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

[Noble1965]

Remember...he believes that contrails are a type of "chemtrail" also...

 

[firepilot]

SO...thats it?

13 pages of discussion....and all George has is a "hunch"?

He admits that the vast majority (if not all) the persistent trails people see and Believe are "chemtrails" are simply contrails...

He says his "hunch" is based on "available limited evidence" ...and yet there is NO actual evidence that anything is being "sprayed"...his evidence amounts to previous actions by various entities that have caused him to be mistrustful of the government...and his faith in his own intuition.

curious.

Not only that, but it rather appears that George does not revisit his opinions or beliefs, after his evidence is shown to be something else. That, is being closed minded, when a belief is held onto so strongly, that nothing sways someone from that, even when what was used to help form that belief, is shown to be false, for example when the NOAA article was NOT about mysterious aerosol emission, or that Open Skies is not just some way for countries to invade each others airspace en masse.

It is a faith based belief, and its a great illustration of how it is psuedo-religion in nature. It is a faith based belief in the unseen, that is held onto strongly, even in the face of actual evidence.

Its actaully a bit bizarre because George is entirely rational in some parts of his belief, but then switches over to imagination and speculation when it comes to feeling that these things are happening.

 

[firepilot]

Actually jet fuels like Jet A, Jet B have the same formulations as before, going back for decades. There is not a change in the quality of jet fuel.A old turbojet will run the same on Jet A from 1960, as Jet A from today.

It is a change in the turbine engines themselves, better metallurgy allows for higher pressures and temperatures of combustion, allowing for more complete combustion of the jet fuel. That increased combustion of jet fuel (Efficiency), also results in more contrails, because then more water vapor is produced too.

 

[Noble1965]

Its actaully a bit bizarre because George is entirely rational in some parts of his belief, but then switches over to imagination and speculation when it comes feeling that these things are happening.

This is what I first noticed about George. It's like he's close to understanding that there is no evidence to support the belief that there is an "aerosol injection program" happening, but he's invested so much time, and has made so many statements of fact on the subject on GLP, that if he were to admit that there is no evidence to support his claims, it would be like admitting he's been wrong all this time.

Everyone wants to be "right"...but in the face of such a lack of evidence, such as it is in this case...it must be so hard to stand your ground.

Unless one already understands they are wrong, but doesn't want to admit it...considering the hours they have invested...and the fact that they have influenced so many with their words...

Could it be the fear of losing credibility with those who respect you for believing as they do? No one wants people to jump off of their bandwagon...

 

[George B]

And that's all there is...a "hunch" based on intuition...because there certainly isn't any actual evidence to support the claims of "chemtrails".

Seems to me that you have convinced yourself that since YOU (someone who has been rewarded for his intuition in the past) "believe" it...it must be true. I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested you may be fooling yourself in this matter.

I still see no evidence to support the claim that there is a "covert aerosol injection process" happening. And I think the accusation is disgusting, and is being used to spread hate and distrust.

Shame shame shame...

http://mindjustice.org/humprot2-06.htm​
ByCheryl Welsh
Fall 2005
McGeorge School of Law
National Security Law
Professor John Sims



Thereare indications that today, the intelligence agencies and industrial-militarycomplex are repeating the cold war deception and patterns described by Welsome.Human rights experts describe “new”weapons of mass destruction, after the atomic bomb that have also beenclassified for decades, involve top government officials and scientists, andreports of government actions beyond legal limits. Coupled with the continuedsecrecy and growth of national security, these factors are a valid challenge tothe view that future illegal experiments won’t happen again. A 2002 RichmondTimes-Dispatch described the increased secrecy surrounding experiments:
"Itborders on the scandalous that we still don't have rules in place that would atleast begin to protect the people who are in those trials," cautionedJonathan D. Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at theUniversity of Virginia. . . . Morenopointed to a December news report that President Bush had given the secretaryof health and human services [HHS] the authority to classify the information assecret. Moreno said that could allow the Defense Department or CIA to undertakesecret human experiments with the HHS.26​
Inhis 1999 New York Times reviewed book, Undue Risk, Secret StateExperiments on Humans, Moreno wrote that national security concerns will outweighhuman subject protections:
Todayand ever since the end of the World War II, the universal sensitivity abouthuman experiments is coupled with the fact that they are probably unavoidablein the real world of national security. Textbook theories, laboratoryexperiments, and computer and animal models can only go so far. At some point, when information is neededabout how human beings will react to new forms of weaponry, human experimentswill have to continue in this business. In a dangerous world one might wellargue that it would be irresponsible for us not to do so.27​

http://mindjustice.org/humprot2-06.htm​

 

[Noble1965]

http://mindjustice.org/humprot2-06.htm​
ByCheryl Welsh
Fall 2005
McGeorge School of Law
National Security Law
Professor John Sims

blah blah blah...

So? Does that justify claiming there is an "aerosol injection program" without any evidence?

It no more justifies that than it does the robot cat theories...

"they can and do involve themselves in evil/clandestine stuff" covers EVERY conceivable thing one can imagine. It isn't evidence of "chemtrails".

sorry!

 

[George B]

If it's just as reasonable, then why pick this one in particular?

And I thought you thought the trails in the sky were contrails?

And where do you stand on robot spy cats?

I can accept the trails in the skies as either persistent contrails or I would refer to as low grade chemtrails because I believe through intentional policy they are a global dimming experimentation at some level . . . In the quote above I was speaking from the position of an Advocate who is simply reacting to the visual assault of the trails in the sky . . . trying to relate how someone could emotionally react without significant research and reflection on the issue . . .

Robot cats may well exist and would make fine pets . . . and the CIA could use them to spy . . . sure . . . however, I really don't care if they exist . . . my concern is aerosol injection . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Robot cats may well exist and would make fine pets . . . and the CIA could use them to spy . . . sure . . . however, I really don't care if they exist . . . my concern is aerosol injection . . .

My intuition tells me the robot cats are equipped with a spray device which transmits germs/viruses/bacteria in the home and affect the health of the occupants. I believe this because I have cats...who I think may be robotic (my intuition tells me that because of the way they give me evil looks...and never blink, they must be) ...and my kids have been sick quite often this winter.

 

[Spongebob]

GOT HIM -

It was that way all along, I was waiting for it, eventually and sure enough...

"hunch, intuition, inference"

 

[George B]

Not only that, but it rather appears that George does not revisit his opinions or beliefs, after his evidence is shown to be something else. That, is being closed minded, when a belief is held onto so strongly, that nothing sways someone from that, even when what was used to help form that belief, is shown to be false, for example when the NOAA article was NOT about mysterious aerosol emission, or that Open Skies is not just some way for countries to invade each others airspace en masse.

It is a faith based belief, and its a great illustration of how it is psuedo-religion in nature. It is a faith based belief in the unseen, that is held onto strongly, even in the face of actual evidence.

Its actaully a bit bizarre because George is entirely rational in some parts of his belief, but then switches over to imagination and speculation when it comes to feeling that these things are happening.

"for example when the NOAA article was NOT about mysterious aerosol emission"
I have revisited the issues and feel there is sufficient room for aerosols to be injected just above the noise level over many months or years and accomplish experimental design . . . there are many possible missions and geo-engineering is not the only one . . . we don't know what concentrations are required to accomplish any mission . . . we assume we know the concentrations for example of Sulfur Compounds because they have been discussed for years and we have natural sources of volcanic eruptions to base calculations on . . . I feel I can construct a scenario based on the use of Sulfur compounds as an additive in jet fuel and it would be seen as just part of the anthropomorphic contribution to the mix . . . especially in an era of increased pollution abetment programs who knows where pollution from one percent of jet fuel exhaust is going . . .
"or that Open Skies is not just someway for countries to invade each others airspace en masse."
I never said 'en masse . . .' I said it clearly shows a mechanism for foreign aircraft to gain access to US airspace without theknowledge of the US public . . . and access that they would have no way to validate or track . . .

 

[George B]

GOT HIM -

It was that way all along, I was waiting for it, eventually and sure enough...

"hunch, intuition, inference"

My mission was never to convince the people on this Forum that Chemtrails exist . . . look at the title of this thread . . . "I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program" My purpose was to explain why I believe, open communication and a dialogue with this Forum, Learn something myself and possibly give the people on this Forum a chance to interrogate an Advocate on your own turf . . .

 

[Noble1965]

George, you have yet to show there is ANY mission, of any kind, involving "aerosol injection" of ANY kind. All you are doing is continuing to speculate on what you believe based on intuition.

Now there are "many possible missions"...

Yet, no evidence of a single one...anywhere.

Wow, these guys are good!

 

[George B]

So? Does that justify claiming there is an "aerosol injection program" without any evidence?

It no more justifies that than it does the robot cat theories...

"they can and do involve themselves in evil/clandestine stuff" covers EVERY conceivable thing one can imagine. It isn't evidence of "chemtrails".

sorry!

It sure indicates that there is recent concern from serious sources that human experimentation is not a thing of the past . . . not just Cold War Era history . . .

 

[George B]

George, you have yet to show there is ANY mission, of any kind, involving "aerosol injection" of ANY kind. All you are doing is continuing to speculate on what you believe based on intuition.

Now there are "many possible missions"...

Yet, no evidence of a single one...anywhere.

Wow, these guys are good!

My mission was never to convince the people on this Forum that Chemtrails exist . . . look at the title of this thread . . . "I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program" My purpose was to explain why I believe, open communication and a dialogue with this Forum, Learn something myself and possibly give the people on this Forum a chance to interrogate an Advocate on your own turf . . .

 

[SR1419]

I believe through intentional policy they (persistent contrails) are a global dimming experimentation at some level . . . .

Over 40,000 commercial flights in the US alone a daily basis...the basic flight schedules remain the same regardless of atmospheric conditions...some days there are contrails, some days there aren't...

What makes you believe that an unintended consequence of normal air travel- that is subject to variation of atmospheric conditions beyond anyone's control- is "intended"?

Simply because they do not take steps to mitigate contrails does not make their existence intended.

 

[George B]

Actually jet fuels like Jet A, Jet B have the same formulations as before, going back for decades. There is not a change in the quality of jet fuel.A old turbojet will run the same on Jet A from 1960, as Jet A from today.

It is a change in the turbine engines themselves, better metallurgy allows for higher pressures and temperatures of combustion, allowing for more complete combustion of the jet fuel. That increased combustion of jet fuel (Efficiency), also results in more contrails, because then more water vapor is produced too.

Yes . . . and the entire aircraft industry, IPCC, NASA, and NOAA know just that . . . and have for years . . . and through policy and profit margin decisions have agreed that they would rather reduce greenhouse gases (CO2 and NOx emissions) than reduce Radiative Forcing from persistent Trails . . .

 

[George B]

Over 40,000 commercial flights in the US alone a daily basis...the basic flight schedules remain the same regardless of atmospheric conditions...some days there are contrails, some days there aren't...

What makes you believe that an unintended consequence of normal air travel- that is subject to variation of atmospheric conditions beyond anyone's control- is "intended"?

Simply because they do not take steps to mitigate contrails does not make their existence intended.

"Simply because they do not take steps to mitigate contrails . . . " I believe it is possible yes . . .

 

[Mick West]

Yes . . . and the entire aircraft industry, IPCC, NASA, and NOAA know just that . . . and have for years . . . and through policy and profit margin decisions have agreed that they would rather reduce greenhouse gases (CO2 and NOx emissions) than reduce Radiative Forcing from persistent Trails . . .

No they haven't. They simply haven't given reducing contrails any real consideration. Nobody with decision making authority made any decision regarding contrails.

You might as well say that General Motors decided not to make a Robot Cat, because they preferred to make cars.

 

[Noble1965]

It sure indicates that there is recent concern from serious sources that human experimentation is not a thing of the past . . . not just Cold War Era history . . .

So? This thread isn't about "human experimentation". It's about claims of a supposed "aerosol injection program".

Have you seen anyone here deny that people experiment on people from time to time? I saw an article today where black women were sterilized without their knowledge for years...with plutonium...That article is new...

But, that has nothing to do with "chemtrails".

 

[Noble1965]

George, do you think that the smog from the 70's was just a city based "dimming" operation? Because I have seen images through my life that would suggest that they were VERY effective.

 

[Mick West]

Robot cats may well exist and would make fine pets . . . and the CIA could use them to spy . . . sure . . . however, I really don't care if they exist . . . my concern is aerosol injection . . .

So you would pretty much give plausibility to any odd theory with no real evidence to support it.

Just for some reason you picked this one.

What are you doing here?

 

[Noble1965]

My mission was never to convince the people on this Forum that Chemtrails exist . . . look at the title of this thread . . . "I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program" My purpose was to explain why I believe, open communication and a dialogue with this Forum, Learn something myself and possibly give the people on this Forum a chance to interrogate an Advocate on your own turf . . .

Thanks for that chance George....

It's just too bad we can't all be looking for truth...and just seem to want to hone debating skills.

 

[firepilot]

I am sorry. . . .if you require such information it won't be available until the people doing the process decide to announce their activities and even then some debunkers will think the announcement is a just a HOAX. . . .

Except that with the internet, digital photography, google earth, it is not as easy to hide secrets as you think. You have this idea, fed by ignorance, that somehow lots of planes could take off from Europe or Russia, with a payload of aerosols, fly over the US, and back to home, without anyone knowing at all. First of all, I do not know of any aircraft that could do that. Second of all, yes there are ways to find out about aircraft in the skies too. Your imagination really does run away with itself at times.

Even in the 1980s, people knew there was some secret US aircraft flown at night in Nevada, from the Area 51 complex. That was before internet usage, before digital cameras, and even then it was impossible to completely hide that. And look at the RQ-170 intel UAV. People took photos of it flying around in Afghanistan, and it was posted to message boards, even though the aircraft was still classified. That would have been far easier to hide, than some secret fleet of aircraft flying around in US airspace.

It is better to investigate and research, rather than to let your imagination run wild. It was quite amazing actually, seeing what your imagination had turned the Open Skies treaty into, and that NOAA article too

 

[Noble1965]

It was quite amazing actually, seeing what your imagination had turned the Open Skies treaty into, and that NOAA article too

It's amazing how people can convince themselves that their interpretation of the written word is correct...and how far that interpretation can take them.

 

[Noble1965]

George, you mentioned "duty" the other day, in reference to your military service.

It's your "duty" to protect me, as a citizen, from foreign and domestic enemies. Now, if you have information which suggests that "they" are spraying me...why do you waste your time on conspiracy sites and other forums? Shouldn't you be using your contacts on the inside to get the word out to those who can do something about this?

Do you have some sort of "inside information" that you are afraid to share? I can't understand why no one does anything more than complain about it online.

 

[firepilot]

"for example when the NOAA article was NOT about mysterious aerosol emission"
I have revisited the issues and feel there is sufficient room for aerosols to be injected just above the noise level over many months or years and accomplish experimental design . . . there are many possible missions and geo-engineering is not the only one . . . we don't know what concentrations are required to accomplish any mission . . . we assume we know the concentrations for example of Sulfur Compounds because they have been discussed for years and we have natural sources of volcanic eruptions to base calculations on . . . I feel I can construct a scenario based on the use of Sulfur compounds as an additive in jet fuel and it would be seen as just part of the anthropomorphic contribution to the mix . . . especially in an era of increased pollution abetment programs who knows where pollution from one percent of jet fuel exhaust is going . . .
"or that Open Skies is not just someway for countries to invade each others airspace en masse."
I never said 'en masse . . .' I said it clearly shows a mechanism for foreign aircraft to gain access to US airspace without theknowledge of the US public . . . and access that they would have no way to validate or track . . .

Except, that you are not correct, again.

Can you name a single aircraft, that can fly from Europe or Russia, do a big loop around, and return, all in one flight?

And you still cling to this belief, that Open Skies means we have to allow any of them and lots of them, access to US airspace, and thats NOT TRUE. Its only in your imagination that its true.

Yes or no, are there quotas on how many aircraft flights are allowed?
Yes or no, Are countries able to refuse a flight or able to insist that they are allow to supply an aircraft?
Yes or no, are there specific criteria for equipment, and that members can inspect other countries aircraft to be used?
Yes or no, Can people get access to raw ATC data, and listen in on ATC communications?
How many flights, have their been under the Open Skies treaty?

These are questions with real specific answers, not imagination scenarios.

 

[George B]

No they haven't. They simply haven't given reducing contrails any real consideration. Nobody with decision making authority made any decision regarding contrails.

You might as well say that General Motors decided not to make a Robot Cat, because they preferred to make cars.

There are many research papers written on persistent contrail mitigation strategies, there are many references to CO2 and NOx reduction objectives of the Airlines, IPCC, etc. . . . there are even references by IPCC about the social effects of increased cloud cover but no . . . proposals or their mitigation . . . call what you wish . . . omission or commission it is still a policy decision . . .

 

[George B]

So you would pretty much give plausibility to any odd theory with no real evidence to support it.

Just for some reason you picked this one.

What are you doing here?

Hmmm . . . I didn't pick it as much as it picked itself . . .

 

[George B]

Except, that you are not correct, again.

Can you name a single aircraft, that can fly from Europe or Russia, do a big loop around, and return, all in one flight?

And you still cling to this belief, that Open Skies means we have to allow any of them and lots of them, access to US airspace, and thats NOT TRUE. Its only in your imagination that its true.

Yes or no, are there quotas on how many aircraft flights are allowed?
Yes or no, Are countries able to refuse a flight or able to insist that they are allow to supply an aircraft?
Yes or no, are there specific criteria for equipment, and that members can inspect other countries aircraft to be used?
Yes or no, Can people get access to raw ATC data, and listen in on ATC communications?
How many flights, have their been under the Open Skies treaty?

These are questions with real specific answers, not imagination scenarios.

1) All your questions assume that foreign aircraft cannot be staged on the soil of other countries like Canada, Mexico or even in the US itself . . . . no matter the country of original origin etc.
2) The number is not relevant . . . no one knows the numbers required for a mission . . . if I believe there are covert missions don't you think I also believe that the number and frequency of flights can be fudged by the few individuals responsible for monitoring the treaty . . . how in the world would the public ever know . . . it is simply if I somehow screw up an see one and get lucky enought to ID it there is an explanation of their existence . . . There is nothing to see here, please move along . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Oh George, How do you manage to cope in a world so full of evil....

Everyone is in on it...and you are just a victim.

 

[George B]

I have to run and spend some time with the family . . . it has been intense and fun today . . . good questions !!!!!!

 

[George B]

George, you mentioned "duty" the other day, in reference to your military service.

It's your "duty" to protect me, as a citizen, from foreign and domestic enemies. Now, if you have information which suggests that "they" are spraying me...why do you waste your time on conspiracy sites and other forums? Shouldn't you be using your contacts on the inside to get the word out to those who can do something about this?

Do you have some sort of "inside information" that you are afraid to share? I can't understand why no one does anything more than complain about it online.

1) I do have inside experience and understanding of the Government and Contractors including black corporations
2) I don't think chemtrails are an official policy or mission of the US Government . . . so protest to the US Government or military is not possible or productive. . .
3) I do believe the Injection Conspiracy is so well organized, so covert, and so well established . . . no one will stop it . . . it will stop when its objectives are met or if they run out of money, resources, and opportunity . . .

 

[Noble1965]

1) I do have inside experience and understanding of the Government and Contractors including black corporations
2) I don't think chemtrails are an official policy or mission of the US Government . . . so protest to the US Government or military is not possible or productive. . .
3) I do believe the Injection Conspiracy is so well organized, so covert, and so well established . . . no one will stop it . . . it will stop when its objectives are met or if they run out of money, resources, and opportunity . . .

1) that's not what I asked.
2) you could still use your contacts to protect the citizens of the USA. It's irrelevant as to where "they" are coming from. I demand that you do your duty to protect me and my family. Whining about it online has been proven to be ineffective.
3) you should try to stop it...it's your duty...Chicken? You owe it to the people!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

A 2002 RichmondTimes-Dispatch described the increased secrecy surrounding experiments: "Itborders on the scandalous that we still don't have rules in place that would atleast begin to protect the people who are in those trials," cautionedJonathan D. Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at theUniversity of Virginia. . .

But to my knowledge, neither the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jonathan Moreno, the Center for Biomedical Ethics, or The University of Virginia has taken up a belief in chemtrails. What did any of these tell you when you asked about it, George? I'm sure they have probably more knowledge about these sorts of issues now that you've informed them, right?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I am new to your forum . . . these are some of the reasons I believe there is an Aerosol Injection program in place and or Chemtrail Conspiracy . . .
Checklist
1. Is thereevidence of particulate or aerosols in the atmosphere which are unaccounted forby any source identified by Atmospheric Scientists? . . . Yes
2. Is there evidencesuggesting that something has changed the rate of global warming? . . . Yes
3. Is there evidenceof unaccounted budget and mechanisms to allocate, spend and manage projectswithout the public's knowledge or consent? . . . Yes
4. Are thereunidentified Aircraft that fly daily which the public has no information about their mission,goals, flight path, altitude or purpose? . . . Yes
5. Do these unidentified Aircraft sometime leave persistentTrails? . . . Yes
6. Are there whistleblowers who have indicated that aChemtrail program is ongoing?. . . Yes
7. Are there inexistence technology to accomplish a program of aerosol dispersal at altitudeand a set of airframes available to accomplish such a mission? . . . Yes
8. Has there beensufficient time from the development of technology and motive for chemtrailprograms to see them fully tested, deployed, and operational? . . . Yes
9. Are theresufficient aerosol materials readily available to accomplish such a dispersalprogram? . . . Yes
10. Is there historyof pre-existing or similar aerosol dispersal programs?. . . Yes
11. Is theresufficient process and infrastructure to maintain secrecy and covertoperations? . . . Yes
12. Is there ahistory of operational research regarding the effects of (chemical) aerosols being added to jet fuel to monitor the visual and atmosphericmeasurement effects? . . .Yes
13. Are there Local, National, and Global motives toengage in an aerosol dispersal program? . . . Yes
14. Are the motivesfor such programs and the technology and procedures for their implementationsbeing discussed in scientific and political organizations worldwide? . . . Yes
15. Are there national and international laws, regulations, treaties, andorganizations available ready to facilitate and not eliminate such aerosolinjection programs? . . .Yes
16. Are there any monitoring programs where data isavailable to the public that eliminates the possibility of the existence ofsuch a dispersal program? . . . No
17. Is there anyevidence other than official announcements from Governmental and Politicalsources that Chemtrails don't exist? . . . No
18. Is there a smallyet vocal group of people who insist that such a program exists? . . . Yes
19. Is there a history of unexplained substances which havebeen documented that have fallen from the sky? . . .Yes
20. Have the rates of respiratory diseases, allergies, andconditions associated with the atmosphere continually risen? . . .Yes
21. Has there been asteady increase in the number of persistent trails observed by people andreported as unusual to their memory? . . . Yes
22. Has NASA & NOAA as well as similar organizations inthe UK invested significant budget and effort in soliciting the public's helpto identify and report persistent trails in the sky? . . . Yes
23. Has anypractical contrail mitigation procedures or technology been invested in,deployed, installed or becomeoperational? . . . No
24. Has NASA utilized satellite imaging in an effort tocorrelate the presence of persistent trails visualized and detected from spacewith ground observations ? . . . Yes
25. Has NASA and other organizations presented significantresearch that persistent Trails and cirrus clouds may result in significantclimatic impact? . . .Yes
26. Are governments capable of initiating,implementing, maintaining, and coveringup programs which have been proven to be against the best interest to thehealth and welfare of their citizens? . . .Yes
27. Do you have any reason to believe some type ofcoordinated, high tech, aerosolinjection program from altitude, dispersed by some type of airframe has not, is not, or will not beimplemented ?. . . No

Maybe its time to revisit from whence George came to this point and time.
Above is where he started.

 

[George B]

1) that's not what I asked.
2) you could still use your contacts to protect the citizens of the USA. It's irrelevant as to where "they" are coming from. I demand that you do your duty to protect me and my family. Whining about it online has been proven to be ineffective.
3) you should try to stop it...it's your duty...Chicken? You owe it to the people!

...

I would greatly appreciate it if commenters would be polite to one another, and constructive in their criticism.

Any comments that contain insults, direct or implied, may be edited or removed.

This does not mean you should avoid telling people they are wrong, simply that you be polite about it, and that you explain why they are wrong. As a general rule of thumb, imagine you are talking to a new friend of a close relative, and be as polite as you would in that situation.

 

[George B]

But to my knowledge, neither the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jonathan Moreno, the Center for Biomedical Ethics, or The University of Virginia has taken up a belief in chemtrails. What did any of these tell you when you asked about it, George? I'm sure they have probably more knowledge about these sorts of issues now that you've informed them, right?

I thought one of the arguments was . . . Laws have been changed and the government would no longer engage in activities such as the Zinc Cadmium Sulfide dispersal from aircraft. . . This is just evidence that some people would not agree with that. . . .

 

[George B]

Oh George, How do you manage to cope in a world so full of evil....

Everyone is in on it...and you are just a victim.

I have a wonder life. . . .I trust most people and am rather happy and content. . . .the evil in this world has always existed as well as deceit . . . they are just given background noise. . .

 

[firepilot]

1) All your questions assume that foreign aircraft cannot be staged on the soil of other countries like Canada, Mexico or even in the US itself . . . . no matter the country of original origin etc.
2) The number is not relevant . . . no one knows the numbers required for a mission . . . if I believe there are covert missions don't you think I also believe that the number and frequency of flights can be fudged by the few individuals responsible for monitoring the treaty . . . how in the world would the public ever know . . . it is simply if I somehow screw up an see one and get lucky enought to ID it there is an explanation of their existence . . . There is nothing to see here, please move along . . .

Because if you actually did research and looked for information, you would have these answers. But to you, suspicions are more important than reality.

You just saw the term "Open Skies" and never bothered to do a single bit of research on it. Thats the only possible way, that you could have been spreading so much false information. I can not think of a single thing that you stated in regards to it, that is factually correct. And the problem is, that when things are pointed out where you posted false statements, you just continue on like nothing ever happened.

Just came out and state the obvious, you never bothered to actually read the text of the Open Skies Treaty, you just prefer to let your imagination run wild, with all these foreign aircraft running amuck in US airspace, with no one knowing who they are, and somehow secretly spraying secret aerosols.

Unfortunately, reality gets in the way of this. You made it out to sound like this treaty gives other countries unlimited rights to fly over others, without restriction as you said, and that was patently false. Are you ever going to apologize for posting things that are not true?

Again, I asked before. How many Open Skies flights have there been? How many flights over the US?

And why you say that flights could be staged out of other countries, when there is no provision in the treaty for that at all?

Yes the number is entirely relevant. How could a few aircraft in a year, really do anything at all?

The only thing we have evidence of, is that you have a wild imagination where if you can picture something going on, then it must be true.

 

[George B]

Hmmm...based on this "chemtrail" thing...I wonder how many thing you were rewarded for getting "right" in the past...but you actually got wrong.

Of course, we'll never know....

Then again, we don't even know if you have EVER had success with your intuition in the past. it's just a claim. I guess YOU know if it's the truth, but convincing me is going to be tough, considering your beliefs about this subject.

George, could you give us an example of how your powers of intuition have saved the day in the past? I'm not asking you to be specific...Just a general idea.

I had hunches a few times that substances testing positive for explosives and others for biochemical warfare agents were false positives. . . saving much time and expense. . .confirmation testing proved me right. . .If I had been wrong I wouldn't be here. . . . Is that good enough. . . ??

.