reply to post by MathiasAndrew
Case Orange is a self serving piece of rubbish that fails to establish anything of interest othe than NATO's AWACs are civil registered and should
have their engines updated.
It says its own evidence is adequate - as judged by its own authors - that alone should show you that it is not a serious scientific report despite
it's attempts to be so.
Just for the record here's its conclusions & recommendations with some obvious comments - I more-or-less wrote this at another site - I've tidied it
up a bit here and added a few more comments:
When combining the knowledge of the formation of contrails, the effects of Cirrus clouds on climate, the historical records of weather
manipulation programs, the scientific studies on geo-engineering through modification of Cirrus clouds, the available and patented technology coupled
with reactions of pilots on the internet one can only come to the following conclusions:
1. Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, ...
Oh really? What's the evidence for it??
.....but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of
artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.
This much is almsot true enough - if they hadn't prefaced it with the unproven assertion, and said it was one option among many instead of "the best
option" then it would probably be a valid conclusion!
2. The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive
strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.
This is an obvious illogical leap from the paper “Owning the weather”, which was (is) a thought exercise and not a plan for how to actually
control the world wide climate. Attempts to control local weather through cloud seeding, such as the US carried out in Vietnam, are not
“chemtrails” as they are commonly understood.
3. The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that
purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated
into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.
This section leaps from the premise that the technology is available to the conclusion that the technology is being used – I was unable to determine
what the “well documented” evidence for this conclusion was in the paper - it appears the authors have assessed the validity of their own
information to determine the adequacy of their documetnation - rather than subject the paper to proper peer review.
4. Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. department of defense itself and
given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.
Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place. Assumes that the patents identified are required for any such programme and nothing
else could possibly be used, which seems patent (sic) nonsense - technically, spraying anything is probably trivial - there are numerous possible
systems that COULD be used.
5. The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on
executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.
Presumes that the spraying is taking place in the first place and that “such projects” exist.
6. Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient
scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.
There is no evidence presented that “spraying operations” are taking place at all – the whole paper follows the usual chemtrails tactic of
begging the question and then fitting the facts to the preconceptions.
Self-servingly decides what constitutes “sufficient scientific evidence”
It is not the purpose of this research paper to give a moral appreciation of these actions. Nevertheless the investigation team unanimously comes to
the following recommendations for the future:
a) Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and
public health on this subject should be considered. Results -whatever the outcome- should be made public.
I don’t think anyone has an issue with this – other than they seem unaware of the studies that are doing exactly this, and that the idea has been
around, in the public arena, for several decades.
b) It is unacceptable that the Awacs aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxemburg civil registration without complying with civil
aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future.
Unacceptable to who? Apparently Luxembourgers have no problems with it – who are the authors to tell Luxembourg what they can and can not do??
There is nothing inherently illegal about military aircraft not being required to meet civil aviation requirements, whether civil registered or
Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as
Are engine types relevant to chemtrails? They are certainly relevant to contrails and general pollution, which the report points out, but what is the
connection to chemtrails??
Are they saying that only NATO AWACs a/c with old engines make contrails??
I actually agree that older engines should be replaced to help reduce pollution.....but I fail to see the connection to chemtrails, other than perhaps
they seek to gain some credibility for the report by putting in one piece of blindingly obvious commentary about a/c pollution.
c) When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us
that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling and weather as a
geo-engineering or military instrument.
See my previous comments about the lack of evidence either of such a programme exists, or that such patents have identified being used, or that such
patents are the only possible means that COULD be used
If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.
Apparently the NWO agrees, and the UN has done so. Yay for the UN!
d) Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty
of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is
mandatory that such statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national
Again self-serving assessment of the adequacy of their own proof.
Peer review of REAL scientific papers relies upon the adequacy of evidence being tested by other people – not by the writers saying that it is good
edit on 15-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix formating