Proof of chemtrail/geo-engineering May 11

reply to post by robbo961

obama's adviser acknowleges geo-engineering.

You mean he acknowledges that it is being done, or that it is being discussed as an option if global warming reaches a crisis level?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by robbo961
reply to post by robbo961

 

some news and facts on the geo-engineering budget...

theintelhub.com...

There's no actual information on any geo-engineering budget at all that I can see there - can you clarify??

No I can't. It couldn't be simpler. Read the article and the accompanying links. It's in the article. That's why I posted the link

"Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)"

reply to post by robbo961

That looks more like a cost analysis than a budget. A feasibility study.
Can you show us an actual budget?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

obama's adviser acknowleges geo-engineering.

You mean he acknowledges that it is being done, or that it is being discussed as an option if global warming reaches a crisis level?

yes, discussing it being done.

"The National Institute of Health has found that geo-engineering is directly responsible for neurotoxins found in human blood, lungs; as well as causing a whole host of neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis."

these negative effects on human health have already begun. I think that means that they have resulted from exposure to something that has already been carried out

reply to post by robbo961

"The National Institute of Health has found that geo-engineering is directly responsible for neurotoxins found in human blood, lungs; as well as causing a whole host of neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis."

Please provide the study from the NIH in which these findings were published.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

That looks more like a cost analysis than a budget. A feasibility study.
Can you show us an actual budget?

edit on 5/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My point is that these costs are being discussed, why would they discuss costs if there wasn't a budget? why would you need to see the budget? is it not enough that costs for distributing chemicals into the atmosphere in the name of geo-engineering are discussed?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

"The National Institute of Health has found that geo-engineering is directly responsible for neurotoxins found in human blood, lungs; as well as causing a whole host of neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis."

Please provide the study from the NIH in which these findings were published.

sorry, can't be arsed

reply to post by robbo961

is it not enough that costs for distributing chemicals into the atmosphere in the name of geo-engineering are discussed?

The costs of lots of things which are never done are discussed. So what?
BTW, that study finds that airships (blimps) would be the most cost effective method. See a lot of blimps spreading "chemtrails"?
Aurora

reply to post by robbo961

sorry, can't be arsed

Good way to support your position.

Somewhere on here I read a post that said the ones that believe airplanes cause harm are still flying as passengers on airplanes I won't go find it as I believe the thread has been read.
.

Well I will stand up and make the statement.
I have not flown since 2001
That is when the aircraft industry lost control of their transport system.
The governments and the airline industry have agreed they lost control
of safety by the new standards that are now in place.
I believe it is up to the industry rebuild the trust of people that want to have faith
in the system whether they are passengers or just looking up.
Chemtrail threads are the signs of the distrust of the public,
in the airline industry, as the government had to step in to take control of it.
Now that they have used their motto of
Never Waste A Good Crisis!
What else,
might they do?

And if you have a problem with this post,
then I will just move onto the facts
of Cancer Causing Pollution during normal flight processes,
that are proven and have been measured.

Because that is what this discussion is about,
are they harming us with the industry that fly's above our heads.

See I don't fly anymore, and never will,
and I have no problem with leaving pages of,
cancer causing measured airline pollution
forever recorded for the industry that some try and defend
that has become useless, as their latest and greatest F22 makes operators
and ground personal sick, while they do a coverup.



.

Originally posted by robbo961

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

"The National Institute of Health has found that geo-engineering is directly responsible for neurotoxins found in human blood, lungs; as well as causing a whole host of neurotoxic conditions such as multiple sclerosis."

Please provide the study from the NIH in which these findings were published.

sorry, can't be arsed

Let's see......no...it isn't hard to find....

Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis. (linked from here, which in turn I found by searching for the quoted text and finding it here)

So in what way is this a "National Institute of Health" report??

The US National Library of Medicine OTOH gets copies of any and all articles from any bio-medical publisher - the fact that it is on there certainly does NOT mean that NCBI is telling us that what is in the paper is actually happening!

The article was published by Elsevier - you can find all of Purdey's articles that Elsevier published here by searching periodicals for "purdey"

The abstract claims -

....the use of Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges, etc

(which, BTW, is not geo-engineering, so you are wrong about that as well)

A little research into the nature of the substantive paper finds a number of places the paper makes claims for Barium being sprayed -

atmospheric aerosol sprays for refracting radar/radio waves, cloud seeding weather modifi- cation sprays,

- lines 44-46

or due to other military uses of Ba such as radar ducting aerosols [28].

- line 176-177

as well as creating a Ba ion atmospheric aerosol [27,28] ducting path – for enhancing/refracting radio and radar signals during military jet practise or battlefield operations.

- lines 285-288

Another possible source of Ba contamination may have stemmed from the aerial dispersal of Ba based aerosols – such as the barium strontium titanate compounds used for enhancing radar/radio wave transmission [28] – along the flight paths of the military jet ‘low flying’ test zones that operate over these specific MS affected valleys in Scotland. The author recorded high levels of Ba in all of these Aberdeenshire MS cluster ecosystems, which in-cluded levels of Ba at 46 and 694 ppm in the vegetation and soils lying beneath the flight path entering the local military airbase at Lossiemouth.

- lines 198-309

And in Table 1 and Table 2 just after that last extract some barium levels are given, with 1 source in each table being given as "Aeroplane fuel additive".

...military radar/radio ducting aerosols.

lines 500-501

The claim is that aerial spraying it carried out has 2 references -

[27] Paine TO. NASA barium ion cloud. Patent US 3813875, Barium release system to create ion clouds in upper atmosphere. Application No.: US 1972000248761, Patent issue date, June 4th 1974.
[28] Dorsch J. Electronic news, January 11 1999.

The first of these is a patent for releasing barium from ROCKETS. It is utterly irrelevant both to chemtrails/geoengineering in general, and also to the specific claims in the paper.

The 2nd reference is untraceable on the 'net - it only occurs in a couple of papers by this guy, including Elevated silver, barium & strontium levels in antlers, vegetation, etc -

Dorsch J. doesn't seem to exist on the 'net with any connection to radar or radio technology apart from this reference. And the Archives for EDN (which merged with Electronic News) show no issue for January 11 1999. There appears to be no Electronic News archive online.

Now let us look at the author - Mark Purdey - he was a British organic farmer and anti-BSE campaigner who believed that the disease was due to environmental factors rather than being an infectious disease. He was also dogged and quite well self-educated, and some of his papers were published in peer reviewed journals.

But he was wrong.

so yet again we have more chemmie disinfo.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

is it not enough that costs for distributing chemicals into the atmosphere in the name of geo-engineering are discussed?

The costs of lots of things which are never done are discussed. So what?

hey if your expecting me to light all your bulbs your gonna be slightly disappointed. I've been down this road before fetching links ad-infinitum. I never get anywhere with it. Go search, there's lots of info out there. If you followed the thread from the beginning there is lots of (compelling) evidence that has been provided (including a four hour long video from expert witnesses on the subject) If you want 'empirical' go ask a university

(yawn) sweet dreams everyone zzzzzzz

Originally posted by robbo961

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by robbo961

 

That looks more like a cost analysis than a budget. A feasibility study.
Can you show us an actual budget?

edit on 5/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My point is that these costs are being discussed, why would they discuss costs if there wasn't a budget? why would you need to see the budget? is it not enough that costs for distributing chemicals into the atmosphere in the name of geo-engineering are discussed?

no.

Discussing costs is not the same as having a budget.

Having a budget means there is money available.

Discussing costs means talking about how much money it might cost if it is done. It does not mean money is actually available and/or being spent.

Your inability to recognise the difference makes me embarrassed for you.

This is the sort of shoddy and false "reasoning" that is symptomatic of the whole "chemtrail industry" - and is why it is often accused of spreading lies, untruths and disinfo.

reply to post by robbo961

I never get anywhere with it.

And for more than 10 years no one has managed to get anywhere with it. Not a shred of evidence of "chemtrails". None. Just speculation, ignorance, and lies about what contrails "don't do".

Originally posted by robbo961

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by robbo961
reply to post by robbo961

 

some news and facts on the geo-engineering budget...

theintelhub.com...

There's no actual information on any geo-engineering budget at all that I can see there - can you clarify??

No I can't. It couldn't be simpler. Read the article and the accompanying links. It's in the article. That's why I posted the link

"Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)"

so no actual budget at all - you are right - it couldn't be simpler - you are spreading disinfo.

reply to post by robbo961


sigh , costing is part of the feasibility study - you use the costing prediction in order to ATTEMPT to secure a budget to implement the program

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by hiphoprevolution

 

i see standard contrails very rarely, but i see chemtrails weekly atleast

Honest question here...

How do you tell them apart?

What is the difference between a contrail and chemtrail.

Please don't say contrails dissipate quickly,

thats the answer i got for ya contrails dissapear, chemtrails stay i dont understand your question??? how can you say " please dont say the dissapear"??????? also i saw a video on tube of a man walking into a weather modification centre and he asked the guy there what they do and he replied" we help combat global warming by spraying stuff in the air" not in those exact words. You have to do some research from both angles like i did i never used to believe, do the research looking for proof rather then looking for debunks???? i couldnt find the video i seen but check this??? www.weathermodification.com...

edit on 16/5/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I did stereotype this group based on my experience so far. They don't believe because it hasn't been announced. It's as simple as that. Not because it looks like contrails (because they certainly don't behave like contrails). Besides, there are many things that mimic other things. That doesn't mean they're the same.
It's because there has been no official announcement. That is the ONLY reason. And who would make said-announcement? Why, the government!


I bet, none of you believe there is or even WAS life on Mars or the Moon. Right? Don't mean to go off topic but it's to prove or validate my 'stereotype' remark.
And I know most of you don't believe in alien UFOs. I've seen your remarks on my threads.

So I don't believe I'm too off course here in my stereotypical analysis.

And as far as having any more photos that I wish to post? For what? Your amusement and star collection? Nah

On the moon? Only if it came from other locations. As in microscopic life transported via asteroid, or humans transported via spacecraft. In theory, sure ... there could be other lifeforms that have not yet been witnessed or classified by scientists, I cant rule that out.

Mars? Same kind of situation. Sentient beings, no. Microscopic lifeforms from other locations? Entirely possible.

Anyway ... star collection? This isnt a giant pissing contest for stars and flags and made-up kudos, I could care less about that stuff. It is completely meaningless. But do understand that I am more than willing to admit being in the wrong if you can come up with some sort of solid proof. And I'll still stand by my word to print out the thread and eat the paper it is printed on if any solid proof is provided. Hell, I'll even post pictures of me doing the chowing.

What has been provided thus far has not proven anything. Bummer I guess.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I did stereotype this group based on my experience so far. They don't believe because it hasn't been announced. It's as simple as that.

completely wrong and ignorant.

I don't believe in chemtrails because THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY EXIST.

Not because it looks like contrails (because they certainly don't behave like contrails).

Everything that has been said to be a chemtrial that I have seen has looked and behaved exactly like something that is already well known - whether it be a 1923 smoke screen or a contrail.

You deliberately ignoring how contrails are well known to ehave does not stop things that behave in those ways from behaving exactly like contrails have been known to behave!

Besides, there are many things that mimic other things. That doesn't mean they're the same.

And it is also not evidene that chemtrails exist.

It's because there has been no official announcement. That is the ONLY reason. And who would make said-announcement? Why, the government!

Well now you know that is wrong in at least my case, so you wont' have to repeat this particular piece of disinfo any more.

I bet, none of you believe there is or even WAS life on Mars or the Moon. Right? Don't mean to go off topic but it's to prove or validate my 'stereotype' remark.

All it does is verify that you lack actual critical thinking capabilities, which is probably why you believe a load of unsubstantiated rumours, baseless assertions and pseudo science about chemtrails.

You have been had.

Sorry about that.

And I know most of you don't believe in alien UFOs. I've seen your remarks on my threads.

So I don't believe I'm too off course here in my stereotypical analysis.

I believe you are so far off course that you aren't being rational at all.

Good video OP.

This is the precise method I witness many times per week. Of course the amount of planes aren't quite that high, our 'sun-blocking' transpires like the video presented quite frequently.

I commend you on speculating on the numerous possibilities of WHY this may be happening, (Monsanto seed testing, Solar Radiation Management, Military Testing etc, etc) However, determining the WHY's will be forever mired in the debate of DOES this actually exist.

The observant among us know. I just don't know how anyone can debate this video.

I do notice that the trails consistently follow the suns path on a daily basis. Clear blue skies in the morning turn hazy from noon until sundown. It gets especially hazy later in the day. It would be an extreme coincidence that the pocket of air conducive to contrails would seem to follow the sun around all day. Add to that the planes flight path consistently changing from south to west coinciding with the suns pattern. Today was a perfect example...blue skies everywhere else but exactly where the sun is or will be shortly, almost exact to what the video poster shows.

Just frustrating to say the least. Prior to '99 we had blue skies 6 out of 7 days AT A MINIMUM.
Now we are lucky to get a day and a half of blue skies a week.

www.currentresults.com...

I just wonder why all of these "Sunniest Place" studies ended in early 2000's.

The question of perspective was brought up earlier in the thread and I believe that major metropolitan areas are blasted the most. I live in an area that if you drive out of town an hour in any direction, these sun-blocking trails dissapear. This is because the population in the surrounding areas is very scant.

It wouldn't be economically feasible or make any sense to spray over barren fields. This is why spraying is concentrated in certain areas and this way the sun can be blocked to a majority of the population at any given time.

Now for those of us who wish to brainstorm the why's, we will continue to do so. The six-pack of the 'Knowledge Kings' who continually bless us plebeians with the well of knowledge from contrail science and various links I'm sure will not desist.

I'm just curious as to what the new handle for one of my favourite derailers....err debunkers will be.

100 ATS points to the first one to identify.