German TV exposes chemtrails

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

worth quoting

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:09 am

Hi all: In rereading this morning the Bob Fitrakis article I originally read in 2001, I thought it was worth quoting some of it:

A scientist working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who insisted on anonymity, told Columbus Alive that two different secret projects have been conducted. One involved cloud creation experiments to lessen the effect of global warming. The other involved radiation reflection off clouds in conjunction with the military's High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska.

The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminum oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that's aluminum oxide, according to the scientist. The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming.

In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of "high-tech 3-D radar imaging. The barium can be used for a 'wire' to shoot an electromagnetic beam through to take 3-D images of the ground far over the horizon," according to the scientist.

Thomas, writing in the November-December 2001 issue of NEXUS New Times magazine, essentially confirmed this assessment of the activities at the Dayton air base. "The barium spread in exercises conducted out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base acts as an electrolyte, enhancing conductivity of radar and radio waves," Thomas reported. "Wright-Pat has also long been deeply engaged in HAARP's electromagnetic warfare program."

Ken Caldeira, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs and one of the country's leading experts on weather modification, conducted the original computer modeling for the use of aluminum oxide to fight global warming. He told Columbus Alive, "We originally did this study to show that this program [using massive spraying for weather modification] shouldn't be done," due to negative health effects. Caldeira said there are persistent rumors that the Bush administration will announce geo-engineering weather modification projects this spring. Caldeira sees this as "political suicide."


http://snipurl.com/387tg

Note that I don't necessarily think it was a journalistically good idea to refer to an article in NEXUS magazine, but didn't want to not include the info. Also, the announcement of the "mirror dust" or whatever it's called happened later than 2002 -- actually, it was January 2007 (see here: http://tinyurl.com/2gwwnl ) and obviously it wasn't "political suicide."

I take it all as a FWIW... I suggest readers do the same. But don't be surprised if it all turns out to be true, I guess I'd say.
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: worth quoting

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:27 am

Fat Lady Singing wrote:
Note that I don't necessarily think it was a journalistically good idea to refer to an article in NEXUS magazine, but didn't want to not include the info.


Duncan may be a paranoid nutcase (I've met him - he is) but overall and considering its content Nexus is actually pretty good. There is a lot of crap, but there is also a lot of good stuff in there. I've got most of the first 6 volumes and here's alot of stuff in there thats turned out to be true.

If you ignore anything they print on UFOs or from former US intelligence sources, and read the rest its pretty good.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: worth quoting

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:32 am

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Fat Lady Singing wrote:
Note that I don't necessarily think it was a journalistically good idea to refer to an article in NEXUS magazine, but didn't want to not include the info.


Duncan may be a paranoid nutcase (I've met him - he is) but overall and considering its content Nexus is actually pretty good. There is a lot of crap, but there is also a lot of good stuff in there. I've got most of the first 6 volumes and here's alot of stuff in there thats turned out to be true.

If you ignore anything they print on UFOs or from former US intelligence sources, and read the rest its pretty good.


Hi Joe: I don't doubt it. I've read some interesting things in NEXUS. It just doesn't add to Fitrakis' journalistic authority to quote it, is all. Nothing against the magazine...
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:51 am

Fair enough. Thats a good call.

That mag cops a fair bit of shite for being ridiculous, and some of it is deserved, but I always end up on a high horse about it - something to do with baby's and bathwater.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:14 pm

Yesterday..

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Today
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:41 pm

What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

'The 11th Hour' sneaks one in.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:57 pm

A chemtrail is shown with a following comment that deceives the viewer into thinking it is merely a contrail in a global warming documentary with *spook* stamped all over it made 'for youth' called 'The 11th Hour' (narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio!) .

Loved the comments from ex-CIA Director and uber-fascist, James Woolsey.
This film is another part of the media psyops campaign Al Gore fronts.
Image

http://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/

All the talking heads are barely identified because the onscreen text is tiny so the young viewer is left with sort of MTV heuristic impressions, just like sneaking in that chemtrail to normalize it with young'uns.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:58 pm

Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?


That's what I am leaning more and more toward and tried to voice earlier in this thread.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

problem?

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:59 pm

Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?


Hi Jeff: I don't know if what I saw could be classified as a "problem" or not, really. Perhaps the worst that could be said of the grid is that it was unsightly.

What I saw was a hundred times more clear, neat, and obvious than any of the pictures posted on this thread -- that's what I meant when I described it as "blatant." No disrespect intended toward the people posting pictures, but the pictures are, to my eyes, open to interpretation. What I saw absolutely was not. The clarity and perfection of the grid was astonishing. I don't know if that's a function of actually being there to see it as it formed, or the inadequacy of cameras to capture such events, or whether it's because the event in the sky I and my husband witnessed was qualitatively different from what's pictured in this thread.

Again, I saw the jets creating the grid, so it was definitely a process going on, rather than any kind of product I saw traces of later.

Honestly, if it is some kind of government program to forestall or reverse global warming, I'm not going to feel too bad about it, secret or not, as long as whatever is in the air that happens to fall to the ground isn't more dangerous to the population than global warming itself. I'm sure that would have some RI members aghast... and I'm a little surprised, myself, to see those words coming from my keyboard. I guess I'd prefer to think we're doing *something* about global warming -- that is, something more than continually contributing to it.
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:06 pm

Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?


Image
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:27 pm

The pictures I posted on this thread are a fairly accurate representation of my own observations of everyday causes and effects. I cannot and will not bear any legal, moral or otherwise responsiblity for anothers interpretations whether agreeable or not.
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:41 pm

Seamus OBlimey wrote:The pictures I posted on this thread are a fairly accurate representation of my own observations of everyday causes and effects. I cannot and will not bear any legal, moral or otherwise responsiblity for anothers interpretations whether agreeable or not.


Er, Seamus, really and truly I didn't intend to say that you didn't capture pictures of something unusual going on in the sky. What I mean by "open to interpretation" is that the streaks you (and others) have captured are a bit fuzzy and indistinct, whereas what I saw was striking in its precision and was a clear and obvious pattern over the entire sky.

Which is not to say that you haven't got pictures of something remarkable, or that what I saw in some way was "better" -- not at all. Just that what you've seen is *different* from what I've seen. My best guess would be that they were two different types of events, perhaps the two different types of trails as described by Fitrakis, who I quoted above.

Also, I'm hoping your comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, or I'll sue!
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:45 pm

Jeff wrote:What if, when we look in the sky and notice things have changed, we're seeing the effect, rather than the cause? What if "chemtrails"/"persistent contrails" are not the problem, so much as the atmospheric medium they're suspended in?


This is what I've been trying(admittedly a little hot-headedly) to suggest to people for years.

gongfu, you are correct, discussion for discussion's sake is indeed a good thing and nothing I'd ever wish to stamp out, but there's a dynamic at work here where once a person believes their being 'poisoned', they really fly off into the deep end and all the sudden the world is 1,000 shades blacker.

Its black enough, dude. My darkest days literally were when I was a 'chemmie'. Peace of mind was literally impossible and I hesitated to draw breath outside for fear of what I was consuming.

As Joe said, I am convinced when a person sees a persistent contrail they are observing a localized supersaturation state.

I defer you to the IPCC's Aviation and the Global Climate, as I've done over and over here and elsewhere the last 4 years.

I don't seek to discourage you from learning as much about this as you can, but I do strongly believe we are observing a reaction, not an action.

We've fucked the Climate, man. We all know this. 'Chemtrail's are just one of many symptoms. There's literature all over the net(VALID, sourced, and verified by peer research scientists, not backyard Orgonites with their Cloud Go Buh Bye Towers.

The stuff's out there; go and grab it. Have a good look in the NAP; there's paper after paper on it. If you search for chemtrails and my name here, you'll find many links that might prove a valuable read for you.

Did you know that astronomers have predicted that by 2050 we won't be able to use ground-based telescopes anymore? This is because what you call a chemtrail fans out into artificial cirrus. This is a cumulative process that only aggravates itself as the years go by. I've posted image maps of current artificial cloud cover and 2050 projections by the IPCC.

You'll likely be shocked by what you see.

Cirrus Uncinus(the scientific name for artificial cirrus) acts as a barrier for keeping infrared heat dissipating off the Earth's surface. In other words, it accelerates warming. Realizing this was the coffin nail in my own belief in a spraying program.

Its not a spraying agenda; they contemplated that in a commissioned report for the US Government more than 15 years ago you can find in the NAP archives. There's several mitigation plans, spraying included, and these plans came to nothing.

There IS spraying, though.

Like bug spraying, and stuff.

heh.

Carry on, guys. I didn't mean to be an asshole yesterday, but I've been about as far to the bottom of this hole as one can get. Joe's been there in parallel arriving at the same conclusions as I did, but we never met till RI.

Joe's a smart guy; smart as they come. If you think I'm a dickhead and that disqualifies my opinion, consider what he says instead.
"but I do know that you should remove my full name from your sig. Dig?" - Unnamed, Super Scary Persun, bbrrrrr....
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:32 pm

Fat Lady Singing wrote:a bit fuzzy and indistinct


Here http://www.flickr.com/groups/oureye/

Fat Lady Singing wrote:My best guess would be that they were two different types of events


Of course, yours was a one-off and mine was everyday.

Fat Lady Singing wrote:Also, I'm hoping your comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, or I'll sue!


I have a big tongue.
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:54 pm

Seamus OBlimey wrote:I have a big tongue.


My tongue is bigger than yours, so n'yah n'yah n'yah!
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BenDhyan and 41 guests