone affected’ means all of humanity.
Some of you may believe that you are doing important work to advance the cause of science by interfering with nature on such a grand scale. Whatever you believe about the rights and wrongs of what you are doing, an inescapable fact remains – you are carrying out an unprecedented experiment in which the entire planet is the petri dish, and the entire human race is the guinea pig. There is only one planet and one human species, so if it goes badly wrong, there is no reset button.
We have reached an absurd point in human history where humans have interfered with nature to such an extent that some of them think they need to continue interfering with nature in order to correct the original interference. This is madness. The way to correct interference with nature is to stop interfering with nature.
If you are harming your fellow humans, you cannot pass on responsibility to someone else simply because you did what you were told by someone in authority, or because you believe that you are not legally responsible. You have a moral responsibility that supersedes legal responsibility.
If people die or are seriously injured as a result of what you are doing, you will have more blood on your hands than the person who is paying you to dump the chemicals. As the pilot dispersing the materials, as the person physically administering the harm, you are more morally responsible than the person who paid you to do it.
It has to stop.
You have a choice in the matter. The buck stops with you.
Update: 26/2/25 - a reader posted this video below made by a Florida resident who links the geoengineering to a serious illness she suffered recently. It’s essentially my message, but on steroids. People are getting really angry. Chemtrail pilots need to watch this video.
Update: 27/2/25 – Iain Hunter, the retired pilot and author of the first article to which I referred at the beginning of this piece, made the following observation in the comments section which deserves more prominence as it chimes powerfully with the message I am trying to convey. So I am adding that comment here:
“The Nuremberg Defence – I was only following orders – does not wash in English Common Law. If you know you are doing harm or it is brought to your attention that you are doing harm, you are under an obligation to cease. To carry on is unlawful. Everyone has a right to life, liberty, property, to breath freely and drink clean water, to freedom of thought and speech. Everyone is obliged to act in honour and honour contracts whether spoken or written. Everything that is not wrong is a right. But, your rights stop where those of another begin.”
Why do we have a civil aviation and health system that thinks it's a good idea to spray shit on us?
Turn key utopia.
The machine works, just turn the key from dystopia to utopia.
The Nuremberg Defence, I was only following orders, does not wash in English Common Law. If you know you are doing harm or it is brought to your attention that you are doing harm, you are under an obligation to cease. To carry on is unlawful. Everyone has a right to life, liberty, property, to breath freely and drink clean water, to freedom of thought and speech. Everyone is obliged to act in honour and honour contracts whether spoken or written. Everything that is not wrong is a right. But, your rights stop where those of another begin.