Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #91
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Mark, I'm no expert on identifying "con" versus "chem" - what are these?

    They certainly appear to be persisting, fanning out, covering more of the sky.

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #92
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    danejasper wrote:
    Mark, I'm no expert on identifying "con" versus "chem" - what are these?

    They certainly appear to be persisting, fanning out, covering more of the sky.


    Dear Dane:
    I do not know what "these" are, since I was not present when the picture was taken/or assembled, by Photoshop...
    I try not to exercise myself in things that are beyond my ken, Dane. I am very slow in forming judgments - and especially - making assumptions about anything that I have no personal experience of. That would be contrary to the Scientific method, you know.
    Best Regards,
    Mark
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #93
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post

    Dear Dane:
    I do not know what "these" are, since I was not present when the picture was taken/or assembled, by Photoshop...
    I try not to exercise myself in things that are beyond my ken, Dane. I am very slow in forming judgments - and especially - making assumptions about anything that I have no personal experience of. That would be contrary to the Scientific method, you know.
    Best Regards,
    Mark
    No, no, this is a real photo, not photoshop.

    Are they chemtrails?

    -Dane
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #94
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    danejasper wrote:

    No, no, this is a real photo, not photoshop.

    Are they chemtrails?

    -Dane
    Dane,
    I do not know, and therefore I can not say whether they are chemtrails or not. If I had been present, on the ground, the day the alleged photograph was taken, Present at the site before and after, then, for sure I could give you a square answer as to yea or nay, Dane.

    As it is, all I can say is that I am able to recognize a chemtrail when I see one with my own eyes. I can also testify, before the bar of history, and in the court of the Commons, that the pictures that I posted on this thread { #58, #59} were, indeed Chemtrails, and that there were no natural clouds in the sky on that day, before the Jets began flying back and forth overhead, in these hills where I dwell, east of Santa Rosa proper.


    Furthermore, after the planes were through flying back and forth, the sky was thick with haze. None of it was natural.


    In Truth,
    - Mark
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #95
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post
    [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]Dane,
    I do not know, and therefore I can not say whether they are chemtrails or not. If I had been present, on the ground, the day the alleged photograph was taken, Present at the site before and after, then, for sure I could give you a square answer as to yea or nay, Dane.
    Sorry, I didn't realize that it was important to see the development over a period of time. Here's two pictures that should make it clear, as the trails fan out and spread.

    Are they chemtrails?

    -Dane

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by:

  7. TopTop #96
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    These are interesting pictures, Dane. Did you take them yourself?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #97
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post

    These are interesting pictures, Dane. Did you take them yourself?
    No, they were taken by someone else.

    Are they chemtrails?

    -Dane
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #98
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    danejasper wrote:

    No, they were taken by someone else.

    Are they chemtrails?


    -Dane
    My Answer Remains the Same:

    Iolchan wrote:

    Dear Dane:
    I do not know what "these" are, since I was not present when the picture was taken/or assembled, by Photoshop...
    I try not to exercise myself in things that are beyond my ken, Dane. I am very slow in forming judgments - and especially - making assumptions about anything that I have no personal experience of. That would be contrary to the Scientific method, you know.
    Best Regards,
    Mark

    Iolchan wrote:

    Dane,
    I do not know, and therefore I can not say whether they are chemtrails or not. If I had been present, on the ground, the day the alleged photograph was taken; Present at the site before and after, then, for sure I could give you a square answer as to yea or nay, Dane.

    As it is, all I can say is that I am able to recognize a chemtrail when I see one with my own eyes. I can also testify, before the bar of history, and in the court of the Commons, that the pictures that I posted on this thread { #58, #59} were, indeed Chemtrails, and that there were no natural clouds in the sky on that day, before the Jets began flying back and forth overhead, in these hills where I dwell, east of Santa Rosa proper.


    Furthermore, after the planes were through flying back and forth, the sky was thick with haze. None of it was natural.


    In Truth,
    - Mark

    excuse me, while
    I appropriate the Lull...

    *

    http://www.agriculturedefencecoalition.org



    These are Chemtrails:




    youtube;p3pi9v3mDLs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3pi9v3mDLs&feature=related

    And These :




    youtube;7gnO3kDo5J0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gnO3kDo5J0

    Testify

    The lines are open for all callers:
    believers/unbelievers; the curious;

    de-bunkers; dilettantes; doubters;
    the dubious; renegades; researchers;

    et cetera...


    Shah Maat.

    *

    Mark Walter Evans
    Last edited by Iolchan; 12-04-2011 at 10:42 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #99
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    On the Project Censored Website, Among
    the Top 25 Censored Stories of 2012 :










    9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification


    Rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, have created broad support for the growing field of weather modification. The U.S. government has conducted weather modification experiments for over half a century, and the military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on these discoveries.

    One of the latest programs is HAARP, the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program. This technology can potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. The scientific idea behind HAARP is to “excite” a specific area of the ionosphere and observe the physical processes in that excited area with intention of modifying ecological conditions. HAARP can also be used as a weapon system, capable of selectively destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

    Another EnMod program is that of atmospheric geo-engineering or cloud seeding, which has found new life since the global warming scare. Cloud Seeding is cirrus clouds created from airplane contrails. Unlike regular contrails, which dissolve in minutes, these artificial contrails can last for several hours…even days. Once the artificial clouds have been created, they are used to reflect solar or man-made radiation.

    At a recent international symposium, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” The only conspiracy surrounding geo-engineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research. The Belfort Group, has been working to raise public awareness about toxic aerial spraying – popularly known as chemtrails. However, scientists preferred the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon, to move the inquiry away from amateur conspiracy theories.

    Dr Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology, presented a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” He stated clearly: “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.” Vermeeren mentioned a 1991 patent now held by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, with: “18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material.” Authors of the study expressed concern that Raytheon, a private corporation, makes daily flights spraying these materials in our skies with minimal government oversight. Raytheon is the same company that holds the HAARP contract with the US.

    Other countries are also experimenting. The Chinese government announced in April, 2007 the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. China now conducts more cloud seeding projects than any other nation.

    Sources:

    “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Rady Ananda, July 30, 2010, Global Research.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369


    Last edited by Iolchan; 12-18-2011 at 02:00 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  13. TopTop #100
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Now we're getting some meatier evidence re: "chemtrails", from a pretty credible source (though I must admit I haven't found the time to look at the video links, and I've always found Catherine Austin-Fitts's analyses of the economy to be very convincing, so maybe she has something convincing to say about "chemtrails" too).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by:

  15. TopTop #101
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails



    On October 2, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland Ohio, introduced a Bill, H.R. 2977. The Bill sought to ban weapons in space, including chemtrails. Here is the original Text:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH:

    H.R.2977 -- Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in House - IH)


    HR 2977 IH


    107th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 2977


    To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.



    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



    October 2, 2001


    Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



    A BILL


    To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.


    SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.


    Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.


    SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.


    The President shall--


    (1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and


    (2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.


    SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.


    The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.


    SEC. 5. REPORT.


    The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--


    (1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and


    (2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.


    SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.


    Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--


    (1) space exploration;


    (2) space research and development;


    (3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or


    (4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.


    SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.


    In this Act:


    (1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.


    (2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:


    (i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--


    (I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;


    (II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;


    (III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or


    (IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.


    (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--


    (I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);


    (II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or


    (III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.


    (B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--


    (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;


    (ii) chemtrails;


    (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;


    (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;


    (v) laser weapons systems;


    (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and


    (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.


    (C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

    Last edited by Barry; 03-16-2012 at 04:27 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  17. TopTop #102

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post

    Scientists - And Others - Expose Chemtrail Agenda :

    Dr. Michael Castle :
    http://bariumblues.com/methodic_demi...ural_earth.htm

    Lauren Moret :
    See Search results here.



    Evergreen Aviation :
    http://coupmedia.org/arial-spraying/...with-usaf-1401

    Weather Modification Companies in operation today inside the USA:
    http://www.wtwma.com

    Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2009 :
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-60

    A.C. Griffith on Project Cloverleaf - (Series with Joyce Riley, Captain in the United States Air Force and flew on C-130 missions in support of Operation Desert Storm, a well known nurse, advocate for soldiers with Gulf War Syndrome and who had it herself) :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4c0F...eature=related

    North American Weather Modification council :

    http://www.naiwmc.org/


    Owning the weather by 2025 (by US Airforce Col, Ltn, and Majors

    http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

    Your link on the 2009 bill did not work


    Here it is:
    S. 601, The Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2009

    S. 601 would establish the Weather Mitigation Research Office.
    Detailed Summary

    Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2009 - (Sec. 5) Establishes in the Geosciences Directorate of the National Science Foundation (NSF) the Weather Mitigation Research Office to establish and coordinate the national research and development program on weather mitigation described in this Act. Requires the Program to be headed by a Director, who shall be appointed by the Director of the Geosciences Directorate. Instructs the Director of the NSF to coordinate the work of the Program with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
    Authorizes the Director of the Program to: (1) fund studies, obtain information, and hold workshops necessary to carry out this Act; (2) cooperate with public or private agencies to promote the purposes of this Act; and (3) enter into cooperative agreements with the head of a U.S. department or agency, an appropriate official of a state or political subdivision of a state, or an appropriate official of a private or public agency or organization to conduct research and development (R&D) pertaining to weather mitigation.

    Creates a Working Group to advise the Program and to make recommendations to the Program concerning administration, research, and other matters.

    (Sec. 6) Requires the Director of the Program, in consultation with the Working Group, to submit an implementation plan to Congress for the establishment and coordination of the Program.

    Permits the inclusion in the Program of specified activities related to weather mitigation, including: (1) interdisciplinary R&D and coordination of R&D and activities to improve the understanding of processes relating to planned and inadvertent weather mitigation; (2) coordination with relevant organizations; (3) development, through partnerships among federal agencies, state agencies, and academic institutions, of new technologies and approaches for weather mitigation; and (4) establishment of scholarships and educational opportunities that encourage an interdisciplinary approach to weather mitigation.

    Requires the Program to promote and fund R&D, studies, and investigations with respect to: (1) improved forecast and decisionmaking technologies for weather mitigation operations; and (2) adaptation and scaling experiments in the efficacy of weather mitigation.

    Authorizes the Director of the NSF to establish a grant program for the awarding of grants to eligible entities (state agencies, institutions of higher education, and nonprofits that have expertise in the field of weather mitigation and experience working with state agencies) for R&D projects that pertain to weather mitigation.
    (Sec. 7) Requires the Director to submit biennial reports containing certain information to the President and specified congressional committees.

    (Sec. 8) Instructs the head of any U.S. department or agency and the head of any other public or private institution receiving research funds from the United States to cooperate with the Director of the Program.

    (Sec. 9) Directs the OSTP, in support of the implementation plan, to: (1) address relevant programs and activities of the federal agencies and departments that would contribute to the Program; (2) consider and use, as appropriate, reports and studies of federal agencies and departments, weather modification organizations, and other expert scientific bodies, including the a specified National Research Council report; and (3) make recommendations for the coordination of Program activities with weather mitigation activities of other national and international organizations.

    Requires OSTP, in the support of the biennial reports required from the Director under section 7, to provide specified information.

    (Sec. 10) Authorizes appropriations. Allows for the acceptance, use, and disposal of gifts or donations of services or property under the Program.
    Status of the Legislation

    Latest Major Action: 7/28/2009: Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Hearings held.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. Gratitude expressed by:

  19. TopTop #103
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Lulz. Apparently Kucinich didn't read the bill well enough before he endorsed it. It sounds like it came from UFO enthusiasts, and Kucinich later modified the bill, saying "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’

    See: http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-...s-and-hr-2977/

    A good excerpt:
    ...
    HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of. The reality is that they were simply given a passing mention in bill written by new-age UFO conspiracy theorists and sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”.
    ...

    -Dane
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by:

  21. TopTop #104
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote danejasper wrote: View Post
    Sorry, I didn't realize that it was important to see the development over a period of time. Here's two pictures that should make it clear, as the trails fan out and spread.

    Are they chemtrails?

    -Dane

    Just to bring closure to this portion of the thread, these "chemtrails" pre-date the 1986 "dawn of the chemtrails" (or maybe it was the awakening of a particular paranoid mind). These photos are from Life Magazine, 1944.

    http://contrailscience.com/life-maga...ntrail-photos/
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by:

  23. TopTop #105
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    Life Magazine
    Photograph
    of
    Jet Contrails,
    Winter, 1944

    "
    "
    "



    Bingo!

    Please notice snow on the corrugated tin roof of the shed in this picture.
    We may deduce that it is Winter. The atmospheric conditions are cold;
    maybe even freezing, at ground level. Vapor from the new Jet airplanes,
    flying in formation, leave a wake of ice crystals in many parallel streams.
    I
    pso facto,

    These are Contrails!


    Thanks, Dane, for filling us in, as to the actual Source of this Pictura.

    "Off We Go, into the Wild Blue Yonder"


    Love,
    Mark

    Last edited by Iolchan; 12-06-2011 at 02:51 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #106
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote danejasper wrote: View Post
    ...Apparently Kucinich didn't read the bill well enough before he endorsed it. It sounds like it came from UFO enthusiasts, and Kucinich later modified the bill, saying "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”...
    "...sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”.
    Dane, chemtrails aside, I hope your including that quote doesn't mean you're endorsing the dismissive attitude toward Kucinich evinced in the quote. Kucinich is one of the very, very few real progressives on Capitol Hill. He's been fighting the good fight for years, marginalized and impeded by just the sort of dismissive attitude you quote here. If he and his ilk were running the USA, the country and the world would be radically better off. I ain't gonna let him be dissed without standing up for him.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  26. TopTop #107
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    However


    Yo!

    Extreme Chemtrails
    Amsterdam, February
    9, 2011
    = NATO Aerosol Crimes =

    "
    "


    -





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGvu...eature=related

    These are not "classical" contrails!

    No, Rather, they are chemtrails.


    ...Please be Informed of the Distinction...



    Mark Walter Evans

    Last edited by Iolchan; 01-14-2012 at 02:13 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #108
    Karl Frederick's Avatar
    Karl Frederick
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Iolchan wrote: View Post

    SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:

    (1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
    There seems to be a contradiction here. The above definition of "space" is far above the altitude at which aircraft can fly. Therefore, as seen today, Chemtrails, which appear behind aircraft flying at much lower altitudes than the region covered by the act, are not actually covered by the act, despite the reference to them in later paragraphs.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by:

  29. TopTop #109
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    r
    danejasper wrote:

    Lulz. Apparently Kucinich didn't read the bill well enough before he endorsed it. It sounds like it came from UFO enthusiasts, and Kucinich later modified the bill, saying "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’

    See:
    http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-...s-and-hr-2977/

    A good excerpt:
    ...
    HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of. The reality is that they were simply given a passing mention in bill [sic] written by
    new-age UFO conspiracy theorists and sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who [sic] believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”.
    ...

    -Dane
    ( Italics, faces, & proof reading mine. )
    "Apparently Kucinich didn't read the bill before he endorsed it." You have got to be kidding. Kucinich is a lawyer. He wrote the bill; himself. To suggest that he was not aware of the contents of this bill, before he "endorsed it," is just ludicrous. And furthermore, technically, Kucinich did not "endorse" this bill; he both wrote it and introduced it, before Congress. Unfortunately, It died in Committee. It was the Path not taken. And Yes, Dennis Kucinich later did rewrite the Bill, eliminating the mention of Chemtrails...

    danejasper wrote:

    Kucinich later modified the bill, saying "“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’
    In Reality, the Truth is a little darker than that apocryphal story, or those apocryphal words, which are falsely attributed to Dennis Kucinich, who is a good man. In real time, Kucinich was leaned on by Boy Bush, who made him an offer he couldn't refuse. After being shown the horse's head in the bed, Kucinich rewrote the Bill, without the word "chemtrails." After that, in all probability, Kucinich was enjoined - a legal term - not to speak, or write anything about what had happened. Capische?

    As it was, the timing - in 2001 - was a little late, anyway. All of the technology mentioned in the Bill was already in place. Much of it had been developed during the 'eighties, under the "Star Wars" program. It is all very operational, Now, and We the People are the Enemy.


    Kucinich wrote:

    (2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:


    (i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--


    (I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;


    (II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;


    (III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or


    (IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.


    (ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--


    (I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);


    (II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or


    (III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.


    (B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--


    (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;


    (ii) chemtrails;


    (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;


    (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;


    (v) laser weapons systems;


    (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and


    (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.


    (C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.

    danejasper quoted:

    HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of.

    To suggest that the government is not "aware of" chemtrails, when there are upwards of seven million, two hundred eighty thousand hits on the word "Chemtrails" on Google at this date, is either totally absurd, and makes no sense at all...
    Or else it is disinformation. Pick your poison.

    Mark Walter Evans

    Last edited by Iolchan; 12-06-2011 at 03:15 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by:

  31. TopTop #110
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails




    If you did not enjoy "traditional" chemtrails raining down on you,
    you are not going to like the new version,
    which the United States Air Force promises will feature aerial dumps
    of programmable "smart" molecules tens of thousands
    of times smaller than the particles already landing people
    in emergency rooms with respiratory,
    heart and gastrointestinal complaints.

    Under development since 1995, the military's goal
    is to install microprocessors incorporating gigaflops
    computer capability into "smart particles"
    the size of a single molecule.

    Invisible except under the magnification of powerful microscopes,
    these nano-size radio-controlled chips
    are now being made out of mono-atomic gold particles.
    Networked together on the ground or assembling in the air,
    thousands of sensors will link into a single supercomputer
    no larger than a grain of sand.

    Brought to you by the same military-corporate-banking complex
    that runs America's permanent wars, Raytheon Corp
    is already profiting from new weather warfare technologies.
    The world's fourth largest military weapons maker
    bought E-Systems in 1995,
    just one year after that military contractor bought APTI,
    holder of Bernard Eastlund's HAARP patents.

    Raytheon also owns General Dynamics, the world's leading
    manufacturer of military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

    Raytheon also reports the weather for NOAA
    through its Advanced Weather Information Processing System.
    According to researcher Brendan Bombaci of Durango, Colorado,
    these Raytheon computers are directy linked
    with their UAV weather modification drones.
    Bombaci reports that NOAA paid Raytheon
    more than $300 million for this "currently active, 10-year project."

    She goes on to describe the Joint Environmental Toolkit
    used by the U.S. Air Force in its Weather Weapons System.
    Just the thing for planet tinkerers.





    GREEN LIGHT

    For public consumption, nano-weather control jargon has been sanitized.
    "Microelectric Mechanical Sensors" (MMS) and
    "Global Environmental Mechanical Sensors"
    sound passively benign.
    But these ultra-tiny autonomous aerial vehicles
    are neither M&Ms nor gems. [Space.com Oct 31/2005]

    According to a U.S. military flier called Military Progress,
    "The green light has been given" to disperse swarms
    of wirelessly-networked nano-bots into the troposphere
    by remotely-controlled UAV drones
    for "global warming mitigation."

    U.S. Army Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
    as well as U.S. Air Force drones
    "are slated to deploy various payloads for weather warfare,"
    Military Progress asserts.
    This dual mission - to slow global warming
    and use weather as a weapon - seems somewhat contradictory.


    FIGHTING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

    U.S. Military Inc. is already in the climate change business big time.
    The single biggest burner of petroleum on this planet,
    its high-flying aircraft routinely rend Earth's protective radiation shielding
    with nitrous oxide emissions, while depositing megatons
    of additional carbon, sulfur and water particles directly into the stratosphere
    - where they will do three-times more damage than CO2 alone.

    Go figure. A single F-15 burns around 1,580 gallons an hour.
    An Apache gunship gets about one-half mile to the gallon.
    The 1,838 Abrams tanks in Iraq achieve five gallons to the mile,
    while firing dusty radioactive shells
    that will continue destroying human DNA
    until our sun goes supernova.

    A single non-nuclear carrier steaming in support burns 5,600 gallons
    of bunker fuel in an hour - or two million gallons of bunker oil every 14 days.
    Every four days, each carrier at sea takes on another half-
    million gallons of fuel to supply its jets.

    The U.S. Air Force consumed nearly half of the Department of Defense's
    entire fuel supply in 2006, burning 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel aloft.

    While flying two to five-hour chemtrails missions
    to reflect incoming sunlight and slow global warming,
    a single KC-10 tanker will burn 2,050 gallons
    of highly toxic jet fuel every hour.
    The larger and older KC-135 Stratotanker
    carries 31,275 gallons of chemtrails
    and burns 2,650 gallons of fuel per hour.

    The EPA says that each gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of CO2.
    Each gallon of diesel produces 22.2 pounds of CO2.

    Total it up and routine operations by a military bigger
    than all other world militaries combined puts more than 48 billion tons
    of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year.
    Nearly half that total could be eliminated
    by ending the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
    [TomDispatch.com June 16/2007; huffingtonpost.com Oct 29/2007]

    NANO RAIN

    Meanwhile, the 60 year quest for weather warfare continues.
    Though a drone cannot carry a heavy payload,
    more sub-microscopic weather modification particles
    can be crammed into a UAV Predator
    than all the chemtrail slurry packed into a tanker the size of a DC-10.

    According to the air force's own weather modification study,
    Owning The Weather 2025
    , clouds of these extremely teeny machines
    will be dropped into hurricanes and other weather systems to blend
    with storms and report real time weather data to each other
    and a larger sensor network.

    Then these smart particles will be used to increase or decrease
    the storm's size and intensity - and "steer" it to "specific targets".

    The air force report boasted that nano-chemtrails
    "will be able to adjust their size to optimal dimensions
    for a given seeding situation and make adjustments throughout the process."
    Instead of being sprayed into the air at the mercy of the winds aloft,
    as is the fate of normal chemtrails,
    nano versions will be able to "enhance their dispersal"
    by "adjusting their atmospheric buoyancy"
    and "communicating with each other" as they steer themselves
    in a single coordinated flock within their own artificial cloud.

    Nano-chemtrails will even "change their temperature and polarity
    to improve their seeding effects," the air force noted.
    [Daily Texan, July 30/2007]

    Rutgers University scientist J. Storrs Hall held out the military's hope
    that these new nano weather-warrior bots:
    "Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant,
    and having navigation capability in three dimensions
    - clouds of microscopic computer particles communicating
    with each other and with a control system,
    could provide tremendous capability."

    Sounds expensive.


    SOURCE...










    NUISANCE

    A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

    -EPA Air Quality Management Rule 402.






    iolchan wrote:

    On the Project Censored Website, Among
    the Top 25 Censored Stories of 2012 :


    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...-modification/






    9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification


    Rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, have created broad support for the growing field of weather modification. The U.S. government has conducted weather modification experiments for over half a century, and the military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on these discoveries.

    One of the latest programs is HAARP, the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program. This technology can potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. The scientific idea behind HAARP is to “excite” a specific area of the ionosphere and observe the physical processes in that excited area with intention of modifying ecological conditions. HAARP can also be used as a weapon system, capable of selectively destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

    Another EnMod program is that of atmospheric geo-engineering or cloud seeding, which has found new life since the global warming scare. Cloud Seeding is cirrus clouds created from airplane contrails. Unlike regular contrails, which dissolve in minutes, these artificial contrails can last for several hours…even days. Once the artificial clouds have been created, they are used to reflect solar or man-made radiation.

    At a recent international symposium, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” The only conspiracy surrounding geo-engineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research. The Belfort Group, has been working to raise public awareness about toxic aerial spraying – popularly known as chemtrails. However, scientists preferred the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon, to move the inquiry away from amateur conspiracy theories.

    Dr Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology, presented a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” He stated clearly: “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.” Vermeeren mentioned a 1991 patent now held by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, with: “18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material.” Authors of the study expressed concern that Raytheon, a private corporation, makes daily flights spraying these materials in our skies with minimal government oversight. Raytheon is the same company that holds the HAARP contract with the US.

    Other countries are also experimenting. The Chinese government announced in April, 2007 the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. China now conducts more cloud seeding projects than any other nation.

    Sources:

    “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Rady Ananda, July 30, 2010, Global Research.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369



    YOUR TAX-DOLLARS

    $$$ BUSY AT WORK !!!




    Last edited by Iolchan; 01-05-2012 at 07:28 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. Gratitude expressed by:

  33. TopTop #111

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote podfish wrote: View Post
    that's like saying that if you don't believe in chupacabra you're denying that wild animals kill sheep. Is it really true that Dane and Mark deny there's such a thing as weather modification?? I bet they just take issue with the interpretation of what you all seem to think you see in the sky.
    of course there's been interest in weather modification for a tremendously long time, and even attempts to implement it. That's only peripherally relevant to the "chemtrail conspiracy".
    Your argument is so weak.

    We don't THINK we see something; we SEE something; we think, we research, we apply what we learn by imploring those in charge to come clean with the truth.

    Will you go look with OPEN eyes and mind, at the sky on a regular basis, and at the accumulating evidence presented?

    See this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1dO7...layer_embedded
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by:

  35. TopTop #112
    "Mad" Miles
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Last edited by Barry; 01-04-2012 at 02:24 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  37. TopTop #113
    Sebtown1968's Avatar
    Sebtown1968
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Your YouTube clip is perfect! A great laugh this morning....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  38. Gratitude expressed by:

  39. TopTop #114
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
    Supporting Member

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    that dude in the movie sure keeps asking annoying questions. Why can't he just accept the evidence? as has been repeatedly pointed out here, the highest proof is what you see with your own eyes. Apparently that's enough to stand on its own.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  40. Gratitude expressed by:

  41. TopTop #115
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    Very Funny, Miles, and a good laugh; yes. But not Science; not hardly. Mockery, yes, but Science, no... a Cartoon - a Fiction; r
    e-ified characters spielin' a script writ by a Chemtrail "Contra."

    "Mad" MIles wrote:

    The believers will believe, no matter what they're presented with. The skeptics will choose not to believe (or I prefer, be convinced, belief itself is a dangerous and problematic issue) unless and until clear and irrefutable evidence from multiple and competing sources is provided, if then. And a whole range of opinion will exist in between and outside of such polar opposite positions.

    Ultimately we're all entitled to think whatever we choose. What we're not entitled to do, is enforce our beliefs by forcing them on others. Even if it's for their own good.
    I'd amend that; just a bit. Instead, let's say : "The skeptics will choose not to be convinced, no matter what they're presented with." Evidently, the fact that Project Censored of Sonoma State University has included the Story of Chemtrails among the top 25 Censored Stories of 2011, is not worthy of comment, to you. Evidently, to you, it is not a sample of "clear and irrefutable evidence."

    iolchan wrote:

    We, who think that the word "Chemtrails" has a certain legitimacy, {as a
    phenomenal category distinct from phenomena described by the words "clouds" and "contrails"} are not so quick to castigate those who do not perceive the distinction between natural clouds, classical "contrails" and Chemtrails, as "confused," crazy, delusional, ignorant, or "loopy." We are merely amazed that you folks are not able to perceive the distinctions. And that, somehow, you are not in touch with your own train of Memory...

    Because, truly, there were no "Chemtrails" prior to
    1984.

    The record does not show that the little cabal of nay-sayers who have posted on this thread are qualified either as therapists or psychologists to aver that people who think they see "chemtrails" are either
    ignorant or crazy.

    Turning the issue of "Contrails versus Chemtrails" into a psychological issue, and asserting that "believers" in Chemtrails are
    either deluded or ignorant, is a technique of discrediting. Such a tactic does not follow from a pure pursuit of Science. It flows, instead, from cant, and demagoguery.


    "Mad" MIles wrote:
    Confirmation Bias is a Beeaaattttcccchhhhhh!

    Well, what about "Negation Bias?" - and Denial ?

    So Miles; not to put you on the Spot - but tell me, truly, your opinion of Project Censored, and their inclusion of that item among their top 25 last year.

    Is Project Censored just "confused," crazy, delusional,
    ignorant, "loopy" - and the like?

    Just wondering...
    - Mark
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  42. Gratitude expressed by:

  43. TopTop #116
    "Mad" Miles
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails


    OK Mark, I'll allow you to goad me into a response, this one time. Generally it's not a very good way to engage my attention or cooperation. More likely to cause me to ignore you, as I have consistently for quite a while now.

    But in the case of Project Censored? Overall I consider it a worthy project. One that I've done my little share to promote over the years. That it would more properly be called, "Project: News Stories that can be found in the alternative media by any regular observer but we think should get bigger play in the mainstream venues", is something I won't debate.

    As for them listing Chemtrails as a "censored" story... They also ascribe to the 9/11 Truth movement. Just because something is not given the attention a group of students and profs think it should be given, does not, per se, make it true, credible, proven, etc. And as you have argued, Chemtrails, gets massive webhits. I'll bet 9/11 beats that by exponential factors. Not exactly suppressed information, in either case.

    The annual 25 Most Censored Stories tends to be a grab bag. Some of them have more importance than others. And as in all such matters, opinions differ.

    Peter Phillips ascribes to a political philosophy that I do not, but that doesn't mean we're not acquaintance/friends who can have a friendly conversation about politics the few times we run into each other at events, every few years.

    I see no definitive proof for "Chemtrails" being what those of you who think they're real claim them to be. And plenty of holes in the arguments and "documentation" which seem to have convinced you. But have not convinced me. And I am far from alone.

    The humorous video does more than deny Chemtrails, it points out logical holes in the "proofs" for them. Deny those arguments as you see fit. It doesn't surprise me in the least.


    Chemtrail conspiracy accounts are a fringe phenomenon, and while I'm no prophet, in this case I predict they will stay that way for the foreseeable future. I've provided the links for exploring why that is, what motivates people to give them credence, far down on this thread.

    You might better spend your efforts elsewhere and with others, because the more you repeat your "proofs" the more I find them to be risible and implausible.

    I'll let others decide for themselves what they think about the whole business, it's really not that important to me. Far greater, real, problems exist on this planet, mostly man-made, that we can agree on as serious threats to health, well being, civil liberties and social justice, etc.

    I choose to prioritize and to spend what little political effort I exert these days, on the ones that I think are real, and not made up by people who want to sell books and CD's and have convinced gullible and paranoid followers to believe their con job.

    History is full of such movements, which for reasons far too complex to explore here, become forms of mass hysteria. Received truth that nonbelievers must be punished for having heretical views about. The "heresy" being not signing on and enthusiastically affirming and professing, "The Truth".

    A good example of how powerful an orthodoxy can be are the vids of North Koreans mourning the passing of their last dictator. Some of the online comments I've read have surmised those demonstrations of hysterical grief are hypocritical, required for survival on the anthill of that repressive, authoritarian, closed society. I think the grief is real, it's all they know and they are steeped in a culture of leader worship. In that sense, perception does determine reality.

    Believers are not going to be swayed by arguments, only some internal contradiction that causes them to question their own beliefs, will allow for a change in opinion/conviction. Clearly a number of you here aren't there, and may never be. Hey, it's a free country, or so that was the rumor until recent years...

    Sometimes such movements have led to social and cultural changes which had some positive aspects, but usually at a great price to the identified "enemies of reason and truth." When people get huffy and insistent that their claims are the irrefutable truth, I look for the exits and keep my attention on their eyes and what's in their hands.

    I know religious fervor masked as reason, remember, I was a Jesus Freak between 1971-1975. I also hung out in far left circles both in Southern Cali and Chicago for many years. Often among such folk, rational debate changes nothing, and only solidifies animosity.

    I've seen the same thing go on here in Waccolandia, for some eight years. The believers will believe and the skeptics skept, and never the twain shall meet.

    I no longer waste my time, other than these moments of idle amusement. The price being I've missed the opening of tonight's Daily Show. Luckily there's a rerun at 10:00.

    (That last bit is a joke! For anyone ironically impaired.)

    So Mark, that's all you're going to get from me. Do not hector me again. Here, or anywhere else. If you have a question, ask it. But calling me out by name and challenging me for a response? I find it ridiculous and irritating. I do not answer to you. As you do not answer to me. Respect, requires tolerance and forbearance. Taunting and challenging, communicates something quite contrary to respect.

    You profess all kinds of things here that I find doubtful or irrelevant to modern discussions and debates. I don't hector you for any of that. I leave you alone. Others, interested or not, can decide for themselves, they don't need my guidance or prompting. And I do not need your guidance or prompting. Cut it out. It's unseemly and disrespectful.
    Last edited by "Mad" Miles; 01-06-2012 at 02:28 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  44. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  45. TopTop #117
    danejasper's Avatar
    danejasper
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote podfish wrote: View Post
    that dude in the movie sure keeps asking annoying questions. Why can't he just accept the evidence? as has been repeatedly pointed out here, the highest proof is what you see with your own eyes. Apparently that's enough to stand on its own.
    I love the point he makes at the end: "Why don't they just spray them at night?"

    Her response: "Because ..... Chemtrails."

    LOL.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  46. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  47. TopTop #118
    Iolchan
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails



    I repeat,

    iolchan wrote:

    The record does not show that the little cabal of nay-sayers who have posted on this thread are qualified either as therapists or psychologists to aver that people who think they see "chemtrails" are either ignorant or crazy.

    Turning the issue of "Contrails versus Chemtrails" into a psychological issue, and asserting that "believers" in Chemtrails are either deluded or ignorant, is a technique of discrediting. Such a tactic does not follow from a pure pursuit of Science. It flows, instead, from cant, and demagoguery.

    "Mad" Miles wrote:

    History is full of such movements, which for reasons far too complex to explore here, become forms of mass hysteria. Received truth that nonbelievers must be punished for having heretical views about. The "heresy" being not signing on and enthusiastically affirming and professing, "The Truth".
    If the issue is in part psychological - and in some sense, it truly is - because Perception itself is a function of the senses of the individual psyche - and, if indeed, it is legitimate for a certain un-named person who wishes henceforth not to be addressed personally, by name, to invoke the concept of Confirmation Bias in a thread that began by asking for "unbiased information about Chemtrails," then, I would argue, it is also legitimate to invoke the phenomenon of Negation Bias, and also the phenomenon of Denial, on the same thread.

    "Mad" Miles wrote:

    Far greater, real, problems exist on this planet, mostly man-made, that we can agree on as serious threats to health, well being, civil liberties and social justice, etc.
    But if the subject of "Chemtrails" does in fact entail the Agenda of the 1% to depopulate the earth of its excess "baggage" of "useless eaters;" then, I would say, that such a blase' dismissal of the subject - as exemplified by the statement above - does not rise to the real historical moment with the proper elan.

    The Jews of Hungary were willing to get on the trains that took them to Auschwitz, even though they had All heard the Rumors that they were the last Jews left alive in Europe. There were 800,000 of them. They didn't have to get on the freight trains that took them to Auschwitz. They could have resisted, as the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did... So what made them get on the trains, passively, listlessly? Well, truth be told, they were in
    Denial.

    The Nazis, also, had help. They enlisted the aid of Jewish traitors like Rudolf Kastner, who scurried around Budapest assuring the Hungarian Jews "Not to worry; take the train;" & that they were going to a safe place, in the East, called "Kenyermeze" - meaning, "Field of Bread;" where there was work; and where they would be fed, and even live in cozy homes, with their
    families intact.

    Kastner knew that the Jews of Hungary did not want to believe that the holocaust was actually happening, and he did his damnedest to assure them that it was not; and that the Rumors they had heard were just Rumors... In Reality, he knew better. He also knew that the trains were actually going to the Death Camp & I.G. FARBEN Industrie Fabrik, @ Auschwitz.
    In Reality, the children were ripped from their mothers' arms when they arrived at Auschwitz.

    The whole sad story was told in the book, "Perfidy" by the late Ben Hecht; playwright, screenwriter, mentsch.

    Perhaps it is because of the painful manner in which I learned, at the tender age of six, about the holocaust from my Jewish grandmother, that I know, personally, and viscerally that the world is a hostile environment and that elites - and the Nazis qualify as one - do occasionally plan, and also perform genocides. Perhaps, therefore, I am not so swift, as my sparring partner in this present debate, to dismiss the possibility that the Chemtrails are a means to Global population reduction.

    An open, in-your-face means, hidden in the open, after the pattern of the Buddhist maxim: "If you want to Conceal a thing, Hide it in the Open."

    First thing to deny: that they even exist at all...


    Sincerely,
    Mark Walter Evans


    Last edited by Iolchan; 01-08-2012 at 02:31 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  48. Gratitude expressed by:

  49. TopTop #119
    smunsch's Avatar
    smunsch
    Coder

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    This thread is just wonderfully full of Godwin's law.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  50. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  51. TopTop #120
    jbox's Avatar
    jbox
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote smunsch wrote: View Post
    This thread is just wonderfully full of Godwin's law.
    So, you're saying that just because chemtrails come from jets and the first jet was the ME-262 flown by the Luftwaffe at the end of WW II that Hitler started chemtrails? Mark, you care to weigh in on this new evidence?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  52. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 02:46 PM
  2. "Voter Information Guide for Democrats"
    By Barry in forum General Community
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 06:12 PM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks