Old video of Bio-Weapons test taken in New York

I just found this video on you tube that may have footage of a military experiment using bio-weapons in New York.Unfortunatelly the video isn't complete but if it is real it's really strange.

What the hell is this and where did it come from?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Samblak]

good video, but rather scary too.

I found something on google, but it doesnt match the 1956 date.

1950: In order to determine how susceptible an American city could be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of Bacillus globigii bacteria from ships over the San Francisco shoreline. According to monitoring devices situated throughout the city to test the extent of infection, the eight thousand residents of San Francisco inhale five thousand or more bacteria particles, many becoming sick with pneumonia-like symptoms (Goliszek). At least one death is known.

Taken from a huge list here.

Also this part, im no law expert is this true?

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79]

"The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies."

"The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]."

-SOURCE-
Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

Also found this as its says new york as well as San Francisco, but again not 1956.

1953: Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii

Again from here.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Denied]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Denied]

It seem's like it aired on PBS,it's got that old style PBS feel to it.I've been searching for a while for the rest of it but can't seem to find anything.

I think that these extracts from a declassified Fort Detrick document, obtained through a FOI request, refers to one of the series of BW field trials mentioned in the film.












zero lift

You guys didn't know about this? Seriously?

I should start posting this sort of thing. I guess I think everyone's familiar with it already.

The S. Marcescens thing was a big surprise. No one thought that people could CATCH it. And Marcescens makes a really nice tracer bacteria, it is about the same size as many bioactives, it wasn't supposed to be infective at all, and it is easy for anyone to identify on a culture.

It has this really unique "pomegranate" color that you just don't see unless it's marcescens, and if you're not sure, a quick pass under a microscope is all you need to confirm it.

What they didn't know was that marcescens is an opportunistic bacteria that not only will infect people, but it is hell to be rid of once you get it. Most types of marcescens are resistant to antibiotics.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
You guys didn't know about this? Seriously?

I should start posting this sort of thing. I guess I think everyone's familiar with it already.

The S. Marcescens thing was a big surprise. And Marcescens makes a really nice tracer bacteria, it is about the same size as many bioactives, it wasn't supposed to be infective at all, and it is easy for anyone to identify on a culture.

*snip*

What they didn't know was that marcescens is an opportunistic bacteria that not only will infect people, but it is hell to be rid of once you get it. Most types of marcescens are resistant to antibiotics.

Well, thats not quite accurate Tom.

The Microbiological Research Department, Porton Down - who had supplied the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick with the Serratia marcescens (aka 8UK) - had their suspicions about its supposed lack of pathogenity back in 1950.

At the same time that the US Army's San Francisco experiments were being conducted, their UK collaborators - MRD Porton Down - were conducting their own series of Top Secret BW sabotage experiments.

A recently declassified UK report (MRD No 2 - The Westwood Trials), shows that the MRD's Safety Officer - Group Capt. Ian Mackay - had his doubts at the time of the San Francisco field trials and referred to the bacteria as a "so-called non-pathogen".







Page 7, of MRD Report No 2 states:

"Also, it was demonstrated that workers outside the chamber were exposed to a much higher bacterial content of the air even for a so-called non-pathogenic organism."

Those of us who have spent many hours researching the Tripartite BW research programme will realise that this is a very significant statement - contrary to popular belief, doubts were being expressed amongst the BW fraternity about the safety of Serratia marcescens as far back as 1950.






zero lift

As was normal practice at Porton Down, the Safety Officer was always in charge of 'sabotage' field trials.


[edit on 4-5-2007 by zero lift]

thats old news but glad to see it getting play again when the nay sayers come on strong and instient but never logical on 9/11 except to say the country, government, cia, nsa, etc would never do this to us....
LOL
oh yes they would, they did and they will again

I am from Canada, the CIA did disgusting, immoral experiments in montreal on the human brain....brain experiments...how nice
human guinne pigs




[edit on 4-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord
thats old news but glad to see it getting play again when the nay sayers come on strong and instient but never logical on 9/11 except to say the country, government, cia, nsa, etc would never do this to us....
LOL
oh yes they would, they did and they will again

I am from Canada, the CIA did disgusting, immoral experiments in montreal on the human brain....brain experiments...how nice
human guinne pigs

[edit on 4-5-2007 by junglelord]

I'd just like to make it clear that the fact that BW scientists were in 1950 expressing doubts about the pathogenity of Serratia marcescens is not old news, but is in fact a recent discovery.




zero lift

I posted that interesting clip in a previous thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some months ago a poster on ATS claimed the Phoenix Lights were also a cover for military Bio-testing on the people of Phoenix

Originally posted by golddragnet
I posted that interesting clip in a previous thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some months ago a poster on ATS claimed the Phoenix Lights were also a cover for military Bio-testing on the people of Phoenix

Given the fact that Biological Warfare aerosols are invisible to the naked eye, one has to ask why anyone would assume that there was a need for a cover story?




zero lift

Originally posted by zero lift

Well, thats not quite accurate Tom.

Had it been known to be pathogenic, Mackay would have stated that, no? I think you may be reading a lot into his use of "so-called", if I, as a safety officer, was responsible for exposing you to a non-pathogen at an amazingly high dose rate, I might also be a bit concerned.

For example, if I exposed you in a test to the "hoof and mouth" disease Apthovirus, for humans it also is considered non-pathogenic. However, exposure to a sufficiently dense concentration of it in aerosolized form will, in fact, infect most people with an annoying, mild, chickenpox-like disease. Exposed to a reasonable dose that would infect a cow, you would not be affected at all unless you had a very compromised immune system.

So it's quite possible to think an organism is, in fact, non-pathogenic yet be worried about applying a huge dose rate to a test subject you are responsible for.

At the time of the test, no one had positively identified Marcescens infections in which Marcescens was the primary infecting organism. You occasionally saw it as an opportunistic tag-along, a superinfection on top of some other infection, as you occasionally see S. Epidermidis.

Had it been known to be pathogenic, Mackay would have stated that, no? I think you may be reading a lot into his use of "so-called", if I, as a safety officer, was responsible for exposing you to a non-pathogen at an amazingly high dose rate, I might also be a bit concerned.

Of course exposure to a very high dose of non-pathogens carries a risk of causing adverse health effects, thats pretty much a no-brainer Tom.

What I'm on about, and I guess you have to have examined a lot of MRD/MRE documents to recognise its significance, is that a growing number of MRD scientists were, at the time, worried about Serratia marcescens' pathogenicity, and that this is the first time that these doubts were expressed in an official field trial report.

These doubts were the reason for the decision, made by MRD/MRE Porton Down, to move away from using SM as a live BW simulant - thats why MRE's main vegetative BW simulant in field trials was E.coli MRE162, unlike the US - who continued to use SM as a BW simulant, even in public area experiments.

During 1971 the US Army and US Navy both wished to use SM during the UK/US Collaborative BW detection field trials, which were held in public areas of the southern coast of the UK.

Agreement was reached that SM could be used as long as it was killed prior to use. This new BW simulant, ISM, was disseminated in public areas of the UK for the last time, during the final series of UK/US public area BW field trials, in 1975.


zero lift












[edit on 5-5-2007 by zero lift]