I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[lee h oswald]

I am out in the sun. I'm just replying to posts when I pop in from fixing my fence.

But this isn't about me, is it?

Ofcourse it's all about you - this whole deal is all about Mick - you created it! This is MetaMick.com. Your site, your rules, your fence, your definition of politeness, your 'new thanks', your 'three chances to answer my question or you're banned rule'....could it be more metamick? To think otherwise could be...elliptical

[lee h oswald]

I am out in the sun. I'm just replying to posts when I pop in from fixing my fence.

But this isn't about me, is it?

Metamick.org. Nah, it couldn't be about you.

[Noble1965]

Ok. You said this: Fact, there has been no increased level of ANYTHING associated with any trails in the sky.

I say this: There has been a marked increase in the creation of cirrus-like cloud cover directly from aviation (jet trails).

I'm not really sure why you're now bringing aluminium into it.

The clouds are caused by the water vapor I already mentioned. The clouds are contrail cirrus. These clouds were in the sky when I was a kid, as they are now...there are more of them. That's increased instance, not an increased "level". IT's obvious I was referring to the claims of elements/chemicals. It's also obvious you are being pedantic only to be argumentative. Don't you actually care about the truth in this matter? Or do you care more about the argument?

I brought aluminum into it because of your cryptic reference to it above. "This is in direct conflict with your statement and your chat above about aluminium and all that is just guessing, isn't it?" I honestly had no idea what you meant, but I thought maybe you were towing the chemmie line. Frankly, I don't care because either way, it's irrelevant.

Yeah...the "level" of clouds...has increased...Sheesh! And it's obviously intentional...More sheesh...

You sure owned me there...my apologies for my misstep.

And trust me..I know aluminum has nothing to do with this...I just couldn't figure out why YOU brought it into this discussion...nor do I actually care.

[lee h oswald]

The clouds are caused by the water vapor I already mentioned. The clouds are contrail cirrus. These clouds were in the sky when I was a kid, as they are now...there are more of them. That's increased instance, not an increased "level". IT's obvious I was referring to the claims of elements/chemicals. It's also obvious you are being pedantic only to be argumentative. Don't you actually care about the truth in this matter? Or do you care more about the argument?

I brought aluminum into it because of your cryptic reference to it above. "This is in direct conflict with your statement and your chat above about aluminium and all that is just guessing, isn't it?" I honestly had no idea what you meant, but I thought maybe you were towing the chemmie line. Frankly, I don't care because either way, it's irrelevant.

Yeah...the "level" of clouds...has increased...Sheesh! And it's obviously intentional...More sheesh...

You sure owned me there...my apologies for my misstep.

And trust me..I know aluminum has nothing to do with this...I just couldn't figure out why YOU brought it into this discussion...nor do I actually care.

Just to clarify: it was Mick who brought aluminium into it initially when he answered my question to you for you, there was nothing cryptic about it.

At risk of being accused of pedantry, for asking a question, you said this: The clouds are caused by the water vapor I already mentioned. The clouds are contrail cirrus.

Water vapour alone does not cause clouds. maybe you need to go back to cloud school?

Mick? Care to help?

[Noble1965]

Just to clarify: it was Mick who brought aluminium into it initially when he answered my question to you for you, there was nothing cryptic about it.

At risk of being accused of pedantry, for asking a question, you said this: The clouds are caused by the water vapor I already mentioned. The clouds are contrail cirrus.

Water vapour alone does not cause clouds. maybe you need to go back to cloud school?

Mick? Care to help?

Again, I don't care about the aluminum in any capacity.

Water vapor, in conjunction with specific atmospheric conditions, cause the clouds.

Or, are you referring to the nuclei...which are in the gases..and naturally in the atmosphere...which can be part of "the conditions" mentioned above.

I can tell that you don't really care about this subject. You just like to argue.

Enjoy that.

I don't need Mick's help.

[Mick]

Water vapour alone does not cause clouds.

Mick? Care to help?

Sure. Water vapor alone can form clouds (assuming you at least allow for the presence of the atmosphere). Water will spontaneously (homogeneously) nucleate at sufficiently high humidities. You can't raise humidity forever.

Of course nucleation on cloud condensation nuclei is more common. But you all know that.

[Noble1965]

Sure. Water vapor alone can form clouds (assuming you at least allow for the presence of the atmosphere). Water will spontaneously (homogeneously) nucleate at sufficiently high humidities. You can't raise humidity forever.

Of course nucleation on cloud condensation nuclei is more common. But you all know that.

So, either way, Lee is wrong and needs to go back to cloud school?

[Stupid]

Water vapour alone does not cause clouds. maybe you need to go back to cloud school?

Mick? Care to help?

Seems you respect parts of Mick's explanations. That's good. So do I.
...because he is just repeating known cloud formulation principles.

[PCWilliams]

No trails here for weeks?

Have they stopped 'spraying' ?

Or have they only 'sprayed' invisible chemicals from the holographic projections of planes?

I am concerned that I may be missing the latest chemtrail theory...

None here either, had i not been spraying vinegar i would have thought something was amiss.

[firepilot]

Your vinegar works really well, we had no trails in southern Idaho yesterday either! That is some strong vinegar!

[PCWilliams]

Your vinegar works really well, we had no trails in southern Idaho yesterday either! That is some strong vinegar!

I've been spraying a pretty heavy stream. Just trying to do my part to battle these damn chemtrails and chemclouds!!!!!

[George B]

But my question is why you think there was a need for an initiative. Given that you've no idea about the future of the atmosphere, and all the stuff you've read is from people who are not privy to Regan's inner circle of scientists, then why do you think there was was ever a need for an initiative?

I ask because you keep pointing out that if they are doing something, it's left no measurable trace above the noise. So would not the "they did nothing" explanation fit your observations much better?

I believe the decision makers were privy to much more information and opinions than is available to the public . . .many of which are classified. . . . Is it possible their information painted a much more dire and critical situation initially than was believed by the public and even the environmental scientists then and now. . . .you also have a real possibility that the programs have evolved as concepts have changed over the years since it was first conceived. . . .emissions reduction programs may have been more successful than first anticipated and activities adjusted accordingly to stay as close to the back ground noise as possible. . . these are not stupid people. . . I have a high regard for their resourcefulness . . .

[George B]

Er, yes it was. Unless somehow all the science books and journals for the last 90 years got it wrong.

Maybe George B can debate this with you. He's quite familiar with cloud formation.

The program is in my opinion a combination of leverage. . . it is a matrix of the knowledge of pre-existing natural and anthropomorphic activities supplemented by activities to gain some pre-establish objective. . .

1) The overseers could have influenced policy to not mitigate persistent contrails . . . Seeking to propagate as much contrails and contrail induced cirrus as possible
2) They could have influenced the decision to slow roll the tightening of the sulfur maximum content of jet fuel which has remained at 3,000 ppm while other standards have been lowered to levels in the double digits. . . .
3) The above activities could help mask any activity which may have been visible by increasing the confusion in the skies. . . If I do inject aerosols . . .which one of the hundreds up there is the real Chemtrail. . .And if it is sulfur I am adding . . .I expect some to be there anyway. . .

[Mick]

I believe the decision makers were privy to much more information and opinions than is available to the public . . .many of which are classified. . . . Is it possible their information painted a much more dire and critical situation initially than was believed by the public and even the environmental scientists then and now. . . .you also have a real possibility that the programs have evolved as concepts have changed over the years since it was first conceived. . . .emissions reduction programs may have been more successful than first anticipated and activities adjusted accordingly to stay as close to the back ground noise as possible. . . these are not stupid people. . . I have a high regard for their resourcefulness . . .

But what actually indicates that "do something undetectably" is a more likely option than "do nothing"?

You have no idea what info they were privy to, so why do you assume that information called for a secret spray program?

[George B]

But what actually indicates that "do something undetectably" is a more likely option than "do nothing"?

You have no idea what info they were privy to, so why do you assume that information called for a secret spray program?

1) To do nothing is not the nature of people from WWII and the Cold War. . . A threat must be met and neutralized if possible . . . people like Dr Teller and President Reagan are action oriented. . . I think that is obvious. . .

2) If the crisis is potentially life altering, if the threat is so grave as to cause panic or if it could cause the loss of control. . . One would think twice to reveal anything which could unveiling something so disturbing. . . The camel's nose under the tent concept or domino effect. . . .

[Jay Reynolds]

On AC Griffith - son of a judge, I believe, from a well-to-do establishment background - you'll need to listen to some interviews with him, and then you can speak on it. Like I said, there are three possibilties - either he speaks the truth or he is lying, or it's mixture of the two, agreed? It's 50-50 for all we know. Either way: it's information or disinformation; either way, it's an issue for the establishment. Can you not at least agree on this last?

Lee, A. C. Griffith has been proven to be a liar, a man who is willingto inflate his own qualifications, to make unsupported claims, and to alter ordinary images and text grabbed from online and portrayed as "insider" information. I exposed him many years ago, and here is what I found:
http://metabunk.org/threads/210-How-...nto-chemtrails

It's not an "issue for the establishment" in any way.

It was just one more element of the chemtrails hoax which you promote.

[Jay Reynolds]

1) To do nothing is not the nature of people from WWII and the Cold War. . . A threat must be met and neutralized if possible . . . people like Dr Teller and President Reagan are action oriented. . . I think that is obvious. . .

2) If the crisis is potentially life altering, if the threat is so grave as to cause panic or if it could cause the loss of control. . . One would think twice to reveal anything which could unveiling something so disturbing. . . The camel's nose under the tent concept or domino effect. . . .

These are piss-poor reasons to believe in chemtrails.

What a crock.....

[Jay Reynolds]

The program is in my opinion

1) The overseers could have
2) They could have . .
3) The above activities could . .
And if it is .

George, I know that these are just out-of-context snips from what you have spent 30 pages of worthless chatter on, but essentially this is what your belief consists of:

Or there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence.......

If my theories are correct........

The point is there is not direct concrete evidence that an injection program is ongoing so advocates like myself have to rely on circumstantial evidence coupled with history, capacity, opportunity, and motive . . .

Almost anything can have a reasonable alternate explanation . . .

I didn't distinguish nor identify any substance as either particulates, aerosols or gases. . . Nor have I given any details on how Aerosol Injection may occur or what tonnage would be required but I do have that information. . . .

I would have to assume

One uses faith, speculation, intuition everyday to function . . .

[Mick]

1) To do nothing is not the nature of people from WWII and the Cold War. . . A threat must be met and neutralized if possible . . . people like Dr Teller and President Reagan are action oriented. . . I think that is obvious. . .

You still seem to be missing the point. What is there that indicated to Reagan that there WAS a threat?

If you are not privy to what they knew, then how do you know that what they knew necessitated action?

[Pete Tar]

Lol! Really.

You started out ok, but then you lost the plot. Sorry mate.

Choreographed!?....

....Look up, know your clouds.

sorry, i thought my point was clear and reasonable. obviously i need to work on my communication skills, as my self-evident meaning is somehow getting some severe filtering in the path from my brain to your world.

choreographed.
as in, a conspiracy of such magnitude needs to be choreographed, organised, strategised, materials and man power mobilised, networks enabled to deliver what is needed, and such forth... that would leave footprints in reality somewhere. but it hasn't.

looking up and studying weather systems and doing science will result in my getting a finer appreciation for atmospheric dynamics for sure and may be a good suggestion in general, but what was your point? are you saying it will lead to me getting verifiable proof of chemtrails that real scientists are yet to?
i'm aware that there is an increase in contrails that persist and form cirrus clouds, if that's your point.

[George B]

You still seem to be missing the point. What is there that indicated to Reagan that there WAS a threat?

If you are not privy to what they knew, then how do you know that what they knew necessitated action?

That is an excellent question . . . Since we are not privy to the details, due to their secrecy, how can we know? . . . Especially if the secret is kept tightly within the confines of a small group. . . .let me ponder that for a while and I will try to answer. . . .
1) One preliminary thought would be actions which would telegraph such a threat, expenditures, legislation, contingency plans, treaties, cooperative agreements. . . speeches public announcements
2) Research funding, priorities, emphasis by NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, DARPA, CIA, etc. . . .
3) Hints sent through activities in "How to prepare the public without causing panic and loss of control. . . "
4) Straw-men, trial balloons, using entertainment media to per-condition the population for a possible catastrophe
5) Unusual trends in observable phenomena, temperature and climatic perturbations
6) Warnings through the scientific community that all is not well. . .

[George B]

George, I know that these are just out-of-context snips from what you have spent 30 pages of worthless chatter on, but essentially this is what your belief consists of:

I have no problem with your observations. . . The consensus on this Forum is this is not acceptable. . . And scientifically provable data is your standard; however, reality is not that neat. . . Validated, verifiable data is not always available . . . Suppositions, inferences, and educated guesses must be used to live. . . You do it, I do it, we all do it. . . Sometimes people can sense something is wrong without being able to explain exactly why. . . Subliminal hints, sixth sense, it doesn't smell right, I have seen this before. . . .the older one gets and the more experience we have the more we put these unexplainable hunches together . . .however, I think the conspiracy in question has much more than hunches going for it. . .

[GregMc]

"Sometimes people can sense something is wrong without being able to explain exactly why"

Sometimes it's just delusional paranoid disorder:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/paranoia.html
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/...isorder.html#b

George, you suggested earlier the idea of an impartial third person adjudicator. I think visiting a psychiatrist would greatly help you further investigate your hunches and feelings that something is wrong.

[Noble1965]

.however, I think the conspiracy in question has much more than hunches going for it. . .

Such as?

So far, that's all I see for evidence..

Based on past behavior of "the powers that be"...you believe they are "spraying something".

And you argue on that premise...ONLY.. Which, seems quite interesting considering you are trying to influence others.

Smells like an anti-establishment agenda to me...Nothing more. I think you are using the gullibility of the fellow conspiracy theorists to recruit others into your particular hate group.

[George B]

"Sometimes people can sense something is wrong without being able to explain exactly why"

Sometimes it's just delusional paranoid disorder:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/paranoia.html
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/...isorder.html#b

George, you suggested earlier the idea of an impartial third person adjudicator. I think visiting a psychiatrist would greatly help you further investigate your hunches and feelings that something is wrong.

That is funny. . . I am not the one intimidated by a third party impartial judge. . Think about it. . . .

[Noble1965]

That is funny. . . I am not the one intimidated by a third party impartial judge. . Think about it. . . .

"Intimidated"

Seems like a rather strange word to use in this case.

[George B]

3) in "How to prepare the public without causing panic and loss of control. . . "
4) Straw-men, trial balloons, using entertainment media to per-condition the population for a possible catastrophe





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs56_...e_gdata_player

The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American science-fiction disaster film depicting the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather events that usher in global cooling and leads to a new ice age. The film did well at the box office, grossing $542,771,772 internationally. Domestically, it is the sixth highest grossing movie not to be #1 in the US box office . . .*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrowo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjx6...e_gdata_player

An Inconvenient Truth (disambiguation).

An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate made in the film, he has given more than a thousand times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

[Mick]

There have been disaster movies since the dawn of movies. There have been dire environmentalist predictions for 100 years.

This is not evidence.

[George B]

There have been disaster movies since the dawn of movies. There have been dire environmentalist predictions for 100 years.

This is not evidence.

Timing my friend. . . .the crescendo fits the activities. . .

"IPCC"*
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change
Established 1988
Website www.ipcc.ch
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[3] It is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri.

AGU Position Statement
The American Geophysical Union

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions...ange2008.shtml


Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

American Physical Society Sites

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm


Home * | * Policy & Advocacy * | * Statements * | * Climate Change
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

[George B]

There have been disaster movies since the dawn of movies. There have been dire environmentalist predictions for 100 years.

This is not evidence.

The evidence of global warming is being presented abundantly. . . Is this not a crisis. . . .???? If not are we being duped . . .???

Greenland Ice Sheet

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-...cksexpert.html

"Aerial oblique view of the Petermann glacier front on 24 July, 2011 Alun Hubbard of Aberystwyth University, Wales.
The melting of glaciers is seen as a yardstick by which the warming of the planet is measured. Climate change experts have warned that sea-level rises caused as the planet warms and the glaciers melt could devastate coastal and island communities.
A British glaciologist who has been studying the Petermann Glacier in north-west Greenland, which is over 300km long and makes up 6% of the Greenland ice sheet, described pictures showing how fast it had melted as “gob-smacking.”


"New research shows that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, expected to be a major contributor to projected sea level rises in coming decades."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...eet-video.html

http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/advancemen...-Ice-Sheet.cfm

"Extreme Melting on Greenland Ice Sheet, Reports CCNY Team *
GLACIAL MELT CYCLE COULD BECOME SELF-AMPLIFYING, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO HALT

Marco Tedesco standing on the edge of one of four moulins (drainage holes) he and his team found at the bottom of a supraglacial lake during the expedition to Greenland in the summer, 2011. (Credit: P. Alexander)

The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don’t hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York. *His findings suggest that glaciers could undergo a self-amplifying cycle of melting and warming that would be difficult to halt."

Greenland glacier melting faster than expected

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_swZ-...e_gdata_player

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoBF...e_gdata_player

[Mick]

Sorry George, but your theory makes no sense whatsoever, and is based on pure speculation and the most tenuous of connections.

Everything you mention has perfectly reasonable explanations that don't involve secret government experiments.

All you are saying is that based on your experience of government (which seemed to be that anything that rocks the boat is frowned upon), that IF there was some danger, then the US government/military would probably do something.

That's all.

That's really all the case you are making.

Zero evidence for chemtrails.

[Mick]

The evidence of global warming is being presented abundantly. . . Is this not a crisis. . . .???? If not are we being duped . . .???

Come on George. Climate change is a big problem.

But you are suggesting that the government is privy to the solution, and you say the solution is chemtrails.

Why chemtrails? What evidence is there that chemtrails are what the military came up with? You don't know what their evidence is.

All you think is that they are doing something (and that only because they are men of action, so prefer doing things). You don't know what it is, or on what basis they might be doing it.

[Noble1965]

So, now movie makers are "in on it" and aren't just trying to make movies which have plots relevant to modern day "problems"?!


WOW!

[George B]

Sorry George, but your theory makes no sense whatsoever, and is based on pure speculation and the most tenuous of connections.

Everything you mention has perfectly reasonable explanations that don't involve secret government experiments.

All you are saying is that based on your experience of government (which seemed to be that anything that rocks the boat is frowned upon), that IF there was some danger, then the US government/military would probably do something.

That's all.

That's really all the case you are making.

Zero evidence for chemtrails.

Hmmmmm . . . Let's see history and precedence (In other words precedent can be defined as "an already decided decision which furnishes the basis for later cases involving similar facts and issues."*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent)
*are irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of a conspiracy to Inject Aerosols into the atmosphere. . . or to explain the the motives of such a program . .*

So I am being discouraged to present history, other ways to decide reality, or timelines which would allow for such programs *. . . These are too tenuous to be allowed or considered in your empirical constructs. . . If it doesn't fit into a test-tube it's not admissible. . .*

"In 1975, Broecker inadvertently coined the phrase global warming when he published a paper titled: “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”[9] He has recently co-written an account of climate science with the science journalist, Robert Kunzig. This includes a discussion of the work of Broecker's Columbia colleague Klaus Lackner in capturing CO2 from the atmosphere - which Broecker believes must play a vital role in reducing emissions and countering global warming. Broecker has been described in the New York Times as a geoengineering pioneer.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...my_of_Sciences

[Mick]

So based on that, there must be a secret program of carbon sequestration? And not spraying stuff?

[lee h oswald]

So, either way, Lee is wrong and needs to go back to cloud school?

Listen - the more nuclei present in a jet emission the more initial nucleation takes place - yes, and if there's more nuclei still in the atmosphere plus all the other necessary conditions: hpa, rhi (in the case of cirrus) temp/dewpoint etc. then you've got clouds. The point to this discussion is that it's definitely the aircraft making the clouds. They do it quite a lot - have you noticed it? The aircraft passing overhead are creating cloud cover on a very regular basis where I come from. You say in some other post that I'm not interested in the subject - only in arguing. Listen, you think what you like, and I'm sure you'll continue to do just that, but if anyone who lived in one of the world's largest cities, looked up a bit and saw that his/her sunlight was being seriously compromised by the passage of aircraft - then wouldn't that be of the utmost interest to, well, anyone? Maybe I should say, 'anyone with an idea?'

[lee h oswald]

"Sometimes people can sense something is wrong without being able to explain exactly why"

Sometimes it's just delusional paranoid disorder:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/simplepsych/paranoia.html
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/...isorder.html#b

George, you suggested earlier the idea of an impartial third person adjudicator. I think visiting a psychiatrist would greatly help you further investigate your hunches and feelings that something is wrong.

Greg, you stated earlier that you were very much involved in the making and workings of robotic bats, or was it cats? Perhaps a visit to a professional councillor might help you understand your feeling that something is right.

[Mick]

if anyone who lived in one of the world's largest cities, looked up a bit and saw that his/her sunlight was being seriously compromised by the passage of aircraft - then wouldn't that be of the utmost interest to, well, anyone? Maybe I should say, 'anyone with an idea?'

Sure. Aviation induced cloudiness has been steadily increasing since the 1950s. Here's a 1980 news report discussing just that:



From the transcript:

The exhaust from jet engines, usually seen as long, thin trails of white clouds behind high-flying jet airplanes, may be a big reason why there are 30 fewer days of sunshine a year in the Midwest now than there were in 1900.

It's like boiling a frog. I imagine that people from 1900 might remark a bit on the gloomy weather (and certainly on the odd linear clouds). But people now are just used to it. Most people don't think it's a big deal.

[lee h oswald]

3) in "How to prepare the public without causing panic and loss of control. . . "
4) Straw-men, trial balloons, using entertainment media to per-condition the population for a possible catastrophe





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs56_...e_gdata_player

The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American science-fiction disaster film depicting the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather events that usher in global cooling and leads to a new ice age. The film did well at the box office, grossing $542,771,772 internationally. Domestically, it is the sixth highest grossing movie not to be #1 in the US box office . . .*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrowo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjx6...e_gdata_player

An Inconvenient Truth (disambiguation).

An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate made in the film, he has given more than a thousand times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

Al Gore? Come on. I'm really struggling to stop myself breaking the 'politeness' policy. There's plenty of this type of conditioning going on all over the place. How much money has Al Gore made out of this? Hmmmm....let me think for just a second! It's been 'the norm' for abot ninety years. Please check out Edward Bernays, if you're not already familar. Nephew of Sigmund Freud, 'father' of 'Public Relations' (because 'propaganda' didn't sound so good, really). 'Invisible Government'. I recommend it to all, in fact.

Cheers

[Mick]

Edward Bernays, inventor of Bacon and Eggs.

I keep meaning to to write about him, as a friend keeps bringing him up on facebook. He's kind of the Tesla of PR in conspiracy circles.