If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

[GregMc]

Showing more pics just shows you don't really quite get the point do you Lee, unless you also are trying to send up chemtrail believers apophenia.

What do you think is the relevance of your pic? Proof of chemtrails?

You are trying to do some fascinating dot connection.
I didn't actually sing raytheon's praises in any way. I quoted from their website and satirised how the paranoid mind might find a pattern between claims of robotic guard animals and raytheons robotic division.

Here's an actual hughes aircraft creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Su...nar_lander.jpg
Perhaps that's support of the belief in secret moonbases! If you just connect enough dots you'll soon find a pattern!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...28large%29.jpg
Perhaps your point has something to do with the making of the modern hospital bed, historically funded through hughes aircraft, but what I think you are really hinting at is the deep connection between General Motors and anti "chemtrail" dispersal techniques.
GM owned hughes aircraft for a while and General motors in the same period manufactured the Holden Commodore, as raced to enormous success by Australian touring car hero Peter Brock.
Peter Brock was heavily influenced by the writings of Wilhelm Reich, the originator of "orgone energy" concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brock
Peter Brock fitted orgone energy "energy polariser" devices to GM holden dealer team racing cars at the SAME TIME Hughes aircraft was owned by GM.
That cannot be mere coincidence!!
Once the public got wind of energy polarisers, GM publicly severed "official" ties with Brock's team. Surely Hughes Aircraft were aware of Wilhelm Reich's work and orgone energy and cloud busters, now promoted on chemtrail websites as an antidote "Chemtrails" and a means of dispersing "chemclouds".
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/chemb...d24feb03.shtml
http://orgoneproducts.org/blog/tag/orgone-cloudbusters/


Brock's promotion of orgone energy must be first established complicitly by Brock and then sabotaged to destroy public faith in the idea.
Brock would publicly and deliberately sacrifice his personal credibility in order to poison public awareness of orgone's power to combat "chemtrails"
It has been suggested that years later, in a pang of conscience Brock was going to tell all but before having a chance to go public he was mysteriously killed in a rally "accident".
Only the gullible could believe that such a skilled and experienced driver could have an accident and hit a tree. It's as farcical as suggesting experienced and expert skier Sonny Bono also supposedly had an accident and was killed hitting a tree. Aircrap org promoter Ted Gunderson knew both Peter Brock and Sonny Bono were "tree killed" as a result of secrets they were about to reveal but in a twist of irony Gunderson himself mysteriously died before making his revelations about Peter Brock's death.
The Dots are all there Lee. You just need the expanded consciousness to be able to connect them



Perhaps you're also upset by the fact that I personally build both robotics and autonomous aerial drones?
I'm presently working on an all-flying wing (nur-flugel) autonomous aerial drone here in Swakopmund and have been flying drones with colleagues here in Namibia the last few months. I also have a fully autonomous drone sitting in my bedroom back in Sydney.
I guess that makes me guilty of oh, something... droning on and on too much? genocide?

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...87729330_n.jpg

[George B]

Showing more pics just shows you don't really quite get the point do you Lee, unless you also are trying to send up chemtrail believers apophenia.

What do you think is the relevance of your pic? Proof of chemtrails?

You are trying to do some fascinating dot connection.
I didn't actually sing raytheon's praises in any way. I quoted from their website and satirised how the paranoid mind might find a pattern between claims of robotic guard animals and raytheons robotic division.

Here's an actual hughes aircraft creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Su...nar_lander.jpg
Perhaps that's support of the belief in secret moonbases! If you just connect enough dots you'll soon find a pattern!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...28large%29.jpg
Perhaps your point has something to do with the making of the modern hospital bed, historically funded through hughes aircraft, but what I think you are really hinting at is the deep connection between General Motors and anti "chemtrail" dispersal techniques.
GM owned hughes aircraft for a while and General motors in the same period manufactured the Holden Commodore, as raced to enormous success by Australian touring car hero Peter Brock.
Peter Brock was heavily influenced by the writings of Wilhelm Reich, the originator of "orgone energy" concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brock
Peter Brock fitted orgone energy "energy polariser" devices to GM holden dealer team racing cars at the SAME TIME Hughes aircraft was owned by GM.
That cannot be mere coincidence!!
Once the public got wind of energy polarisers, GM publicly severed "official" ties with Brock's team. Surely Hughes Aircraft were aware of Wilhelm Reich's work and orgone energy and cloud busters, now promoted on chemtrail websites as an antidote "Chemtrails" and a means of dispersing "chemclouds".
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/chemb...d24feb03.shtml
http://orgoneproducts.org/blog/tag/orgone-cloudbusters/


Brock's promotion of orgone energy must be first established complicitly by Brock and then sabotaged to destroy public faith in the idea.
Brock would publicly and deliberately sacrifice his personal credibility in order to poison public awareness of orgone's power to combat "chemtrails"
It has been suggested that years later, in a pang of conscience Brock was going to tell all but before having a chance to go public he was mysteriously killed in a rally "accident".
Only the gullible could believe that such a skilled and experienced driver could have an accident and hit a tree. It's as farcical as suggesting experienced and expert skier Sonny Bono also supposedly had an accident and was killed hitting a tree. Aircrap org promoter Ted Gunderson knew both Peter Brock and Sonny Bono were "tree killed" as a result of secrets they were about to reveal but in a twist of irony Gunderson himself mysteriously died before making his revelations about Peter Brock's death.
The Dots are all there Lee. You just need the expanded consciousness to be able to connect them



Perhaps you're also upset by the fact that I personally build both robotics and autonomous aerial drones?
I'm presently working on an all-flying wing (nur-flugel) autonomous aerial drone here in Swakopmund and have been flying drones with colleagues here in Namibia the last few months. I also have a fully autonomous drone sitting in my bedroom back in Sydney.
I guess that makes me guilty of oh, something... droning on and on too much? genocide?

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...87729330_n.jpg

I have to admit drones are rather scary . . . seems they conger up all types of potential skulduggery . . . seems to take away more and more of the human element in decision making . . . if a combatant is 12,000 miles away . . . not 36,000 feet . . . they seem psychologically more remote and more capable of inhuman decisions . . .

[George B]

What a funny guy you are. Ho ho ho.

Oh, those great guys at Raytheon...what a laugh, and so clever...

Raytheon acquired Hughes Aircraft Co and makes most of its money (US taxpayers' money, most of it) manufacturing the machinery of death for huge profit. They are right into drones your great Raytheon mates. When you've finished singing their praises and quoting their PR and generally licking their arses and making a joke of it - have a look at this picture of what drones do best. Bet this picture isn't on their website...



Want some more?

Hello lee,

Welcome to Forum purgatory . . . LoL!!!

[lee h oswald]

Showing more pics just shows you don't really quite get the point do you Lee, unless you also are trying to send up chemtrail believers apophenia.

What do you think is the relevance of your pic? Proof of chemtrails?

You are trying to do some fascinating dot connection.
I didn't actually sing raytheon's praises in any way. I quoted from their website and satirised how the paranoid mind might find a pattern between claims of robotic guard animals and raytheons robotic division.

Here's an actual hughes aircraft creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Su...nar_lander.jpg
Perhaps that's support of the belief in secret moonbases! If you just connect enough dots you'll soon find a pattern!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...28large%29.jpg
Perhaps your point has something to do with the making of the modern hospital bed, historically funded through hughes aircraft, but what I think you are really hinting at is the deep connection between General Motors and anti "chemtrail" dispersal techniques.
GM owned hughes aircraft for a while and General motors in the same period manufactured the Holden Commodore, as raced to enormous success by Australian touring car hero Peter Brock.
Peter Brock was heavily influenced by the writings of Wilhelm Reich, the originator of "orgone energy" concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brock
Peter Brock fitted orgone energy "energy polariser" devices to GM holden dealer team racing cars at the SAME TIME Hughes aircraft was owned by GM.
That cannot be mere coincidence!!
Once the public got wind of energy polarisers, GM publicly severed "official" ties with Brock's team. Surely Hughes Aircraft were aware of Wilhelm Reich's work and orgone energy and cloud busters, now promoted on chemtrail websites as an antidote "Chemtrails" and a means of dispersing "chemclouds".
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/chemb...d24feb03.shtml
http://orgoneproducts.org/blog/tag/orgone-cloudbusters/


Brock's promotion of orgone energy must be first established complicitly by Brock and then sabotaged to destroy public faith in the idea.
Brock would publicly and deliberately sacrifice his personal credibility in order to poison public awareness of orgone's power to combat "chemtrails"
It has been suggested that years later, in a pang of conscience Brock was going to tell all but before having a chance to go public he was mysteriously killed in a rally "accident".
Only the gullible could believe that such a skilled and experienced driver could have an accident and hit a tree. It's as farcical as suggesting experienced and expert skier Sonny Bono also supposedly had an accident and was killed hitting a tree. Aircrap org promoter Ted Gunderson knew both Peter Brock and Sonny Bono were "tree killed" as a result of secrets they were about to reveal but in a twist of irony Gunderson himself mysteriously died before making his revelations about Peter Brock's death.
The Dots are all there Lee. You just need the expanded consciousness to be able to connect them


Perhaps you're also upset by the fact that I personally build both robotics and autonomous aerial drones?
I'm presently working on an all-flying wing (nur-flugel) autonomous aerial drone here in Swakopmund and have been flying drones with colleagues here in Namibia the last few months. I also have a fully autonomous drone sitting in my bedroom back in Sydney.
I guess that makes me guilty of oh, something... droning on and on too much? genocide?

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...87729330_n.jpg

I also have a fully autonomous drone sitting in my bedroom back in Sydney.

Yes, you look the type.


What a lot of irrelevant tripe. Do you spend a lot of time making up stuff?

It does appear that smug, self-satisfied, middle-class people with an underdeveloped sense of morality have quite a lot to answer for in this world. They can just look the other way so long as the suffering and the mass killing is at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect their bank balance. Wouldn't you say Greg?

Perhaps you're also upset by the fact that I personally build both robotics and autonomous aerial drones?

Yes, that's right - I'm really upset about that...I can hardly sleep thinking about it...

Maybe when you've done promoting Hughes/Raytheon and blowing your own little trumpet, you might take a moment to think about the million dead Iraqi civilians since 2003? The civilian victims of daily drone and 'special' forces attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan? Or maybe you'll just keep on making up stuff which you then lamely try to attribute to others - that'd be favourite, I reckon.

you don't really quite get the point do you Lee

You didn't make any point.

[lee h oswald]

Hello lee,

Welcome to Forum purgatory . . . LoL!!!

Hello George

Back again for a little more Enfer.

I think you've made a rather good case in these pages - showing that an operation of minimal scale can deliver the necessary increase in aerosols to slow warming rates and that it is indistinguishable from background at present (because Raytheon cocked up the equipment launch that would have enabled this survey). An operation of this scale would be a piece of cake for any number of agencies; numbers involved would be small - contrary to the general mantra round here of 'but so many people would need to be involved' etc., you know, the usual lame Faither's line...there must be many similar sized current operations being carried out by govt agencies around the world...then there's the next mantra....'no evidence'....well, with your scenario, where would the evidence emanate from? There wouldn't be much given the scale.....
The 'unexplained' levelling out of warming over the past ten years is another piece of circumstantial evidence (yes, evidence) which lends to your proposal....
All in all it's a pretty elegant, simple idea. Using Occam's Razor - or even just a Bic - it deserves consideration....
it won't get any round here -

Cheers

[GregMc]

Yes, you look the type.


What a lot of irrelevant tripe. Do you spend a lot of time making up stuff?

It does appear that smug, self-satisfied, middle-class people with an underdeveloped sense of morality have quite a lot to answer for in this world. They can just look the other way so long as the suffering and the mass killing is at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect their bank balance. Wouldn't you say Greg?



Yes, that's right - I'm really upset about that...I can hardly sleep thinking about it...

Maybe when you've done promoting Hughes/Raytheon and blowing your own little trumpet, you might take a moment to think about the million dead Iraqi civilians since 2003? The civilian victims of daily drone and 'special' forces attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan? Or maybe you'll just keep on making up stuff which you then lamely try to attribute to others - that'd be favourite, I reckon.



You didn't make any point.

LOL.

Your comments have nothing to do with the original topic of this thread but does relate to the phenomena of people making apophenic mental connections between unconnected phenomena.
Raytheon actually have nothing to do with the trails in the sky.
Those are persistent contrails.

I actually haven't made any comments about Iraqi or Afganistani civilian deaths and my thoughts are not actually relevant to the discussion topic so I have no intention of posting them.
You don't actually know what my thoughts are about drones in military use.
The drones I build and use have no military purpose.

You actually have no idea of my sense of morality or the organisations I support and you have no idea of my voluntary efforts in ecological conservation, humanitarian assistance and other fields.
You have your anger. Perhaps it's in your best interest to use some introspection to figure out why that is.

[lee h oswald]

LOL.

Your comments have nothing to do with the original topic of this thread but does relate to the phenomena of people making apophenic mental connections between unconnected phenomena.
Raytheon actually have nothing to do with the trails in the sky.
Those are persistent contrails.

I actually haven't made any comments about Iraqi or Afganistani civilian deaths and my thoughts are not actually relevant to the discussion topic so I have no intention of posting them.
You don't actually know what my thoughts are about drones in military use.
The drones I build and use have no military purpose.

You actually have no idea of my sense of morality or the organisations I support and you have no idea of my voluntary efforts in ecological conservation, humanitarian assistance and other fields.
You have your anger. Perhaps it's in your best interest to use some introspection to figure out why that is.

That's right - my comments have nothing to do with the original topic. They were related, and in response, to your irrelevant posting on this thread - which also had nothing to do with the topic, remember? The one when you were quoting Raytheon's PR, that one....

You actually have no idea of my sense of morality

If Raytheon offered you money for a trumpet blowing exercise, you'd take it. I reckon I got a pretty good idea

[George B]

Hello George

Back again for a little more Enfer.

I think you've made a rather good case in these pages - showing that an operation of minimal scale can deliver the necessary increase in aerosols to slow warming rates and that it is indistinguishable from background at present (because Raytheon cocked up the equipment launch that would have enabled this survey). An operation of this scale would be a piece of cake for any number of agencies; numbers involved would be small - contrary to the general mantra round here of 'but so many people would need to be involved' etc., you know, the usual lame Faither's line...there must be many similar sized current operations being carried out by govt agencies around the world...then there's the next mantra....'no evidence'....well, with your scenario, where would the evidence emanate from? There wouldn't be much given the scale.....
The 'unexplained' levelling out of warming over the past ten years is another piece of circumstantial evidence (yes, evidence) which lends to your proposal....
All in all it's a pretty elegant, simple idea. Using Occam's Razor - or even just a Bic - it deserves consideration....
it won't get any round here -

Cheers

Thanks lee . . . that was a good synopsis of the Thread . . . seems the debunkers feel once they have given a plausible alternative explanation . . . they are forever immune from future explanations countering their position . . .

And yes this Forum can be like a little trip to Hell . . . LOL!!!!

[George B]

Let's take a ride . . .

[lee h oswald]

Thanks lee . . . that was a good synopsis of the Thread . . . seems the debunkers feel once they have given a plausible alternative explanation . . . they are forever immune from future explanations countering their position . . . And yes this Forum can be like a little trip to Hell . . . LOL!!!!

You're welcome. But a half-decent synopsis must depend on the material from which it was drawn. Without your cogent, precise presentation, there would be no decent synopsis. One can sometimes assess the quality of a synopsis from its brevity, again - a quality that can only be owed to the original content. As I said, it's simple and elegant - which is compelling in its own way....So - thank you for the interesting read.

On immunity from future explanations....perhaps you might find this thread of interest in that respect.
http://metabunk.org/threads/338-Debu...Government-FDR

You can tell from the title what it's about. It's Mick's thread on a quote by FDR. In it, you can see that when the central argument is defeated, without equivocation, then the thread is ignored (or sent to the 'off topic' section, or locked! lol!). Now, that seems to be at odds with the very idea of this site - to dismiss bunk. However, rather than correcting their mistakes, they ignore them....

Actually, there's another example of that in this thread - when Jay 'my country - the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' Reynolds attacked your maths and you - but then you showed he was wrong - and what happened? He went all quiet. He didn't stand up and say: sorry; like he demands of anyone else. No, he waited what he thought was a sufficient amount of time for everyone to forget his error and then rejoined. Given his liking for 'moralizing' and preaching to anyone who'll listen....well, what can I say? Truth doesn't come into it. It's a weird old world - and these people are weird - even in that context.

[Mick]

On immunity from future explanations....perhaps you might find this thread of interest in that respect.
http://metabunk.org/threads/338-Debu...Government-FDR

You can tell from the title what it's about. It's Mick's thread on a quote by FDR. In it, you can see that when the central argument is defeated, without equivocation, then the thread is ignored (or sent to the 'off topic' section, or locked! lol!). Now, that seems to be at odds with the very idea of this site - to dismiss bunk. However, rather than correcting their mistakes, they ignore them....

I'd disagree there. Debunking is about identifying bunk, not dismissing it. Debunking that quote for me was about discussing the context, and the ambiguity of meaning. You just disagreed that there was any ambiguity. I hardly ignored it, and debated it for quite some time.

[George B]

You're welcome. But a half-decent synopsis must depend on the material from which it was drawn. Without your cogent, precise presentation, there would be no decent synopsis. One can sometimes assess the quality of a synopsis from its brevity, again - a quality that can only be owed to the original content. As I said, it's simple and elegant - which is compelling in its own way....So - thank you for the interesting read.

On immunity from future explanations....perhaps you might find this thread of interest in that respect.
http://metabunk.org/threads/338-Debu...Government-FDR

You can tell from the title what it's about. It's Mick's thread on a quote by FDR. In it, you can see that when the central argument is defeated, without equivocation, then the thread is ignored (or sent to the 'off topic' section, or locked! lol!). Now, that seems to be at odds with the very idea of this site - to dismiss bunk. However, rather than correcting their mistakes, they ignore them....

Actually, there's another example of that in this thread - when Jay 'my country - the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' Reynolds attacked your maths and you - but then you showed he was wrong - and what happened? He went all quiet. He didn't stand up and say: sorry; like he demands of anyone else. No, he waited what he thought was a sufficient amount of time for everyone to forget his error and then rejoined. Given his liking for 'moralizing' and preaching to anyone who'll listen....well, what can I say? Truth doesn't come into it. It's a weird old world - and these people are weird - even in that context.

Yes, when I have uncovered errors . . . and I am gentlemanly about it they never respond or acknowledge error . . . however, my fellow Forum participants are most lavish and immediate in crticism even in a minor spelling error . . . guess when we post we are in enemy territory because we do not stroke their egos and follow lockstep into their uber mind-think . . . LoL!!!

[Mick]

Perhaps you could list and link some errors that were ignored?

[lee h oswald]

Perhaps you could list and link some errors that were ignored?

You ignored my repeated references to steel r/c floors in the twin towers for at least twenty five pages, and sometimes questioned the fact - until you finally bothered to accept the truth. To your 'annoyance', as I recall.

That's a pretty big bit of ignorance to er, ignore.

[Mick]

You ignored my repeated references to steel r/c floors in the twin towers for at least twenty five pages, and sometimes questioned the fact - until you finally bothered to accept the truth. To your 'annoyance', as I recall.

That's a pretty big bit of ignorance to er, ignore.

I remember you mentioned steel reinforced concrete, but did not explain why, so I did not ask you about it. As I remember it did not really make any difference to anything we were discussing. I'm pretty sure I did not ignore it for 25 pages. But if you'd like to link to where you first raised the subject, then we can verify that.

Your problem here is that you like to "communicate" in veiled references, rather that say the actual point you were trying to make. Hence your threads tend to drag on a bit. You could save yourself an awful lot of time by actually making point.

[lee h oswald]

I'd disagree there. Debunking is about identifying bunk, not dismissing it. Debunking that quote for me was about discussing the context, and the ambiguity of meaning. You just disagreed that there was any ambiguity. I hardly ignored it, and debated it for quite some time.

Disagree? That's not like you. Whatever verb you want to attach to 'debunking' it doesn't matter. Just because you keep repeating 'the context' and its apparent 'ambiguity' doesn't make it so. What's so difficult to understand about the 'context'? Your assertion was wrong and it was clearly shown to be wrong, in FDR's own words, no less. Why don't you correct your errors instead of walking off and ignoring them?

[lee h oswald]

Yes, when I have uncovered errors . . . and I am gentlemanly about it they never respond or acknowledge error . . . however, my fellow Forum participants are most lavish and immediate in crticism even in a minor spelling error . . . guess when we post we are in enemy territory because we do not stroke their egos and follow lockstep into their uber mind-think . . . LoL!!!

Quite so!. 'Uber Mind-Think'...I like it! It Must have Caps! lol!

[lee h oswald]

Lockstep Uber Mind-Think is even better...

[lee h oswald]

lumt

[Mick]

Disagree? That's not like you. Whatever verb you want to attach to 'debunking' it doesn't matter. Just because you keep repeating 'the context' and its apparent 'ambiguity' doesn't make it so. What's so difficult to understand about the 'context'? Your assertion was wrong and it was clearly shown to be wrong, in FDR's own words, no less. Why don't you correct your errors instead of walking off and ignoring them?

I would be very happy to correct my errors. What exactly are they? Can you quote one?

[lee h oswald]

I would be very happy to correct my errors. What exactly are they? Can you quote one?

Happy? Well, you could start with the one you just quoted...? The one I just mentioned....the one in the immediate vicinity of this post....just above...

[Mick]

Happy? Well, you could start with the one you just quoted...? The one I just mentioned....the one in the immediate vicinity of this post....just above...

Can you link to the actual error. Then I can put a correction in place.

[lee h oswald]

I think this thread has drifted way off off topic - maybe you should put it in the off off topic section?

[Mick]

It is.

[lee h oswald]

It is.

Could this be proof that not only being an American, but becoming one (and being around a lot of them) blunts the irony detector?

[Mick]

So I thought you were going to provide a link to an error that I ignored?

[MikeC]

Guess what?? I just saw 50 rail cars in nowhere South Carolina and 37 cars were tankers carting oleum . . . Basically a solid form of sulfuric acid . . . I wouldn't have taken notice except for all our discussions . . .this is a very common sight throughout the country I bet . . .

<snip>



Bottom line . . . any air operation anywhere would have many, many rail cars constantly in motion . . . and no one notices . . . [/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

bottom line - you did notice.

Adn as soon as someone actually looks they can notice too.

[George B]

bottom line - you did notice.

And as soon as someone actually looks they can notice too.

So because of these discussions . . . Someone may prove or disprove such a program is possible . . . wouldn't that be neat!!!

[lee h oswald]

So I thought you were going to provide a link to an error that I ignored?

No, you asked me to go find links - I'm done wasting time doing that type of thing - there's more than enough evidence of your misconceptions and basic errors. The trouble is that you never face them directly, but always find a way to filibuster round them. Steel r/c floors in the towers to Purdue's misrepresentation to FDR's quote to claiming to have read the 911 report on many separate occassions and even quoting it - only to then reverse that and say you haven't read it after being pressed on the tortured confessions used within it, and to disagree that tests should have been made for explosives as a matter of course in the context of the day, to trying to reframe the testimony of firefighters who were there and said there was a huge secondary explosion which collapsed the lobby, the list is long...there's a plethora of material where you've had it wrong...but there's no point pointing it out because in your mind all you need to do is say something like 'I don't really think that changes anything' (such as r/c vs concrete in the towers) and all is well.
So, I'm not going to waste time trawling about for links so that you can say the same stuff over....what you need to do is be honest with yourself and only you can do that. As a suggestion, and if you really are serious about being honest and truthful, I'd make a small start by removing the title you put on the FDR thread and correcting it as it is clearly way off the mark.

[Rico]

I read over the first page (sorry, a 9 page thread is a bit cumbersome, though I'll have a look again later given the time).

Here are my immediate thoughts though:
-Anything can be possible. Even conventionally hiding a spray mechanism on some airplane, or sneaking various chemicals into jet fuel (never-minding the consequences), is possible. Question is, is it feasible? Usually, the more complex something is, the less feasible it becomes.
-One of the things that stood out to me most in your initial post is the whole issue of the thing being 'covert.' It gets pretty complex from there on.
-Point 12 sounds like it covers the bases, but again, an incredible undertaking to accomplish. The biggest road block for a covert operation that you bring up is the trail it leaves behind (i.e., paper trails, whistle blowers, the physical props used to conceal the operation, etc.). The bigger the thing you are trying to hide, the harder it is to hide it.

I don't really know much about this 'ICAAIP' until stumbling onto this forum here, so forgive me for being a little ignorant on the subject matter. When I look at such a potentially large undertaking (the impression I got when I read the first page), and the fact that it is 'covert' as you say, it makes me wonder just how easy one might be able to expose something like that. For anything that could easily be exposed, it takes much more work to keep it hidden.

[Mick]

To summarize that thread: Basically George is saying that if there was an undetectable chemtrail program, then we would not be able to detect it. He thinks it's happening because of his intuition and experience in the military. He thinks that since Edward Teller talked about it, it's likely (>30%) being done.

[George B]

I read over the first page (sorry, a 9 page thread is a bit cumbersome, though I'll have a look again later given the time).

Here are my immediate thoughts though:
-Anything can be possible. Even conventionally hiding a spray mechanism on some airplane, or sneaking various chemicals into jet fuel (never-minding the consequences), is possible. Question is, is it feasible? Usually, the more complex something is, the less feasible it becomes.
-One of the things that stood out to me most in your initial post is the whole issue of the thing being 'covert.' It gets pretty complex from there on.
-Point 12 sounds like it covers the bases, but again, an incredible undertaking to accomplish. The biggest road block for a covert operation that you bring up is the trail it leaves behind (i.e., paper trails, whistle blowers, the physical props used to conceal the operation, etc.). The bigger the thing you are trying to hide, the harder it is to hide it.

I don't really know much about this 'ICAAIP' until stumbling onto this forum here, so forgive me for being a little ignorant on the subject matter. When I look at such a potentially large undertaking (the impression I got when I read the first page), and the fact that it is 'covert' as you say, it makes me wonder just how easy one might be able to expose something like that. For anything that could easily be exposed, it takes much more work to keep it hidden.

I think larger programs have been hidden quite well. . . Manhattan Project, 117 Stealth Fighter, the Mafia, and so forth . . . Once you convince people you are saving the world but we must keep it quiet . . . It becomes easier . . .

[George B]

To summarize that thread: Basically George is saying that if there was an undetectable chemtrail program, then we would not be able to detect it. He thinks it's happening because of his intuition and experience in the military. He thinks that since Edward Teller talked about it, it's likely (>30%) being done.

There is more IMO but your Reader's Digest Condensation is a good intro . . . Teller is one of a group . . . Charter Members of the Congressional, Military, Industrial, Complex that were use to turning rhetoric into substance and had the clout to accomplish unbelievable things under great secrecy . . .

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...rd_teller.html

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/leitenberg/weather.pdf
http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6791

[Gunguy45]

I think larger programs have been hidden quite well. . . Manhattan Project, 117 Stealth Fighter, the Mafia, and so forth . . . Once you convince people you are saving the world but we must keep it quiet . . . It becomes easier . . .

Larger? In what way? The first 2 you mentioned were (relatively) small projects confined to a (relatively) small group of people. The Mafia? How was that hidden? Every person affected by their influence knew of them. Now you are talking about a multi-national, worldwide effort.

[Spongebob]

To summarize that thread: Basically George is saying that if there was an undetectable chemtrail program, then we would not be able to detect it. He thinks it's happening because of his intuition and experience in the military. He thinks that since Edward Teller talked about it, it's likely (>30%) being done.

Way to blow 9 pages of twaddle out of the sky!

[George B]

Larger? In what way? The first 2 you mentioned were (relatively) small projects confined to a (relatively) small group of people. The Mafia? How was that hidden? Every person affected by their influence knew of them. Now you are talking about a multi-national, worldwide effort.

Content from external source:

The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012^[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites, some secret, across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Two types of atomic bomb were developed during the war. A relatively simple gun-type fission weapon was made using uranium-235, an isotope that makes up only 0.7 percent of natural uranium. Since it is chemically identical to the main isotope, uranium-238, and has almost the same mass, it proved difficult to separate. Three methods were employed for uranium enrichment: electromagnetic, gaseous and thermal. Most of this work was performed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

[George B]

Larger? In what way? The first 2 you mentioned were (relatively) small projects confined to a (relatively) small group of people. The Mafia? How was that hidden? Every person affected by their influence knew of them. Now you are talking about a multi-national, worldwide effort.

Content from external source:

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk was a single-seat, twin-engine stealth ground-attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983.^[1] The F-117A was "acknowledged" and revealed to the world in November 1988.^[4

During the program's early years, from 1984 to mid-1992, the F-117A fleet was based at Tonopah Test Range Airport, Nevada where it served under the 4450th Tactical Group. Because the F-117 was classified during this time, the 4450th Tactical Group was "officially" located at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada and equipped with A-7 Corsair II aircraft. The 4450th was absorbed by the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing in 1989. In 1992, the entire fleet was transferred to Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, where it was placed under the command of the 49th Fighter Wing. This move also eliminated the Key Air and American Trans Air contract flights to Tonopah, which flew 22,000 passenger trips on 300 flights from Nellis to Tonopah per month.

[George B]

Larger? In what way? The first 2 you mentioned were (relatively) small projects confined to a (relatively) small group of people. The Mafia? How was that hidden? Every person affected by their influence knew of them. Now you are talking about a multi-national, worldwide effort.

No, I am talking about a few hundred people in a couple of isolated locations and maybe two dozen or less converted 747s or equivalent . . .

[Unregistered]

No, I am talking about a few hundred people in a couple of isolated locations and maybe two dozen or less converted 747s or equivalent . . .

You have quite the imagination George...I'll give ya that...

[Jay Reynolds]

To summarize that thread: Basically George is saying that if there was an undetectable chemtrail program, then we would not be able to detect it.

Yeah, we would not be able to detect George's "Pie InThe Sky" James Bond thriller because it has no effect: