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.

 

Its happend before, so why not now?

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
For the last time, it has nothing to do with chemtrails.


This is a thread about chemtrails in the chemtrail forum. If you wish to discuss a wholly unrelated issue, maybe a new thread would be better to avoid confusion?

But I take it then that you are not arguing that "chemtrails" exist and accept the scientific stance on the issue? Good




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Then you haven't read through all the linked info. Not my problem.

Nope. Nothing. Operation LAC did not use bacteria. DEW did not use bacteria. It is your assumption that high altitude deployment was used.

The Porton Down experiments which did use bacteria used low altitude dispersals.

In 1959/1960 there were preliminary experiments to test the possibility of producing bacterial aerosols from a low-flying aeroplane.

zeltus.eu...

You ask "why not now?" I'd ask why? Let's say they do want to simulate the intercept of a SCUD carrying CBW agents. Why would that have any resembelence to "chemtrails"? It would be an airburst, not a trail.

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
For the last time, it has nothing to do with chemtrails.


This is a thread about chemtrails in the chemtrail forum. If you wish to discuss a wholly unrelated issue, maybe a new thread would be better to avoid confusion?

But I take it then that you are not arguing that "chemtrails" exist and accept the scientific stance on the issue? Good



I do believe the blanket statement made by a debunker that high altitude chemical dispersion is useless opens the door to wider discussion.

No?

Make a uneducated claim and I will refute it just as you guys do.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Nope. Nothing. Operation LAC did not use bacteria. DEW did not use bacteria. It is your assumption that high altitude deployment was used.


You did? Another debunker who claims to read all the info but in reality did not. I'm seeing a trend develope.


Years Ago, The Military Sprayed Germs On U.S. Cities
by Jim Carlton
Wall Street Journal
Octor 22, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO – Fifty-one years ago, Edward J. Nevin checked into a San Francisco hospital, complaining of chills, fever and general malaise. Three weeks later, the 75-year-old retired pipe fitter was dead, the victim of what doctors said was an infection of the bacterium Serratia marcescens.

Decades later, Mr. Nevin’s family learned what they believe was the cause of the infection, linked at the time to the hospitalizations of 10 other patients. In Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the U.S. Army revealed that weeks before Mr. Nevin sickened and died, the Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, secretly spraying the city with Serratia and other agents thought to be harmless.

The goal: to see what might happen in a real germ-warfare attack. The experiment, which involved blasting a bacterial fog over the entire 49-square-mile city from a Navy vessel offshore, was recorded with clinical nonchalance: "It was noted that a successful BW [biological warfare] attack on this area can be launched from the sea, and that effective dosages can be produced over relatively large areas," the Army wrote in its 1951 classified report on the experiment.

Now, with anthrax in the mail and fear mounting of further biological attacks, researchers are again looking back at the only other time this country faced the perils of germ warfare – albeit self-inflicted. In fact, much of what the Pentagon knows about the effects of bacterial attacks on cities came from those secret tests conducted on San Francisco and other American cities from the 1940s through the 1960s, experts say.

"We learned a lot about how vulnerable we are to biological attack from those tests," says Leonard Cole, adjunct professor of political science at Rutgers University in New Jersey and author of several books on bioterrorism. "I’m sure that’s one reason crop dusters were grounded after Sept. 11: The military knows how easy it is to disperse organisms that can affect people over huge areas."

In other tests in the 1950s, Army researchers dispersed Serratia on Panama City, Fla., and Key West, Fla., with no known illnesses resulting. They also released fluorescent compounds over Minnesota and other Midwestern states to see how far they would spread in the atmosphere. The particles of zinc-cadmium-sulfide – now a known cancer-causing agent – were detected more than 1,000 miles away in New York state, the Army told the Senate hearings, though no illnesses were ever attributed to them as a result.

Another bacterium, Bacillus globigii, never shown to be harmful to people, was released in San Francisco, while still others were tested on unwitting residents in New York, Washington, D.C., and along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, among other places, according to Army reports released during the 1977 hearings.

In New York, military researchers in 1966 spread Bacillus subtilis variant Niger, also believed to be harmless, in the subway system by dropping lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto tracks in stations in midtown Manhattan. The bacteria were carried for miles throughout the subway system, leading Army officials to conclude in a January 1968 report: "Similar covert attacks with a pathogenic [disease-causing] agent during peak traffic periods could be expected to expose large numbers of people to infection and subsequent illness or death."

Army officials also found widespread dispersal of bacteria in a May 1965 secret release of Bacillus globigii at Washington’s National Airport and its Greyhound bus terminal, according to military reports released a few years after the Senate hearings. More than 130 passengers who had been exposed to the bacteria traveling to 39 cities in seven states in the two weeks following the mock attack.

The Army kept the biological-warfare tests secret until word of them was leaked to the press in the 1970s. Between 1949 and 1969, when President Nixon ordered the Pentagon’s biological weapons destroyed, open-air tests of biological agents were conducted 239 times, according to the Army’s testimony in 1977 before the Senate’s subcommittee on health. In 80 of those experiments, the Army said it used live bacteria that its researchers at the time thought were harmless, such as the Serratia that was showered on San Francisco. In the others, it used inert chemicals to simulate bacteria.

Several medical experts have since claimed that an untold number of people may have gotten sick as a result of the germ tests. These researchers say even benign agents can mutate into unpredictable pathogens once exposed to the elements.

"The possibility cannot be ruled out that peculiarities in wind conditions or ventilation systems in buildings might concentrate organisms, exposing people to high doses of bacteria," testified Stephen Weitzman of the State University of New York, in the 1977 Senate hearings.

For its part, the Army justified its experiments by noting concerns during World War II that U.S. cities might come under biological attack. To prepare a response, the Army said, it had to test microbes on populated areas to learn how bacteria disperse.

"Release in and near cities, in real-world circumstances, were considered essential to the program, because the effect of a built-up area on a biological agent cloud was unknown," Edward A. Miller, the Army’s secretary for research and development at the time, told the subcommittee.

But in at least one case – the bacterial fogging of San Francisco – the research may have gone awry. Between Sept. 20 and Sept. 27 of 1950, a Navy mine-laying vessel cruised the San Francisco coast, spraying an aerosol cocktail of Serratia and Bacillus microbes – all believed to be safe – over the famously foggy city from giant hoses on deck, according to declassified Army reports. According to lawyers who have reviewed the reports, researchers added fluorescent particles of zinc-cadmium-sulfide to better measure the impact. Based on results from monitoring equipment at 43 locations around the city, the Army determined that San Francisco had received enough of a dose for nearly all of the city’s 800,000 residents to inhale at least 5,000 of the particles.

Two weeks after the spraying, on Oct. 11, 1950, Mr. Nevin checked in to the Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with fever and other symptoms. Ten other men and women checked in to the same hospital – which has since been relocated to Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. – with similar complaints. Doctors noticed that all 11 had the same malady: a pneumonia caused by exposure to bacteria believed to be Serratia marcescens. Mr. Nevin died three weeks later. The others recovered. Doctors were so surprised by the outbreak that they reported it in a medical journal, oblivious at the time to the secret germ test.

After the Army disclosed the tests nearly three decades later, Mr. Nevin’s surviving family members filed suit against the federal government, alleging negligence. "My grandfather wouldn’t have died except for that, and it left my grandmother to go broke trying to pay his medical bills," says Mr. Nevin’s grandson, Edward J. Nevin III, a San Francisco attorney who filed the case in U.S. District Court here.

Army officials noted the pneumonia outbreak in their 1977 Senate testimony but said any link to their experiments was totally coincidental. No other hospitals reported similar outbreaks, the Army pointed out, and all 11 victims had urinary-tract infections following medical procedures, suggesting that the source of their infections lay inside the hospital.

The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments upholding the government’s immunity from lawsuits.

Today, the U.S. military is again patrolling San Francisco’s coastline, guarding against someone who might try to copy the Army tests of half a century ago. Local officials say such an attack is unlikely, given the logistical problems of blasting the city without Navy ships.

Partly as a result of Mr. Nevin’s death, says Lucien Canton, director of San Francisco’s emergency services, "one thing we now know is that it takes an awful lot of stuff to produce casualties, especially in a place like San Francisco that always has a stiff breeze."

Linked through the same wiki page I have used all along.


You ask "why not now?" I'd ask why? Let's say they do want to simulate the intercept of a SCUD carrying CBW agents. Why would that have any resembelence to "chemtrails"? It would be an airburst, not a trail.

edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Oh, so the only possible way to disperse chemicals from a misslie is by airburst? Sure you want to make that claim?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


So that source says that it was all harmless. Then goes on to state that there is a possibility that the harmless agents could mutate into harmful ones, but we don't know if it happened. The evidence is really adding up.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Phage

You ask "why not now?" I'd ask why? Let's say they do want to simulate the intercept of a SCUD carrying CBW agents. Why would that have any resembelence to "chemtrails"? It would be an airburst, not a trail.


Oh, so the only possible way to disperse chemicals from a misslie is by airburst? Sure you want to make that claim?


He didn't claim that - he said that if you wanted to simulate the intercept of a scud missile carrying CBW then you would bbe simulating an airburst, not a trail.

the missile itself might be designed to lay a trail - but the study was about what happened when the missile was intercepted.

And how is any of this related to possible modern chemtrails??



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

So that source says that it was all harmless. Then goes on to state that there is a possibility that the harmless agents could mutate into harmful ones, but we don't know if it happened. The evidence is really adding up.


Well if your fine with secret experimentation by the government against the population, I guess thats fine. Whether anything was harmless or not, and you'll have a fun time saying anything with cadmium in it is harmless, I'll bet most people would have a problem with such experimentation.

Can you imagine the results of such a poll on ATS?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Well if your fine with secret experimentation by the government against the population, I guess thats fine. Whether anything was harmless or not, and you'll have a fun time saying anything with cadmium in it is harmless, I'll bet most people would have a problem with such experimentation.


What do you mean "against the population"? The tests were just to see how it spread with the wind. People were not targeted or tested.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

And how is any of this related to possible modern chemtrails??


I'm starting to feel like I'm debating with government bots designed to wear me down by continuously making me re post the same thing again and again.


So I wont bother. I think I already answered that question.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Well if your fine with secret experimentation by the government against the population, I guess thats fine. Whether anything was harmless or not, and you'll have a fun time saying anything with cadmium in it is harmless, I'll bet most people would have a problem with such experimentation.


What do you mean "against the population"? The tests were just to see how it spread with the wind. People were not targeted or tested.


I think many would dispute fogging a city isn't against the population. Did they ask everyone to leave first?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

You claimed that high altitude releases of bacteria (presumably in a water matrix) would be indistinguishable from contrails. Wasn't that your point? I don't see anything about high altitude there. Maybe that's because they used ships. Not likely to resemble "chemtrails". And again, Operation LAC did not use bacteria, nor did DEW.

So you claim that high altitude offensive CBW tests were done and are being done and that it would look like persistent contrails. You still have provided no reason to believe either point is true.
edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Uncinus

What do you mean "against the population"? The tests were just to see how it spread with the wind. People were not targeted or tested.


I think many would dispute fogging a city isn't against the population. Did they ask everyone to leave first?


No, because it was thought to be perfectly safe. And still pretty much is thought to have been perfectly safe. At worst it's a very minor public health problem, a tiny little blip in the grand scale of normal pollution.

It's not "an experiment against the population". That phrasing implies something was tested ON the population, which you know is not true.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

And how is any of this related to possible modern chemtrails??


I'm starting to feel like I'm debating with government bots designed to wear me down by continuously making me re post the same thing again and again.


and it'll keep getting asked until ther's an answer.

Personally i'm sick of chemmie bots whining on the same old unproved lines without offering any actual evidence.....


So I wont bother. I think I already answered that question.


I don't think you did - not that I can recognise as such anyway.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

You claimed that high altitude releases of bacteria (presumably in a water matrix) would be indistinguishable from contrails. Wasn't that your point? I don't see anything about high altitude there. Maybe that's because they used ships. Not likely to resemble "chemtrails". And again, Operation LAC did not use bacteria, nor did DEW.


There's really know point of debating with you guys because you all selectively discard any information you don't agree with.


In other tests in the 1950s, Army researchers dispersed Serratia on Panama City, Fla., and Key West, Fla., with no known illnesses resulting. They also released fluorescent compounds over Minnesota and other Midwestern states to see how far they would spread in the atmosphere. The particles of zinc-cadmium-sulfide – now a known cancer-causing agent – were detected more than 1,000 miles away in New York state, the Army told the Senate hearings, though no illnesses were ever attributed to them as a result.



Serratia is a genus of Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic, rod-shaped bacteria of the Enterobacteriaceae family. The most common species in the genus, S. marcescens, is normally the only pathogen and usually causes nosocomial infections. However, rare strains of S. plymuthica, S. liquefaciens, S. rubidaea, and S. odoriferae have caused diseases through infection. Members of this genus produce characteristic red pigment, prodigiosin, and can be distinguished from other members of the family Enterobacteriaceae by its unique production of three enzymes: DNase, lipase, and gelatinase.

Wiki


So you claim that high altitude offensive CBW tests were done and are being done and that it would look like persistent contrails. You still have provided no reason to believe either point is true.
edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I claim they were done. Anyone who claims to have read this full thread and yet claims I claim they are still going on exposes himself as someone who hasn't truly read the thread.


If VX freezes at high altitude I feel I can safely assume bacteria mixed with water would also freeze and leave "uncharacteristic sky marks' if seen form the ground.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I don't think you did - not that I can recognise as such anyway.


I did right here.


Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Essan

What does any of that have to do with chemtrails - as defined in the link I posted above?

You're muddying the waters and shifting the goal posts to imply chemtrails are something other than what chemtrail believers thing they are.

Chemtrails are chemtrails - as defined by chemtrailers.

Other issues are other issues.


For the last time, it has nothing to do with chemtrails. What is does have something to do with is the claim, made by Firepilot and others, that chemical dispersion at high altitude is useless. I would only define it useless if the chemical was destroyed and had no chance to disperse. So what if the missile doesn't hit its target, the chemical payload will still rain down. The conculsion of the report, made by someone much smarter than all of us, clearly indicates further intrest into the matter.


I'm really getting tired of repeating myself.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

I claim they were done. Anyone who claims to have read this full thread and yet claims I claim they are still going on exposes himself as someone who hasn't truly read the thread.


If VX freezes at high altitude I feel I can safely assume bacteria mixed with water would also freeze and leave "uncharacteristic sky marks' if seen form the ground.


Then perhaps you should clarify your point since you seem to have obfuscated it pretty well. If it's simply to point out that testing was done in the past, thanks but we already were quite aware of that.

If it's not to suggest that it's still going on, why bring it up?

If you want to change what "chemtrail" believers are talking about when they say they can tell the difference between "chemtrails" and contrails, nice try. If not, why do you keep using that partial definition?

BTW, have you seen any of the frozen bacteria yourself? Did it have a different appearance from contrails?
edit on 6/15/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker


For the last time, it has nothing to do with chemtrails.


OK - so it has nothing to do with chemtrails......so, like Phage, I am completely confused to why it is relevant at all?

the point of hte thread is presumably the title - "Its happend before, so why not now?" - it seems you have answered the question then - the fact that is has happened before has nothing at all to do with whether it is happening now.

In which case we agree with each otehr - is that your understanding?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

OK - so it has nothing to do with chemtrails......so, like Phage, I am completely confused to why it is relevant at all?


Why do you keep editing out the fact I was responding to this statement.


Originally posted by firepilot
Because high altitude testing would be pointless, since chemical weapons are typically be released at ground level or low altitudes, from bombs, artillery, or missile warheads.


So debunkers are allowed to make such claims and its not all right for me to dispute them? Why is that?


the point of hte thread is presumably the title - "Its happend before, so why not now?" - it seems you have answered the question then - the fact that is has happened before has nothing at all to do with whether it is happening now.


All I asked is if it has happend before, why can't it be happening now? Very simple question and all you debunkers can say is there's no evidence. The problem with secret projects though is there is no evidence too see. Thats why its called a secret.

So when I read the US/Uk governments did such things as LAC, Dew, and others I feel I have a very good reason to be suspicious of whats being dispersed up there. IMO.


edit on 16-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by firepilot
Because high altitude testing would be pointless, since chemical weapons are typically be released at ground level or low altitudes, from bombs, artillery, or missile warheads.


So debunkers are allowed to make such claims and its not all right for me to dispute them? Why is that?


Dispute away. You are laboring a barely relevant point.

Chemical weapons are not distributed by high altitude airbursts because, as your source says, it "considerably decreases the predictability of contamination patterns". So instead of a targeted dump of chemicals, you get a random dump of chemicals, and since 95% of land area is uninhabited, it would be pretty pointless.

And that's assuming droplets of several mm in diameter, falling at 10m/s (22 mph). Basically high altitude hail.

And that's for an airburst, which is nothing like the "chemtrails" we are talking about. The "chemtrails" that people talk about seem to behave like contrails, high altitude clouds that don't come down to the ground. Again pretty useless as a chemical weapon delivery system.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
All I asked is if it has happend before, why can't it be happening now? Very simple question and all you debunkers can say is there's no evidence.


Mammoths roamed the tundra before, why can't they now? All you skeptic say is there's no evidence of mammoths.

The answer to "why can't they" is "they can". But it's a pointless question.







 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join