In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 4. Matters of "National Security"

Geoengineering can certainly be construed as a matter of "national security." Government documents reveal that weather modification was already construed as a matter of national security. When the US military want to conduct open air tests, they have been guilty of doing so with a) no prior disclosure, b) without the public's consent, and c) with little concern for anyone's safety as long as the activity is labelled a matter of national security. In a prior post www.abovetopsecret.com... I explained in detail why opponents of geoengineering and experiments in the sky are associated with chemtrail conspiracy theorists. Thus, when so-called chemtrailers are concerned that jet aircraft may be deploying some type of aerosol, whether indicative by the formation of a contrail or not, these are the types of historical facts that justify their suspicions:

1. Operation "LAC" (Large Area Coverage)
During the early Cold War-era, from the 1950s to the 60s, the US military secretly deployed clouds of zinc cadmium sulphide dust (used as a pigment for fluorescent paint) laced with silver and copper over portions of the US as well as Canada and Mexico to study simulated bio-attacks. Although it's disputed whether the amounts of aerosols dispersed were enough to put the public at risk, "Not in dispute, though, is the fact that the Army exposed people around the country to a poorly studied and potentially harmful chemical, without their consent." If the National Research Council (NRC) found no compelling evidence for harmful effects at the amounts these chemical clouds were deployed in experiments that were done on the public without their consent, this does NOT mean that nobody was harmed by it in the long term. Cadmium is a carcinogen. The NRC is admitting that there's no evidence available to confidently say anybody was harmed, nothing more and nothing less.

And before you absolve the US military of any guilt and talk about how no evidence that God exists proves there is no God (in effect), from the article:

LAC tests also included the dispersion of biological agents, including Serratia marcescens, Bacillus globigii, Bacillus subtilis and Aspergillus fumigates. Though they were not thought to be harmful at the time, some of the organisms used have since been shown to be potentially pathogenic in people with weakened immune systems. The NRC's report did not attempt to assess the health risks posed by those microbes.

--An important consideration that is completely overlooked in any kind of safety analysis of potentially toxic substances used for open air experiments: there are individuals in the public who are more vulnerable to the ill effects of chemicals because of existing health conditions and genetic makeup. When you rely on data that is "normed" in some way, which people often confuse with a "normal" or "safe" amount (e.g., average amount of potential toxins "naturally" in the air or soil, EPA guidelines for "safe" amounts of known toxins in drinking water, the "safe" amount of mercury compounds allowable in vaccines, etc.) you are ignoring that this kind of data cannot be generalized to a specific cohort of human beings. Similarly, data gathered from animal studies assessing the risk of toxins as "safe" also do not necessarily generalize to the human population. These are matters concerning the limitations of what you can actually know from "facts" gathered using the scientific approach, which I discussed in a prior post (See number 4. here)

2. Operation Dew
A two part experiment done in the early 1950s using the same cloud deployment of zinc cadmium sulphide chemicals, part 1 of which covered "over 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) of populated coastal region in the U.S. southeast," and part 2 included the use of plant spores (Lycopodium powder). Note that Lycopodium is a form of pollen, and allergies to pollen affect millions of people worldwide .

3. Project 112
These were tests conducted by the Department of Defense that began in 1962, primarily to determine the vulnerability of US troops and resources to bio and chemical agents, but also involved the effects of toxic aerosols on plants, animals, insects, and equipment. For at least a dozen years, military servicemembers were intentionally exposed to not only bio and chemical simulants of the type mentioned above but even sarin and VX gas. These open air experiments included Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense), involving about 6000 military personnel participating without their consent, most of whom were on US warships. The US Department of Veterans Affairs has been trying to contact these individuals supposedly for the purpose of offering services for health concerns related to exposures to the chemical and bio agents used in the experiments (see US Department of Veterans Affairs ) Of course, at the same time you can read at the Department of Defense website, "DoD investigators have not identified a link to these tests and adverse health consequences." And why would they at this point?

The project ended in 1973. If veterans suspect that exposures caused a respiratory illness, and a higher number of veterans involved in Project SHAD developed respiratory illnesses compared to other veterans not involved in the project (or perhaps compared to the general public) research would not prove causation. There are too many extraneous variables (e.g., smoking, air pollution, occupational hazards, etc.) to isolate. And guess what? The same dilemma exists for the general public when it comes to exposure to any potentially unsafe chemical aerosol to be deployed in some manner for geoengineering purposes. The best anybody will be able to find is a correlation between a) an illness, and b) the presence of some type of chemical element proposed for use in geoengineering or other weather modification experiments.

*The prime concern of many "chemtrailers" is that activity involving aerosols is being conducted without full disclosure to the public and without their consent. If you're asking, But what does that have to do with the fact that a normal contrail is composed of H2O and ash..., my answer is: nothing. That's the point! Focusing on "facts" like these don't address the concern most chemtrailers have about clouds of some kind being deployed into the atmosphere, which should never be confounded with some nervous freak looking up, observing a contrail, and blurting out, I know they're spraying something to kill us! The many unanswered questions asked by people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are not represented by this depiction. However, there is plenty of evidence why any rational person would not trust the US government (or researchers they support) when disguised as a matter of "national security" they want to conduct open air testing for geoengineering and related purposes, which given their track record many people believe will be done a) with no prior disclosure, b) without the public's consent, and c) with little concern for anyone's safety once labelled a matter of national security.

a reply to: Petros312

Focusing on "facts" like these don't address the concern most chemtrailers have about clouds of some kind being deployed into the atmosphere

Actually it does until you go up and test a supposed trail right after they are sprayed...but until then they are scientifically known as contrails.

That's where the chemtrail conspiracy theory your trying to defend falls short...very short.

However, there is plenty of evidence why any rational person would not trust the US government (or researchers they support) when disguised as a matter of "national security" they want to conduct open air testing for geoengineering and related purposes, which given their track record many people believe will be done a) with no prior disclosure, b) without the public's consent, and c) with little concern for anyone's safety once labelled a matter of national security.

So let me get this right...because they have done it once before then they must be doing it now. Here you might want to read this...

So now as far as the military using it for their purposes...

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

www.state.gov...

And exactly what national security event would they use to do this?

So this makes your fourth thread on this topic. All that research and not ONCE have you gone up and tested a supposed "chemtrail" to see if one exists or not. You have a valid test you can perform, so hop to it. Stop trying to convince us with your words and convince us with actual hard evidence.

Congratulations. A very well thought out and presented post about some very real things that happened.
And all without mentioning other posters. Bravo.

originally posted by: Petros312
If you're asking, But what does that have to do with the fact that a normal contrail is composed of H2O and ash..., my answer is: nothing. That's the point! Focusing on "facts" like these don't address the concern most chemtrailers have about clouds of some kind being deployed into the atmosphere, which should never be confounded with some nervous freak looking up, observing a contrail, and blurting out, I know they're spraying something to kill us!

And thanks for acknowledging why we feel the way we do. I give this post two thumbs up!

originally posted by: Petros312
*The prime concern of many "chemtrailers" is that activity involving aerosols is being conducted without full disclosure to the public and without their consent. If you're asking, But what does that have to do with the fact that a normal contrail is composed of H2O and ash..., my answer is: nothing. That's the point! Focusing on "facts" like these don't address the concern most chemtrailers have about clouds of some kind being deployed into the atmosphere, which should never be confounded with some nervous freak looking up, observing a contrail, and blurting out, I know they're spraying something to kill us! The many unanswered questions asked by people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are not represented by this depiction. However, there is plenty of evidence why any rational person would not trust the US government (or researchers they support) when disguised as a matter of "national security" they want to conduct open air testing for geoengineering and related purposes, which given their track record many people believe will be done a) with no prior disclosure, b) without the public's consent, and c) with little concern for anyone's safety once labelled a matter of national security.

And the reply to this single fragment in bold was:

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312
Actually it does until you go up and test a supposed trail right after they are sprayed...but until then they are scientifically known as contrails.

That's where the chemtrail conspiracy theory your trying to defend falls short...very short.

That's actually where debunkers fall short (very short) of providing empirical observation that all the condensation trails in the sky can only be "normal" contrails and nothing but the "normal" activity of jet air traffic. Read more about it here:
In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

I stated above:

originally posted by: Petros312
*The prime concern of many "chemtrailers" is that activity involving aerosols is being conducted without full disclosure to the public and without their consent.

--you can add to this that the people who are considered to be chemtrail conspiracy theorists in one way or another are also concerned that testing in the atmosphere is completely unregulated. This is particularly important because as geoengineering experiments are being designed, run, and replicated, there may be no regulations in place for the use of aircraft to deploy aerosols such as sulfur (one cause of acid rain). Balloon experiments may have been cancelled in part because the technology doesn't exist for reliable aerosol release by balloon at very high altitudes. See: Geoengineering the Planet: First Experiments Take Shape The news article in The Washington Post called, How a group of conspiracy theorists could derail the debate over climate policy suggested that concern over things like who controls how jet aircraft might be used for geoengineering purposes is a legitimate concern:

As farfetched (and baseless) as these claims may be, a recent scholarly analysis of the chemtrails movement suggests we can’t write off its relevance entirely — not because its proponents are right, but because of the insights they may offer about a future debate over geoengineering. It might be many years, after all, before any geoengineering proposal seriously enters the policy realm. Still, writes science and technology policy researcher Rose Cairns of the University of Sussex in The Geographical Journal, 'Ignoring or dismissing these discourses out of hand as pathological or paranoid is to ignore potentially revealing insights about the emerging politics of geoengineering.

From Cairns' 2014 report (abstract is here ) in which she examines the beliefs that some so-called chemtrailers have about climate control, she admits:

...certain elements of the [chemtrail conspiracy] discourse (such as the moral outrage at the idea of powerful elites controlling the climate, or the importance of emotional and spiritual connections to weather and climate) highlight concerns of relevance to mainstream geoengineering debates.

-- The "powerful elites" who will be writing the policies that govern geoengineering experimentation are to suddenly be trusted when they start talking about the use of aircraft for geoengineering? The use of aircraft for weather modification, with a growing number of projects around the nation, is STILL unregulated (See: Weather Modification ).