Nikola Aleksic: Stop Chemtrails or...

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Iiquiringmind

Did you miss the informed consent part? Yeah, we aren't being tested on. Unless you've signed some paper and didn't read the fine print, I sure haven't.

Myth #5 Public Law 105.
edit on 8/18/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Iiquiringmind

Did you miss the informed consent part? Yeah, we aren't being tested on. Unless you've signed some paper and didn't read the fine print, I sure haven't.

Myth #5 Public Law 105.
edit on 8/18/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

You mean the informed consent you aquiesque to by not complaining about it? I read that.. You think they are going around door to door asking you if its ok? jeez..

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Iiquiringmind

You mean the informed consent you aquiesque to by not complaining about it? I read that.. You think they are going around door to door asking you if its ok? jeez..

Read it again. Do you even know what informed consent is? There is actually a very strict set of rules that must be followed for informed consent in research. To say that us not complaining is informed consent is blatantly ignorant. You are being deceived by "chemtrail" promoters, but why?

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:41 AM
I've always though it a little odd that there's this super secret conspiracy, and yet simultaneously there's supposedly patents on how to do it, and laws specifically set up to enable it.

If it's secret, then what are the patents and laws for?

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM
Its a great thing that other people in the world are aware of this unlike AMERICANS who love to laugh at the first thing that accuses the government in doing wrong.

My goodness. In ever chemtrail thread there are always a horde of nayers and "debunkers" flaming, spamming, and whining about "WHERES TEH PROOF LOLZ" Yes that's what you guys sound like. Can't we stay on the MAIN topic for once? If you want your proof or evidence, go start your own thread OR do a SEARCH.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
Can anyone tell me what the "Director of the Ecological Movement" truly is? Is this "MOVEMENT" a school,government program? Is this some "NEW AGE" thing? Does this encompass EVERY MOVEMENT that is earth friendly? Is this a fringe organization? I ask because searches bring up 0 results.........Thanks.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by balon0

I've done searches and have read threads. There is FAR better evidence that contrails are just contrails than evidence that says they are something else.

I have yet to see anyone give me a good method for visually discerning that a white trail in the sky coming from a high altitude plane is anything other than a normal contrail.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by sonnny1

It could be a very small and relatively unknown group. There were a couple people on this thread who claim they were from Serbia and Montenegro and said they never heard of this guy or his group.

edit on 8/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Thanks. I personally dont believe in chemtrails as a mass killing operation. We are doing that with good ol' fashion pollution,and have been doing it since the combustion engine. Having the lone "Environmentalist" Claim chemtrails are real,is laughable,especially since EVERY environmentalist knows pollution is killing the world.. He should know better,especially with his "Title" of Director.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:29 PM
it is nice to see that Serbs are giving attention to the codex alimentarius.
they have my support from Croatia.

You may think that we are small, retarded, war liking, poor.... countries but we like to eat fresh domestic eco farm food. we like to buy stuff on farmer markets, we like homegrown vegetables, chicken who run through yard...
we like natural food. it is a way of life.

we are noticing that EU crap restrictions on food already in Croatia but we are getting more and more pissed.
so ban everything fresh to use GMO and wrap all things in plastic and we will go to streets - believe me.

we are not going to let NWO to poison us

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by Dinamo

That's fine if you believe the NWO is trying to force GMO crops onto the people...
...but what is the specific proof of a correlation between contrails and GMOs?

What specifically does this guy say or do that you support, and how specifically does his views directly correspond to your beliefs?

I suppose I'm asking you to "connect the dots" for me between contrails and GMOs by giving me specific evidence.

edit on 8/18/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: speelling

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by Neoony

I don't believe in chemtrails or the Easter bunny, but if this guy would find some different terminology, he might be on to something. There are far too many flights spreading far too much pollution into the air. Much like the cars at ground level, and the factories. We are pouting the air at an exponential rate. At some point, we have to try to find a way to commute without the pollution problem.

This argument is much like the global warming issue. It doesn't matter if Al gore is right or wrong, we are still polluting the world and we need to stop. It's just that simple.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by network dude

I don't believe in chemtrails either, but I definitely agree that cloud cover caused by the spreading of vapor contrails is a real problem.

Farmers have been complaining since the 1960s about the reduction of sunny days due to persistent and spreading contrails that can artificially create cirrus clouds, thus blocking some sunlight. This is a real and known phenomenon (i.e., it's not a government secret) whose effects have been the subject of study for several decades.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by luxordelphi

I agree with this guy. We have no clue what those chemtrails are leaving in our atmosphere. It kinda makes you wonder, are they already controlling us? If and when the time is right, do they flip a switch, and it will activate something inside all of us from breathing that garbage since we were old enough to breathe?

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:08 PM

What do you think, ATS?

The same things as always...that the idea of Chemtrails simply doesn't hold water....

1) There's no way to target such sprayings...therefore those behind it would be getting dosed just like their targets!

2) The sheer volume of the atmosphere, coupled with wind patterns and shifts makes such spraying ineffective at best. By the time the substance filtered to the ground, it'd pretty much be too diluted for any effect, or even if very heavy, would be impossible to predict the area affected.

3) It would involve a conspiracy of unimaginable proportions... The idea of all these ground personnel, pilots, airlines, companies involved, etc. would leave people and paper trails a child could follow.

4) Do people realize that the normal cruising altitude for planes is about 5000 ft higher than the highest types of clouds?

Sorry, but I just have a really hard time believing that ANYBODY is gassing us, along with their wives, children, pets, family, etc.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:28 PM
If you are employed by ATS and you post crap that shows you are NOT Denying Ignorance.........

Then just wow

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:30 PM
We do not know what the real reason for it is. So if it is this enormous plan involving all kinds of pilots and scientists and other personnel, it could operate just like it does for the Illuminati and the Masons. I believe that is also how the CFR operates. If anyone(I've been told) can become a member of CFR, then how could it be so sinister...well there can be levels like the Masons, only the Inner Circle really knows. A CFR member not in the real loop can say, oh guys there's nothing sinister going on, we all really care about blah blah blah....and so on.
What if a group of people is told it's about climate change so then they justify the amounts of aluminum wafting down from on high.
As for them being as much a victim of it as us, well to me the only answer would be that on some deep inner level they know their time is up already, and simply want to take the rest with them. Where do I come up with idea? From the idea of Enoch and the Fallen Angels and Revelation. It is made clear in Revelation that the Wicked are to be judged in the End Times. They have been given thousands of centuries to stop their evildoing. When people question God's existence, they want proof as to why He allows these evil people to do what they do. The answer is karma and opportunity. Because we all have centuries of opportunity to clear up things and get our GPA with Cosmic Law back up.
Why should the subject of Chem Trails be any different than the Fukushima disaster or pollution of rivers and lakes with chemicals? You say it's for profit? Well then why do they care more about money and power than they do their own lives and the lives of their children when it comes to polluting the planet? They think they are going to outlive it's effects temporarily and then ruin it for generations to come. How about the AIDS virus? They thought only certain groups would be susceptible maybe. But it's an engineered virus. So again, why would they produce something that even they could fall prey to?
So, they can convince people that it's for one thing when it's really for another. The AIDS was part of the bioweapons research. I believe so are the Chem Trails.
So why do some people want desperately for it NOT to be Chem Trails? Why do some people expend so much energy trying to debunk all the alien threads and all the Chem Trail threads and all the Illuminati threads, and basically anything that describes the efforts of crazy people to destroy life as we know it?
Ask yourself why any sane person would want to attach Human DNA to an animal?
edit on 18-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by dplum517
If you are employed by ATS and you post crap that shows you are NOT Denying Ignorance.........

Then just wow

define, employed.

I knew those mods were gettin paid!

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
4) Do people realize that the normal cruising altitude for planes is about 5000 ft higher than the highest types of clouds?

That's not true. Planes cruise at anything from 20,000 to 50,000 feet, although most commonly around 30,000 to 40,000 for longer distance flights. Cirrus clouds form all the way up to 40,000 feet in temperate regions like the US.

The AVERAGE height of a cirrus cloud is 27,000 feet, but they can be higher and lower.

High clouds form between 10,000 and 25,000 ft (3,000 and 8,000 m) in the polar regions, 16,500 and 40,000 ft (5,000 and 12,000 m) in the temperate regions and 20,000 and 60,000 ft (6,000 and 18,000 m) in the tropical region.

And vertical clouds, like cumulonimbus (rain storm clouds), can go all the way up to over 40,000 feet.
edit on 18-8-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by adeclerk

Let the ATS members decide then what is meant by informed consent in the law then.

Look dude this is what the document says:


The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.


—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection
(a)(WHAT YOU JUST READ) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity. (Hmm GMO's anyone?)

(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (HELLO? GLOBAL WARMING fraud, HAARP project?, foreign weather manipulation devices or weapons)

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. SEEN ANY OF THOSE LATELY?

Heres your part about consent:

(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only
if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human
subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

What is informed consent?

The ability to give informed consent will be governed by a general requirement of competency. In common law jurisdictions, adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance, in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence. This may be prescribed in legislation or based on a common-law standard of inability to understand the nature of the procedure. In cases of incompetent adults, informed consent—from the patients or from their families—is not required. Rather, the medical practitioner must simply act in the patient's best interests in order to avoid negligence liability.

Research funded by the United States government

Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (45 CFR 46) is the primary set of Federal regulations regarding the protection of human subjects in research and is often referred to as the common rule.[23][24] It defines the laws, criteria for exemption, as well as definition and formulation of institutional review boards, though some agencies have established their own implementation of this code that supersedes portions or all of 45 CFR 46. The Department of Defense uses CFR 46 but has different exemption criteria. The Food and Drug Administration also applies a modified code that is associated with research into development of any food, drug, or medical devices.

The code establishes what is required to be considered research activities, and for participants to be considered human subjects of research. The definitions are written as such to include situations where the human is the subject of the experiment, their environment is manipulated by the researchers, and data regarding their responses are collected. If the project does not meet these definitions (or there is minimal risk to participants) then the project is exempt from IRB review and the requirements of informed consent. Generally this decision is made and documented by an IRB. The common rule also provides definitions regarding whether institutions are engaged in research, interaction between investigators and subjects, what an intervention is, and what information subjects can expect to remain private.

Assessment of consent

Informed consent can be complex to evaluate, because neither expressions of consent, nor expressions of understanding of implications, necessarily mean that full adult consent was in fact given, nor that full comprehension of relevant issues is internally digested. Consent may be implied within the usual subtleties of human communication, rather than explicitly negotiated verbally or in writing. In some cases consent cannot legally be possible, even if the person protests he does indeed understand and wish. There are also structured instruments for evaluating capacity to give informed consent, although no ideal instrument presently exists.

There is thus always a degree to which informed consent must be assumed or inferred based upon observation, or knowledge, or legal reliance. This especially is the case in sexual or relational issues. In medical or formal circumstances explicit agreement by means of signature which may normally be relied upon legally, regardless of actual consent, is the norm.

Brief examples of each of the above:

1.A person may verbally agree to something from fear, perceived social pressure, or psychological difficulty in asserting his true feelings. The person requesting the action may honestly be unaware of this and believe the consent is genuine, and rely upon it. Consent is expressed, but not internally given.
2.A person may state he understands the implications of some action, as part of his consent, but in fact has failed to appreciate the possible consequences fully and later deny the validity of his consent for this reason. Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but is in fact (through ignorance) not present.
3.A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date that results in sexual contact have explicitly asked the other if his or her consent is informed, if he does in fact fully understand what is implied, and all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly.
4.A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, knowing all the consequences, but his or her consent is deemed invalid as he is deemed to be a child unaware of the issues and thus incapable of being informed consent. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (1)
5.In some countries (notably the United Kingdom), individuals may not consent to injuries being inflicted upon them, and so a person practicing sadism and masochism upon a consenting partner may be deemed to have caused actual bodily harm without consent, actual consent notwithstanding. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (2). See also Spanner case and 'consensual non-consensuality'.
6.A person signs a legal release form for a medical procedure, and later feels he did not really consent. Unless he can show actual misinformation, the release is usually persuasive or conclusive in law, in that the clinician may rely legally upon it for consent. In formal circumstances, a written consent will usually legally override later denial of informed consent (unless obtained by misrepresentation)
7.A person or institution (e.g., a school or childcare professional) exposes a minor to non-age-appropriate material, in any media format, without the expressed informed consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian. Informed consent in this instance goes to the argument of competency on the part of the minor. An example would be the showing of an R rated movie to a 12-year-old by an educational institution without the informed consent of the parent or legal guardian.

edit on 18-8-2011 by Iiquiringmind because: (no reason given)

new topics
top topics
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in