The United Nations Exposes Chemtrails: 100% PROOF We Are Being Poisoned

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

The problem with his theory is that the upper level data isn't necessarily from the areas that the pictures are for one. Balloons drift a long way while rising, especially on windy days. Upper level winds can be insane. I've seen winds in excess of 160 mph once you get up into the jetstream altitudes. Those balloons could have been launched near Phoenix, and taken upper level data near Amarillo.

I guess that why the weathermen are always wrong
Thanks for creating a million more questions in my mind. I'll never sleep now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wasn't totally sure about this (re: relative impact air transport has versus ground transport) until I did some digging. Page 8 of the linked document below illustrates:

report.mitigation2014.org...

On the whole, the impact air transport has on total GHG emissions declined since 1970 (~11.3% in 1970 and ~10.6% in 2010).

You're right, until we mitigate ground transport's impact we are doing ourselves no favors by suggesting air travel is an unnecessary evil.

I'm on the fence about this chemtrail thing to be honest.
Mostly due to one question no one can answer with 100% certainty - If they are spraying us, they are also spraying themselves and their family. So why would they do that if it's so harmful?

a reply to: SyxPak

No problem. Thanks for accepting the information in the spirit it was offered. Knowledge is power.

a reply to: Staroth

I think that would depend on what one thinks the chemtrails are for. At least one theory holds that those perpetrating chemtrails believe them to be beneficial. Whether that theory was created to get around your question rather than answering it, I don't know.

My own tendency is to disbelieve, without completely closing my mind to possibilities. My reason for that is that chemtrails are all pure speculation with no evidence at all and the reason people started talking about chemtrails in the first place, back in the 1990's, was that they didn't know what a contrail was (or, more likely, they did but knew others didn't)

Highlight at 7:25 in the video:
Rosalind Peterson on contrails (at 7:24):

I want you to know that what you're seeing now a lot of times many scientists know, especially at NASA...that the skies we are seeing are not normal clouds formations. These are man-made.

Here's an outline of what Rosalind Peterson says:

Mitigation of climate change requires reduction of persistent contrails
--the extent of contrails in the 60s was not nearly what we see today, with persistent trails occurring more in the 80s
--contrails contribute to global climate change through human-made clouds (even according to NASA)
--human-made clouds are trapping warmth in out atmosphere and creating more humidity, which causes proliferation of pests, molds, and diseases
--the cloud formations are not "normal," and because they are human-made the cloud formations that result have not been seen before.

Note that all the above is relevant to a discussion about contrails and also relevant to a discussion about who gets included in the group of individuals often labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists." Rosalind Peterson is indeed being branded many times with this label.



Here's the rest Rosalind Peterson says in her brief speech at the UN:

Atmospheric testing is highly suspect and potentially dangerous
--(presenting an image of discolored clouds) experiments are being done by the US government, NASA, and the airforce sending up canisters of chemicals into the ionosphere (aluminum, barium, strontium), none of which have any public oversight
--drinking water has shown unusual spikes in aluminum, barium, strontium all at the same time in supplies across California and in Arizona
--metals like aluminum are damaging the root systems of crops and trees preventing the uptake of water, which mimics the effect of drought
--the above is compounded by human-made clouds (persistent contrails) decreasing sunlight and increasing humidity
--because jet activity and fuel emission are creating haze and deplete ozone, better impact studies need to be done
--if we ignore atmospheric testing programs and the impact of contrails, and add to this more particulates in the form of geoengineering, there will be a "soup" of chemicals up there detrimental to our health.

We should be reducing the pollution at its source not fixing the problem of climate change with more pollution.
--geoengineering schemes will destroy agriculture and impact crop production
--We don't want money-making schemes like iron dust put into the Galapagos that will impact the marine life but supposedly this pollution is going to stop climate change.
--a new direction is needed than to cause more pollution in order to stop climate change



My thanks to the OP for posting this video.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

wow! you are a genius....i never thought about that....and yes, they do exist....wow...weird....must.do.more.reading.thinking.

originally posted by: DogMeat
All I see is a women with her thoughts and no prof...nada.
She drank the kool-aid...........

While we all understand the meaning of 'drinking the kool-aid' and most know the context behind it, there is a real problem here. The venerable Kool-aid brand of products have a long and honorable history of filling the public's artificially flavored drink needs. They have done so humbly, and were even kind enough to convince their famous spokesperson to stop randomly crashing large holes through the load-bearing walls of people's homes.
Their lesser-known competitor, however, deserves our ire. They are but a cheap imitation of the cheap imitation flavors Kool-aid has faithfully provided to us for decades.
I'm talking, of course, about Flavor-aid. Their underhanded sales tactics and vicious marketing campaigns have insinuated themselves into the innocent and inquisitive minds of our children at the ages where they are the most vulnerable. They sell their despicable and poorly concocted flavors in the same stores, and sometimes even on the SAME SHELVES as our beloved Kool-aid! This simply cannot be allowed to continue. We must band together and halt this demonous threat in its tracks, before it's too late. Too late for you, too late for your family, and too late for America. Thank you, and good night.
Oh yeah, and Jim Jones' followers in Guyana actually consumed the poison in cups of Flavor-aid.
Also, just to keep the topic from drifting, Chemtrails and junk...

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Zaphod58

It doesn't really matter what is causing the Contrails though, according to NASA the persistent contrails are negatively effecting the climate. If we wouldn't have so many Jets flying around as we do today, we wouldn't have so much of a problem. They either have to lower the amount of Jets in the air or fix the problem of the persistent contrails.

We can keep saying they naturally form, but the natural forming contrails are not natural at all and have become a problem because of quantity. You can pee outside near your raspberry bushes and it won't hurt them, but if everyone does it, they do not produce berries. The amount of Jets in the air is too high.

What does NASA state that the hazards of excessive contrails are, exactly? I'd never heard this before.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MALBOSIA

More common, but almost identical.

But there IS a difference. What caused them.

It feels like a bit of a trick of vocabulary. There is no term or word in the English vocabulary to define the difference between an cirrus clouds and by-products of commercial airlines.

Admitting it exists but not giving it a name seems like the ultimate exercise ignorance.

The word is 'artificial'. Or anthropogenic, if you want to sound fancy.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SyxPak

There is no set point where a contrail will persist. If the RHI is over 100% it will persist.

If the relative humidity is over 100%, it is usually raining.

originally posted by: intrptr

Yes it does. And there are a lot more emissions at ground level than we'll ever see at altitude.

You just deflected again…


Had my say.

If you would, please clarify how exactly someone agreeing with you, and adding further information to the conversation that is also in agreement with your statement, constitutes deflection, exactly?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: gmoneystunt

No but its still spraying chemicals. Its not good for you

I can drop a bowling ball from 100 miles above your head it would burn up, so you wouldn't get hit by it as many layers of atmosphere are between you and that bowling ball, so now imagine what happens to lithium when it it sprayed that high...easy answer nothing to you on the ground.

And here is what happens when lithium mixes with oxygen...

www.gcsescience.com...

Which in turn does this...

At high heat, lithium oxide emits a very detectable spectral pattern, which increases in intensity along with degradation of the coating.

en.wikipedia.org...

So when it burns up while falling back to earth how much do you think will see the ground? There is closer things that will get you sick long before anything that is 35000 ft above your head will.

I don't think they did it on purpose to specifically the agricultural workers but they were and are hiding how harmful it could and can be.

Have anything to back this claim they sprayed those workers and is hiding the risks?

While I agree with the miniscule potential of risk from the lithium spraying, I want to point out what may be a slight flaw in your reasoning in this particular post. Any lithium particles small enough to be utilized in a semipersistent spray would also by their nature have to be incredibly light. Therefore they wouldn't have a terminal velocity anywhere near what is required to heat up and burn away while falling back to the ground. More likely, they would be spread by the high velocity winds at those altitudes and dissipated to concentrations beyond what could even be considered homeopathic. Therefore, virtually undetectable. So if you were in the general area off lithium particle fallout from the rockets, it would be surprising to me to encounter atmospheric lithium particles that could even be counted in parts per million at ground level.

I would love it for people to one day just do their own research. Look up in sky's and understand that clouds forming a straight line is not natural and it is being caused by an external factor. Why does the government or officials have to come out and state something for the general public to finally admit something. if this is the way public changes their ideas than we still got a long way to go.

But other than glad this is shedding more light on the urgent matter which is STOP CHEM TRAILS.

a reply to: pfishy

Not at 39, 000 feet usually. And that's with the addition of engine exhaust. So a very localized area.

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SyxPak

There is no set point where a contrail will persist. If the RHI is over 100% it will persist.

If the relative humidity is over 100%, it is usually raining.

RHi is relative humidity with respect to ice, 100% equates to around 60-70% RHw. Persistent contrails form in conditions of ice supersaturation where the RHi can be well over 100%

originally posted by: Deny1Ignorance
I would love it for people to one day just do their own research. Look up in sky's and understand that clouds forming a straight line is not natural and it is being caused by an external factor. Why does the government or officials have to come out and state something for the general public to finally admit something. if this is the way public changes their ideas than we still got a long way to go.

But other than glad this is shedding more light on the urgent matter which is STOP CHEM TRAILS.

The external factor is the additional humidity added by the engine exhaust. It's not exactly a secret.

a reply to: pfishy

I asked Zaphod if he would mind if other armies occupied US sovereign soil? He answered that training on US is ongoing by allies. That answer deflected away from what I asked him.

But goes hand in hand with the double standard expressed by the many responses I get from proponents of US military invading and occupying other countries.

According to them its all with permission and they do it to us, too.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Argyll

lol, Yeah I see that. I was posting it how it was presented to me. I didn't have a chance to review the information before hand. I am still checking out the document

You should probably review the information before you start a thread on it, especially when it makes claims as bold as these when experience tells us 99.9% of them are false. Food for thought.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The High Bypass A340 is just obviously loaded with chemtrails and the other one isnt. Duh, noob.