ONGOING INVESTIGATION REGARDING CHEMTRAIL PILOTS
In a message dated 4/30/00 11:52:46
AM Pacific Daylight Time
<< Mr. Steadman,
I thought you should be made aware of this, and am looking forward to seeing
This was posted on the free for
all bboard forum on the chemtrail connection
[Edited for anonymity]
FIRST GLANCE & RECOLLECTION: All this material Aerosol Pilot material originated on another website bulletin Board. I was made aware of the debate by my readers and I posted a link:
Re: Chemtrail pilot recorded?
Attached is a zip file - it contains an audio recording (.WAV format) of
radio chatter that is allegedly from a pilot flying a chemtrail spraying
I did not record it, I'm simply passing it along.
The guy who did record it calls himself "DX" (his e-mail is [Edited for anonymity]).
On a chemtrail message board he wrote:
"Heard 'Aerosol 31' on 310.4 MHZ at 0917 central time talking to what sounded
like 'max control' (probably MACS Control or something) getting ready to
return to base to refill his tank. Then it got wierd... he said there were
two civilian aircraft that were 'cloverleaf equipped' and were 'spraying
nicely.' What is cloverleaf? Anyone heard of this before? Anyway I got a good
recording of them this time.
[Edited for anonymity]
The source of that message is at:
Eventually the alleged ham operator in question emailed me:
Glad to see you put my recording on your site. Understandibly, there are a few questions about it that I do need to answer.
In response to the questions posted on your feedback page, here are the answers:
1. Where did you record this, what city and state?
Grand Island, Nebraska.
2. When did you record it, exactly what time of day or night?
Approximately 0917 CST.
3. What kind of radio did you receive this on, exact make and model please?
Radio Shack PRO2006.
4. What did you record it with, exact make and model please?
Radio Shack tape recorder, the recording was made with the patch cord going directly from the scanner to the mic input of the tape recorder. The attenuating patch cord had to be used to keep the audio from being too hot.
5. What was the mode of transmission, WFM, NFM or AM, SSB, USB, LSB?
6. Why are there gaps of no static in the recording, was it edited?
No, it wasn't edited, the gaps of no static was the squelch of the scanner closing.
7. Was there anyone else there at the time that also heard this transmission?
No, I was alone.
I hope these answers hope clear up some of the debate regarding my recording. I hope others will tune in and get their own recordings of the spray planes so they can have their own evidence.
ALLEGED AEROSOL PILOT
EMAIL, 1/15/00 6:05:54 PM Pacific Standard Time: Heard 'Aerosol 31' on 310.4 MHZ at 0917 central time talking to what sounded like 'max control' (probably MACS Control or something) getting ready to return to base to refill his tank. Then it got weird... he said there were two civilian aircraft that were 'cloverleaf equipped' and were 'spraying nicely.' What is cloverleaf? Anyone heard of this before? Anyway I got a good recording of them this time.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This file came to me in email and like the usual method, I thought I'd troll it out there for debate.
1/18/00 4:07:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
I recall many diverse emails following the event including pro/con, rebuttal and debunkers--there was some serious debate at the time which I encourage with my readers.
SECOND GLANCE & RECOLLECTION: HMMMM, I DO recall the tag below which was probably sent by reader with a technical background to help me identify the jargon flying around:
"In case you didn't know what LIDAR is, it stands for LIght raDAR. Webster's dates the word to 1963 an defines it as "a device that is similar in operation to radar but emits pulsed laser light instead of microwaves."
|AHA: I GET IT NOW: THE LIDAR File refers
to NOT TO AEROSOL PILIOT but to an email I received and posted along in May,
1999, along with other chemtrail material in May 1999 at:
I doubt I have the original email, a year old, will look. I usually post email anonymously unless requested otherwise, to protect the sender from spooks, which in this instance would be a distinct probability. My thoughts at the moment: when somebody focuses on an issue and tries to blow steam, hissing hoax, etc. it might be worth re-investigation, because of possible reaction by somebody on the "inside!" Perhaps I should toss out to sleuths.
Screen capture of file details from cbjd.net server:
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFO I FIND I WILL POST HERE