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

[George B]

And the one's that are not - are they different? Can you tell the difference? What are they?

I don't know what other people have seen . . . I don't think one can look at a trail at 30,000 feet and tell anything . . . However, if one sees one at 10 or 20,000 feet which can be verified then I would be curious. . . . I have heard of persistent trails reported for a couple of days in a row where atmospheric soundings within the area would have suggested none should have been visible. . . Since I didn't see them and can only take the word of the persons and the location where they were witnessed . . . it is weak at best. . . .

 

[George B]

And what do you believe about the trails that people point to and call "chemtrails"?

On a different note - how would you assess the film "What in the World are they Spraying" in terms of accuracy, and coincidence with your beliefs.

I am presently reviewing the video. . . .I have gotten through the first third of it. . . My first impression is that Mr. Griffin's definition of a contrail is one I do not agree with . . . Even the old low efficient engines could produce a persistent trail in optimum air. . . The rest of the video so far . . . Of course from a Chemtrail activist's perspective seemed balanced in response to the geoengineering symposium . . . The section on Lake Shasta and the pH and aluminum, barium, strontium levels. . . I cannot without knowing more details comment on. . . they seem to be insisting these are elevated levels and alarming. . . Pond film, etc. . .I don't know. . . .

 

[George B]

I am presently reviewing the video. . . .I have gotten through the first third of it. . . My first impression is that Mr. Griffin's definition of a contrail is one I do not agree with . . . Even the old low efficient engines could produce a persistent trail in optimum air. . . The rest of the video so far . . . Of course from a Chemtrail activist's perspective seemed balanced in response to the geoengineering symposium . . . The section on Lake Shasta and the pH and
aluminum, barium, strontium levels. . . I cannot without knowing more details comment on. . . they seem to be insisting these are elevated levels and alarming. . . Pond film, etc. . .I don't know. . . .

I am half way through. . . Arizona House member, Dentist, and someone else. . . .Data on Aluminum levels no details . . No way to validate. . . Interesting comment on wild fire rate of tree decline. . . Was a favorite topic of my mother before she died. . . I thought was acid rain response. . . Could high levels of aluminum have such an effect? . . . Don't know. . . .

 

[George B]

I will be gone this morning. . . However, I did some thinking about the aluminum levels and pH presented in the video. . . .seems the pH has to be pretty low to leach aluminum from the soil, etc. . . In the video it was stated by their soil expert that the reverse was ongoing. . . . the pH was on the rise from around 5.0 to at least 5.8. . . so I wonder what is the source of aluminum on the west coast. . . .? If it is China. . . Seems that would be obvious. . . Just thoughts. . . .

 

[Noble1965]

I will be gone this morning. . . However, I did some thinking about the aluminum levels and pH presented in the video. . . .seems the pH has to be pretty low to leach aluminum from the soil, etc. . . In the video it was stated by their soil expert that the reverse was ongoing. . . . the pH was on the rise from around 5.0 to at least 5.8. . . so I wonder what is the source of aluminum on the west coast. . . .? If it is China. . . Seems that would be obvious. . . Just thoughts. . . .

well, some may have issues with some of his work..

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination

 

[Mick West]

I will be gone this morning. . . However, I did some thinking about the aluminum levels and pH presented in the video. . . .seems the pH has to be pretty low to leach aluminum from the soil, etc. . . In the video it was stated by their soil expert that the reverse was ongoing. . . . the pH was on the rise from around 5.0 to at least 5.8. . . so I wonder what is the source of aluminum on the west coast. . . .? If it is China. . . Seems that would be obvious. . . Just thoughts. . . .

The source of aluminum is the ground. The Earth's crust is 8% aluminum. Soil varies from 1% to 30% aluminum, average 7%.

The aluminum they found is just silt and dust. Their testing procedures were terrible.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I will be gone this morning. . . However, I did some thinking about the aluminum levels and pH presented in the video. . . .seems the pH has to be pretty low to leach aluminum from the soil, etc. . . In the video it was stated by their soil expert that the reverse was ongoing. . . . the pH was on the rise from around 5.0 to at least 5.8. . . so I wonder what is the source of aluminum on the west coast. . . .? If it is China. . . Seems that would be obvious. . . Just thoughts. . . .

The Shasta group says that CARB(California Air Reseources Board) has never found aluminum in soildust events coming from China, but they won' cite you where tat clim comes from. Well, because it's not true. China's desertification is well known as the source for around 50% of the world's dust, and it makes it's way worldwide, having been found as far away as Greenland's ice sheets. Of course, since it is a common crustal element, yes, aluminum in several diferent compounds is par of the dust. A more likely source for steady aluminum found in the Shasta area is the volcanic nature of the geography around there. About 16% of the native rock forming Mt. Shasta is aluminum oxide. When I told this to Francis Mangels six months ago by telephone, he later told me that he had confirmed this with a local geologist, yet as recently as last month was still claiming that there ws no local source for aluminum in his area. So much for honesty.

If anyone wants cites for all of these, just read the threads here or PM me, and I will hunt them down. It wasn't hard to find this out, just had to google it. I did call his local County Agriculture Extension Agent, who is the first resource most people use when having prblems in gardening. The man had no idea what chemtrails were, had never spoken to Mangels or heard his claims, taht pH of greater than 7.0 were common in the county, and assurred me that he had no reports of pH changes.

It generally takes hundreds to tens of hundreds of pounds of material to change soil pH. Neither Mangels nor anyone of his group as ever come up with what their estimate of the requirement would be to accomplish the changes they claim. They don't have to bother with such details, which is revealing in their own right. Additionally, I politely requested any sort of record of the alleged pH changes, but my request was refused, and all I can assume is there are no actual records:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot

 

[George B]

The source of aluminum is the ground. The Earth's crust is 8% aluminum. Soil varies from 1% to 30% aluminum, average 7%.

The aluminum they found is just silt and dust. Their testing procedures were terrible.

As I have said before I usually don't view the Youtubes of this nature except for exceptions like this and have stuck to the traditional mainstream sites . . . I don't doubt that much in this flick can'tbe attacked and partially if not completely debunked . . . . I never said people don't jump to conclusion and react with emotion and without sound logic. . . many of a seasoned Professor and highly educated and qualified people have been known to go down rabbit paths occasionally . . . as was pointed out Dr Teller advocated using nuclear bombs to drill for oil . . . for example. . .so I have not been disillusioned nor have I departed from my belief there is IMO likely to be some type of Aerosol Injection process ongoing . . .

I have not used environmental testing of any type ground, water, nor air except for the NOAA article we began the debate with. . . my # 1.

 

[Noble1965]

As I have said before I usually don't view the Youtubes of this nature except for exceptions like this and have stuck to the traditional mainstream sites . . . I don't doubt that much in this flick can'tbe attacked and partially if not completely debunked . . . . I never said people don't jump to conclusion and react with emotion and without sound logic. . . many of a seasoned Professor and highly educated and qualified people have been known to go down rabbit paths occasionally . . . as was pointed out Dr Teller advocated using nuclear bombs to drill for oil . . . for example. . .so I have not been disillusioned nor have I departed from my belief there is IMO likely to be some type of Aerosol Injection process ongoing . . .

I have not used environmental testing of any type ground, water, nor air except for the NOAA article we began the debate with. . . my # 1.

yeah, but WHY do you believe such a thing? There is absolutely NOTHING to support the belief. I guess you just have that much faith in your own beliefs...and don't require ANYTHING that even suggests it's true.

Interesting.

Even the NOAA article doesn't suggest any such thing...yet you use it as the backbone of your beliefs just because you "believe" those who wrote the article don't know as much about what is in the atmosphere...or where it came from...as YOU do?!

Like they write...

"Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles."

It's you who are speculating, and you are speculating based on a "belief" and nothing more.

 

[George B]

To continue with my personal journey. . . .I tried to stay away from Chemtrail sites altogether because I didn't want to be biased by their opinions. . . Kept to NASA, NOAA, GOA Reports, Congressional Testimony, State, US, Federal and international laws and treaties, IPCC, CFR, Geoengineering Symposia and research. . . . However,
to argue for CHEMTRAILs I was required to place theoretical constructs around this Wealth of material to argue for the Chemtrail Theory. . . .I approached it like anything else I had done in my life. . . I theorized. . . .If it is real, who could be doing it, How are they doing it, how can they pay for it, how can they keep their operations secret, why are they doing it and if I were to construct a system to accomplish it. . . What would I do. . . .

1) who could be doing it . . . if there are Injection Programs ongoing the likely institutions involved would be the legacy institutions from WWII and the Cold War . . . these people are use to dealing with huge, expensive and covert programs . . . they know how to manage people, and know how to keep them in line and quiet . . . the Congressional,Military, Industrial Complex. . . these guys are not a figment of my imagination . . . President Eisenhower made it most clear that they existed and were likely to become more powerful and covert . . . within the military the people who dealt with SAIC, Northrop Grumman, DARPA, ARPA,Boos Allen Hamilton, IBM, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Raytheon Corporation, and on and on including Congressional Staff members know who and what I am talking the Beltway Bandits. . . an incestuous inbred bunch of $%#&&@#$%% . . . “If it is committed in the name of God or country, there is no crime so heinous that the public will not forgive it.”
Tom Robbinswriter (1936- ) http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/qte_corpover.html

 

[George B]

yeah, but WHY do you believe such a thing? There is absolutely NOTHING to support the belief. I guess you just have that much faith in your own beliefs...and don't require ANYTHING that even suggests it's true.

Interesting.

Even the NOAA article doesn't suggest any such thing...yet you use it as the backbone of your beliefs just because you "believe" those who wrote the article don't know as much about what is in the atmosphere...or where it came from...as YOU do?!

Like they write...

"Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles."

It's you who are speculating, and you are speculating based on a "belief" and nothing more.

I never said it was the backbone of my beliefs . . . you are speculating now . . .

 

[Spongebob]

I never said it was the backbone of my beliefs . . . you are speculating now . . .

So the backbone of your beliefs are...??

 

[Noble1965]

I never said it was the backbone of my beliefs . . . you are speculating now . . .

I must have misunderstood what you meant by "my # 1. " a few posts back.



Yeah, what is the backbone of your beliefs? What is the most compelling piece of evidence?

 

[George B]

2) How are they doing it . . . I will cover that later in . . . What would I do

 

[Noble1965]

2) How are they doing it . . . I will cover that later in . . . What would I do

George, please don't ignore my questions. You did it a few times yesterday.

Aren't you interested in discussing this?

 

[George B]

I must have misunderstood what you meant by "my # 1. " a few posts back.



Yeah, what is the backbone of your beliefs? What is the most compelling piece of evidence?

The answer, there is no single factor, it is a collection of many facts . . . however, this is where I got much of my motivation when I found it . . .


a. Well the one that shocked me first and before I found anything else was the following . . .

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

b.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan that originatedwithin the United Statesgovernmentin 1962. The plan called for CentralIntelligence Agency(CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities andelsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war againstthat nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of theOperation Northwoods plan was to"develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in otherFlorida cities and even in Washington." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods​

 

[George B]

George, please don't ignore my questions. You did it a few times yesterday.

Aren't you interested in discussing this?

What did I miss . . .I have several people asking questions . . . I feel I answer several at one time . . . often with the same answer . . .

 

[firepilot]

As I have said before I usually don't view the Youtubes of this nature except for exceptions like this and have stuck to the traditional mainstream sites . . . I don't doubt that much in this flick can'tbe attacked and partially if not completely debunked . . . . I never said people don't jump to conclusion and react with emotion and without sound logic. . . many of a seasoned Professor and highly educated and qualified people have been known to go down rabbit paths occasionally . . . as was pointed out Dr Teller advocated using nuclear bombs to drill for oil . . . for example. . .so I have not been disillusioned nor have I departed from my belief there is IMO likely to be some type of Aerosol Injection process ongoing . . .

I have not used environmental testing of any type ground, water, nor air except for the NOAA article we began the debate with. . . my # 1.

This illustrates why chemtrails is a religious belief to many.

You did bring up the word faith, in regards to your beliefs about chemtrails. And even something that to you, is part of your evidence, was nothing like what you presented it to be. Not only was it not about mysterious aerosols being emitted, it was not even about aerosols being emitted. It was about natural gaseous emissions, most likely from volcanos, that later on, formed aerosols in the atmosphere via chemical reactions.

However, this did not cause you to re-evaluate your beliefs, or to even acknowledge that you were wrong and that this was not evidence, or even what you presented it to me.

Its the same thing that many do in regards to religion, a religious figure or clergy, when something is brought up that debunks a particular idea. The faithful continue on just like nothing happened, and in the case of some, whether in religion or with chemtrail promoters, people will actually defend a religious shyster, or chemtrail shyster, and attack whoever brought up the truth.

I do not think your belief or faith changed one bit with all the actual evidence here that was brought forth, nor with how your NOAA article was actually explained to be something other than what you felt.

 

[Mick West]

What did I miss . . .I have several people asking questions . . . I feel I answer several at one time . . . often with the same answer . . .

What you've missed is evidence that they are actually doing it.

And more specifically, evidence that rises above the level of "there might be robot cats".

 

[Noble1965]

The answer, there is no single factor, it is a collection of many facts . . . however, this is where I got much of my motivation when I found it . . .


a. Well the one that shocked me first and before I found anything else was the following . . .

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

b.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan that originatedwithin the United Statesgovernmentin 1962. The plan called for CentralIntelligence Agency(CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities andelsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war againstthat nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of theOperation Northwoods plan was to"develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in otherFlorida cities and even in Washington." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods​

Hmmm...now we're back to the whole "Is this a biological/chemical warfare test or global warming mitigation?!"

I can't imagine HOW any of the above suggests that anyone is spraying anything into the air.

It just suggests that LEGALLY, they were allowed to without informing the public...now they aren't.

This is as much evidence that "they" are putting pixie dust/chili powder/cocaine into the air as it is that "they" are spraying "chemicals" for global warming mitigation...or anything at all!

Evidence that they are allowed, or not...isn't evidence that they ARE!

Especially on the scale you believe it to be happening.

 

[Noble1965]

What did I miss . . .I have several people asking questions . . . I feel I answer several at one time . . . often with the same answer . . .

I asked you to explain who you think is actually doing the spraying. You have mentioned in the past how you feel it's foreign pilots. Remember that one? Please explain why you feel that way.

 

[George B]

This illustrates why chemtrails is a religious belief to many.

You did bring up the word faith, in regards to your beliefs about chemtrails. And even something that to you, is part of your evidence, was nothing like what you presented it to be. Not only was it not about mysterious aerosols being emitted, it was not even about aerosols being emitted. It was about natural gaseous emissions, most likely from volcanos, that later on, formed aerosols in the atmosphere via chemical reactions.

However, this did not cause you to re-evaluate your beliefs, or to even acknowledge that you were wrong and that this was not evidence, or even what you presented it to me.

Its the same thing that many do in regards to religion, a religious figure or clergy, when something is brought up that debunks a particular idea. The faithful continue on just like nothing happened, and in the case of some, whether in religion or with chemtrail promoters, people will actually defend a religious shyster, or chemtrail shyster, and attack whoever brought up the truth.

I do not think your belief or faith changed one bit with all the actual evidence here that was brought forth, nor with how your NOAA article was actually explained to be something other than what you felt.

The NOAA article was information which I only recently looked into . . . it was never the foundation for my "belief" that and Injection Program exists . . . I see from your earlier discussions here on your forum the members have had significant time to dissect, debate and digest the opinions on the NOAA article . . . I had not . . . my inclusion of it in my 28 points was actually the last item added . . . though I put it number one, because at the time I thought I understood the evidence presented in the article and felt at the time it supported the possible existence of particulate that was not accounted for by NOAA . . . I have not had the multiple resources for discussion of debaters with scientific aptitude or interests as you seem to have here. . .

 

[Mick West]

George, I wonder if perhaps you are not putting the wrong weight on your "evidence".

Some of what you bring up - things like Operation Northwood, or Operation LAC, is simply evidence that a particular type of thing has been considered, or done, in the past.

All that does is eliminate one objection to a theory - that nothing vaguely similar has happened before.

But that's all it does. It's not evidence that something similar is happening now. And removing one objection does not remove all the other objections. It's not a mark in favor of the theory, it's just one mark fewer against it. And not a particularly big or precise mark at that.

Let's say I have a theory that US forces are flying to the Moon on a regular basis. I could point out that there are good reasons to establish a secret moon base. I could also point out that there are MANY documents and patents related to lunar flight and habitations. I could point out that people had flown to the moon many times before.

But I would not actually have any evidence. Not only that, I have an ABSENCE of evidence, and where evidence would be expected then absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence.

That's where I think you are. You are vaguely suggesting that something is happening that might be similar to something that happened before, and is leaving no evidence.

 

[Noble1965]

George, I wonder if perhaps you are not putting the wrong weight on your "evidence".

Some of what you bring up - things like Operation Northwood, or Operation LAC, is simply evidence that a particular type of thing has been considered, or done, in the past.

All that does is eliminate one objection to a theory - that nothing vaguely similar has happened before.

But that's all it does. It's not evidence that something similar is happening now. And removing one objection does not remove all the other objections. It's not a mark in favor of the theory, it's just one mark fewer against it. And not a particularly big or precise mark at that.

Let's say I have a theory that US forces are flying to the Moon on a regular basis. I could point out that there are good reasons to establish a secret moon base. I could also point out that there are MANY documents and patents related to lunar flight and habitations. I could point out that people had flown to the moon many times before.

But I would not actually have any evidence. Not only that, I have an ABSENCE of evidence, and where evidence would be expected then absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence.

That's where I think you are. You are vaguely suggesting that something is happening that might be similar to something that happened before, and is leaving no evidence.

And there is budget, motive, need for secrecy....There is just as much "evidence" to support your moon base theory as there is to support beliefs about chemtrails...and robot cats.

Where does this line of thinking end? One can convince himself that anything exists....

 

[George B]

What you've missed is evidence that they are actually doing it.

And more specifically, evidence that rises above the level of "there might be robot cats".

I have no evidence you would accept . . .I am not trying to convince you or anyone else on this Forum of that . . . what I am trying to do is to . . .
1) Find out why debunkers feel no program exists
2) Open a line of communication between the two camps
3) Engage in a friendly debate of the issues that concern advocates
4) Try to inform debunkers of why people who believe in an Injection Program . . . believe it . . .

 

[Mick West]

I have no evidence you would accept . . .I am not trying to convince you or anyone else on this Forum of that . . . what I am trying to do is to . . .
1) Find out why debunkers feel no program exists
2) Open a line of communication between the two camps
3) Engage in a friendly debate of the issues that concern advocates
4) Try to inform debunkers of why people who believe in an Injection Program . . . believe it . . .

1) The absence of evidence
2) Success!
3) Moderate Success!
4) I think there's a variety of reasons. It's a very interesting topic - conspiracy theories - and there's been a lot written about it.

 

[George B]

And there is budget, motive, need for secrecy....There is just as much "evidence" to support your moon base theory as there is to support beliefs about chemtrails...and robot cats.

Where does this line of thinking end? One can convince himself that anything exists....

No one can force someone to not believe in something they choose to believe in . . . including robotic cats and a moon base . . . I have no evidence that is going to convince you . . . if you think it is my purpose you are mistaken. . .

 

[George B]

1) The absence of evidence
2) Success!
3) Moderate Success!
4) I think there's a variety of reasons. It's a very interesting topic - conspiracy theories - and there's been a lot written about it.

Thank you . . . it is a beginning . . .maybe of a good thing . . .

 

[firepilot]

I have no evidence you would accept . . .I am not trying to convince you or anyone else on this Forum of that . . . what I am trying to do is to . . .
1) Find out why debunkers feel no program exists
2) Open a line of communication between the two camps
3) Engage in a friendly debate of the issues that concern advocates
4) Try to inform debunkers of why people who believe in an Injection Program . . . believe it . . .

Lets leave "feelings" out of this, and lets operate on reason, logic and evidence. Feelings are in the realm of emotions and faith.

Its better to go by more tangible aspects, things we can prove, evaluate actual evidence, and to use our brains for critical thinking. Remember, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thats evidence, not extraordinary feeling (or faith, beliefs, suspicions,conjecture and make believe)

And not only is there no evidence presented, when something is presented, its so often wrong, that its worse than no evidence at all. When chemtrails claim that contrails can not persist, or that metals should not be found in the ground, or fuel dump nozzles on airliners are secret spray nozzles, or that small Cessnas releasing silver iodide can leave large contrails at airliner heights, etc etc.

Those kinds of statements make it even less credible than no evidence at all, when the chemtrail promoters have to lie, in order to promote their conspiracy, and pretty much everything they say is not true.

I fear this is a religious type belief for you, you have faith that it is occurring, and you can imagine it, just as many people have an unseen faith in a diety, even though they have no actual evidence at all. They just feel it is true.

Why do I KNOW, not feel, that there is not some chemtrail program? Because with my knowledge of aviation which debunks their silly chemplane claims. With my knowledge of earth science and geology, which debunks their silly metal claims. And with critical thinking, which is how i know there there is ZERO evidence that has ever been put forth.

What has been put forth by the chemtrailers? Lies, ignorance, suspicion, faith, belief, feelings, paranoia.
Why should I have faith in that they are saying something true, when its all been lies and junk science so far?

 

[Noble1965]

No one can force someone to not believe in something they choose to believe in . . . including robotic cats and a moon base . . . I have no evidence that is going to convince you . . . if you think it is my purpose you are mistaken. . .

If you think MY "purpose" is to change what YOU believe, you are mistaken. I just think it's wrong to accuse others of wrongdoing based on so little evidence. It's like me accusing you of being a serial rapist/murderer with no more evidence to support the claim other than the knowledge that ...sometimes men rape and murder.

How terrible of me to think such a thing is wrong...Making statements of fact that accuse others of secret horrible acts, TO ME..seems quite disgusting.

I'm glad you are able to admit that you believe it only because you "choose" to believe it though. Thanks.

 

[George B]

I asked you to explain who you think is actually doing the spraying. You have mentioned in the past how you feel it's foreign pilots. Remember that one? Please explain why you feel that way.

1) One of the best and rare whistleblower articles I found that discussed the Injection Program's Methods, Motives, and Objectives mentioned in it the details of how the program worked . . . indicated that no pilot did Injections over their own country nor did they prepare the Injection materials . . . this was also done by other countries . . . giving them plausible moral and ethical relief from being guilty of spraying their own countrymen.
2) The world treaty structure allows over-flight of military aircraft without interference from any country signing the treaty . . . meaning IMO foreign aircraft and aircrew have access to US airspace . . . without interference . . .
3) If I were going to design a way to accomplish covert Injection Missions . . . this is how I would do it . . .

 

[MikeC]

Got a source for 1) above??

 

[firepilot]

If you think MY "purpose" is to change what YOU believe, you are mistaken. I just think it's wrong to accuse others of wrongdoing based on so little evidence. It's like me accusing you of being a serial rapist/murderer with no more evidence to support the claim other than the knowledge that ...sometimes men rape and murder.

How terrible of me to think such a thing is wrong...Making statements of fact that accuse others of secret horrible acts, TO ME..seems quite disgusting.

I'm glad you are able to admit that you believe it only because you "choose" to believe it though. Thanks.

That is a good point. It is highly unethical, for chemtrailers to accuse others of being part of some conspiracy, or trying to kill/harm people, without any evidence. Does not matter whether one knows them or not, its not good to accuse others, without evidence.

Chemtrailers hate the aviation sector, the military, pilots, airliners, and especially anyone that has anything to do with aerial refueling of military aircraft.

And its not just unethical but harmless, since chemtrailers led by these hoax charlatans, have made threats to shoot down airplanes, or to harm pilots. Or they waste money on snake oil, because people like Will Thomas, Alex Jones, Len Horowitz, or Roxy Perry - the unemployed realtor from AZ whose conspiracy entrepreneur name is Roxy Lopez

 

[George B]

If you think MY "purpose" is to change what YOU believe, you are mistaken. I just think it's wrong to accuse others of wrongdoing based on so little evidence. It's like me accusing you of being a serial rapist/murderer with no more evidence to support the claim other than the knowledge that ...sometimes men rape and murder.

How terrible of me to think such a thing is wrong...Making statements of fact that accuse others of secret horrible acts, TO ME..seems quite disgusting.

I'm glad you are able to admit that you believe it only because you "choose" to believe it though. Thanks.

I spent 30 years of my life defending this country and the Constitution as a member of the military . . .I was willing and was called on a few times to risk my life and I certainly asked other people to do so as well . . . If I think some institution is engaging in what I feel is illegal and immoral acts . . . I not only have a right but a duty to say so . . . however, if you will look back at two years of my postings I have never accused any flight crew, military member, or government official of a criminal act . . . I have quoted Congressional Testimony and Supreme Court findings which were much more heated and accusatory than I have ever been . . .about human experimentation and possible misuse of power and money by people who were unaccountable within our nations governance . . .

 

[George B]

Got a source for 1) above??

Let me check . . . if I do I will post it . . .

 

[Mick West]

George - you are aware that sometimes people put out fake documents and videos for a variety of reasons? Some of them are quite sophisticated like the "[video]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy[/video]", and some fool people for a long time, like the Cottingley Fairies.

You know that I, or anyone else familiar with the theory, could easily write a "whistleblower" document that many people would find convincing.

Such "documents" (and they are usually just some text on the internet, in one case a second hand tale supposed told by a drunk pilot to impress the ladies) are pointless without corroborating evidence.

 

[Noble1965]

1) One of the best and rare whistleblower articles I found that discussed the Injection Program's Methods, Motives, and Objectives mentioned in it the details of how the program worked . . . indicated that no pilot did Injections over their own country nor did they prepare the Injection materials . . . this was also done by other countries . . . giving them plausible moral and ethical relief from being guilty of spraying their own countrymen.
2) The world treaty structure allows over-flight of military aircraft without interference from any country signing the treaty . . . meaning IMO foreign aircraft and aircrew have access to US airspace . . . without interference . . .
3) If I were going to design a way to accomplish covert Injection Missions . . . this is how I would do it . . .

1) I see no evidence that any "whistleblower" from any "chemtrail" organization exists. I have seen articles and GLP posts from people who CLAIM to be...but their statements are so vague and/or ignorant that I can't come to any other conclusion than that they are either chemtrail advocates...or people pretending to be whistle blowers in an attempt to deceive the advocates even more.
2) So, the ONLY reason you think this is allowed is for "chemtrails"?! There are no other reasons to let planes fly through our airspace?
3) That's because you are looking at it from the perspective of a chemtrail advocate.


Sorry, none of this is evidence that anyone from any other nations military is using our airspace to spray anything. Again...This is belief...faith...intuition....based on your personal world view.

It's not evidence to anyone, except those who think as you do.

 

[firepilot]

1) One of the best and rare whistleblower articles I found that discussed the Injection Program's Methods, Motives, and Objectives mentioned in it the details of how the program worked . . . indicated that no pilot did Injections over their own country nor did they prepare the Injection materials . . . this was also done by other countries . . . giving them plausible moral and ethical relief from being guilty of spraying their own countrymen.
2) The world treaty structure allows over-flight of military aircraft without interference from any country signing the treaty . . . meaning IMO foreign aircraft and aircrew have access to US airspace . . . without interference . . .
3) If I were going to design a way to accomplish covert Injection Missions . . . this is how I would do it . . .

Sorry, but your #2 is totally wrong.

Open Skies treaty does not mean that any other military can just fly over the US as much as they want, without interference. Do you think aircraft from other militaries, can just take off from other countries, do some big loop over the US, no be part of air traffic control, and return back to their home country, with impunity?

Because thats how you present it, and that's totally incorrect. You spend more time conjecturing and imagining, than you do researching.

Each country that takes part, is allowed quotas for overflights, and they do not have to just accept them all either.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/openskies

Treaty Status: The treaty entered into force on January 1, 2002. Twenty-six of the treaty’s initial 27 signatories have ratified the accord and are now states-parties. Since the treaty entered into force, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden have become states-parties. Russia conducted the first observation flight under the treaty in August 2002, while the United States carried out its first official flight in December 2002. In 2008, states-parties celebrated the 500th overflight and since then the number of flights flown has risen to more than 650.

Process: An observing state-party must provide at least 72 hours' advance notice before arriving in the host country to conduct an overflight. The host country has 24 hours to acknowledge the request and to inform the observing party if it may use its own observation plane or if it must use a plane supplied by the host. At least 24 hours before the start of the flight, the observing party will supply its flight plan, which the host has four hours to review. The host may only request changes in flight plans for flight safety or logistical reasons. If it does so, the two states-parties have a total of eight hours after submission of the original flight plan to agree on changes, if they fail, the flight can be cancelled. The observation mission must be completed within 96 hours of the observing party's arrival unless otherwise agreed.3 Although state-parties are allowed to overfly all of a member’s territory, the treaty determines specific points of entry and exit, and refueling airfields. The treaty also establishes ground resolution thresholds for the onboard still and video cameras. The aircraft and its sensors must undergo a certification procedure before being allowed to be used for Open Skies in order to confirm that they do not exceed the allowed resolutions.

2. For example, Russia, which shares its quota with Belarus, and the United States both have quotas permitting 42 flights per year, while Portugal is only obligated to allow two flights annually. Countries are not required to exhaust their flight quotas. In 2009, the United States flew a total of thirteen flights, twelve over Russia and one over Ukraine.

Why do you depict the Open Skies Treaty, to be something other than what it really is?

 

[Noble1965]

I spent 30 years of my life defending this country and the Constitution as a member of the military . . .I was willing and was called on a few times to risk my life and I certainly asked other people to do so as well . . . If I think some institution is engaging in what I feel is illegal and immoral acts . . . I not only have a right but a duty to say so . . . however, if you will look back at two years of my postings I have never accused any flight crew, military member, or government official of a criminal act . . . I have quoted Congressional Testimony and Supreme Court findings which were much more heated and accusatory than I have ever been . . .about human experimentation and possible misuse of power and money by people who were unaccountable within our nations governance . . .

Then DO SO! Complaining about it on forums isn't fulfilling your duty! You don't have the duty to "say so"..you have a duty to PROTECT us from such things.

I'm waiting!

Fine, you are accusing SOMEONE of something you have no evidence to support the existence of. And in MY opinion, it doesn't matter who it is...

 

[Noble1965]

George - you are aware that sometimes people put out fake documents and videos for a variety of reasons? Some of them are quite sophisticated like the "[video]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy[/video]", and some fool people for a long time, like the Cottingley Fairies.

You know that I, or anyone else familiar with the theory, could easily write a "whistleblower" document that many people would find convincing.

Such "documents" (and they are usually just some text on the internet, in one case a second hand tale supposed told by a drunk pilot to impress the ladies) are pointless without corroborating evidence.

I have mentioned to George in the past that I would love to do just that. It would be funny to see how quickly the information I'd make up would be adopted as "fact" by the chemtrail advocates.