It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
"Set rules to regulate - done (United Nations)"

Really? Isn't David Keith still saying that this needs to be done?

a reply to: MagicWand67




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I think this video really helps to fill in some of the last pieces of puzzle.

A very well thought out presentation of Geoengineering from a somewhat conspiratorial viewpoint.

Researcher David Lim speaks about his theories and makes a strong well supported case.

He also touches very briefly on subjects like Agenda 21, Monsanto, HAARP and chemtrails.

Well worth watching.




.Youtube

A very comprehensive overview and smoothly delivered making this presentation digestible and entirely validated by doctoral researcher David Lim from Reading University. For those detractors and debunkers, the time is coming when this will be fully exposed very soon as more respected professionals realise the reality of the mass deception. Positive changes are happening, many thanks to David Lim and every ones efforts in exposing this incredible situation.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

The full scale implementation of SRM is under a Moratorium by the United Nations.

The small scale testing of SRM is currently allowed by the UN and is basically unregulated.

The governance issue is about full scale activity and is still being debated.

This document below is disturbing. Way too important to just quote a few lines. MUST READ

“MECHANICS” OF SRM RESEACH GOVERNANCE


SRMGI in Africa

Governance of Research on Solar Geoengineering: African Perspectives



This document will really make the debunkers drool. A group of concerned citizens compiled research and presented it to the SRMGI. Somewhat controversial take on AGW.

Notification (Submission) in Relation to Solar Radiation Management Research Governance Initiative

edit on 3-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Oh dear. First Tanker Enemy and now David Lim

a reply to: MagicWand67



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy

The full scale implementation of SRM is under a Moratorium by the United Nations.

The small scale testing of SRM is currently allowed by the UN and is basically unregulated.

The governance issue is about full scale activity and is still being debated.

Governance of Research on Solar Geoengineering: African Perspectives


So you can't really say "Set rules to regulate - done (United Nations)"



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy



So you can't really say "Set rules to regulate - done (United Nations)"



I just did.



Go check my edit and read the "Mechanics of Governance". Here's a few quotes...


“MECHANICS” OF SRM RESEACH GOVERNANCE


2. DECISION-MAKING FOR SRM RESEARCH PROJECTS
Scope and Requirements:
The core of any governance system for SRM research will be the process of making decisions whether or not, or under what conditions and with what restrictions, proposed activities may proceed. No such system now exists, and in its absence any nation may conduct SRM – even at large scale, over its own territory, over others‟ with permission, or at sea – so long as there is no territorial violation or hostile intent. As a practical matter, such activity would no doubt attract immediate pressure from other nations to desist, but no existing international law
prohibits or regulates it.

.......

4. TRANSPARENCY IN SRM RESEARCH AND GOVERNANCE

.....

In addition, given widespread suspicion of SRM from many citizens and organizations, building legitimacy of SRM research governance is likely to require broad dissemination of information about what is done, how decisions are made, and what results are observed. This must be made widely available, to national governments, participants in whatever consultative or deliberative processes have been established, and the interested public. In the first instance, the presumption should be that as much as possible of the information generated through project
proposals, assessment and approval, implementation, and subsequent monitoring and evaluation, should be subject to such broader distribution – both in raw form and with summaries and syntheses, to allay suspicions that the system is being rigged or risks are being concealed.
There are, however, certain compelling reasons that can over-ride this general presumption for transparency and justify limiting availability of information in specific instances.

These can include:

- Protecting confidential information belonging to individuals or of competitive
significance between enterprises or researchers.

The cost and administrative burden of providing information (This may be particularly
significant for small or standardized projects);

- Safety, security, and management of international conflict

These issues suggest the following key questions to be addressed regarding information
transparency in SRM research governance:

1) Is information about ownership, control, financial backing, and intellectual property
deemed relevant to project assessment and approval – and consequently, should there be
requirements to disclose this in proposals








Oh dear. First Tanker Enemy and now David Lim



What's wrong with David Lim? Please explain.


edit on 3-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy



So you can't really say "Set rules to regulate - done (United Nations)"



I just did.



Go check my edit and read the "Mechanics of Governance"





Oh dear. First Tanker Enemy and now David Lim



What's wrong with David Lim? Please explain.



You can say it but that doesn't mean it's true.


There's nothing wrong with David Lim if you want this thread to veer off into the pseudoscience of the chemtrail conspiracy theory



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Well it's just my opinion and you can certainly disagree.

How about contributing something else besides your negative 1 & 2 liners?

I didn't say I agreed with all of David Lim's theories. But I think it's worth listen to as whole.

I have no control over which direction this thread goes. You're more than welcome to take over.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy

Well it's just my opinion and you can certainly disagree.





So you think "Set rules to regulate" of phase I is completed but that is just based on your opinion rather than any regulations actually being in place?



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

The rules I am referring to are as follows

Small scale SRM - A okay


Full scale SRM - no no no



PS:

In regards to the David Lim video and the submission paper to the SRMGI

I'm basically done with providing my own theories. I figured I'd introduce some other points of view.

I think opening up this thread to more speculative ideas is a good thing at this point.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Well, I will say this. I worked with Chaff for 4 years. I know what it is, how it looks, how it looks deployed. The reports about how safe it is, came from the same folks who distribute it, so trust, but verify.

I am not a champion for the cause of chaff, it is what it is. But it's a real thing. And if you rallied up a group to protest it, you would at least be taken seriously. If you feel it's a threat to humanity, I suggest you do something about it. You will be listened to, and you won't be ridiculed for crazy ideas like the chemtrail folks.

Chaff just doesn't' frighten me, so I have no reason to protest. But Kudos for you if you care enough about your cause to do it. If I see you holding a sign at some rally, I'll beep my horn in support as I drive by.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy



Full scale SRM - no no no





OK so the regulations have been decided and there's not going to be any SRM. End of story I guess.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Well, as has been pointed out... My mere use of the word 'chemtrail' allowed the thread to be forced open as another to fight the chemtrail debunker wars. So...no one has any place telling you or anyone else within the very broad topics this has become now....that something is OT.

I must admit..I almost choked on my soda when I read that earlier on the thread. lol..

Anyway, the information you've brought is both appreciated and judging by replies outside the debunking group, well received at least in terms of more info to add to a growing pile of 'Hmmm....Interesting...". I'm not sure how much further any material in this area goes for real world proof, or can right now. Speculation is the stuff that leads to more tho...so thanks for sharing so much.
edit on 7/3/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I wouldn't want to be one of those people in Huntsville when that chaff cloud was tested.

Why can't they test this stuff above unpopulated areas at least?


BTW, the aren't "testing" chaff. They are training with it. It's purpose is to confuse enemy radar guided missiles. And as a taxpayer, and an American, I am all for not having our Pilots blown out of the sky.

Please let us know if you make any headway in your protest.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Thank you for a very well done OP. I haven't wanted to contribute to any of these geoengineering threads because of the constant back and forth arguing that goes on. But you presented the facts in a rational way that lends itself to a more proper discussion.

I look forward to reading other peoples opinions and input on the information we all have gathered here. If I come across any more info worth sharing I will make sure to post it.




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Can I ask you about your experiences with chaff.

Were you unaware that chaff contained boron oxide?

Were you ever given any precautions and safety procedures?

Please give us some details about what, if any, rules involving the use of chaff that you know about.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

It is and was described as fiberglass woven with aluminum. We pulled it apart and checked it out. Very thin strings. It's loaded into small canisters, (like in the photo in my previous post) and those are loaded into a block that is I think 12 X 12 canisters. The flares are the same way and on the C-130 they are loaded right next to them. (the flares are for heat seeking missiles) When an attack is eminent, the crew will usually fire both chaff and flair since they don't have time to figure out what type of tracking might be being used. (and on that I am going on what I think I know. I was ground maintenance, so I didn't fly the planes)

Since the fibers are not wet, or sticky, I think it's safe to assume the chemicals that make them up were dried in the process. Much like with plastic. It has petroleum in it, but you cannot smell or taste the gasoline. Once they are deployed, they blow everywhere. When we did see the demonstration on the ground, once they popped, you would be hard pressed to catch some of the fibers before they blew away.

I am convinced that chaff is a non event in the toxic substance category, but that is just my opinion.
I found that in the making of computers, lead and mercury are used, and since we have much more contact with our PC's and laptops, I would think that would be a bit more of a concern, but whatever creams your twinkie.

As I said before, I am not a chaff protector, or debunker. My real only concern here is to try to get the folks who point to a contrail picture and call it a chemtrail to understand a little science. And I do that for fun. Or if some folks need to believe that we are getting paid, then I do it for huge piles of money. (think filling a swimming pool with $100 bills and swimming naked)

I am a big fan of people who do things instead of just talking. So even if you go build an orgon cloud buster to destroy "chemtrails", you would have my admiration for being a person of action. I have even donated to some of the projects to sample chemtrails. Sadly, none have come to fruition, but perhaps one day it will.

If you do find that chaff is some toxic environmental hazard and you can prove it, let me know. If I believe it, I'll hold a sign next to you.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Thanks for that information.

But I was really more interested in knowing if there are rules or regulations for pilots when releasing this stuff.

Like don't fly at a low altitude over a populated area and release it.

Do you know of any guidelines, rules or laws prohibiting this type of activity?

May I also ask what was your position or job description?



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Here is the mother load.

I was Com/Nav, or (radios and radar) on C-130s,but we weren't always busy, and I took up being a crew chief as well. Made the nights go by quicker to stay busy.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Thanks that was helpful.

From your link...


A3 Policies and Regulations on Chaff Use
Current Air Force policy on use of chaff and flares was established by the Airspace Subgroup of Headquarter Air Force Flight Standards Agency in 1993. It requires units to obtain frequency clearance from the Air Force Frequency Management Center and the FAA prior to using chaff to ensure that training with chaff is conducted on a non-interference basis. This ensures electromagnetic compatibility between the FAA, the Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Defense (DoD) agencies. The Air Force does not place any restrictions on the use of chaff provided those conditions are met (Air Force 1997).

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-201, U.S. Air Force Airspace Management, November 2007. This guidance establishes practices to decrease disturbance from flight operations that might cause adverse public reaction. It emphasizes the Air Force’s responsibility to ensure that the public is protected to the maximum extent practicable from hazards and effects associated with flight operations.

AFI 11-214 Aircrew and Weapons Director and Terminal Attack Controller Procedures for Air Operations, December 2005. This instruction delineates procedures for chaff and flare use. It prohibits use unless in an approved area.




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join