Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

[Stupid]

I have attempted to contact Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. , (a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer.)
I started this post in the hopes he would engage here, to discuss his research.

Here is the email I sent to him:

Dr Blaylock,

I would like to invite you to enter a discussion to help explain the neurotoxicity of aluminum, specifically in airborne aluminum nano particles.
To be fair, honest, and forewarned, there will be a number of disbelievers amongst this internet crowd of varied professions., but I encourage you to
help support your research by your proactive approach on the subject.
Thank you.
(=name=)

Here is the pertinent link/thread, that I have specifically started for you (forgive my indulgence)....
http://metabunk.org/threads/538-Russ...=8616#post8616

Here is his contention, according to the internet. (>>I cannot find the original link to this quote)....

"The Internet is littered with stories of chemtrails and geoengineering to combat global warming and until recently I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have notice a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many* dozens every day are littering the skies.

My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nano-sized aluminum compounds........."(snip)

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&....0.kNgiNEwu2Ns

My first question to Dr Blaylock is, "If there is evidence of aluminum toxicity, how do you attribute it to an airborne source?"

[Unregistered]

Here is what I find the most interesting about you guys - no matter who speaks their mind regarding the alleged heavy metal - aerosol program, you will question it automatically.

It's not that debate isn't good; in fact it helps create greater focus and directive of point. However you guys are now on some sort of "auto-pilot", a mechanical reaction to find any way to disprove whatever you here that might even just theorize that there in an aerosol program happening.

I know you guys dont deny that "geo-engineering" is real - you are intelligent guys - you know the history:

1) 1943 - first operational use of "chaff"

2) Vietnam - the US used geo-engineering to flood areas. It then lead to the UN Convention of Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (85 countries signed it)

So where does your blind trust in the government come from? Do you believe that the government would "never do such a thing"? That cant be, you know they have done such a thing and certainly have no issue experimenting on populations:

Ref #1: Bay Area - September 20-27, 1950:
Six experimental biological warfare attacks by the US Army from a ship, using Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens

Ref #2: Minnesota - 1953:
61 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide in four sections of the city, involving massive exposure of people at home and children in school.

Ref #3: St. Louis - 1953:
35 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide over residential, commercial and downtown areas, including the Medical Arts Building, which presumably contained a number of sick people whose illnesses could be aggravated by inhaling toxic particles.

Do you even for a moment feel you might be better served using your obvious exceptional research skills to investigate if it is possible that we are actually a part of an aerosol program - even if just on a smaller scale than what is reported?

It seems you are actually resisting and fighting your own people; your own fellow citizens. Dont you consider letting them do their own research while you spend your efforts looking to see if there is any truth into the claim as opposed to automatically discrediting them with regurgitated "facts" about "dew points" and "proven persistent contrails in history"? Your pulling "old photos" off the internet that show persistent contrail - OFF THE INTERNET! Apparently you have never used photoshop.

You guys would be such an asset to humanity if you just directed your attention and efforts into "service to others" - as opposed to only defending the "State's position".

Have you ever asked yourself, "what if Im wrong?" Yes, what then - will it be too late when you finally come around?

[Mick]

Here is what I find the most interesting about you guys - no matter who speaks their mind regarding the alleged heavy metal - aerosol program, you will question it automatically.

As opposed to what? Accepting it without question? Surely all assertions need to be verified?

Do you even for a moment feel you might be better served using your obvious exceptional research skills to investigate if it is possible that we are actually a part of an aerosol program - even if just on a smaller scale than what is reported?

That's what we ARE researching. We are checking the facts to see if they hold up.

Have you ever asked yourself, "what if Im wrong?" Yes, what then - will it be too late when you finally come around?

I ask myself that every day.

[Steve Funk]

Unregistered, your examples seem to be a reprint of a post from a site called SciForums.com, which doesn't contain any real links to original sources. If you could give that to us it would help, but it would not provide any real evidence that chemtrails exists. Chaff, for example, has nothing to do with geoengineering. The particles are 150 to 1500 times larger than the proposed geoengineering particles, and fall to earth quickly. I don't have the link at my fingertips but there is an EIS on the environmental impacts of chaff that you can google.
I would change my mind if someone could provide verifiable whistleblower evidence from a firsthand source who is alive and doesn't have any really obvious mental health problems. Also, I would like to see someone with an advanced degree in atmospheric science who takes this conspiracy theory seriously. I haven't found any so far.

[Jay Reynolds]

So where does your blind trust in the government come from? Do you believe that the government would "never do such a thing"? That cant be, you know they have done such a thing and certainly have no issue experimenting on populations:

The government is people. People lie, cheat, steal murder etc. I don't have blind trust in goovernment or chemtrails promoters.
I have watched chemtrail promoters for fifteen years now and find there is "no such thing" they wouldn't do, except maybe be honest.....

For instance though, please name for me the most honest chemtrail promoter you can think of, and I willtell you exactly how they are being dishonest. I'd really like to know, and you need to know what I have to say.

Do you even for a moment feel you might be better served using your obvious exceptional research skills to investigate if it is possible that we are actually a part of an aerosol program - even if just on a smaller scale than what is reported?

This is a great question, and thanks for the compliment. Yes, I spent several years wondering about that exact question. I asked myself, if geoengineering were taking place, how would it be detected?

I researched the subject for some more years and by that time it was about 2006. What I learned was that geoengineering would have an effect that would be detectable by an effect on the Aerosol Optical Thickness,which would change. Here is what I found:
http://metabunk.org/threads/111-Hist...osol+thickness

and you need to understand that all of you "chemtrails" resarchers seem to have not done your years of research as dilgently as I have or else you would have either recognized what I have to say above, or found out somewhere I am mistaken.

It seems you are actually resisting and fighting your own people; your own fellow citizens. Dont you consider letting them do their own research while you spend your efforts looking to see if there is any truth into the claim as opposed to automatically discrediting them with regurgitated "facts" about "dew points" and "proven persistent contrails in history"?

If the facts discredit someone, do't blame us for the discreditation, blame the facts!

If the facts we state are wrong, prove them to be so, this forum is avaiable for you to do so. As you have begun posting here by complaining rather than proving information incorrect, I am thinking you are not able to do so......

BTW, here is a gift for you. A gift that none of your chemtrail leaders have given to you. Here is exactly how you can answer the question that is the HOLY GRAIL of chemtrails. Here is how to find the EXACT identity of the planes which you see.
http://metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Y...nd-Suggestions

You guys would be such an asset to humanity if you just directed your attention and efforts into "service to others"

Have you ever asked yourself, "what if Im wrong?" Yes, what then - will it be too late when you finally come around?

If anyone is wrong, we will be the first to find out.
Guaranteed.

[scombrid]

I know you guys dont deny that "geo-engineering" is real - you are intelligent guys - you know the history:

1) 1943 - first operational use of "chaff"

Chaff is deployed at relatively low altitudes and is designed to be highly reflective to radar and not visible light. The particles are too large to be affective for any sort of geo-engineering application. If you watch the weather radar near various air bases a lot you'll see when they are playing with radar jamming chaff. Radars near Camp Lejeune and Paris Island are good for this. Applications there are typically off shore over their training operations areas. Air Force out of Sat. Beach and McDill in Florida have deployed chaff visible on radar. You can calculate fall rate of the chaff and wind speed and direction at various elevations by viewing the different radar tilt angles that sample different swaths of the atmosphere in the vicinity of the radar. It is interesting to watch the shape of the return change as the chaff falls and spreads when wind speed and directly changes dramatically with height.

2) Vietnam - the US used geo-engineering to flood areas.

A company hired by the military claimed that it enhanced the natural monsoon by cloud seeding. They probably didn't actually have that great an effect. They probably swindled the government just like the remote viewers have done. What they did, effective or not, has nothing to do with geo-engineering.

So where does your blind trust in the government come from? Do you believe that the government would "never do such a thing"?

Blind trust? Hardly. What they would do is different from what they can or are doing based on physical constraints and various evidences of their activities. You'll do a much better job at catching them at nefarious activities if you aren't chasing ghosts (like contrails or blips on weather radar that you do not understand).

Ref #1: Bay Area - September 20-27, 1950:
Six experimental biological warfare attacks by the US Army from a ship, using Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens

Without checking your source on that I'll assume they did this. One useful reason to do this is to understand how such things propagate if somebody did attack us so we can respond in a reasonable way. If we were attacked like that, orgonite and vinegar isn't going to do you any good. Yes the knowledge gained from that type of experiment could be abused. Do you have evidence that they are doing such?

Do you even for a moment feel you might be better served using your obvious exceptional research skills to investigate if it is possible that we are actually a part of an aerosol program - even if just on a smaller scale than what is reported?

Someone with a basic knowledge of atmospheric science and commercial aviation is going to be much better able to detect an aerosol program than somebody that is freaked out by cirrus clouds and contrails.

Dont you consider letting them do their own research while you spend your efforts looking to see if there is any truth into the claim as opposed to automatically discrediting them with regurgitated "facts" about "dew points" and "proven persistent contrails in history"? Your pulling "old photos" off the internet that show persistent contrail - OFF THE INTERNET! Apparently you have never used photoshop.

Your putting "dew points" in quotes makes readers like me wonder what your level of knowledge regarding meteorology is. That regurgitated fact is hard physical science.

Regarding photoshop. There is a thread sticky that references old movies that have contrails. You could go rent those for yourself. Or do you think the conspiracy is so deep that the movies have been altered by "them" to include contrails that weren't really there in original filming. If that's the case I have to know what your evidence is. It's been a joke since I was a kid when a contrail showed up in a Western or some other movie filmed out in the desert that supposed to depict a scene that occurred before planes even existed. Plus, most of those films from Lone Ranger to Three Stooges occurred at a time when there was a lot less commercial air traffic than when those were filmed.

What of old photographs that I have taken? My grandfather (who died in 1973) loved to photograph vivid sunsets over the river behind his house. The best occurred when the clouds layer was high ice clouds that do a great job of reflecting the reds of the set sun. Those ice clouds almost always included contrails and contrail cirrus. I guess this is the internet so you think I'm certainly lying. But the prints are on the wall...

You guys would be such an asset to humanity if you just directed your attention and efforts into "service to others" -

One. Whose defending the "state's position"? Two. Don't you think that the chemtrail researchers would be a better asset to their cause if they actually understood meteorology and aviation?

[MikeC]

If anyone is wrong, we will be the first to find out.
Guaranteed.

I'm pretty sure we already have!

[Mick]

What of old photographs that I have taken? My grandfather (who died in 1973) loved to photograph vivid sunsets over the river behind his house. The best occurred when the clouds layer was high ice clouds that do a great job of reflecting the reds of the set sun. Those ice clouds almost always included contrails and contrail cirrus. I guess this is the internet so you think I'm certainly lying. But the prints are on the wall...

I don't suppose you could scan some? I'm always looking for old contrail photos.

[Saucon]

What he is saying is no matter what information you are [resented with you are a denier. It's not healthy and results in a quite unintellectual debate.

Saucon

[firepilot]

What he is saying is no matter what information you are [resented with you are a denier. It's not healthy and results in a quite unintellectual debate.

Saucon

You will rarely find any actual information on chemtrail pages. One will however find lots of junk science, lies and plenty of disinformation

[Jay Reynolds]

Here is some background on Blaylock:
http://www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html