It's not just confirmation bias, it's "priming". My mind is predisposed to notice 3.14 due to my interest in math.
I'm also greatly predisposed to notice contrails, black lines in the sky, sidewalk gum, and now, unfortunately, suspiciously attentive cats.
Since i met you guys on this forum i ALWAYS look to the sky when i step outside.
Until i have my cats x-rayed I'm exercising my right to remain silent.
OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.
This was only repealed in 1997 . . .
Section 1520. Repealed. Pub. L. 105-85, Div. A, Title X, Sec. 1078(G), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916, And Pub. L. 105-277, Div. I, Title Vi, Sec. 601, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-886 . . . http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/32
So which theory are you suggesting here? A) Minor change in commercial fuel, or B) wholesale direct spraying by a secret fleet of unmarked tankers?4. Are thereunidentified Aircraft that fly daily which the public has no information about their mission,goals, flight path, altitude or purpose? . . . Yes
5. Do these unidentified Aircraft sometime leave persistentTrails? . . . Yes
And yes, they do have to know a fair amount about how the mechanical specifications of an aircraft. One can not get type rated as a captain, without a lengthy oral exam over those specifications and systems, and that is before an aircraft flight test, which will always simulate an emergency of some kind, on any particular system.
They do not just let someone have a type rating on an aircraft and put them in the left seat, unless they can show a high level of knowledge of that aircraft, its systems and those specifications/limitations on its performance.
I am guessing that you do not have any photos at all of your chemtrail planes, do you? Its been 14 years since Will Thomas starting pimping chemtrails to sell books. You would think that at some point, someone would have had a good photograph of one
(with exceptions, requiring informed consent)(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract) -
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agenton human subjects.
And what does that have to do with chemtrails? You think chemtrails are a chemical weapon test? Or is it just evidence of the government being bad (but totally upfront about it)?
Last edited by Mick; February 18th, 2012 at 09:52 AM.
geoengineering community if you will the use of commercial air with the high efficiency engines through policy to not to mitigate persistent contrails alone may be enough to experiment with global dimming. . . another strategy which could be simultaneous with the first is to increase the amount of sulfur compounds in the stratosphere via spiking jet fuel with enough sulfur to make a difference but not change performance characteristics. . . Would be some where around 1% of the fuel
volume . . . Still another strategy is a few modified decommissioned aircraft to dump a bolus of particulates, aerosols, or gases in areas where the prevailing winds and jet streams can disperse them. ..
Many smaller regional experimentations can be ongoing as well. . .
So you think the evidence indicates that lots of different types of operations are going on?
Seems a bit vague - basically "something" is happening, that might be connected with more people noticing contrails? Is that about it?
Do you think there is any evidence that fuel is being spiked? If so, do you think the goal is to produce more contrails, or to distributed some substance?
Do you think there's any evidence supporting the "few modified decommissioned aircraft" being responsible for the uptick in contrail sightings?
What is a decommissioned aircraft? If it is out of commission, how can it be flying?
This is like Roxy Lopez claim that the stored and disassembled aircraft in Marana, are secret chemtrail planes.
And again, the chemtrail hoax has been going on for 14+ years. Is there a single photo of a chemplane?
Last edited by firepilot; February 18th, 2012 at 10:48 AM.
That is easy . . . they knew the public was going to become aware of the released issues by Congressional testimony in 1994-1997 so they changed the law to reflect their new saintly revelation . . . they only do thing which are necessary . . .and by- the - way, it does not keep them or mercenaries from engaging in illegal activities .. . in fact, most of what there are doing is not illegal . . . and when in rare cases they have been caught the Supreme Court has held they cannot be held liable for any damage, civil or criminal . .
Last edited by George B; February 18th, 2012 at 10:50 AM. Reason: spacing
decommissioned aircraft could be refurbished and flown in similar fashion . . .
Anything is possible. How likely do you think it it?
If you were to bet $100, what odds would you want? You think an even bet would likely make you money? Or would you ask for 10:1? Would you give me favorable odds?
Again, where are photographs of aircraft? Can you find a single picture of an aircraft that you deem to be suspicious?
No . . . IMHO, visibility has very little to do with the aerosol injection process . . . it is coincidental, possibly related in some situations . . . the uptick is almost likely entirely based on the policy to not mitigate persistent trails from high efficiency engines and the combined result of an increase in long haul high altitude flights over highly populated areas . . . as well as their higher likelihood of producing persistent trails in suboptimal air and thus higher rates of cirrus cloud banks . . .
Planes can not just stay up high forever, they have to takeoff from an airport, climb out, and at the end of the flight, descend back in for landing. There are probably millions of photos on airliners.net of aircraft, including military aircraft.
You are still just guessing and speculating. You have no evidence of the existence of these aircraft, no photos of them, and no idea of airports. At least Roxy Lopez drove around Marana taking photos, of course she insists that those stored and disassembled aircraft are chemtrail planes, and that the ANG AH-64 Apaches are black helicopters.
Hard to believe in 14 years, there has not been a single chemplane photograph. Not hard to believe, than everytime a chemtrail believer put forth a pic of a plane they think is one, it never is.
Well, natural aerosol injection need not be visible either...
But where does your belief originate? If not because of the visible trails...what? Why do you think airplanes are spraying anything? You have said that when "they spray"...it may not increase the amount/concentration of whatever they are spraying...and one doesn't need to SEE anything..so, what are the symptoms? The contrail cirrus? increased air traffic? Claims about "geoengineering" you have read about online?
George, are you going to tell these nice people that you also classify fire fighting/defolients/insect control as "chemtrails"?
I ask because I'm curious...are these procedures the same as "aerosol injection" or are the classified differently...by you?
Last edited by Noble1965; February 18th, 2012 at 11:27 AM.
Of course I would want my best chance of winning . . .what I am trying to communicate is that the concept of intentional aerosolinjection is complex and covert . . . the evidence is well hidden and camouflaged. . . there is no single piece of circumstantial evidence that would or shouldconvince anyone of a conspiracy . . . however, taken in total . . . the wholepicture together . . . along with history, capability, opportunity, humannature, budget, scientific research, Congressional Testimony, Law and Treatiesand yes even whistleblowers and my own experiences within the system . . . I am convinced there is a high likelihoodthat something out there exists . . . Iwill share additional evidence as I can . . . right now I am very tired . . . Iwill engage after I rest . . .
Chemtrails are: particulates, aerosols, and other substances released at altitude (usually by aircraft) and without the consent or knowledge of the vast majority of the population for purposes the people are not aware of and for goals they may or may not agree with. The trails may or may not be visible and they may or may not be visualized by radar or other technologies (i.e. lasers). When seen from the ground, at altitude or from space they may appear similar to persistent contrails. NOTE: Chemtrails in effect are indistinguishable from and are sometimes actually contrails.
Last edited by George B; February 18th, 2012 at 11:37 AM. Reason: spacing
And are you aware that aerosols and similar particles, generally DO NOT show up on radar? Its for the same reason that clouds and fog do not show up either. But that insects and birds can...
Is it "intentional" that every source of combustion at ground level is doing the exact same thing?
Yes, I understand that it bothers you that it's happening at higher altitudes...but, what occurs down here can end up at altitude also. Even if someone sampled the air up there...there isn't any guarantee that whatever they find comes from airplanes. OR, is intentional.
Actually, it's just consent...
You have knowledge that "they" are putting combustion gases and water vapor into the air. I guess it's just the "consent" part that bothers you. I'm sure they feel really bad about not getting your permission...But, majority rules. And they have the premission of most of the people on the planet. Unless you want it in writing...maybe you should suggest that to the airlines.
Last edited by Noble1965; February 18th, 2012 at 11:52 AM.
Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)
FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
Can I block my aircraft on FlightAware? (Back to top)
Yes, there are two ways to accomplish this:
FlightAware Selective (Un)blocking
Enroll in FlightAware's selective unblocking service for a tail number that is not already blocked.*
FlightAware can process your request with next-day service and will block your operations from the general public. Your FlightAware account(s) will continue to be able to securely view and track your aircraft. FlightAware will complete the paperwork necessary for blocking your aircraft on other flight tracking services and will provide you with everything you need to accomplish the block.
Blocking request through NBAA BARR
The NBAA (National Business Aviation Association) operates and maintains the BARR (Blocked Aircraft Registration Request) in conjunction with the FAA. This service is free although it may take 30-45 days to take effect and will not allow your user account to track your aircraft on FlightAware unless you subscribe to FlightAware's selective unblocking service.*
For us to submit your request, simply contact us to walk you through the process.
The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. It establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date promoting openness and transparency of military forces and activities. The concept of "mutual aerial observation" was initially proposed to Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin at the Geneva Conference of 1955 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower; however, the Soviets promptly rejected the concept and it lay dormant for several years. The treaty was eventually signed as an initiative of US president (and former Director of Central Intelligence) George H. W. Bush in 1989. Negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the agreement was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992.
over the UK in 2009. . . And according to NASA this type of complex has been observed over the US as well. . . The question to me is did these reactions also occur before the new technology was introduced. . . . http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02r...ywood09JGR.pdf
Last edited by George B; February 18th, 2012 at 02:48 PM. Reason: Changed date