-
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:
https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...7: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.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
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.
-
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: https://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
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by danejasper:
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.
https://contrailscience.com/life-mag...ntrail-photos/
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Life Magazine
Photograph
of
Jet Contrails,
Winter, 1944
"
"
"
https://s12.postimage.org/4lxl5omwd/Capture0.png
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.
Ipso 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
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by danejasper:
...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.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
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.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
r
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png danejasper wrote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
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: https://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 :hmmm:
new-age UFO conspiracy theorists :hmmm: 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...
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.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Kucinich wrote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
(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.
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
-
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.
https://willthomasonline.net/Nano_Ch...ls/imag021.jpg
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...
https://willthomasonline.net/Nano_Ch...ls/imag026.jpg
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.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
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.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
YOUR TAX-DOLLARS
$$$ BUSY AT WORK !!!
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1dO...layer_embedded
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Your YouTube clip is perfect! A great laugh this morning....
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
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.
-
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; re-ified characters spielin' a script writ by a Chemtrail "Contra."
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."
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
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.
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
-
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.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
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.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I repeat,
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.
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
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
This thread is just wonderfully full of Godwin's law.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by smunsch:
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?
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
From the Wikipedia:
Quote:
Godwin's law
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[4] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[6] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[7]
Nah, Jon, I doubt seriously that that is what smunsch intended by his allusion to "Godwin's Law." What he probably means is just that the issue of Nazism, and the Austrian Corporal, was bound to come up - odds of probability & all - and it did. As the Law itself states:
In any case, I think in Our case, that my allusion to the issue of how the Hungarian Jews were in Denial about the Reality of the on-going holocaust, and consequently got on the trains, is a fair analogy to the Denial that many are in today on the Issue of Chemtrails, & what may, in fact, be happening with regard to the Chemtrail phenomenon as a means of Depopulation - if indeed, the Chemtrails are being used as a method of slow kill. Again, Google: Chemtrails, Genocide, {And while you're @ it, use the 100 hits function on Google, and scroll at least ten pages into the pile, before you begin to select any data, wilya?} In any event, the wikipedia also says:
I do not know for certain that the Chemtrails are being used to kill the Masses off, slowly; or if that is, in fact, an element in the equation, or elegant solution of what they are about.
But I would not put it past the oligarchy/plutocracy/power elite/1% to do such a thing, or use such methods. And therefore, because I retain the right - and my heart and mind also maintain the suppleness - to consider such things as entirely possible, I find that mockery of the issue, exemplified by the video that "Mad" Miles posted a few frames back, to be entirely gauche; in very bad taste; as well as being very sophomoric. There is also a subtle subtext of misogyny subliminally mixed in with the Message : Wise, Green Man {Miles' Hero} versus Dumb Broad. It is a form of comic relief, perhaps; but not any valid form of deliverance.
It just is not a serious contribution to a serious discussion of the Issue before us. It trivializes the whole Issue - and it re-ifies, and mocks the "believers." [Miles' phrase] Christians - to the Lions; Jews - to the Ovens; Mush !
I'll just place this here:
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, "class war",
And while you're @ it, use the 100 hits function on Google,
and scroll deep into the pile. Some people have already put these
two concepts/terms together; indicating that not everyone
who ascribes to the Reality of "chemtrails" is a "right-wing
conspiracy theorist" = as some would have you believe.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
What point is trying to be made with the Fox news clip? Two nut jobs arguing over nothing but "Theory." I do agree with Gretta Van Susteren's comment about alarmism rarely supporting reality.
Thanks for wasting my time..
Mark
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
That Fox news clip is significant because it indicates a schism in the ruling class - as far as methodology and ideology. The Anchorwoman / Fox News gal is an example of your quasi-freelance anchorperson, at Fox, (owned by Rupert Murdoch, as we know,) who styles herself as a Sean Hannity-type "Compassionate Conservative."
The "other nutjob" is a Federal Government spokesperson who is making an appearance on Fox News, in order to win the hearts and minds of Joe Sixpack types, who hate immigrants and can be generally relied on to react favorably towards any Federal move to keep our little brown neighbors down, south of the Border. Thus he is arguing Malthusian genocide and "population control" by piggy-backing the issue, and conflating it with border issues. His reason for appearing was totally as a shill for Federal Government propaganda, and winning a greater consensus of hardhat support for the genocidal federal policies -and programs, like the "persistent contrails" program - already in place.
But, as she said, ' Why do you even bring in the issue of the border? ' - indicating that she was taken aback that he would take that line; and that when he agreed to be on her show, the understanding was that they would talk about "Population Control" and that only.
As I said, it is very significant that the Issue of Malthusian "Population Control" - or "Population Stabilization" is being discussed on Rupert Murdoch's Channel - and it indicates a schism in ruling class circles as to how far they can go - and what is morally acceptable. The woman, in this case, although she is a pronounced right-winger, at least has vestigial "Christian," moral boundaries, and does not resonate with the notion of Genocide...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
The "Other Nutjob" was NOT a spokesperson for the Federal Government he is a spokesperson for "Californians for Population Control." An independent non-profit based in California.
https://www.capsweb.org/
Don't try to add any more potential importance to this loon than is truly there. Anyone could start a group like this (and often do) spewing all kinds of nonsense.
Nice try,
Mark Inman
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
The "other nutjob" is a Federal Government spokesperson who is making an appearance on Fox News, in order to win the hearts and minds of Joe Sixpack types, who hate immigrants and can be generally relied on to react favorably towards any Federal move to keep our little brown neighbors down, south of the Border. Thus he is arguing Malthusian genocide and "population control" by piggy-backing the issue, and conflating it with border issues. His reason for appearing was totally as a shill for Federal Government propaganda, and winning a greater consensus of hardhat support for the genocidal federal policies -and programs, like the "persistent contrails" program - already in place.
Well alright, Mark, my dialectics [language] identifying your so-called "nutjob" [the dude] as a "spokesman" for the Feds may be stretching the envelope of your probity a bit. Technically, you may be correct, about where he works, @ his "day-job." I also wrote that " His reason for appearing was totally as a shill for Federal Government propaganda, and winning a greater consensus of hardhat support for the genocidal federal policies..."
And that is how I see the man - as a "shill." And I regret that my quick response to your post lacked my normal compulsive recursive-ness. He is an apologist and a shill for policies already in place, and he has the aura of "government spook" writ large all over his face and his creepy, Malthusian Aura. Don't you know that the Company, {the C.I.A.} with its "black budget" sets up lots and lots of ngo's in order to facilitate, and pump for the Agenda of the power elite? That much should be a given, Mark Inman.
Perhaps you just don't know these things, which to me, are a given. [Google Advanced Search: C.I.A. , ngo, "Non-Governmental Organization," .] But then again, perhaps we live in "Separate Realities." In my Reality, Chemtrails did not exist before 1984. [Google Search: chemtrails, 1984, ] And I have the witness of my senses - and memories - to confirm that, as well...
Nice try.
Mark Walter Evans
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
he has the aura of "government spook" writ large all over his face and his creepy, Malthusian Aura. Don't you know that the Company, {the C.I.A.} with its "black budget" sets up lots and lots of ngo's in order to facilitate, and pump for the Agenda of the power elite? That much should be a given, Mark Inman.
What he has the "aura" of is immaterial, as is his "creepiness." You have ZERO proof that this man is anything other than he is claiming to be. I can not sit here and accept your accusations as anything other than fearmongering. You are walking a very fine line by putting people into boxes because they do not somehow pass your law abiding citizen litmus test.
Paranoid much?
Mark Inman
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Declassified New Zealand Defence Force Reports Reveal Chemtrail Linked To Outbreak Of Illnesses
Clare Swinney
NORTHLAND NEW ZEALAND CHEMTRAILS WATCH
Jan 3, 2011
Among a recently-released assortment of declassified reports of sightings of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) from New Zealand, dating from 1952-2009, were letters written in 1999 and 2000 by a concerned citizen, who predicted that an outbreak of illnesses would occur after an “aircraft contrail,” otherwise known as a ‘chemtrail’, was seen over a populated area.
Chemtrails, which are also commonly referred to as aerosols, differ from aircraft vapour trails in that they often linger in the sky for hours and can be seen in grid-like patterns, in parallel lines (see above) or forming ‘X’s in the sky.
While seeing a chemtrail does not constitute proof that the illnesses were caused by it, it is worth examining the issue, given all the evidence which shows that chemtrails are making people sick, and in light of what is known about their composition.
Evidence collected for over a decade reveals that chemtrails are used for at least seven functions, including weather control and military applications, and are comprised of a wide variety of harmful ingredients. They commonly include aluminium and barium, which are toxic to both humans and to the environment. They may include radioactive thorium, desiccated red blood cells, dangerous pathogens, including Mycoplasma Fermentens Incognitus, plus mold spores, ethylene dibromide, and self-replicating nanotubes that cause Morgellon’s disease, which according to researcher Clifford Carnicom’s findings, now contaminate virtually everyone.
The declassified reports, which are online under the heading: Original Files: NZ’s UFO Sightings, were posted at a major New Zealand news site, Stuff.co.nz on December the 22nd, 2010, and were released to the public by the New Zealand Defence Force under the Official Information Act.
Buried among the total of 2,101 declassified documents, are letters, news clippings, and pages from magazine articles, which reveal that a private individual, whose name has been removed from the correspondence for privacy reasons, repeatedly tried to raise the alarm about the dangers of chemtrails in 1999 and early-2000. It appears that initially the correspondent, who will be referred to as ‘Mr Gibson,’ wrote to Warren Kyd, the member of the New Zealand parliament for Hunua. In his letter, which was dated May the 25th, 1999, he wrote that the trail he had seen was sprayed in a huge arc over Auckland and while one agency had advised him only a military aircraft could engage in that kind of activity, Air Traffic Control said it had come from a passenger plane en route to Fiji. This is not unlikely, as passenger planes have been seen spraying chemtrails in New Zealand, and elsewhere in the world.
Mr Gibson also referred the MP to an article from the April, 1999 edition of Nexus magazine. This article, by Canadian journalist William Thomas, titled Contrails’: Poison From The Sky, (and since renamed Chemtrails’: Poison From The Sky on the Nexus website), mentioned that in areas where these trails had been seen lingering, an emergency room had become ‘inundated with flu-like cases,’ and doctors and nurses were complaining of ‘being extremely busy with respiratory diagnoses.’ Thomas further wrote: ‘In England, after lingering contrails and cobweb-like fallout were reported over London and Birmingham, the BBC reported on January 14, 1999 that more than 8,000 people – mostly elderly-died from pneumonia and other respiratory complications in the last week of December and the first two weeks of January 1999.’
In light of reports like these, Mr Gibson advised in his letter: ‘If this plane was releasing something into our atmosphere and it causes like these magazines, [sic] suggests, a vast many people in Auckland will suffer from a Flu like sickness.’
A newspaper article, which is in Book 1 on page 37 in the files, and published ten days after the chemtrail was spotted over Auckland, revealed that a ‘sudden surge’ in ailments had occurred. ‘The hospital emergency department has been very busy in the past few days with patients suffering respiratory-related disorders, including pneumonia and asthmas,’ reported the NZ Herald on June the 3rd, 1999. (See below).
In addition, a subsequent article in the NZ Herald, dated July the 6th, 1999 andtitled: ‘Death Rate Soars In Flu ‘Plague,” noted that about 100 people died at Auckland’s Middlemore Hospital in June ‘mainly from respiratory illnesses.’
In spite of Mr Gibson’s prediction appearing to have been correct and supported by overseas reports, the government brushed his concerns aside. ‘Inquiries have been made and Mr Kyd has been assured that there is no cause for you to be alarmed,’ Kyd’s Executive Secretary, Faith Sarten advised in a letter dated June the 21st, 1999.
Not satisfied with the response, Mr Gibson went to see Mr Kyd and on his advice subsequently wrote to the New Zealand Minister of Defence, the Hon. Mark Burton on February, the 9th, 2000. A reply from Hon. Burton can not be found in the file, merely an acknowledgement of receipt of Mr Gibson’s correspondence.
More than a decade later and the New Zealand Government, which has by now received a multitude of letters and phone calls from concerned citizens, is still not responding to their concerns, to what is now labelled ‘Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering’ and occurring on a far, far larger scale.
For example, when I e-mailed 112 of the 122 members of Parliament on September the 10th, 2010 for a Chemtrail Mass Action, and asked them to help to stop this poisoning of our atmosphere from continuing, the most considered of a handful of replies received was that from the Executive Assistant to Catherine Delahunty, the toxics spokesperson for the NZ Green Party. It stated: “I can see your great concern about ‘chemtrails.’ However, the Greens have to prioritise their toxics work to known chemicals (and even then, are limited in what we can focus on).”
Sign up and join the Coalition Against Chemtrails/Geoengineering.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
References:
Below: The letter ‘Mr Gibson’ wrote to the MP for Hunua, Mr Warren Kyd, which is in Book 1 of the declassified files, on page 35, followed by the reply at page 36.
Below in 2 parts: An article from Book 1 on page 38, dated July 1999.
Below: In Book 1, at page 39, there is a copy of a letter sent to Paul Holmes, host of the popular 7pm current affairs program, Holmes, which aired on TV1 between 1989 and 2004.
Below: An article from the NZ Herald, on December 6, 1999, that was in Book 1 on page 44 and numbered 10. It appears to be the last entry related to this matter.
URL to article: https://www.infowars.com/declassifie...-of-illnesses/
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Journalling food for thought...
It's still Winter. 1-24-12
No word of how the day was; how your heart is; why the lies began, and remain.
Once again; after 2 years of turmoil; the pain in my heart exceeds it's capacity. I release the overflow, to my Lifegiver - the Sun. :waccosun:
It responds with a mighty flare; showering our sky with another dazzling light show. Shaking our state; and waking volcanoes. Showing me that - Life still loves me, with drama and style.
https://news.yahoo.com/northern-ligh...120246745.html
I hope it takes out some of the systems enabling evil deed doers.
:burningmad: Their efforts have moved up the Doomsday Clock.
What concerns me; knowing that Evil is - that which keeps us from the light; GeoEngineering is shielding us from natural, full spectrum light. Thus vitamin D levels in humans is dropping severely; making us more prone to illness; and sadness. We know how they are linked.
:gettinashot:
This would be another reason why more people than ever are trying to pop a pill, or other substance, to deal with what is mainly SAD - Seasonal Affective Disorder happening all year long.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002499/
It just is more prevalent in winter; when our stockpile of D has an extra hard time getting replenished. The best prescription for everyone, is at lest 10 minutes of direct sun on your skin; with no sunscreen at all. Keep your curtains, or blinds as open as possible. Move, dance,run or jump; so it all gets to circulate.
Most indoor lighting does not compensate with a full spectrum either.
Man-made Weather Modification is also why some crops, like basil and tomatoes did not do well this year here in Northern CA; and others were not hurt as badly.
Man's biggest folly will go down as trying to "out engineer" Natural systems; instead of just focusing on all the harmless ways to partner.
Being away from loved ones for so long; can have the same affect as being away from the sun. I have to tap into the reservoir of memories, laid deep in my bones; to sustain another beat for this old heart.
:dancingrose:Renewal - Spring, is still too far. I need love in the form of words for me to shine till then.
If I can't shine - how will the vital truths I have to deliver; like how our synthetic efforts to fix climate change, are fatally damaging us and our environment; ever find the light of day for everyone to wake up to?
:hearye:
Fire your love to our Sun; so it can ricochet back to me in full spectrum. I will do the same.
Look for it. Just as you did, in the divine wisdom of your youth. For a bedtime treat, you found a star each night, and delightfully ingested it.
Those who are responsible for keeping us from: the truth, our love, our Sun; need the light the most - to disinfect the epidemic of their diseases; in mind, body and soul.
Ignorance is not bliss - it's extinction. Unless we all illuminate the truth about how we have treated each other; and our beloved planet. Then do all which is needed; until our healing is complete.
"Shine On You Crazy Diamond"
Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!
:sunshine:
:synchronicity:
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Thank you, Peace Voyager, for investing a little levity, Kindness, and humanity into this thread. I especially liked the part where you admonish us to get out in the Sun, and Move - Always good advice :
" Move, dance, run or jump; so it all gets to circulate... "
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Peace Voyager wrote:
The best prescription for everyone, is at lest 10 minutes of direct sun on your skin; with no sunscreen at all. Keep your curtains, or blinds as open as possible. Move, dance, run or jump; so it all gets to circulate.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
As I have stated already in this thread, a reference to this Conference was made in Story #9, of Project Censored, in their Top Ten Censored Stories of 2011.
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Rady Ananda wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
"... 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.” {{- click for a pdf of the document.] 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 U.S. "
Source:
“Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Rady Ananda, July 30, 2010, Global Research.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
We just published a very interesting article titled "The Unsavory Origins of Chemtrails", coincidentally by the same person who kicked this thread off. I think you'll find it interesting! :wink2:
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Posted by Rusty, Chemtrail News, Featured Wednesday, February 29th, 2012
If chemtrails are a hoax or a conspiracy then it’s pulling in a lot of credible people. On January 11, 2012 the Fairfax City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-07 , “a Resolution of the Town Council of Fairfax declaring Fairfax a Chemtrail-Free Zone.” Understand, this is an instance of an American city government weighing in on the subject of chemtrails, acknowledging their existence and letting it be known they don’t want spraying over their city.This is not made-up. You can see their Resolution on their website: https://www.town-of-fairfax.org/pack...et_011112.html
One of the main problems with calling chemtrails a hoax or conspiracy is the fact that whatever those planes are doing they aren’t trying to hide it. The planes are always spotted in broad daylight and most typically on very clear, sunny days. It’s not like UFO’s flying under the cover of night, darting in and out of airspace.
Mobile Tribune understands there are people in this world who are ill with a disease we call GCS or Government Conspiracy Syndrome. They think the government is out to get citizens and spend most of their waking hours investigating reports of such. However, just because there are such people does not mean there cannot be instances of government or private enterprise secrecy in regard to these aircraft and the trails they leave behind.
Many people know or understand the flight patterns in their area. Commercial and private aircraft are rigorously scheduled and monitored by the FAA. The question of chemtrails arises when one or more aircraft are spotted along with a pattern of trails that has become a hallmark of what are called chemtrails – a cross or checkerboard pattern of smoke. They might be seen in the middle of the day or at a time when people who are keen to observe closely, don’t normally see aircraft in their area.
I personally spotted such a plane a few weeks ago in Mobile, Alabama. What struck me as unusual was the plane was accelerating upward but unlike other aircraft one is used to seeing, it did not level out at a certain altitude and then appear to head in some direction or destination. It appeared to me to have as it’s sole purpose just flying around in that one area, and several miles of the blue sky were arrayed with the trails of the plane. The cross shape was apparent. It didn’t make sense to me and it made me think about chemtrails. Does that make me a bad person, spreading a hoax, a conspiracy? Because I wonder about something that appears unusual and other people are doing the same thing? At the very least – regardless of whether chemical trails are involved- it is a fact that aircraft are sometimes in the sky with no apparent destination in progress and always with the white cross-shape trails that linger for an hour, sometimes longer. Many people report the aircraft as unmarked.
Please understand I am a dyed in wool skeptic and have not been convinced of the existence of UFO’s. But, I am considering chemtrails or as they are more acceptably being called “geo-engineering.”
And yes, I understand there are people out there who take advantage of any situation and jump aboard the chemtrail controversy for money and other reasons. Just because you find a website or youtube video on chemtrails does not mean the material they present is authentic or their intentions are good.
The most convincing argument against chemtrails and in favor of contrails ( condensation as opposed to chemicals) is Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on chemtrails is strong, supported by a number of well-known individuals and organizations. There is a considerable wall of dissent against the existence of chemtrails. I keep an open mind, and I could be convinced in either direction at this point. I currently lean in direction of yes, chemtrails and that the government of several countries are involved.
What it would take to really convince me . . .a video from start to finish of a chemtrail process. I would want to see the planes entering the sky from a noted location. I would like to see the aircraft enter airspace, conduct the spraying and then leave airspace. Does anyone have one of those videos? - Preston Brady III, MobileTribune.com
16. Adoption of Resolution No. 12-07, a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax declaring Fairfax a Chemtrail-Free Zone:
https://www.town-of-fairfax.org/pdfs/council/council_packet/2012/011112/Item 16 Chem Free Zone Reso.pdf
https://mobiletribune.com/profiles/b...-the-town-a-ch
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
what are they going to do? Float some barrage balloons trailing cables like London in the Blitz. Maybe they could set up flack towers or get heat seeking missiles. Could be very entertaining except the city is broke]
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I have been avoiding this thread for a long time, but since I just had a glass of wine, I feel compelled to chime in with my 2 bits worth.
A. I don't believe the "chemtrails" theory. Period. The contrails explanation suits me fine. Scientific fact: Warm, moist air, quickly cooled, will condense out the water vapor. Scientific fact: Combustion releases water vapor. What happens when you start your car on a cold morning? Right, water vapor, from the combustion of gasoline in your car's COLD engine, condenses into a little bay cloud in your driveway. Simple. Stuff.
Okay, that's why I believe in contrails.
What irks me is that with all the evil stuff going on in this world, why do so many otherwise well intentioned people get sucked into these theories? 9/11 an inside job? I hope you don't mean that George W. Bush was involved, because he couldn't find his own butt if he used both hands. And just why would the "chemtrails" conspirators do all this at 30000 feet when they could do it unseen at 1000 at night? Wouldn't it be easier to control it if it were done from a lower altitude?
What I really want to say is this: There is plenty of evil being done in the world. Evil that is being done in the open. You don't need to invent an unseen conspiracy. There are plenty of visible conspiracies. Focus your attention on those evils. If "chemtrails" are a problem, lets deal with that AFTER we deal with some of the other, more immediate problems. Focus, people. The problems are right here on Earth, not flying around in the sky.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
amen!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by paulswetdog:
there is plenty of evil being done in the world. Evil that is being done in the open. You don't need to invent an unseen conspiracy. There are plenty of visible conspiracies. Focus your attention on those evils. If "chemtrails" are a problem, lets deal with that after we deal with some of the other, more immediate problems. Focus, people. The problems are right here on earth, not flying around in the sky.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
As I have stated already, repeatedly, in this thread: In Story #9, of Project Censored, in their Top Ten Censored Stories of 2011 ,
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Rady Ananda wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
"... 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."
Need I say it again? "...what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research..."
There actually is another "conspiracy" that goes on these days regarding the very real phenomenon of chemtrail haze emitted from the bellies of cargo planes - and that is a very elaborate, and well-funded and coordinated "conspiracy" to contain the dissemination of this information among the people. To facilitate this end of the Operati0n there are a host of well-paid free-lance shills in civvies and quite a few government men in gray suits and scientists in white smocks.
Much of the containment of knowledge about this subject is also done - as these three threads on WaccoBB.net abundantly indicate - by the well-meaning dupes among us who desperately feel the need to tell themselves that the phenomenon itself is not Real, but rather a "conspiracy theory" dreamed up - and promoted, by a couple of crazy loons in the mid-west.
Not only do "most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research"; You also, who are in denial about this phenomenon, also refuse to admit - to yourselves - that you see anything in the skies these days that is Novel =OR= Other, than the clouds and contrails that we all saw as children.
I understand how hard it is to open to the notion that Death could be pouring down upon us from the clouds. Clouds, in the Subconscious, have always been associated with positive things - like Angels, and cotton candy. The old question still remains, as relevant as ever: "What have they done to the Rain?"
I understand the human tendency to engage in denial - especially when it comes to the issue of genocides and holocausts. For the longest time I was in denial about the genocidal aspect of this phenomenon, myself... Even as recently as a few months ago, when I made my first post on this thread. How could the rulers of N.A.T.O. - who are alleged, by the opponents of chemtrails to be the perpetraitors of this programme - be so evil as to engage in the slow kill of their own populations??
Google Advanced Search: "slow kill" , N.A.T.O. , chemtrails
The Jews of Hungary were in denial about the reality of the on-going genocide of the Jews of Europe - even though they had all heard rumors {all 800,00 of them} that it was really happening; and even when, in fact, they were the only community of Jews in Europe still left alive and intact.
Just reflect that even today there are many folks who deny that there ever was a holocaust conducted by Hitler, Himmler, & Co., against the Jews of Europe. Well, we know that such volks are in error. We consider - correctly - that the deniers of the holocaust are very, very wrong - criminally wrong, in some cases. The holocaust of the 1940's was Real - and so is this one.
Google Search: holocaust, chemtrails
According to the "former" C.I.A. Agent, John Stockwell, the C.I.A., between the years 1947 to 1987, was accountable for at least six million deaths around the world. Roughly two million Indochinese died in the Neo-colonial wars conducted by the good old United States, in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos, after 1965. Perhaps as many as two million Iraqis have died as a result of U.S. foreign policy in the Fertile Crescent since 1991. The number - whatever it is, is enormous.
Such things { genocides } have happened before; and there is really no reason to believe - other than wishful thinking - that they might not happen again. Or, for that matter, that such things are not already happening, against the plebes in general, even Now...
Our government has done many dreadful things before,
concerning which, many Americans are in denial;
to wit:
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Hi Mark,
For me, Jay Reynolds has put this chemtrail discussion to bed and I fail to see why you keep asserting something you have shown no proof is real. You see contrails in the sky, big deal. I challenge you to get down to the nut of the matter and explain WHO is doing it, WHY they are doing it, HOW is it being paid for, WHY this has been happening during the administrations of 4 presidents, WHY don't they be insidious and dastardly and do their spraying at night? You seem to think it's a population control effort aimed at "useless eaters" but why spray the entire population? I could go on but why? This whole discussion is so ridiculous it's become funny. Your fascination with the boogey man doesn't begin and end here, however. You once told me that you believe John Jenkel's woes stemmed from government agents specifically targeting him with some weird Buck Rogers ray or beam that reduced him to putty in the hands insidious developers and the courts. Golly!! Look, Mark, you can believe what you want but please don't knock yourself out trying to get me to buy in.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
...For me, Jay Reynolds has put this chemtrail discussion to bed ... I challenge you to get down to the nut of the matter and explain WHO is doing it, WHY they are doing it, HOW is it being paid for, WHY this has been happening during the administrations of 4 presidents, WHY ...
I agree, Jay's added some real concrete information. I don't agree that the why/how questions are the first questions for Mark to address, though. Too often that ends up with nothing more than plausible speculations. But there are real objective claims and measurements that could be taken. For example, the "constructive geometry" that Mark described using for altitude determination doesn't make sense to me on the scale of mountain-range-to-mountain-range. A carpenter can do it by himself on a worksite, because he can simultaneously reach all the corners of the triangle. How that extends to a triangle miles across, without assistants or measuring devices, eludes me. I'm more curious to hear that clearly explained than to hear who's got it in for us.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
But there are real objective claims and measurements that could be taken. For example, the "constructive geometry" that Mark described using for altitude determination doesn't make sense to me on the scale of mountain-range-to-mountain-range. A carpenter can do it by himself on a worksite, because he can simultaneously reach all the corners of the triangle. How that extends to a triangle miles across, without assistants or measuring devices, eludes me. I'm more curious to hear that clearly explained than to hear who's got it in for us.
Yes, Mark has been very cagey on explaining how he makes this "guesstimate" which he also calls "constructive geometry". He posted some pictures of what look like ordinary contrails back around post #58 of this thread, but neglected to take a photo of the actual plane. Probably just a speck at six miles high like all the videos he has been showing as proof.
What he could do would be to take a photo of one of these planes he says are approx one mile up(5-6000 ft), then go to a location one mile from an airport, at an identifiable landmark, and take a picture of an airliner using the same camera and setting. Such a comparison will show if the photographs of the plane are taken at similar distances.
I'm trying to work with him, giving all sorts of suggestions and ways he can make his case, but he keeps avoiding the issue like a plague.
On the other thread, he's berating me for not answering his questions, but when I ask him for proof of the premise implied in the questions (that the planes are at low altitudes incompatible with contrails) he avoids doing so.
Until he actually comes up with some real evidence, confirmable, explainable, and documented in a reasonable way amounting to proof, all we can do is wait and watch him flounder trying to avoid doing so.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Catching up...
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.pngpaulswetdog
wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
A. I don't believe the "chemtrails" theory. Period. The contrails explanation suits me fine. Scientific fact: Warm, moist air, quickly cooled, will condense out the water vapor. Scientific fact: Combustion releases water vapor. What happens when you start your car on a cold morning? Right, water vapor, from the combustion of gasoline in your car's COLD engine, condenses into a little bay cloud in your driveway. Simple. Stuff.
Okay, that's why I believe in contrails.
What irks me is that with all the evil stuff going on in this world, why do so many otherwise well intentioned people get sucked into these theories? 9/11 an inside job? I hope you don't mean that George W. Bush was involved, because he couldn't find his own butt if he used both hands. And just why would the "chemtrails" conspirators do all this at 30000 feet when they could do it unseen at 1000 at night? Wouldn't it be easier to control it if it were done from a lower altitude?
What I really want to say is this: There is plenty of evil being done in the world. Evil that is being done in the open. You don't need to invent an unseen conspiracy. There are plenty of visible conspiracies. Focus your attention on those evils. If "chemtrails" are a problem, lets deal with that AFTER we deal with some of the other, more immediate problems. Focus, people. The problems are right here on Earth, not flying around in the sky.
Scientific fact: Warm, moist air, quickly cooled, will condense out the water vapor. Scientific fact: Combustion releases water vapor. What happens when you start your car on a cold morning? Right, water vapor, from the combustion of gasoline in your car's COLD engine, condenses into a little bay cloud in your driveway. Simple. Stuff.
Utter nonsense. "Contrails" are ice crystals, not "condensed water vapor." This doesn't happen in the driveway - except in Minnesota & other sub-zero, freezing cold climates, during the Winter. Simple stuff, indeed.
Furthermore "contrails" are not "chemtrails - or "persistent contrails" - as the Belfort Group prefers to term the phenomenon;"stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material,” that fan out into false clouds.
What I really want to say is this: There is plenty of evil being done in the world. Evil that is being done in the open. You don't need to invent an unseen conspiracy. There are plenty of visible conspiracies. Focus your attention on those evils. If "chemtrails" are a problem, lets deal with that AFTER we deal with some of the other, more immediate problems. Focus, people. The problems are right here on Earth, not flying around in the sky.
Yes, there sure is plenty of evil being done in the world - and "Chemtrails" is only One of several Fronts in the War that the Super-Rich are waging against the Plebeians of the planet. To call them an "unseen conspiracy" is absurd - they are only "unseen" because you {PL.} refuse to See them.
Furthermore, to make a distinction between what is being done to the atmosphere of the Earth and say that it does not affect the Earth itself, is patently Absurd. One can not divorce the Atmosphere of Planet Terra from Planet Terra Herself. What goes up must come down - and it does.... The Atmosphere, the Streams, Lakes and Oceans, and the Earth Herself are all One Ecosystem. Don't you know that ?
Fallout from Chemtrails is polluting the very air we Breathe with nano-particles of Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, and more... It is affecting all plant life, the soil, the trees, the water, and all living beings who dwell down here in the dust of this Earth.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png jbox wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Hi Mark,
For me, Jay Reynolds has put this chemtrail discussion to bed and I fail to see why you keep asserting something you have shown no proof is real. You see contrails in the sky, big deal. I challenge you to get down to the nut of the matter and explain WHO is doing it, WHY they are doing it, HOW is it being paid for, WHY this has been happening during the administrations of 4 presidents, WHY don't they be insidious and dastardly and do their spraying at night? You seem to think it's a population control effort aimed at "useless eaters" but why spray the entire population? I could go on but why? This whole discussion is so ridiculous it's become funny. Your fascination with the boogey man doesn't begin and end here, however. You once told me that you believe John Jenkel's woes stemmed from government agents specifically targeting him with some weird Buck Rogers ray or beam that reduced him to putty in the hands insidious developers and the courts. Golly!! Look, Mark, you can believe what you want but please don't knock yourself out trying to get me to buy in.
I challenge you to get down to the nut of the matter and explain WHO is doing it, WHY they are doing it, HOW is it being paid for, WHY this has been happening during the administrations of 4 presidents, WHY don't they be insidious and dastardly and do their spraying at night? You seem to think it's a population control effort aimed at "useless eaters" but why spray the entire population?
It is quite evident that you have neither read my earlier posts on this thread, nor opened any of the links that I embedded in any of the text I have posted. It is advisable to at least make oneself familiar with what one's opponent has written before you take it upon yourself to ignorantly attack it. e.g. :
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Evidence collected for over a decade reveals that chemtrails are used for at least seven functions, including weather control and military applications, and are comprised of a wide variety of harmful ingredients. They commonly include aluminium and barium, which are toxic to both humans and to the environment. They may include radioactive thorium, desiccated red blood cells, dangerous pathogens, including Mycoplasma Fermentens Incognitus, plus mold spores, ethylene dibromide, and self-replicating nanotubes that cause Morgellon’s disease, which according to researcher Clifford Carnicom’s findings, now contaminate virtually everyone.
WHO is doing it, WHY they are doing it?
It is being done in all of the N.A.T.O. pact countries, by the N.A.T.O. powers; owned and operated by the North Atlantic, Anglo-American, power elite. It is also being done in the Third World, and China. The Evergreen Corporation - who have a long history of doing contract work for the C.I.A. - are heavily involved in the actual operational end of the Chemtrails Operations.
WHY this has been happening during the administrations of 4 presidents?
Because all of the "presidents," whether Republican or Democrat, are - essentially - puppets of the Military-Industrial Complex. Is that so hard for you to understand?
As far as Why don't they do their spraying at night? The plain fact is, they do. As to HOW it is being paid for - that's easy - You are. Through the old Keynesian float, it is added to the National Debt, and through your income taxes, you pay. FUN, isn't it?
You once told me that you believe John Jenkel's woes stemmed from government agents specifically targeting him with some weird Buck Rogers ray or beam that reduced him to putty in the hands insidious developers and the courts.
Those are very far from the actual the words that I used, Jon, nor is that the correct or current terminology for the technology that is in existence. Before you mock and scoff, why don't you better educate yourself by referring to the work of Julianne McKinney, and/or go to the following website:
www.freedomfchs.com { Freedom from covert harassment and surveillance } =OR=
Google Advanced Search: microwave, "beam weapons", "targetted individual"
"For me, Jay Reynolds has put this chemtrail discussion to bed..."
That's because you've been asleep before you went to bed. Had you been following the debate, or carefully reading all of my posts on this thread, you wouldn't have asked such questions. And I have spent plenty of time answering your objections before - on post #90, for instance:
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Jon,
Contrails have not become chemtrails. Contrails are still contrails - and ever will be, while there are jet engines on airplanes... Chemtrails are a new phenomena, that, beginning in 1984, and especially since 1989, have made a spectacular appearance in our skies. Unlike classical jet contrails, chemtrails are not ice crystals. Unlike "contrails," chemtrails are not a high altitude phenomena. Unlike "classical" jet contrails, chemtrails fan out into clouds, and often become a haze that covers the whole sky.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png podfish wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
But there are real objective claims and measurements that could be taken. For example, the "constructive geometry" that Mark described using for altitude determination doesn't make sense to me on the scale of mountain-range-to-mountain-range. A carpenter can do it by himself on a worksite, because he can simultaneously reach all the corners of the triangle. How that extends to a triangle miles across, without assistants or measuring devices, eludes me. I'm more curious to hear that clearly explained than to hear who's got it in for us.
Just IMAGINE, if you will, Poddy, a Triangle; an acute triangle, with one side that is roughly five miles long and almost horizontal. In Fact, it would be horizontal if the altitude of my cottage (which is roughly 145o feet above Sea Level) were at the same altitude as some point you must visualize as five miles away, and at an altitude of 2400 feet, on the Ridge. O.K. Got that?
This hypothetical Triangle, Poddy, would be a proper Right Angle triangle if my dwelling were at the same altitude as the opposite Ridge, because the tracks that are laid in the sky are usually laid directly above the Mayacama Ridge, in the wee hours of the morning, when it is yet dark. Got that?
The two long sides of this triangle are therefore - let us say - one at five miles {that's from my Situation to a point on the opposite Ridge} and a higher line - and a somewhat longer line - from my vantage point { Remember, I am located at the extreme Acute point of the Triangle,} to a point that is directly above the Ridge.
What I am able to tell you All, honestly and without hesitation, from Years of being a Witness to this Phenomenon, is that the distance between the top of the Ridge to the Chemtrail Tracks that are laid above the Ridge, varies, from about two and a half to three or four thousand feet in Altitude, Above the Ridge...
Therefore, when we add this distance to the altitude of the Ridge itself, we get the composite, Rough, "guess-timate" of the Altitudes of the Chemtrails at five to six thousand feet in elevation above Sea Level.
>Which, you should Realize, is far too low an altitude for "classical" contrails to form; because Classical "contrails" start at (roughly) twenty-eight thousand feet, or more, and can not exist - or persist - in Air that is warmer than thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit, or 0 degrees Celsius.<
Yes, from years of being a carpenter, I am able to calculate measurements, and compare distances in my head. And the difference between the "Long Sides" of this Triangle, {From my eye to the Ridgeline & from my eye to the Chemtrail-line;} and the "Short Side" {between the Ridge-line and the Chemtrail} is - often & approximately - a factor of 10X.
Sometimes it is more; sometimes less. Sorry; but I don't possess a Sextant.
What I am saying, in plain English, is that the distance between the top of the Ridge to the Chemtrails above the Ridge is - often - only about one-tenth of the distance from my Situation/ Vantage point to the Ridge itself.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Jay Reynolds wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Yes, Mark has been very cagey on explaining how he makes this "guesstimate" which he also calls "constructive geometry". He posted some pictures of what look like ordinary contrails back around post #58 of this thread, but neglected to take a photo of the actual plane. Probably just a speck at six miles high like all the videos he has been showing as proof.
What he could do would be to take a photo of one of these planes he says are approx one mile up(5-6000 ft), then go to a location one mile from an airport, at an identifiable landmark, and take a picture of an airliner using the same camera and setting. Such a comparison will show if the photographs of the plane are taken at similar distances.
I'm trying to work with him, giving all sorts of suggestions and ways he can make his case, but he keeps avoiding the issue like a plague.
On the other thread, he's berating me for not answering his questions, but when I ask him for proof of the premise implied in the questions (that the planes are at low altitudes incompatible with contrails) he avoids doing so.
Until he actually comes up with some real evidence, confirmable, explainable, and documented in a reasonable way amounting to proof, all we can do is wait and watch him flounder trying to avoid doing so.
Yes, Mark has been very cagey...
AS you judge, you shall be judged.
He posted some pictures of what look like ordinary contrails back around post #58 of this thread...
In that statement, Jay you reveal yourself to be a most deceitful liar."Contrails" never, ever fan into clouds, and spread out into haze - not at six miles high - and not at six thousand feet, either. No. Those were Chemtrails; directly above us, and very close. In a short time - less than an hour - the canyon was covered with a thick Chem-spew haze.
I'm trying to work with him, giving all sorts of suggestions and ways he can make his case, but he keeps avoiding the issue like a plague.
On the other thread, he's berating me for not answering his questions, but when I ask him for proof of the premise implied in the questions (that the planes are at low altitudes incompatible with contrails) he avoids doing so.
It is You, Mr. Reynolds, who avoid answering the Issues that I have raised, in a timely way, and, instead, seize upon a "perceived weak point" {my words} in one of my posts; the statement that I am able to make a rough estimate of the altitude of the chemtrail tracks that I have consciously observed, for over thirteen years, directly above the Ridge on the opposite side of the canyon from where I've lived.
This debate is not about me. It is - or WAS - about "Chemtrails." I am only one witness of many hundred of thousands - perhaps millions - of witnesses all around the planet, who see low altitude Chemtrails in the skies on a near daily basis these days. There are plenty of low-altitude, line-segment Chemtrail- clouds {also known as "chem-spews"} all over Sonoma County: East, West, North, South - and on nearly a daily basis.
Anyone can see them with their own, naked eyes - that is, if they care to look up. I quoted a line from an historically - & sociologically - significant song, earlier on this thread:
"How many times must a man look up, before he can see the sky?"
It's a very legitimate, existentially deep, and valid question; still. Because all of you see the phenomenon of chemtrails in the sky above us, and on a near-daily basis, unless you are blind.
Pilots of small planes, with altimeters fully operational have been able to document the very real phenomenon of low altitude chemtrail spraying, for years. And there are also plenty of up-close films on youtube indicating that spray nozzles in the damned planes are being turned off and on. I posted two or three of these videos on this same thread. Go back and look at them.
Indeed, it does appear, that there is a spigot inside the plane that is being turned on and off; opened and closed.
I wrote on the Chemtrails Redux thread:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Rather than address the issues, and engage in a debate on the points I have raised, {in the post above,} Mr. "Jay" Reynolds, artful dodger that he is, endeavors, once again to evade the issues, take a low tack, go on the offensive, and put me on the spot, by once again questioning my integrity and competence as a witness. He does not answer the Questions I have already posed because he can not. It can not be done. There are no "reasonable, rational, and scientific explanations" for the Scientific Quandry posed by the issues I raised in these three points:
[1] No reasonable, rational, and scientific explanation has yet emerged from the chemtrail "contra" camp explaining how it is that line segment "clouds" are generated by jet planes laying tracks at low {warm air} altitudes, in the troposphere.
[2] The results of the spraying - that is, chemtrail "haze" clouds - being a low altitude phenomenon, in the troposphere - are not authentic, natural, "classical" cirrus clouds.
[3] Neither are they classical "contrails" - i.e., ice crystals - in layers of cold air in the troposphere, or freezing air in the stratosphere.
So, Once Again, I Challenge You, Jay Reynolds, to respond to the Questions/ Issues of the three points that I posed, above. Will you? No; you will not, because you can not.
No one can. It can not be done.
And that is the true significance of why Mr. "Jay" Reynolds, without a Clue as to how to answer that post of mine for over two weeks, lit upon the old demagogic trick & expedient of accusing me of making a "lie." - Which is a Libel.
Again, Let Mr. Reynolds be served Notice that my challenge to him takes precedence and priority over his challenge to me; because, in the debate - such as it is - my challenge came first. Read Robert's Rules of Order. He does not answer the Questions I have already posed because he can not. It can not be done - by anyone. There are no "reasonable, rational, and scientific explanations" for the Scientific Quandry posed by the issues I have raised in those three points.
It is not necessary for me to re-invent the wheel, or defensively, prove that I am a truth-teller, or establish that, in fact, I do see from my deck that which I have already witnessed, and testified to. I do agree that it is an interesting scientific assignment to present you all with "proof" that the chem-trails that are sprayed on a near daily basis in the vicinity of the County line, begin at the low altitude of five to six thousand feet.
But for now - and until or if ever, I acquire the necessary gear and assistants, to perform the Operation that Mr. Reynolds has thrust before me as a challenge - Let the interested Public perform the following web-searches, on the Subject of the altitude of Chem-trail sightings. No need to re-invent the Wheel. No need for more "proof" on this subject; the work has been done for us:
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "5000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "6000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, altimeter , feet
If the "Interested Public" will perform these Web searches on Altitude, and Study - {that's something we were all theoretically required to do when we were in school; Remember?} - Then, indeed, We {Plural} might get a little more light on the FACT that "Low Altitude Chem-trail Spraying" in the Troposphere is a Reality.
Plato wrote: "The only way to ensure the peoples' happiness is to let them sup upon sweet lies rather than bitter truth."
Ben Hecht wrote: "Wrap evil in Righteous words - and who will examine the package? Statescraft is as simple as that, and so are the multitudes who buy its wrappings. All they ask is assurance from the proper authorities that black is white..."
Mark Walter Evans
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Mark,
You sure like to cloud up your posts with lots of gibberish. A distraction, I suppose, but most can see through that. You say I'm not responding to your questions, but all three of them contain a claim which remians unsupported. You premise each question by the assumption that low altitude trails are what you observe,
yet you refuse to show any documentation, explanation, or evidence for your claim!
If you want a responsive answer to your questions, there is no way anyone can answer them until you first provide proof for your premise. All of us are asking for it, yet you refuse to give anything except more unfounded claims and obfuscatory directives to do google searches which yield nothing.
If you have proof for your claims, why not show it?
Well, obviously you don't, so you can't.
Everyone can see this, and it's getting tiresome.
Here's your latest:
"Pilots of small planes, with altimeters fully operational have been able to document the very real phenomenon of low altitude chemtrail spraying, for years."
Ok, if this has been documented "for years", just show us the documentation, ok?
But you won't. This is just another ruse, isn't it?
Mark, you are making yourself look really bad, with these constant claims yet nothing to back them up with.
You make the claim, you back it up, Mark. That's the way life is. You must have missed the very important lessons most of us learned in childhood about Chicken Little, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Stop this infantile regression, and be a man. If you can't hack others disbelief in your unfounded claims, why make them at all? Are you such a glutton for attention that you wish to deliberately make a fool of yourself for it? If so, you are a madman.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "5000 feet"
Videos for chemtrails, altitude, "5000 feet" chemtrails:
Another Day In The Life Of Chemtrails - www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcuuVevu0cY
A Day In The Life Of Chemtrails - www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Chemtrails over Los Angeles March 1, 2009 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X4PzHMZYsU
Data from a {very} Few of the Many Sites that come up :
Chemtrails occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where traditional ... and recorded over Penetanguishene at 5000 feet on a warm Summer evening!www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/tinyties2003.html
Chemtrails - cancertruth.info
...chemtrails, geo-engineering. ... or only in certain altitudes where it's cold enough (-40°F) to turn the water vapor to ice. ... The planes I saw spraying the chemtrails ( in the pictures above) could not have been higher than 5000 feet, which was ...
www.cancertruth.info/chemtrails.html/
Chemtrails at very low altitude! Scientifically, "contrails" cannot form ...
May 15, 2008 ... Scientifically, "contrails" cannot form under 30K altitude. ... I said 5000 feet. ... Low Altitude So-Called Chemtrails; ...
www.flickr.com/photos/chromelung7/2496575766/
Chemtrails : Did we ever reach a consensus? - Unexplained ...
People are reporting trails at less than 5000 feet, trails that suddenly appear from a ... EVERY video I've seen shows these "chemtrails" at the altitudes of cruising ...
www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic...
Contrails or Chemtrails? (goverment, society, American, company ...
Feb 1, 2012 ... Chemtrails usually occur at altitudes of 25000 feet or lower, which is ... over Penetanguishene at 5000 feet on a warm Summer evening!
www.city-data.com/.../1482843-contrails-chemtrails-goverment-society- american-company-38.html
Chem Trails in Ohio???
Mar 23, 2007 ... Kucinich's bill explicitly outlaws "chemtrails." ... What altitude are they flying at? ... Our skies are multilane highways with 5000 feet of vertical ...
www.city-data.com/.../8555-chem-trails-ohio-clinton-florida-public-2.html
The Truth Denied Breaking News - PLANE CRASH in ARIZONA ...
Nov 30, 2011 ... Chemtrails News Explanation of Chemtrails Chemtrails Archive 1 Chemtrails .... The elevation is about 5000 feet at the Superstition Mountains' ...
www.thetruthdenied.com/.../plane-crash-in-arizona-mysterious-findings-as- public-is-shut-out-from-the-truth/
Mohave County Board Health Epidemiologist Masters Chemtrail ...
Dec 26, 2011 ... Home » Chemtrail News, Featured » Mohave County Board of Health Epidemiologist Shills for Her Masters .... Natural jet contrails need at least 28k altitude & high humidity. ... The trail had to be only 4-5000 feet high at most.
aircrap.org/mohave-county-board-health...chemtrail.../333580/
Filer's Files - Tracers
chemtrails falls to the ground and often makes some people sick with flu like symptoms and skin ... We can estimate altitude of the craft based on the angle and distance. .... The disk was at approximately 3000 to 5000 feet moving silently in an ...
tracers.8m.com/filer31.html
Chemtrails Over San Diego
Nov 28, 2002 ... Even my 4 year old son can tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail now. ... Another low chemtrail, possible 4000-5000 feet.
www.rense.com/general32/san.htm
Making Chemtrails a Canadian Election Issue...
...altitude and in any kind of weather. Chemtrails have been documented as low as 5000 feet, too low for any natural contrail to form. /And ...
www.indiadivine.org/.../948146-making-chemtrails-canadian-election-issue. html
I could go on...and on... and on... and on... And Perhaps I must. Will you Concede, Mr. John Boyd Reynolds, that you can not answer or address these very pertinent Questions and Issues ? - to wit :
[1] No reasonable, rational, and scientific explanation has yet emerged from the chemtrail "contra" camp explaining how it is that line segment "clouds" are generated by jet planes laying tracks at low {warm air} altitudes, in the troposphere.
[2] The results of the spraying - that is, chemtrail "haze" clouds - being a low altitude phenomenon, in the troposphere - are not authentic, natural, "classical" cirrus clouds.
[3] Neither are they classical "contrails" - i.e., ice crystals - in layers of cold air in the troposphere, or freezing air in the stratosphere.
Mark Walter Evans
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Mark, until you show some sort of proof that any of these planes you see are below 5k ft. no one can answer your questions. Most of the links you put out above don't work at all, and none of them contain anything more than claims. Don't expect further replies as I have been forced to conclude that you are not really interested in answers, since you aren't interested in proving your case anyways.
I find that in my frustration with you I have become somewhat rude. I'd prefer to not be that way, and admit that I have become frustrated trying to wring some facts out of you. This is a sign that we have reached a dead end, and I expect it may take some more years and hopefully a more mature Mark to make sense of this.
I wish you luck, most chemtrails believers only hold onto this for about ten years max, hopefully you can escape sooner. If you don't, seek some professional help.
Thanks to everyone else for putting up with me. I may be back when there are some significant developments you need to know about.
Happy 'Trails,
Jay Reynolds
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Mark,
Please don't post links that you haven't personally visited and inspected. Please only pick the top 1 or 2 links that you think are the most authoritative.
Barry
Moderator
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I did vet the links Barry. They all worked when I was gathering them on Google. That a few of them went blank is a minor mystery - but no surprise.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Jay Reynolds wrote:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
Mark, until you show some sort of proof that any of these planes you see are below 5k ft. no one can answer your questions. Most of the links you put out above don't work at all, and none of them contain anything more than claims. Don't expect further replies as I have been forced to conclude that you are not really interested in answers, since you aren't interested in proving your case anyways.
I find that in my frustration with you I have become somewhat rude. I'd prefer to not be that way, and admit that I have become frustrated trying to wring some facts out of you. This is a sign that we have reached a dead end, and I expect it may take some more years and hopefully a more mature Mark to make sense of this.
I wish you luck, most chemtrails believers only hold onto this for about ten years max, hopefully you can escape sooner. If you don't, seek some professional help.
Thanks to everyone else for putting up with me. I may be back when there are some significant developments you need to know about.
Happy 'Trails,
Jay Reynolds
Those are the words of a man whose job & assignment is all about Containing/Stopping the spread of consciousness about chemtrails. It is not out of Altruism that he does this, or out of Love for Humanity. Read his words. He is an Adept at all the old the demagogic tricks - of discrediting the opposition by Libel and Defamation of character - of obfuscating, dodging, and avoiding the Issues that have been raised.
It is obvious that he does not want any of the local Sonoma County Waccobbite audience to check out any of the links I put up, or do the web-searches I have detailed; for the simple reason that those links prove my case; i.e., that there are many, many people all around the globe who are witnesses to the reality of low-altitude chemtrail spraying in the Troposphere - at five thousand feet, and even much, much lower...
Don't be Lazy. Think for Yourself. Study - Learn - Grow. Resist. Do the Homework:
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "2000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "3000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "4000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "5000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "6000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, altimeter , feet
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, C.I.A. , "containment"
Mark
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Yesterday evening, I received the following missive in my e-mailbox, from someone who has been following this dialog for some considerable while. This person - who wishes to remain Anonymous - has asked me to post this here, without any alterations :
Dear Mark Evans, Mr. Jay Reynolds…..and his Followers, as well as other residents in Sonoma County:
It is interesting that anyone would consider insights into human nature from a philosopher of Plato’s magnitude to be so much “gibberish”. Meanwhile, the writings of Ben Hecht have long been under attack, via censorship and book banning in this country, by men who would applaud Jay Reynolds’ tactics in a supposed ‘debate’.
It seems that Reynolds’ main objective is to debunk the notion that chemtrails are in existence. He attacks Evans’ assertion that the abnormal “trails left by airplanes flying at approximately 5,000 ft., near his home, could NOT possibly be ice crystals” by saying that the correctness of Mark Evans’ guess-timate cannot be proven, or considered scientific without the measurements and data recorded by certain scientific equipment, (as opposed to the naked eye.)
If Mr. Reynolds is so confident in his ability to discredit the opposition, why then doesn’t he investigate and try to discredit other witnesses to the chemtrail phenomenon (reported world-wide) whose reports are documented on the aforementioned websites? Chances are that those whistle-blowers, many of them defectors from the state department, trained by the scientific community and aviation industry have used the accuracy-qualifying equipment Jay insists upon for anyone filing such reports! If Reynolds had bothered to refer to those websites which bolster Marks’ arguments, in an effort to disqualify them, along with Mark, he would have been confronted with some very sophisticated, well-documented grounds for claims.
What Mr. Reynolds is also implying is that nobody has the right to discuss the existence of chemtrails, unless they own or have access to such specialized, technological measuring devices, and that if someone insists on speaking about chemtrails, he is a “madman”. ……Amongst all the ‘delusional sky-watchers’, I guess then, there are also “mad” women. Would Mr. Reynolds dare to hurl that slur at another very concerned citizen, who also happens to be an intelligent, articulate, scientific member from the Department of Agriculture, Rosalind Peterson, who also documents chemtrail phenomenon? (https://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org or [email protected]
Meanwhile, there are other ways of gathering evidence for chemtrail phenomenon, and it has been done. It is the evidence collected from documented soil and snow samples, showing dangerously toxic, concentrated levels of aluminum, barium and arsenic where planes leaving chemtrails are frequently observed.
Studies include Rosalind Petersons’ snow samples from Colorado and soil samples from northern California, the destruction of organic farming ventures on the Island of Hawaii, as documented by Michael Murphy and Edward Griffin in the film, “What In The World Are They Spraying?”
For the sake of an intellectually honest, earnest debate, I recommend that witnesses to this thread refer to the information and studies Rosalind Peterson has provided on those websites. Find time to watch “What In The World Are They Spraying?” a documentary film featuring scientists, agriculture specialists and other environmentally-aware citizens. After you have educated yourselves better on the subject, then ask yourselves this question,
“Why did Monsanto recently take out a patent for an aluminum-resistant GMO seed?” (There is more than one plausible explanation)
Debates are supposed to sharpen our higher reasoning powers-not provide an arena for the ignorance of wishful thinking, or name-calling- without evidence, attempts at character defamation to avoid challenges in a debate, the adjectives of demagogues, and/or the intellectually-lame, misguided deference or spiritual submission to anyone who poses as an authority on science.
We must all use our own eyes, ears and minds, do our homework by reading and listening to others with an openly, objective mind. Participation in a debate should not be spectators listening to a ping-pong game of words between two people, and then cheering for one side, like you would at a football game.
It is a positive thing that a debate about chemtrails vs. contrails is taking place in our community.
However, the debate between Mr. Reynolds and Mark Evans has come to a stalemate, stranglehold, because Mark does not own the equipment Mr. Reynolds insists upon for his estimates on altitudinal distance. Meanwhile, Mr. Reynolds refuses to acknowledge or answer the valid questions that Mark has posed repeatedly, throughout ‘the debate’.
Mr. Reynolds lives 1,000 miles away from our skies, here in Sonoma County. Is he from 1,000 miles away, so telepathic, so godly omniscient, as to know that those trails could not possibly have been laid at five thousand feet? (“Liar”)
Are our positions (spectators to the debate) on this subject, based upon what we actually know, or on what we want to believe? Ask yourselves, “Just how much do you really know about what goes on, during various “Geo-engineering” schemes-or those so-called Government “weather-modification programs” which use airplanes? What chemicals or particles are used in these geo-engineering schemes that tamper with our weather? Who came up with the term, “to weaponize space”? How does this affect the air we breathe? Here’s a question for your lungs, maybe even your brain -“Got aluminum particulates?”
Our healthy lives on earth are contingent upon the quality of our air, our soil and the purity of our water. What then, compelled film-makers, Michael Murphy and Edward Griffin( and so many others) to ask, “What in the World are they Spraying?”
I know that Mr. Reynolds debunked the film, but don’t go by his ‘opinion’. Watch the film for your selves and try to understand, or answer the question,
What in the World are They Spraying?
What in the World are They Spraying?
What in the World are They Spraying?
Got Answers? How do we all win in a debate?
Signed, “ No-time for cheerleaders”
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I was going to let this pass till this:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
...Debates are supposed to sharpen our higher reasoning powers-not provide an arena for the ignorance of wishful thinking, or name-calling- without evidence, attempts at character defamation to avoid challenges in a debate, the adjectives of demagogues, and/or the intellectually-lame, misguided deference or spiritual submission to anyone who poses as an authority on science.
I guess didn't read his own post.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
In Mark's defense Podfish (something I rarely essay these days) he was quoting a private communication from some unamed source. They're not his own words. Allegedly.... (I keed, I keed!!)
And in your defense, you did write "his own post" which is not definitive about authorship but I read as implying it was written by M.W.E. aka Iolchan.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
And in your defense, you did write "his own post" which is not definitive about authorship but I read as implying it was written by M.W.E. aka Iolchan.
that's a good defense -- and accurate. Probably, though, the ambiguity is appropriate because it's ambiguous where Mark stands vis a vis those words.
It's not a severe indictment of Mark or the author, either - but it's a nod to the incongruity of the comment given its context.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
Meanwhile, there are other ways of gathering evidence for chemtrail phenomenon, and it has been done. It is the evidence collected from documented soil and snow samples, showing dangerously toxic, concentrated levels of aluminum, barium and arsenic where planes leaving chemtrails are frequently observed.
Studies include Rosalind Petersons’ snow samples from Colorado and soil samples from northern California, the destruction of organic farming ventures on the Island of Hawaii, as documented by Michael Murphy and Edward Griffin in the film, “What In The World Are They Spraying?”
Signed, “ No-time for cheerleaders”
So, some samples of soil and snow are reputed to show elevated concentrations of metals. Anecdotal statements like this are worthless in a court of law. I work as an environmental geologist so I deal with this topic all the time.
Questions: What were the sampling protocols? were sterile containers used? was there a chain of custody? laboratory accreditation? sample size? sample kept on ice after collection? analyzed within the accepted time limit for the EPA method(s) used? what EPA analytical methods were used? exactly when and where were the samples collected? The list goes on.
A huge issue here is the natural background concentrations of the various metals reputed to have been released. Without knowing this, the supposed evidence is worthless.
Let me give you an example. One of the remediation technologies that we use to remediated sites heavily impacted by gasoline is to inject ozone and/or hydrogen peroxide into the groundwater. These materials rapidly break down to release nascent oxygen (a single highly reactive O atom) which tears into the fuel hydrocarbons and converts them to water and CO2. Ozone also can oxidize dissolved chromium Cr+3 to a dangerous form called hexavalent chromium (Cr+6).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexavalent_chromium
Remember Erin Brockovich? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkle..._contamination
Now the issue under the Santa Rosa Plain is that there is naturally occurring Cr+3 and Cr+6 in the groundwater. Before starting ozone injection, the background concentration of Cr+6 must be measured for each remediation site. Only then can we know if we need to back off on the treatment because the Cr+6 concentration is rising above the natural background due to oxidation of Cr+3.
For these chemtrails soil "samples" to have any credence, natural background concentrations must be established. There is a hug data base on soil chemistry. To have minimal credence, this information needs to be presented along with the "toxic" soil data. Appropriate EPA protocols for soil sampling should be followed and documented.
The snow samples should be collected as a time series at each site, and the sites need to have a wide geographic distribution. It would be best if the samples were collected in fresh snow shortly after a contrail incident. Old snow will concentrate atmospheric dust fall material. That means A LOT of samples must be collected following strict EPA type protocols. Lots of work and lots of money. The people doing the sampling must have been certified as trained in proper procedures.
Without doing this, you've got nothing.
Richard
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:
So, some samples of soil and snow are reputed to show elevated concentrations of metals. Anecdotal statements like this are worthless in a court of law. I work as an environmental geologist so I deal with this topic all the time.
Questions: What were the sampling protocols? were sterile containers used? was there a chain of custody? laboratory accreditation? sample size? sample kept on ice after collection? analyzed within the accepted time limit for the EPA method(s) used? what EPA analytical methods were used? exactly when and where were the samples collected? The list goes on.
in these days of easy access to obscure information, it's easy (for me at least) to forget the huge gap between amateur and professional. Before the intranets an amateur couldn't get enough information to make any kind of a case. Now everyone's opinion can look (to the rest of us amateurs, at least) pretty solid and equivalent to anyone else's.
Thanks for highlighting the kind of boring technical details that separate the barstool conversation from the technical debate. It's true that showing disdain for these tedious details, like making actual measurements of altitude with tools and techniques that can be verified correct, characterizes the wacco debates. They're fun, though; and since not all of us can or are willing to go to the lengths it takes to establish "facts" I think you should probably stop throwing a wet blanket on the argument here....
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
...They're fun, though; and since not all of us can or are willing to go to the lengths it takes to establish "facts" I think you should probably stop throwing a wet blanket on the argument here....
I don't think I should have had to put a :wink: in my post, do you?
after some recent other threads, I'm not so sure.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Check it out - "Contrail in a bottle!": https://youtu.be/YUdR9xESD64
Contrails are basic physics, not a vast conspiracy.
-Dane
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by danejasper:
What basic physics suddenly changed in 1997?
Contrails, technically ‘ice crystal trailings’ of airplanes, had an extremely short life-span until dissipated for the entire history of aviation until these never before seen expanding and extremely long lingering patterns began appearing in 1997 all over the world:
I hate being lied to or being an illegally used non-consenting guinea pig. I find pictures, reports and testimony like these disturbing and there are now 1000's and 1000's more available worldwide by seemingly respectable people if you look, keep an open mind and add up the evidence. I have concluded that the responsible thing to do is take the issue seriously, stay informed and figure out how best to protect myself and my family:
-KSLA NEWS REPORTS DANGEROUSLY HIGH BARIUM LEVELS July 12 2009
"KSLA NEWS reporter Jeff Farrel, out of Shreveport Louisiana aired a segment on chemtrails this week reporting the finding of atmospheric barium levels more than 3 times the safe limit set by the EPA..."
-LAS VEGAS TRIBUNE LINKS MASS ILLNESS TO CHEMTRAILS
"And even in the face of government denials, environmental laboratories have begun to identify an extremely toxic component of the spray drifting over cities and countryside...."
-THE IDAHO OBSERVER
"According to a report published 8/28/06 in The Idaho Observer recent lab reports found the following in samples of chemtrail fall-out: bacteria including anthrax and pneumonia, 9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride, 26 heavy metals including arsenic, lead, barium, mercury and uranium, 4 molds and fungi, 7 viruses, 2 cancers, 2 vaccines and 2 sedatives...."
ITALIAN CHEMTRAIL RESEARCHERS COME TO SURVEY US-CANADA
"... the Italians were especially interested in the experience of Espanola. Repeatedly overflown by photo-identified U.S. Air Force tankers spraying lingering white plumes that made people sick over 50 square-miles in the spring and summer of 2001, this small community west of Sudbury, Ontario was the first to petition a national government to stop chemtrail spraying...."
CHEMTRAIL FIBERS FOUND TO CONTAIN NEMATODE EGGS
"Morgellons researchers Hildegarde Staninger PhD and Dr. Rahim Karjoom have discovered parasitic nematode eggs of some type encased in the chemtrail fibers..."
TOXIC SKY: KNBC REPORT ON VIDEO
"Another chink in the armor of non coverage of the very serious chemtrails situation by mainstream media. This report from KNBC Los Angeles is the first TV news report to cover chemtrails in a major media market....."
and on and on and on....... . There's sorting to do, but credible evidence and serious questions are not hard to find, including over your head.
Rather be as informed and safe as possible than stabbed in the back.
Alex
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
What basic physics suddenly changed in 1997?
ok, someone's got to go through their Mathew Brady collection now.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
:waccosun: Great response.
Why do you think it is that Dane is smart enough to run a high tech company, Sonic; but not able to see the truth before his eyes, in his very own sky? :waccosmile:
The logical conclusion is; he has bought into the notion that weather modification is good for us; and the Public is too dumb to handle it; therefore, we who notice it, are made to look like "conspiracy theorist".
Match this thread up with the one on why people aren't feeling well; we'll be better able to draw better conclusions.:sick1:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...226#post150226
Having such artifically filtered sunlight, for so long; compromises our health, as well as, plant and animal life.
Ask your photographer friends to do some time lapse comparison; of vapor trials from a regular plane, and a Weather Modification jet's residue and expansion.
Weather Modification Deniers be warned; people with so little powers of observation, are not to be trusted; your opinions are not valid. Using the word science next to your claims does not invalidate the actual witnessing of current events, by mass numbers of people worldwide.
:spaceship:Cultivation of our species on another planet is not an option either. Cleaning up the mess that's been made on Earth, is the only science we need to be spending money on. :shitstorm:
Too much trust in technology, and the ego involved in thinking you can out-engineer nature - is Ecocide. The risk; to not just our childrens' future, but all species on our beloved planet; is never to be underestimated.
People with the means and power like Dane, and Bill Gates; two of many in the top 10%, who dictate our nation's priories; really scare me.
When it's clear they are so disconnected to the natural sky, they can't, or won't recognize the eco-disaster before us all; we better get busy with an action plan to Occupy everyone with this info; before what is "natural" is lost forever.
Go fly a kite Dane; maybe you'll forget about the social engineering you signed up to do.
Everyone please see this site:
https://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...trail-con.html
See the animated "chem trails" in the movies "Cars" and "Over the Hedge". This is how they are trying to condition us to think this is normal. This is a conspiracy fact. If you ever bother to check, before posting again; you would know the difference.
https://globalskywatch.com/chemtrail...mber=50#Post50
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
Why do you think it is that Dane is ... not able to see the truth before his eyes...?
The logical conclusion is; he has bought into the notion that weather modification is good for us;
you have a very interesting definition of logic; what are the steps of reasoning that leads you inevitably to that conclusion?? I haven't seen any evidence beyond photos and innuendo.
They may well be poisoning us from the skies, but they sure do a great job of hiding any serious evidence. But if you just trust the evidence of your own eyes, I guess you can't be fooled.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
The logical conclusion is; he has bought into the notion that weather modification is good for us; and the Public is too dumb to handle it; therefore, we who notice it, are made to look like "conspiracy theorist".
...
Go fly a kite Dane; maybe you'll forget about the social engineering you signed up to do.
DAMN! You caught me!
Ever since joining the Cheminati I have feared that I would be found out! So, I'll let you in on the secret: the whole spraying thing is being done in order to prepare humans for the return of the Lizard People, who will return to rule the earth on the 22nd of December, 2012. Yes, you heard that right, 2012! They are working with Nessie (well, really it's Nessie's grand-grand-daughter), and the tribe of the Sasquatch (turns out, there are MANY of them; thousands - that's why one is spotted every now and then!)
But, I'm not supposed to be telling you this, so it's likely I will "mysteriously disappear" in the very, very, very near future. I am sure it will look like an "accident", but YOU will know the truth at last! Everything you have been told by medical doctors, scientists or just well intentioned adherents to logic is the complete opposite of the truth! They are all part of the vast conspiracy!!1!!!
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I imagine this post as being written in comic sans. ;)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by danejasper:
DAMN! You caught me!
Ever since joining the Cheminati I have feared that I would be found out! So, I'll let you in on the secret: the whole spraying thing is being done in order to prepare humans for the return of the Lizard People, who will return to rule the earth on the 22nd of December, 2012. Yes, you heard that right, 2012! They are working with Nessie (well, really it's Nessie's grand-grand-daughter), and the tribe of the Sasquatch (turns out, there are MANY of them; thousands - that's why one is spotted every now and then!)
But, I'm not supposed to be telling you this, so it's likely I will "mysteriously disappear" in the very, very, very near future. I am sure it will look like an "accident", but YOU will know the truth at last! Everything you have been told by medical doctors, scientists or just well intentioned adherents to logic is the complete opposite of the truth! They are all part of the vast conspiracy!!1!!!
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
A Challenge For All Chem-trail Deniers :
Seven Questions & Issues
[1] No reasonable, rational, and Scientific explanation has yet emerged from the Chem-trail Denial camp explaining how it is that line segment "clouds" are generated by jet planes laying tracks at low {warm air} altitudes, in the lower Troposphere, at the altitude of Cumulonimbus clouds.
[2] That the results of this spraying - chemtrail "haze" clouds - being a low altitude phenomenon, in the lower Troposphere - Are not & can not be authentic, natural, "classical" cirrus clouds, which, typically, manifest at 30,000 feet.
[3] Neither can they be classical "contrails" - i.e., ice crystals - in layers of cold air in the troposphere, or freezing air in the stratosphere; because, often, they are merely line-segments.
[4] How could adjacent patches of air in the paths of "persistent contrails" (at the very same altitudes,) vary so radically in temperature that - (assuming the jets are spewing out the same volume of "exhaust" continually) - in some swaths, faux clouds are manifested?
[5] Why is it that - Always - before and after these linear streaks of "chem-spew clouds" & in the same jet flight-paths, there remains no lasting residue of "cloud" at all? Did "classical contrails" ever manifest in such a weird manner?
[6] Why did Monsanto recently take out a patent for an aluminum-resistant GMO seed?
[7] How many times must a man look up, before he can see the sky?
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...8&d=1333164424
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "2000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "3000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "4000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "5000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: chemtrails, altitude, "6000 feet"
Google Advanced Search: aluminum, Monsanto, GMO, resistant , seed
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
...................................Feedback From Rosalind Peterson...................................
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png iolchan forwarded: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
"Meanwhile, there are other ways of gathering evidence for chemtrail phenomenon, and it has been done. It is the evidence collected from documented soil and snow samples, showing dangerously toxic, concentrated levels of aluminum, barium and arsenic where planes leaving chemtrails are frequently observed.
Studies include Rosalind Petersons’ snow samples from Colorado and soil samples from northern California, the destruction of organic farming ventures on the Island of Hawaii, as documented by Michael Murphy and Edward Griffin in the film, “What In The World Are They Spraying?”
Signed, “ No-time for cheerleaders”
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png geomancer wrote:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
So, some samples of soil and snow are reputed to show elevated concentrations of metals. Anecdotal statements like this are worthless in a court of law. I work as an environmental geologist so I deal with this topic all the time.
Questions: What were the sampling protocols? were sterile containers used? was there a chain of custody? laboratory accreditation? sample size? sample kept on ice after collection? analyzed within the accepted time limit for the EPA method(s) used? what EPA analytical methods were used? exactly when and where were the samples collected? The list goes on.
A huge issue here is the natural background concentrations of the various metals reputed to have been released. Without knowing this, the supposed evidence is worthless...
Yesterday I spoke, for the first time, with Rosalind Peterson on the telephone. I called her because her name has come up several times in the course of this thread – the last time being in the missive that Richard quoted & that I recently posted on behalf of an acquaintance, who wishes to remain anonymous. First, I sent Rosalind an e-mail copy of the recent post of Richard Ely, geomancer,{see above.}
Rosalind Peterson is intelligent, savvy, and very much grounded in the scientific method. She read the e-mail of Richard Ely’s post and commented to me, section by section. Immediately, she took issue with the quotations from my post, which she said was misinformed, in that she has never worked from soil samples that she herself has taken. She has only worked from Water Quality Data from the Drinking Water Program of the California State Department of Health. Reading further, the words of geomancer, Richard Ely himself, paragraph by paragraph, she approved of every single statement and every single point that he made. She concluded, at the end, that he was absolutely, 100% correct – legally, professionally, and scientifically.
Her own work with this material consumed over three hundred and fifty man-hours in graphing the California State Department of Health statistics pertaining to chemical contaminants in the water tables in the various districts in the state. Here are her findings as they pertain the water in Sonoma County: https://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/content/sonoma-county-ca-drinking-water-tests
Rosalind Peterson, like the Belfort Group who produced the Case Orange Study, prefers not use the word “chemtrails” – instead, she uses the term “Persistent Contrails” in order to distance herself – wisely – from what our dear self-consciously rationalist friends here at WaccoBB have called the “woo-woo”.
She sent me this information below, and refers the public to the California State Department of Health website and EDT Library and Water Quality Analyses Data and Download Page: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/pages/EDTlibrary.aspx
For More Information Contact:
California Department of Public Health
Anthony Meeks
Drinking Water Program
PO Box 997377, MS-7416
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 74.421
Sacramento, CA 95899-5052
Telephone: (916) 449-5568
Fax: (916) 440-5602
EDT Email Address: [email protected]
Personal Email Address: [email protected]
Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Schedule Notification documents list upcoming and Over Due required contaminant testing of drinking water of water systems in California. It can be viewed at the website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drin...onitoring.aspx
All drinking water quality analyses data are available to download at the EDT Library and Water Quality Analyses Data and Download Page at the website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drin...DTlibrary.aspx
Additional Information:
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DRINKING WATER TEST RESULTS
The California State Department of Health, Drinking Water Division, Sacramento, California, has all of the water test data from every public drinking water source in the State of California, dating back to 1980s.
These tests are required by the EPA and the State of California, due to possible health effects, when various metals, herbicides, pesticides and other toxic contaminants are found in drinking water sources. The California EPA has complete listings of these chemicals, associated health effects, and drinking water standards for these water contaminants. The results of all drinking water tests are available free of charge online from the California State Department of Health.
1) A review of all water tests conducted in the State of California between 1984 and 2008, for every water test result over -0-, has been completed in the last year to find any unusual water contaminant readings which are over State of California standards and that could have negative consequences for human health.
2) The review demonstrated unusual spiking patterns, across California, for some toxic drinking water contaminants that that raise concerns about air borne and other pollution sources. This review raises serious questions about why the public has not been informed of these unusual spiking patterns by the California State Department of Health. This list includes, but is not limited to, the following contaminants:
Aluminum.......... Barium............. Iron.............. Manganese............. Magnesium
Sodium............. Boron ...............Arsenic..............Strontium............. Uranium
Strontium-90 ....... Antimony............ Beryllium............. Bromine............. Cadmium
Calcium .................. Copper............... Lead................ Nickel............... Silver
Thallium ............... Titanium .............. Vanadium............... Zinc.............. Sulfide
Sulfate
(The California Air Resources Board tested for most of these airborne contaminants between 1989 and 2002, and found significant increases or spiking in these many of these pollutants.)
Perchlorate, Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6), Phosphorus, Lithium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silica, Tin, Tritium, Tungsten, and Yttrium are not currently being tested for in California Drinking Water Supplies and should be added to the list of chemicals tested by the State of California due to health effects associated with exposure.
Many of these same contaminants are showing up in California State Air Resources air testing results throughout many parts of California. Neonicotinoids and other insecticides should also be added to the list of water contaminants as they may be responsible for Honey Bee and other pollinator declines. (Note that carbon black and silver iodide should be also added to this list.)
A review of water temperatures, specific conductance, and pH should also be considered in any examination of these test results. (Please note that many contaminants were not reviewed due to the large database - all drinking water contaminants will be under review in the future.)
3) Many of the contaminants listed above that were found in drinking water tests spiked in the same years in different parts of the State. There may be an airborne link to these water contaminants which will need to be studied in the future.
(In an article in the Sunday, February 23, 2003, edition of the Sacramento Bee, written by Chris Bowman, it was noted that Tungsten, not normally tested for in public drinking water supplies, was found in Elk Grove, Sacramento, in drinking water supplies, and in tests conducted on trees rings in that area as well. Similar results were found in Fallon, Nevada and Sierra Vista, Arizona. Tree ring tests are showing increases in Tungsten.)
THE GRAPHED DATA ON THE ADC WEBSITE, WATER TEST RESULTS, ARE ALL FROM THE DATA SUPPLIED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DRINKING WATER PROGRAM.
In the next several months special California Graphed Water Test Data and some Drinking Water Spreadsheets will be available on this site: https://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/
All drinking water tests are public record and are available upon request from any state in the United States and local water purveyors. Remember that your local water supplies may or may not test for these contaminants on a regular basis. The data one should request is not summary data but actual test results.
Water tests do not take into account the synergistic effects of multiple contaminants. In addition, water treatment facilities vary from county to county as well as state to state…thus, your water treatment facility may not be able to remove all contaminants in your drinking water.
(Note: If contaminants are found in your drinking water supplies then they may also showing up in rivers, ponds, streams, shallow wells, and the ocean. All of these areas, along with most irrigation water, cannot be treated for contamination problems. This means that these chemicals will show up in our soils, food supplies and also have negative impacts on wildlife and marine life.)
It is time to lobby the California Air Resources Board to test for all of these chemicals individually and to release their test data as individual results instead of just summary data. In addition, all particulates that are collected should be tested for type of particulates not just the size of the particulates. The public also needs to know how much aluminum coated fiberglass particulates (CHAFF), released by multiple military service branches, are being found in California particulate testing and how they impact human health in California. https://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm
California Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.calepa.ca.gov/
Interested parties may see and hear Rosalind Peterson on Youtube - just go to YouTube.com, write in “Rosalind Peterson” and click. You may also visit her websites at: https://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/ =and= https://www.californiaskywatch.com
- Mark
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I found this link here to an article of hers.
I must admit to being a bit put off by her company (I followed a link to her from Devvy Kidd, who seems a bit of a wacco; and a lot of sites that cite her are full of chupacabra warnings and the like) but she's actually quite measured in what she claims and how she talks about it.
What stands out to me are her warnings that these programs are under-regulated, not that they're covertly being spread. She makes a reference to a proposal to spread chemicals into hurricanes that she thinks may happen with insufficient study into the side-effects. I think she's well founded there: oil dispersants were dumped into the BP gulf spill with similar uncertainties.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
:waccosun: Very good work Mark!
I have met with Rosalind several times; and concur with all your conclusions here.
Thank you,
Colleen Fernald
California's Constitutional Candidate
For PEACE & Thriving Watersheds For All!
www.campaignforpeace.org
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
...................................Feedback From Rosalind Peterson...................................
Yesterday I spoke, for the first time, with Rosalind Peterson on the telephone. I called her because her name has come up several times in the course of this thread – the last time being in the missive that Richard quoted & that I recently posted on behalf of an acquaintance, who wishes to remain anonymous. First, I sent Rosalind an e-mail copy of the recent post of Richard Ely, geomancer,{see above.}
Rosalind Peterson is intelligent, savvy, and very much grounded in the scientific method. She read the e-mail of Richard Ely’s post and commented to me, section by section. Immediately, she took issue with the quotations ...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
See this for more comments:
Help me say goodbye to AT&T
I have many posts here; from long ago, to current; explaining how my research, and observations have guided my conclusions.
It's time for you to stop staring at your screen; go outside and begin your own sky watching if you really want to know the truth. This will show you what; but the truth as for why - may have more than one reason.
I know a handful of very intelligent weather modification deniers. This greatly concerns me; because I don't think this is a sign of their ignorance nor neglect; as they are involved in water quality. When they won't even allow the issue to come before them for public scrutiny, my alarms go off.
In 2006, weather modification became a national security issue ordered by congress. There are many answers we may never get because of the secrecy which comes with this designation.
I have noticed many times, when good folks get to play with the big leaguers; they tend to put their previous whistle-blowing skills away. This has happened with the "recycled" waste water issue as well. A so-called solution for municipalities and Wall Street-Wine's addiction to growth; at the expense of our watershed and ratepayers/taxpayers, and inheritable future.
It's hard enough to filter contaminates from our food and water; our air should be sacred. Just as with GMO crops; trying to out-engineer Nature, is a risk we do NOT need to take.
:waccosun: Wake up; you too are at risk.
Colleen Fernald
California's Constitutional Candidate
For PEACE & Thriving Watersheds For ALL!
www.campaignforpeace.org
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
you have a very interesting definition of logic; what are the steps of reasoning that leads you inevitably to that conclusion?? I haven't seen any evidence beyond photos and innuendo.
They may well be poisoning us from the skies, but they sure do a great job of hiding any serious evidence. But if you just trust the evidence of your own eyes, I guess you can't be fooled.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png podfish wrote:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.pngI found this
link here to an article of hers.I must admit to being a bit put off by her company (I followed a link to her from Devvy Kidd, who seems a bit of a wacco; and a lot of sites that cite her are full of chupacabra warnings and the like) but she's actually quite measured in what she claims and how she talks about it.What stands out to me are her warnings that these programs are under-regulated,
not that they're covertly being spread. She makes a reference to a proposal to spread chemicals into hurricanes that she thinks may happen with insufficient study into the side-effects. I think she's well founded there: oil dispersants were dumped into the BP gulf spill with similar uncertainties.
Thank you for the gratitude, poddy. I almost gave you gratitude back - except I don't resonate with your feelings about Rosalind Peterson. Having spoken with her on the telephone, I have nothing but respect for the woman. She is a good soul - Sane, a wonderful quality in anyone - and a scientist, to boot. She is quite firm in her position, that "persistent contrails" are a new and very real phenomena; yet she also made it quite clear to me that there is a border between her position and the "conspiracy fringe" as she put it, of the "Chem-trail Choir." She says that so far, she has not seen the "smoking gun"; the proof, that one of the purposes of the damned things is to kill us off slowly.
I respect that. Perhaps - it may be said - she errs on the side of caution. We both agree that the dis-information artists are working both sides of the street to contain this issue : in the denial camp, and also in the wingy faction of the "chem-trail conspiracy" camp. Because Rosalind is a scientist her work is important, in that she is one more credible witness to the reality of the phenomenal category; "persistent contrails." She sent me the following links, of a talk she gave in 2009; which, she says, earned her a lot of flack from the chem-trail zealots, the ferocity of which was a real shock to her. O well... I have posted the first two pages of her speech. To see the rest of it, click on one of the links.
It is sometimes difficult to separate out fact from fiction and beliefs. It is even more difficult when UnitedStates citizens live under a government which classifies as “secret” more and more information with eachpassing day. In addition, many government agencies, scientists, and researchers decide that certaininformation should not be given to the public because they know that the public would say “NO”, to many of their experiments or actions.
Thus, unraveling exactly why jet contrails began to abnormally persist and turn into white haze and man-made clouds, since the late 1980s, has been difficult…requiring hours of research into government documents, university studies, and following every lead to find answers to these questions. What we do know and can prove has broad implications for human health, agriculture crop production, the health of the earth’s pollinators, lack of photosynthesis (direct sunlight needed for all trees and plants to grow and produce crops),and climate change. The following is a brief history of persistent jet contrails and man-made clouds:
1) Jet engine produced contrails now may persist and turn into white haze and man-made clouds. Thischange began to be noticed across the United States, in the late 1980s, when reports began to bepublished regarding the unusual persistence of contrails, captured in pictures and videos that began toreflect their presence. Increasingly, as time passed, more and more reports and questions regardingthe number and type of jets leaving persistent jet contrails surfaced. (5)
2) Thousands of pictures and videos were placed on the Internet and in local newspapers, with questions about the different types of jets (many unmarked), leaving contrails, unusual cloud patterns, black contrails, brown clouds, the persistence of contrails for hours (one contrail can last for up to twenty hours or more and cover thousands of square miles - NASA), white reflective haze, and other types of unusual man-made cloud formations. (Discovery Channel Program 2007)
3) Reports and video tapes surfaced showing increased jet contrail activity just prior to rainfall predictionsby local weather reports in many areas. Jets were also videotaped circling various counties which wereout of normal commercial air traffic patterns as designated by the FAA.
4) Government officials, elected representatives, university scientists, government agencies, the United States Air Force, along with other branches of the military, the FAA, and other scientists were all contacted and the public was assured that all persistent contrails were “safe and normal”. The United States Air Force placed on its website the following statement:
A) Air Force Link - Environment.htm (1) “The "Chemtrail" Hoax: A hoax that has been around since1996, accuses the Air Force of being involved in spraying the US population with mysterioussubstances and shows various Air Force aircraft "releasing sprays" or generating unusual contrail patterns…The "Chemtrail" hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications…” (The U.S.Air Force has never released or identified the following: Which universities or scientific organizations conducted the research, what major media publications published these reports, which scientists conducted research, investigations or produced any actual reports orpublications.)
B) The United States Air Force has been writing letters to constituents of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, repeating this U.S. Air Force “Chemtrail hoax” information for years, without providingany direct information about their investigations. Thus, the U.S. Air Force has perpetrated,along with other government agencies and our elected officials, the idea that persistent jetcontrails and man-made cloud sightings are either a “hoax” or part of an Internet conspiracy theory. Thus, they created and perpetuated the illusion that persistent jet contrails are “normal and safe”. In so doing, they obscured and prevented public notification and Congressional investigations into the detrimental effects of man-made clouds on climate and agriculture (See:NASA & IPCC Studies). (42)
5) NASA and NOAA, along with other government agencies, assured everyone that persistent jet contrailswere normal and had been in evidence since 1919, prior to the invention of jet engines. These andother agencies denied any knowledge other than repeating that “Chemtrails” were a “hoax” or part of an“Internet Conspiracy Theory”. NASA, however, has diligently continued its persistent jet contrail and man-made cloud research which has shown that persistent jet contrails are causing climate change and exacerbating global warming (NASA & IPCC Studies). (4)
6) With government officials, the media, and our elected officials, armed with the misinformation thatpersistent contrails were “normal and benign” in the environment, all efforts to find out why these unusual sightings were occurring were stopped dead in their tracks. The media (whether television ornewspapers), ignored thousands of complaints, allowing our once deep blue skies to be turned intomassive jet-produced contrail configurations, white haze, reflective white particles, various types of man-made clouds, and other unusual formations with varied weather events. And the media, followingthe lead of the U.S. Air Force, linked questions about these events to “believers in conspiracy theories”.(1)
While these government diversions were being promoted, our once clear, deep blue skies became a rarity in many areas of the United States after the late 1980s, especially in the last fifteen years. The media deflected questions and real issues into disinformation hit pieces against those who raised questions regarding these real events, thereby exacerbating, and allowing to continue, the detrimental effects that man-made clouds are alleged to be having on agriculture, trees, human health, and climate.
7) The public, who used the word “Chemtrail” and questioned the increase in persistent jet contrails andman-made clouds, was marginalized by the United States Air Force into “hoax believers”. No real investigations were ever initiated in the ensuing years. Elected officials afraid that they would beridiculed if they disagreed with the U.S. Air Force, or used classified information on this subject, refusedto take any action. All efforts to find out why jets leaving contrails, that persisted and turn into man-made clouds, failed. The public could only prove the actual location, times, configurations, and dates of these jet produced events as they were taking place in the skies across the United States. (1)
8) NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration - U.S. Department of Commerce), in the 1980s, invented another perfect foil to finding out what was taking place in our skies. They initiated an “S’Cool” school education program on contrails, with contrail “count-a-thon” contests, to educate teachers and school children from K-12th grades, that persistent jet contrails were benign and normal. What better way to deflect any investigations than by teaching a whole new generation of children that persistent jet contrails are “normal” and that it is okay to produce man-made clouds that harm our environment. It should be noted that the persistence of jet contrails and man-made clouds are recent historical events – linked to the invention of the jet engine and its widespread use in the United States and around the world. (4)
9) In 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the Space Preservation Act, which used the word “Chemtrail”. This term was never defined within the legislation and this bill was never passed by Congress due to objections from the U.S. Department of Defense. Why? (8-9) Now, almost twenty years after the first reports of jets leaving persistent jet contrails, our electedofficials are still “dodging and weaving” when the subject of the negative impacts, associated with persistent jetcontrails and man-made clouds on our environment, is brought to their attention. The media has refused to doany in-depth investigations into the synergistic impacts of persistent jet contrails on global warming and climatechange. No current congressional legislation, which claims to be addressing climate change and globalwarming, has been introduced which would address this major cause of climate change and global warming.
-
Re: Chemtrails discussion moved
This is part 5 of a (very good) 7 part video on "Transhumanism". Part 5 connects the dots between chemtrails, nanotech, Morgellon's syndrome, smart meters and EMF, and possibly what's percieved as "alien implants". https://youtu.be/ct7z110T8j4
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
If you have been on the fence about
the existence of Chemtrails, this video
should settle the issue for you, once
and for all.
The first case involves three near head-on
collisions with a FedEx cargo jet, as the
pilot requests for permission to find an
altitude where he can evade them - only
to be faced with another near-miss.
Then, several other instances showing
massive gobs of dense material being
dumped from the wing ducts of KC-135
Tanker planes at commercial altitudes,
without the awareness of Air Traffic Control
are shown, including one hair-raising
daredevil stunt.
The obliviousness of ATC could have been
achieved if the military planes had shut off
their transponders. Also, it appears that the
Air Force planes were not detectable by radar.
Hands down, this is the best chemtrails footage
that I have ever seen!
Video (about 7 mins):
Chemtrail Pilots Cause Near Mid-Air Collisions
- Alexandra
P.S. Please share Forbidden Knowledge TV e-mails
and videos with your friends and colleagues.
That's how we grow. Thanks.
Alexandra Bruce
Publisher, ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.com
Daily Videos from the Edges of Science
Buy Books by Alexandra Bruce
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Chemtrails That Don't Exist Cost 5 Billion a Year To Produce
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t49zssrHy6A&feature=youtu.be
Published on Sep 6, 2012
The cost of a massive program to spray sun-dimming particles into the upper atmosphere in the name of halting global warming, a process some contend is already underway via chemtrails, has been put at just below $5 billion dollars a year.
U.S. scientists writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters concluded that "Planes or airships could carry sun-dimming materials high into the atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion a year as a way to slow climate change," reports Reuters, a process characterized as "both feasible and affordable."
The cost of using specially adapted aircraft able to operate at high altitudes as a delivery system to disperse sulphur particles was put at $1 to $2 billion a year. Using "giant guns or rockets" would be more expensive.
Co-author Professor Jay Apt of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh told Reuters that injecting the atmosphere with sulphur but then suddenly removing it from the eco-system could cause temperatures to jump, indicating that the program would have to be ongoing in perpetuity.
The study completely failed to analyze whether such a massive geoengineering program would be a good idea and what environmental consequences it would have.
https://www.infowars.com/cost-of-che...illion-a-year/
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:
Chemtrails That Don't Exist Cost 5 Billion a Year To Produce
...
The study completely failed to analyze whether such a massive geoengineering program would be a good idea and what environmental consequences it would have.
it's this kind of unnecessary addition that calls the credibility of the whole post into question. It's not hard to believe that the priorities of those who would engage in climate engineering are very far from those who are more interested in preserving a more "natural" balance of nature. However, it's ridiculous to imply that it never occurred to those involved that there may be environmental consequences that they didn't intend. Do you think they just have random ideas, and don't distinguish between "bad" and "good" but pick at random??
This is a real issue that's not being very well tracked, but it's a sideshow to the main problem: our political and economic systems are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to addressing long-term problems, whether it's an asteroid about to smash the earth (let's hope one's not coming soon, 'cause we won't be able to get our act together in time to deal with it), or our generation of pollution that causes not only global warming but a host of other health effects, or the continuing development of technologies that limit the need for human workers in the economy. These are big and slippery problems that call out for visionary leaders to provide solutions. Sadly that's not how the world works- solutions actually emerge from below, and leaders have only limited ability to influence events. So dramatic things happen evolutionarily and organically, not according to plan - and that means they happen without the level of control one might want.
This whole "chemtrail" nonsense is just noise; it's bundling several unrelated events and treating them as if they're part of one whole and integrated conspiracy. I'm sure there are some geo-engineering experiments going on, though if you look into it more widely you'll find that there are as many (well, maybe not "as many", the cranks put out a lot of verbiage) reports of people having regulatory problems with their programs as there are reports of secret experiments detected by amateur observers. The military has run secret experiments before as well. It's the blithe assumption that these are widespread, well coordinated, and done for an overarching but inscrutable nefarious purpose that is hardest to swallow.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Podfish, have YOU ever considered running for office? Please?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
it's this kind of unnecessary addition that calls the credibility of the whole post into question. It's not hard to believe that the priorities of those who would engage in climate engineering are very far from those who are more interested in preserving a more "natural" balance of nature. However, it's ridiculous to imply that it never occurred to those involved that there may be environmental consequences that they didn't intend. Do you think they just have random ideas, and don't distinguish between "bad" and "good" but pick at random??
This is a real issue that's not being very well tracked, but it's a sideshow to the main problem: our political and economic systems are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to addressing long-term problems, whether it's an asteroid about to smash the earth (let's hope one's not coming soon, 'cause we won't be able to get our act together in time to deal with it), or our generation of pollution that causes not only global warming but a host of other health effects, or the continuing development of technologies that limit the need for human workers in the economy. These are big and slippery problems that call out for visionary leaders to provide solutions. Sadly that's not how the world works- solutions actually emerge from below, and leaders have only limited ability to influence events. So dramatic things happen evolutionarily and organically, not according to plan - and that means they happen without the level of control one might want.
This whole "chemtrail" nonsense is just noise; it's bundling several unrelated events and treating them as if they're part of one whole and integrated conspiracy. I'm sure there are some geo-engineering experiments going on, though if you look into it more widely you'll find that there are as many (well, maybe not "as many", the cranks put out a lot of verbiage) reports of people having regulatory problems with their programs as there are reports of secret experiments detected by amateur observers. The military has run secret experiments before as well. It's the blithe assumption that these are widespread, well coordinated, and done for an overarching but inscrutable nefarious purpose that is hardest to swallow.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
It's the blithe assumption that these are widespread, well coordinated, and done for an overarching but inscrutable nefarious purpose that is hardest to swallow.
Yeah, I know it can be hard to swallow, but take the red pill and push play. Since this thread started the documentary, Why In the World Are They Spraying? came out. To sell more GMO seeds, that's why. To create extreme weather 5 days from now in the mid-west farming areas and create dependency on GMO seeds that can tolerate drought or flood. We get sprayed a lot on the W. coast as this seems to be a point of major influence of the jet stream.
I really hope you all take the time to watch one or both of these so we can get a groundswell of informed people who then can take action to end this parasitism.
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
They're vapor trails! Water! You are paranoid and delusional. It's water! Look it up.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
How many of you are aware that our skies look utterly changed? That they are now filled with "clouds" that are linear, streaked, feathered and FAKE? There is plenty of disinfo out there, plenty of debunkers, plenty of naysayers -- but anyone who is actually observing can easily see that our sky has been altered. And it's not just here, it's national, and it's global -- except in some countries where NATO has not inserted itself. I am very interested in getting together with other people in our community who are concerned about the effects of the aerosols in our sky, and how they are heating our atmosphere, contributing to our drought, harming our wild life, changing ourselves...... I also am capable of giving an introductory evening on this topic if there is interest out there. Just putting my toe in the water here.
I work closely with scientist and researcher Clifford Carnicom, the leading researcher on this topic, at Carnicom Institute. No, this ain't just water vapor.
Thanks so much, Kate Willens
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
You're not paranoid- it's really the epitome of out-of-control secret government and outright treason in the form of treaties and secret agreements outside of the laws of our Republic. Groups like the Tri-lateral commission and Council on Foreign Relations serve powers that have no care over the plight of America/ the united States.
As a (twice) decorated veteran of the USAF, I know the only way your going to get the top brass to go along with a program like project CLOVERLEAF aka Chemtrails is to lie- and make them believe they're saving the world from runaway global warming (complete BS). They now have in place a system to not only lower the life expectancy of the average human, but drastically reduce the fecundity rate in said population.
Plus, they get to play with their weather modification weapons such as HAARP and other NATO arrays and push around weather systems laced with ingredients that are reactive to EMF pulsing.
It's a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for We the People.
Furthermore, their past experiments on the population of this country have only been detrimental, and with only compartmentalized oversight from a small group of scientists there's no way they're going to understand all the variables.
The only way out of this is for insiders to be enlightened as to the true nature of the beast they serve and to come out en masse.
If they knew of all the children (including their own) playing under these aerosols, and all the elderly people fighting off constant illness brought about by these heavy metals maybe they could realize the only path to righteousness and Truth- which is to fight against deceit, untruth, greed, falseness.... the oldest fight.
You define who you are in this reality- and that definition lasts for eternity.
Such a short life- do they really want their existence to have been one tied to death and lies, harming the other entities manifesting in this realm? They better hope there is no God or judgement coming.
Even the Egyptians understood what a heavy/guilty heart led to in the afterlife-
The heart was fed to Maat- a dog-headed creature- and the soul was cast into NOTHINGNESS while the righteous went on through to the Duat and remanifested as a star in heaven...
Maat....here boy....(whistle whistle whistle)... Ive got some treats for you.......some souls not worthy of continued existence as they harmed the body of God instead of being beneficial creative loving energy.....
GOOD LUCK BROTHERS AND SISTERS. TAKE CARE OF EACHOTHER
Paul
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
oh good, this one's back. Link trading time again??
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/deb...l-physics.654/
and an excerpt from a post about GeoEngineering watch. (I've got too little patience for youtube)
=
Published on Jul 3, 2012
Geoengineering Watch is simply disinformation. They actively censor comments on their site which expose their bunk.
I noticed this article at the top of their main HAARP page:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/?p...
I thought I'd note it because it shows how sloppy and obviously bogus their brand of disinformation is, and to shed some light on Geoengineering Watch's lack of integrity. That article was first published on Pakalert Press by the way - however GW doesn't credit the original author:
https://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/05/...
I just wanted to highlight a couple of glaring instances of bunk. The first is an error in the HAARP acronym. HAARP is the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program, NOT the High Altitude Atmosphere Research Program as the article states. GW: If you're going to make up stories about HAARP at least get the acronym right. In addition, the article tries to make it sound like HAARP is the technical term for any ionospheric heater and that all IH's are part of some "HAARP network" when in fact it's simply the name of a specific research program associated with a specific phased array ionospheric heater located in Gakona, Alaska. It's really just another pathetic attempt to turn the name HAARP into some ominous catchphrase of conspiracy and doom.
The other instance of bunk is an attempt to pass off an image of the Vela Pulsar taken by the Chandra X-ray telescope as HAARP with a caption that states:
Incredible energy: HAARP high altitude energy burst
The caption should have been:
Chandra image of compact nebula around Vela pulsar. The image shows a dramatic bow-like structure at the leading edge of the cloud, or nebula, embedded in the Vela supernova remnant. This bow and the smaller one inside it, are thought to be the near edges of tilted rings of X-ray emission from high-energy particles produced by the central neutron star.
The next article is not simply bunk, it's a pack of lies. As is the distrail image that GW claims is a high energy vortex splitting the sky...
It seems GW are just repeating nonsense and BUNK from elsewhere.
There are many more GLARING hoaxes on Geoengineering Watch which I may post if I can be bothered...
Enjoy the video Dutchsinse! (another hoaxer)
========================================*=====
Note:
Fair Use allows you to make use of a pre-existing artistic work for purposes of education, training, news reporting, scientific research, critique or commentary, or parody. Material used here is used under "fair use", as non-profit, educational, and critical usage.
========================================*==
metabunk.org chemtrail discussions:
https://metabunk.org/forums/9-Contrail...
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
Hi Paul; thank you so much for writing. It lends validity to my post, validity that is sorely needed to convince people that something extraordinary and serious is truly going on. ...
Sorry Kate, but this particular dead horse has been beaten to nothingness on WACCO. I guess you are a newbie round these parts. Contrails, or condensation trails, because that's what they are, are a naturally occurring phenomenon when jets or propellor driven planes pass overhead at certain altitudes and under certain conditions. It's just that simple. Chemtrails are nothing more than a conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up but tinfoil hatted pseudo scientists and nutty conspiracy theorists.
Come on, do you really think a vast conspiracy backed and funded by the federal government, spanning decades, with several presidents of both parties on board and directing the spraying, has conspired to systematically poison the unwitting American public? And why, exactly? This notion is so ridiculous as to not warrant serious attention. So, find another dead horse to flog. This one has left this building.
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
Thank you! However, I don't think you will change anyone's mind. These people who believe this nonsense are nothing more than "chicken littles."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Sorry Kate, but this particular dead horse has been beaten to nothingness on WACCO. I guess you are a newbie round these parts. Contrails, or condensation trails, because that's what they are, are a naturally occurring phenomenon ...So, find another dead horse to flog. This one has left this building.
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
If Geoengineeringwatch.org got something wrong then they did. I'm not prepared to argue about it, nor trade barbs. So he got the acronym for HAARP wrong. Does that change its reality? Or the reality that our skies are now charged to carry its waves for all sorts of evil intents?
If you or anyone else is not of the belief that our skies are being trashed, then that's up to you. I'm not about to change your mind, nor is it my intent. My intent is simply to raise awareness about what I know is definitely occurring, not make good on anyone's info. I can vouch though for Clifford Carnicom's info, because I work with him, and I know he has the highest integrity of anyone I have ever known. Everyone has to come to their own decision on this issue.
Also, not sure what you are doing throwing metabunk's stuff around because metabunk is a paid shill, one of those I mentioned who is paid to put out crap to take people off the trail.
I put up links because I think they give more facts, faster. Also because if a person cannot be civil in their comment, then they don't deserve my reply.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
oh good, this one's back. Link trading time again??
....
-
Re: Aerosols in our Sonoma Sky aka "Chemtrails"
Soon, if we're lucky, Kate will let us in on the secret of Morgellons: how a few of us have little filaments made of heavy metals growing out of our bodies...the result of aerosol spraying in our skies. And how "geoengineers" are all about impoverishing regular folk and making them have fewer babies, and enriching themselves fabulously and secretly. And then how Facebook had it in for her and changed her photo...
I'm sorry. I really don't like it when someone devotes their time and energy to digging up dirt on another person, but I must confess to being morbidly fascinated with this, what borders on mass thought disorder. It's not quite delusion (except for the Morgellons).
Somehow the name "Carnicon" sounds like a description...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
If Geoengineeringwatch.org got something wrong then they did. ...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Not sure if you thought about this before your opening post Kate, but sorry if you thought the word 'conscious' in the wacco motto meant that people here tended to have open minds and make sure they look thoroughly and objectively at all evidence before spewing hard conclusions about controversial concepts that threaten their view of reality comfort zone.
Good thing they generally don't klll the messenger as much anymore. Many people realizing the world was round got themselves killed for 300 years for pointing to the evidence before acknowledgement had wound it's way into society.
I think it's very interesting that you work with Cliff. I have been aware of his very in depth research and documentation of the chemtrails subject for many, many years since the beginning and have great respect for him and his work. It appears he is one of the few in the field of controversial subjects who is meticulous about backing up his theories with evidence and data and laying all his findings on the table. Would you agree?
One of my questions has always been, because those propagating the spray cannot separate themselves or their cronies from the effects, how do they the view the fact that the various concoctions from chemical to nano are really also being sprayed on themselves/and the world they live in and their own future generations?
I know there are numerous specific agendas in place, as well as ongoing experimentation for future application. What is your opinion of what some of the already being implemented agendas are? Have you also found that any of the agendas are benevolent and addressing what they regard as undisclosable threats?
I would invite you to dinner if you don't want any further digital bullets, but I thank you for your boldness and fortitude to refuse to cower or deny something you know.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Nobody in this forum should be personally attacked for offering an idea for discussion (as long as it’s not blatantly racist or hateful). We can tolerate differing views. And, at the same time, if a claim is made with little or no solid evidence to back it up then there should also be an openness to having that claim challenged (in a non-personalized way).
I believe it’s important to keep an open mind and to be willing to look at evidence offered. And if someone makes a claim about something that is extremely scary (or most might say outlandish) then I also think there is an intellectual burden to provide at least some credible and solid evidence.
I’ve researched the chemtrails issue a fair amount and have yet to find any evidence I consider to be credible, including the shoddy “soil samples” argument that has been roundly discredited. Yet, I’m still willing to keep looking at new information that’s offered up, keeping mindful that sources and methodologies matter.
Thus, I decided to try one of the links offered in an earlier posting on this thread. I chose at random a video link, and since it was an hour-long talk I randomly fast forwarded a bit into the video to check it out. At the spot I landed on the speaker in the video, who appears to have no expertise in the field of atmospherics, was claiming that the difference between condensation vapor trails (contrails) and chemtrails was that contrails evaporate quickly while chemtrails spread out to form thin clouds, and that contrails don’t do that.
You can view this claim starting around the 4:00 mark here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzW5Kb8u0Og
I decided to try to confirm this claim that contrails can’t form cirrus clouds but evaporate quickly and so did a bit of quick research. I soon found that it is universally accepted among atmospheric scientists that jet condensation vapor trails can and often do spread out wide to form a thin layer of clouds.
Among the sources I found was a scientific paper written by Peter Kuhn of the Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Laboratory at the Environmental Science Services Administration in Boulder, CO and which was published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, linked here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...O%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Here is an excerpt:
“The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet”
And here’s the thing: this scientific paper was written in 1970, long before the issue of chemtrails arose. One can easily find literally hundreds of confirming scientific views on this. The phenomenon has been observed going back to WWII.
So what is one to think? My totally random sampling of the information presented revealed that the speaker in the video has an appalling lack of knowledge and clearly has no idea what she is talking about. Or otherwise is outright lying. I didn’t bother to click on any of the other links or watch the rest of the video as all credibility was instantly lost.
I suppose one can make the argument (and I suppose many do) that all of the hundreds if not thousands of atmospheric scientists who have spent their entire careers studying these things going back many decades are all part of an elaborate Government conspiracy, or have all been coerced by fear to lie. But that is where you loose me.
Condensation vapor trails from jets are clearly having an effect on the atmosphere and could likely be affecting the climate in some way. And there is no argument that there is occasional cloud seeding happening in some regions, and probably a few other occasional experiments of various kinds happening here and there. But that is a long way from what chemtrails proponents are claiming.
If one were to simply say this is my belief but I have no real evidence to back it up, that too is valid and there is no violation of intellectual integrity to be challenged.
There is some irony here in that while this discussion is going on we are openly and brazenly polluting the atmosphere with carbon which is heading us toward the end of civilization as we know it.
In the meantime, I’ll be keeping an open mind.
Scott
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
Not sure if you thought about this before your opening post Kate, but sorry if you thought the word 'conscious' in the wacco motto meant that people here tended to have open minds and make sure they look thoroughly and objectively at all evidence before spewing hard conclusions about controversial concepts that threaten their view of reality comfort zone.
thanks, Scott, for a substantive response. All I got is a wisecrack about gee, who does this post refer to?
'course, I don't accept the characterization as described here, despite my accepting residence in the comfortable zone with a few other Waccos. I think that the comfort zone's a pretty reality-oriented place, actually. and though I think I'm quite open-minded, apparently so do the people I think are too eagerly accepting weak arguments that support their own worldview.
I was reading something earlier today, regarding the frequency of arguments with studies being tossed from two opposing points of view, where the author pointed out that the next stage of the discussion should be to start analyzing the qualities of the studies, rather than heaping them into piles to see which is largest. Scott's small sample may not be statistically valid, but it would save us more casually interested folks a lot of time if someone pooled the harder-to-refute studies together. Also, remember the adage about proof-of-absence vs. absence-of-proof. No, the other one. You'd think (well, again, maybe not you) that someone behind this conspiracy would slip in a way that leaves obvious irrefutable traces, eliminating the need to make weak or provably spurious arguments, like the cirrus-sheet claim Scott mentions.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
...arguments with studies being tossed from two opposing points of view, where the author pointed out that the next stage of the discussion should be to start analyzing the qualities of the studies, rather than heaping them into piles to see which is largest.
Ideally you do both. First you find out (from some trusted source with real expertise on the specific subject and no obvious conflicts of interest), which of the studies were properly designed, conducted, and interpreted, then you find out what the consensus among those studies is, if any. What we often see is people proffering whatever studies support their bias and ignoring the others. If there are 87 good studies contradicting the results of their favorite three studies, they don't want to know it. If you point out that the proponderance of the evidence doesn't support their position, be ready to duck.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Dear Alexia,
How kind of you to write. This is certainly feeling like being a lamb among wolves, or casting pearls before swine. For some reason my email didn't give me your post.
I'm so glad you are familiar with Clifford's impeccable work. Your question is one everyone raises, and it is a good one. According to Clifford who's background is in geodesy at the DoD, this program has 7 different levels of application. These are:
1. Modification and control of weather and the environment
2. Electromagnetic operations
3. Military operations
4. Biological operations
5. Planetary and geophysical change
6. Sophisticated surveillance systems
7. Ionic disturbance detection
Clifford was astounded when, in viewing an environmental sample of aerosol fallout, he found dessicated erythrocytes (red blood cells). What were biological organisms doing in such fallout? He found this repeatedly in continued examination of fallout. This put him on the track of biological manipulation. He has since isolated the the bioengineered organism which self-replicates, producing filaments which is now in our food and water supply, as well as our air. For those interested in viewing on film the production of these filaments, they may now do so by going to his site, and viewing the current papers. I do not pretend to know why the devils concocting this crap are poisoning their own children. Clearly their view of the future of life on earth -- the synthetic timeline -- as Laura Eisenhower and others have referred to it --- involves manipulation not only of our food supply, but of the eaters of that supply. Us, and all mammalian life. But this reality is too frightening for the deniers of the obvious as the nose on our faces changes in our skies. To them, the simple notion that "contrails persist because of changes in the atmosphere" suffices. And yet, they consider themselves geniuses, and even warned me to stay off of this subject because they are simply too intelligent!
Anyone that is sensitive to nature, to the skies, to light, anyone that observes can find "proof" of the heinous reality of this program. Anyone that prefers denial can find proof of that also in the work of metabunk, or any of the other phony "contrail" science intentionally put out to catch those who are not willing to put in the time to do serious research, because they find the notion of such a program preposterous. It certainly is that. But so was 9/11. Anyone that does serious investigation into 9/11 and into the Kennedy assassination, is aware that our government has, in fact, turned against its own people.
Thank you again Alexia. Best wishes, Kate
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:
...I think it's very interesting that you work with Cliff. I have been aware of his very in depth research and documentation of the chemtrails subject for many, many years since the beginning and have great respect for him and his work. ...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
I keep thinking about the title of the first post--with "unbiased" in quotes. shoulda paid attention.
kathy
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
My post to this forum was for the purpose of finding others who also are aware of what is taking place in our skies, not to convince anyone who already has their mind made up because they know better, and who ridicule anyone who thinks differently. ...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
for those who still are curious about the pull of this issue, here's yet another link. But this one is interesting because it addresses what is to me the most interesting part of the whole subject: where do these things (chemtrails, morgellons, 911-truthers, etc) come from and what kind of world do the believers live in, where these issues resonate more than the 'mainstream' ones like corporate control of our political system, or the disfunction of our medical and other social services? How did these subjects catch their attention to such a degree? I suppose this counts as a link to a debunker, but it's really a history:
https://swallowingthecamel.wordpress...mtrail-events/
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
This was sent to me anonymously by a knowledgable and concerned citizen. I am posting it accordingly.
"Ive been monitoring this forum and Ive been waiting for the perfect time to have people go out and look up-As of 10:00am May 7th 2014 there were no visible contrails or chemtrails in the sky despite certain aircraft passing-
then suddenly, if you look above the Cloverdale area, 4 4-engine white kc135 fly over along strange vectors none along the same route- now the "contrails are spreading slowly across the sky-
This is a "marking" of the area for further spraying all afternoon (skies were clear for the last few days).
If you pay close attention, you'll see weather events magnified in the eastern half of the country as this zone above Sonoma County is the right place to draw in weather that would otherwise go to far North."
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
This was sent to me anonymously...
If you pay close attention, you'll see weather events magnified in the eastern half of the country as this zone above Sonoma County is the right place to draw in weather that would otherwise go to far North."
thanks for the start of a concrete prediction. I'm not sure why it has to be anonymous... but anyway, can you explain "magnified weather events" a bit more? And how to tell it's not what was going to happen anyway? Sounds like you're trying to address the request for evidence-based claims. Accurate predictions, especially when they're of unlikely events, really are the best way to convince people.
and not to move the goalposts when we've just started - but weather modification is the least controversial part of the chemtrail claims. Mind control is at the other end, at least to me, but claims of poisoning are also unlikely to us skeptics. A fulfilled prediction of unexpected hospital admissions would be much more compelling evidence than a rainstorm, for example.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
The operation is multi-leveled as I explained in a prior post; weather modification is part of the goal. That is why we are in a drought. I will have to wait to hear from the expert who asked me to post. Best advice however is to watch the sky. Watch the feathered and gauzy cloudlike substance move to cover and whiten our sky.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
...and not to move the goalposts when we've just started - but weather modification is the least controversial part of the chemtrail claims. Mind control is at the other end, at least to me, but claims of poisoning are also unlikely to us skeptics. A fulfilled prediction of unexpected hospital admissions would be much more compelling evidence than a rainstorm, for example.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
My hope is that we can do without all the insults at each other. It really degrades the quality of the conversation. (Admittedly, I can't say I have a perfect record with this myself.) By either calling people "chicken littles" on one side, or "deniers" on the other, the use of pejorative language to describe those who advocate a different position ("pearls before swine", etc.) isn't particularly helpful.
On either extreme there are entrenched belief systems that lash out when one's worldview is challenged. There is a middle position of being open minded and using critical thinking skills to evaluate the quality of evidence objectively. (There is also a difference between having some healthy skepticism about a particular issue, which allows for some open mindedness and honest inquiry, and being a "skeptic" who tends to have knee-jerk negative reactions about all such things and to not be so open minded.)
People offering up information for review, and also those who honestly evaluate the quality of that information, don't deserve to be attacked with insults. It is not a personal attack to critique evidence presented. Nor is it even a direct response to the intent of a posting of evidence, even if that intent is not to convince anyone. There is no need to get defensive. It is simply commenting on the quality of information that has been presented to this community.
I'm not looking for "proof" (a term I didn't use and is too high a bar anyway) but I am looking for quality, gold-standard evidence. Dixon pointed to the kind of information I think most of us are looking for. It's not that information put out by amateur advocates has no value, as it can serve to raise questions. But to really change the paradigm of what we know collectively to be true it needs to be at a higher standard.
I see information offered that is from writers, former politicians, biased advocates, etc. -- all non-experts in the field. For example, in one of the titles of new evidence presented I see: "Don't confuse this with contrails. Those are harmless condensation trails that are only visible for a few seconds. On the other hand chemtrails are clouds of chemicals." The source: a former town mayor from Belgium. Does being a former mayor qualify one as a reliable source? Atmospheric science (for many decades -- see my previous posting) tells us that is just flat wrong. Am I being a close-minded "denier" by questioning such evidence? According to his bio, Clifford Carnicom is a computer consultant and bookkeeping specialist with degrees in surveying and forest engineering and with no significant background in any directly relevant field.
I'm just finding it difficult to take this stuff seriously.
For those of us in the middle who seek high quality information and want to know that truth, can anyone offer up any serious scientific paper, or gold-standard study, or ANYTHING done by serious atmospheric scientists, or ANY reputable, non-biased scientific institution, or scientific body, or academic institution, or scientific publication or journal that supports the existence of chemtrails? It would be appreciated. For me, YouTube videos by amateurs talking about something outside their immediate field of expertise, or by ex-politicians, or websites created by advocate organizations and bloggers just don't carry much weight. With those we get things like, "condensation trails are only visible for a few seconds".
I hope I won't now be called a close-minded denier for asking for such a thing.
Scott
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
The operation is multi-leveled as I explained in a prior post; weather modification is part of the goal. That is why we are in a drought. I will have to wait to hear from the expert who asked me to post. Best advice however is to watch the sky. Watch the feathered and gauzy cloudlike substance move to cover and whiten our sky.
Gee Kate, when you told me you weren't going to waste your time with wacco, I thought we had seen the last of you, but maybe your asbestos pants are on fire. Why don't you tell us about all the other conspiracy theories you hold to be God's truth? Ya know, like Bush planned 911, the Rothchilds, Trilateral commission, bigfoot. But chemtrails (lol) have been put to rest here a while back. I'm gonna call on Jay Reynolds to set us straight again. Before I do why not post that laughable link debunking Reynolds.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson admitting to "Chemtrail" Aerosols:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cxX...g&noredirect=1
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson admitting to "Chemtrail" Aerosols:
Really? Ted Gunderson of all people? You're disappointing me here.
From Ted Gunderson's Wikipedia page:
It gets much worse if you Google him.
Scott
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
This is a good link and correlates with our independently researched article:
The Unsavory Origins of Chemtrails (by Peggy Day)
Our article was written from an objective place, with no agenda or prior point of view, and was a surprise to Peggy.
I look forward to Kate's reply.
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
How funny! totally forgot that post; I'm even in the list of commentors following it! see, that's why I'm not writing my own posts with lots of marshalled facts and references - I sure couldn't do it from memory so the burden of research gets big quick. I'll stick with generic commentary on the quality of argument. That's reliant on a different set of brain functions. Opinion pieces vs. journalism, maybe...
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
...you might actually take the time to examine Mr. Carnicom's research as I have said repeatedly. If you keep asking for serious examples of research but only go to the fourth minute of a video posted, then it is your loss. Here is the link once again:
https://www.carnicominstitute.org/ht...s_by_date.html
Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.
But we are now going round and round. There is the claim that only chemtrails can spread out to form clouds as being the best evidence of the existence of chemtrails. But we know that regular jet contrails do that, as documented in legitimate scientific research and observation going back to at least 1970, really back to WWII.
The Carnicom "Institute" is obviously just that one guy. By looking at his "studies" it is clear he is an amateur working alone and he does not come close to following scientific protocols. The Carnicom website is all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons" which are engineered filaments of some sort being intentionally sprayed on the population to make people sick.
From Wikipedia about Morgellons:
Morgellons (also called
Morgellons disease or
Morgellons syndrome) is a name given to a condition in 2002 by Mary Leitao
[1] in which sufferers have the
delusional belief that they are infested with disease-causing agents described as things like insects, parasites, hairs or fibers, but in reality no such things are present.
[2]
We're now in Ted Gunderson territory here.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:
Anyone that sticks their neck out on this issue is either disappeared, or has their career ruined, and reputation tarnished,
I don't subscribe to the idea that there is and has been an unbelievably massive and complicated Government (or shadow government or whatever) conspiracy going back at least 40 years that has successfully silenced all atmospheric scientists and other experts in the field from telling the truth out of fear of being disappeared or having their careers ruined.
Whenever I've gone down the chemtrails rabbit hole, this is the kind of stuff I find at the bottom.
I think I'll go back up to the surface for some air.
Scott
-
Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
>>> Please bear in mind: this is a clandestine operation. You are not going to find peer reviewed gold standard articles. Anyone that sticks their neck out on this issue is either disappeared, or has their career ruined, and reputation tarnished, as is obvious from my simple plea to raise awareness. You will need to do your own observing and serious research. No one is going to hand you the evidence clearly because clear evidence as far as a criminal operation is not going to be had.
I have no opinion pro or con about chemtrails, as I don't anticipate having the capacity of shooting down planes. But please think about the implications of this thread of the argument. If all qualified scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals are either in the pay of dark forces or under threat of being disappeared, then it should be evident, if we accept this premise, that climate change is a vast hoax, likewise the spread of carcinogens, the extinction of species, the dangers of air pollution or acidification of the oceans ... add your own hoax to the mix. The Koch brothers will bless this logic.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
