We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan

Originally posted by pianopraze
Those who will see will see... I'm not bickering with the peanut gallery with an agenda.

Yes I've seen this disinformation tactic before - don't engage in a discussion about some aspect of the conspiracy because hter's no evidence for it.....

I can't understand why you bother with discussing any other part of the conspiracy at all tho - since there's no evidence for any of it!

Videos
This video has whistleblower testimony that there is current ongoing. So the peanut gallery who say that there are not whistleblowers are wrong.

What whistleblower?

The only thing that comes close is someone, unidentified, saying he's a doctor to some pilots at he start, and has "NSA buddies", making the usual unsubstantiated allegations.

Being a whistle blower usually involves revealing some actual information, official documents, email records, etc.

Also in this video the military admits to chemical weapons tests.

No,. actually, the military does not do so at all anywhere in this video. Someone says the military have admitted doing so in the 1960's, and there's a screenshot of a BBC New web page saying the military have done so but without freezing it and searching the BBC archives it's not possible to say which admission this was about.

And of course this isn't exactly news.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by pianopraze
Those who will see will see... I'm not bickering with the peanut gallery with an agenda.

Yes I've seen this disinformation tactic before - don't engage in a discussion about some aspect of the conspiracy because hter's no evidence for it.....

*wipes tears from eyes*

thank you for the laugh of the day!

priceless

NSA, military whistleblowers... many many more throughout these threads.

reply to post by pianopraze


Thanks for passing the laugh on

I thought you might want to watch view this...

There are many in the U.S. that just wont touch this subject.

An Aerospace Engineer, Coen Vermeeren performs a peer review the 300 page scientific assessment of "contrail science" commissioned by the Belfort group referres to as "Case Orange".

Saive.com... - 5/29/2010, Ghent Belgium:

Long, tedious with facts and scholarly. Yeah, imagine that, an aeorspace engineer with a very open mind.

reply to post by burntheships


Very Interesting video!

He mentions the airforce paper Owning the weather in 2025 - Military Applications of Weather Modification (also here)

Introduction - Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Appendix

Now we no part of the mission of the secretive new UAV shuttle that the air force has recently launched:

In 2025, uninhabited aerospace vehicles (UAV) are routinely used for weather-modification operations. By cross-referencing desired attack times with wind and thunderstorm forecasts and the SPOT satellite's projected orbit, the WFSE generates mission profiles for each UAV. The WFSE guides each UAV using near-real-time information from a networked sensor array.

Prior to the attack, which is coordinated with forecasted weather conditions, the UAVs begin cloud generation and seeding operations. UAVs disperse a cirrus shield to deny enemy visual and infrared (IR) surveillance. Simultaneously, microwave heaters create localized scintillation to disrupt active sensing via synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems such as the commercially available Canadian search and rescue satellite-aided tracking (SARSAT) that will be widely available in 2025. Other cloud seeding operations cause a developing thunderstorm to intensify over the target, severely limiting the enemy's capability to defend. The WFSE monitors the entire operation in real-time and notes the successful completion of another very important but routine weather-modification mission.

So those who have been dumping on mat who suggested spacecraft were weather modifying are again debunked. Mat is a great debunker debunker

Interesting enough it also has this gem:

This study by William M. Gray, et al., investigated the hypothesis that "significant beneficial influences can be derived through judicious exploitation of the solar absorption potential of carbon black dust." The study ultimately found that this technology could be used to enhance rainfall on the mesoscale, generate cirrus clouds, and enhance cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds in otherwise dry areas.

Numerous dispersal techniques have already been studied, but the most convenient, safe, and cost-effective method discussed is the use of afterburner-type jet engines to generate carbon particles while flying through the targeted air. This method is based on injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's combustion gases. This direct generation method was found to be more desirable than another plausible method

So again, Mat is proven correct and debunkers yell he's off topic, can't be done, yadda yadda.... Mat has been laying out all these pieces throughout all these threads.

The carbon dust study demonstrated that small-scale precipitation enhancement is possible and has been successfully verified under certain atmospheric conditions.

I.E. they have done these tests. They work. Of course they deny that they are being used.... but Deny Everything has been proven to be their official policy. Even in the face of evidence. They then attack those suggesting it and try to get them diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic such as Elmer Allen... at the same time they are getting the data.


And then there is the HAARP uses:

Communications Dominance via Ionospheric Modification

Modification of the ionosphere to enhance or disrupt communications has recently become the subject of active research. According to Lewis M. Duncan, and Robert L. Showen, the Former Soviet Union (FSU) conducted theoretical and experimental research in this area at a level considerably greater than comparable programs in the West. There is a strong motivation for this research, because induced ionospheric modifications may influence, or even disrupt, the operation of radio systems relying on propagation through the modified region. The controlled generation or accelerated dissipation of ionospheric disturbances may be used to produce new propagation paths, otherwise unavailable, appropriate for selected RF missions.

A number of methods have been explored or proposed to modify the ionosphere, including injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams (such as ions, neutral particles, x-rays, MeV particles, and energetic electrons). It is important to note that many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally. Ground-based modification techniques employed by the FSU include vertical HF heating, oblique HF heating, microwave heating, and magnetospheric modification. Significant military applications of such operations include low frequency (LF) communication production, HF ducted communications, and creation of an artificial ionosphere (discussed in detail below). Moreover, developing countries also recognize the benefit of ionospheric modification: "in the early 1980's, Brazil conducted an experiment to modify the ionosphere by chemical injection."

HAARP does all these things and more. They spray barium in conjunction, as mat has documented.

The info really is all out there, if you want to look.

reply to post by burntheships

Also from the video. In September 2001:

Wow... when no aircraft were flying in September 2001 there was an net increase of 1.1 degrees. So this substantiates the alaska study that current aircraft trails, be they con, or geoengineering aka chemtrails are resulting in at least a one degree difference.

These trails lower the temperature, not raise them as some have suggested.

So geoengineering is going on even if these are not purposeful trails.

He also points out that these more efficient engines should produce less particulates.

You can lower or raise the amount of precipitation by the amount of aerosols.

He points out chemtrails are not reported in the MSM, only on the internet. And this leads to scientists avoiding the discussion.

BTW the tesla technology is HAARP. He explains how they are able to manipulate the weather through HAARP briefly. There were 15 weather modification patents originally... and that company is now owned by Ratheon. Ratheon is a huge military contractor if your not familiar. So HAARP is a military facility in reality if not on paper.

He even explains why it's in Alaska.

Atomic testing of Nukes in the atmosphere also weather modify as well as damaging electronics.

Climategate scientists said that get aircraft would INCREASE temperature... obviously another way they were wrong.

This is an interesting one from that video

Project Popeye (1966)

Project Popeye was an experiment in increased rainfall through cloud seeding jointly approved by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Defense. The technical aspects of the experiment were verified by Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President of the United States for Science and Technology. The government of Laos was not informed of the project, its methods or its goals.
Robert S. McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense, was aware that there might be objections raised by the international scientific community but said in a memo to the president that such objections had not in the past been a basis for prevention of military activities considered to be in the interests of U.S. national security.

I.E. They flat out say that they don't give a darn about international treaties they will do do it when they please. So I don't want to hear any more debunkers protesting we wouldn't do it just because we say we're not. We have a history of doing it with weather modification explicitly. It was only revealed through whistle-blowing in the Pentagon Papers:

The Operation revealed

Reporter Jack Anderson published a story in March 1971 concerning Operation Popeye (though in his column it was called Intermediary-Compatriot). The name Operation Popeye (Pop Eye) entered the public space through a brief mention in the Pentagon Papers [4] and a July 3 1972 article in the New York Times [5]. Operations in Laos ceased two days after the publication of the Times article.

link

So here is another example of whistle-blowing on our dumping chemicals for weather modification. Of course we were shocked and passed regulations against it... but I'm sure that means just about as much as our saying we were not doing it in the first place... absolutely nothing.

To answer a previous debunkers asking what other chemicals, here is a Hughes patent on spreading aluminum and thorium for geoengineering (also mentioned in video above):
us patent 5,003,186
Chang , et al. March 26, 1991 Hughes Aircraft

Claims


What is claimed is:

1. A method of reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a layer of gases in the atmosphere which absorb strongly near infrared wavelength radiation, comprising the step of dispersing tiny particles of a material within the gases' layer, the particle material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said material has high emissivities with respect to radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra, and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum, whereby said tiny particles provide a means for converting infrared heat energy into far infrared radiation which is radiated into space.

2. The method of claim wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises thorium oxide.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein said particles are dispersed by seeding the stratosphere with a quantity of said particles at altitudes in the range of seven to thirteen kilometers above the earth's surface.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the size of said particles is in the range of ten to one hundred microns.

The method of injecting the aerosol particulates? Adding it into the engines to come out in the contrails.

ETA... also now owned by Raytheon.

Again from the video.

Method. Put the aerosols in the jet fuel or directly injected them into the hot exhaust, either way they come out in the contrails (full details are further in, i'm just posting the abstracts):

David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89512-1095, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Received 1 April 2009 Accepted for publication 12 August 2009 Published 30 October 2009 Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/4/045102
Abstract
Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than −2.8 W m−2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m−2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.

full pdf paper
I suggest serious researchers download these papers/videos as they have a habit of disappearing off the web very quickly. They disappear off the search engines even quicker...

Also from video.

Patent number 3,899,144

SUMMARY

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail"

patent pdf

According to the video these are attached onto several US military aircraft.

There is so much here it is again, overwhelming

BTW here is the full report from the video:
Full report pdf

Originally posted by pianopraze
Also from video.

Patent number 3,899,144

SUMMARY

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail"

patent pdf

Why not mention what else the patent says -

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquuisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like."

Why did you only quote half of the sentence?

Why were you trying to hide the rest??

According to the video these are attached onto several US military aircraft.

There is so much here it is again, overwhelming

So "several" military aircraft are generating contrails for visibility that explains the increaase in contrail worldwide and from civilian aircraft?

Overwhelming is not a word I would use in conjunction with such evidence if I was a chemtrail believer!!

It would be nice if he could mention which aircraft for example.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Wow, all that information I presented and you latch onto that little bit?



It shows they have a delivery system for injecting aerosol particulates. Many time debunkers try to claim there are no methods in operation for aerosol dispersant. I showed they have current methods they can attach to many Air force craft. I also showed through the patents methods for injecting aerosols both through the engines (coming out in contrails) and through pods (the one you are latching onto). I also showed many many more damning things which you ignored. It's ok. I'm used to all the tactics. Pick a little thing and quibble and draw off from the main more damning arguments, have fall back positions, etc...

I'm rather bored with the subject, how do you do this year in year out?

I stalked your posts. It was very enlightening.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Wow, all that information I presented and you latch onto that little bit?

you are the one who highlighted it - don't blame me for spotting the obvious jsut becaue you ahve been caught out!

It shows they have a delivery system for injecting aerosol particulates. Many time debunkers try to claim there are no methods in operation for aerosol dispersant.

Rubbish - no serious debunker has ever said anything of the sort.

"we" are perfectly aware that htere are many systems available doe dispersing sprays of all sorts - why do you keep repeating such dis-information?

I showed they have current methods they can attach to many Air force craft.

where?

All I saw was you saying someone else had said they are fitted to "some" military aircraft, with no further explaination - it's not proof, it's unsupported hearsay - it isnt' even circumstantial!

I also showed through the patents methods for injecting aerosols both through the engines (coming out in contrails) and through pods (the one you are latching onto).

Which you highlighted - the one chemtrailers are forever quoting at the world without any proof, all the time misrepresenting what it is for - to make aircraft more visible!

Why won't you answer my 1 question?

I also showed many many more damning things which you ignored. It's ok. I'm used to all the tactics. Pick a little thing and quibble and draw off from the main more damning arguments, have fall back positions, etc...

That's better than spamming junk without explaination, or, worse, with false information.

come on - I asked a simple quesation - why did you inore the othe half of het sentence?

You accuse me of ignoring the bucketloads of spam chemtrail evidence when in fact it's all been seen and disproven countless times before - but you wont 'answer 1 simple question.

I ahven't spammed yuo with a whole host of info - I jsut asked 1 easyquestion, about a patent that YOU highlighted

I'm rather bored with the subject, how do you do this year in year out?

I don't - I've only been on here since October last year roughly.

I stalked your posts. It was very enlightening.

not year in and year out your haven't - you've obviously mistaken me for someone else - geting a little paranoid by hte sound of things!!

Originally posted by Aloysius
the Gaul- don't blame me for spotting the obvious jsut becaue you ahve been caught out!

That's better than spamming junk without explaination, or, worse, with false information.

why did you inore the othe half of het sentence?

I ahven't spammed yuo with a whole host of info - I jsut asked 1 easyquestion, about a patent that YOU highlighted

you've obviously mistaken me for someone else - geting a little paranoid by hte sound of things!!

edit on 11-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Whoa...a new method...

Confusion? Confused much?

How could you expect anyone to answer that post, or even take it seriously?

Originally posted by pianopraze
This is an interesting one from that video

Project Popeye (1966)

Project Popeye was an experiment in increased rainfall through cloud seeding jointly approved by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Defense. The technical aspects of the experiment were verified by Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Special Assistant to the President of the United States for Science and Technology. The government of Laos was not informed of the project, its methods or its goals.
Robert S. McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense, was aware that there might be objections raised by the international scientific community but said in a memo to the president that such objections had not in the past been a basis for prevention of military activities considered to be in the interests of U.S. national security.

I.E. They flat out say that they don't give a darn about international treaties they will do do it when they please. So I don't want to hear any more debunkers protesting we wouldn't do it just because we say we're not. We have a history of doing it with weather modification explicitly. It was only revealed through whistle-blowing in the Pentagon Papers:

The Operation revealed

Reporter Jack Anderson published a story in March 1971 concerning Operation Popeye (though in his column it was called Intermediary-Compatriot). The name Operation Popeye (Pop Eye) entered the public space through a brief mention in the Pentagon Papers [4] and a July 3 1972 article in the New York Times [5]. Operations in Laos ceased two days after the publication of the Times article.

link

They really are going to do what they are going to do...and keep doing what they have done.

In the end of October 2010, participants in the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) included in their agreement to protect biodiversity , a moratorium on geo­engineering.

Third, as the US Congressional Research Service notes in its report, international agreements are best equipped to deal with disputes between countries, and not necessarily between one country and one private actor, or between private actors that may shift locations to suit their interests (pp. 29). And major private or semi-private actors and funders are out there, including the Bill Gates and Richard Branson $4.6 million Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Resources, Ice911, Intellectual Ventures (see WJS article “Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles of garden hose”), Carbon Engineeering, Planktos Foundation, and GreenSea Ventures (featured in Nature here).

So, do we really have a real, effective global moratorium on geoengineering? Far from it it seems.
rs.resalliance.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I started to point out all the argument techniques you used, and how you contradict yourself. But then deleted it... really, why bother wasting my time?

I think most people in this thread see through you like... well I wouldn't want to violate T&C.

You ignore tons of evidence I presented then accuse me of it - by twisting one point? Sad really, especially because you are misrepresenting my argument on that one point to begin with. You twist my argument then demand I address it? Sad. Already did: They have the delivery systems - I proved it many times over.

When you start presenting real info and not twisting I'll address your posts. I'm tired of pointing out your techniques. I looked through your post history. Your crystal clear.

reply to post by pianopraze


so you wont' answer the question then - why you only posted half the sentence.

I do not believe I have ever contradicted myself, and you have posted no evidence that I have - by all means show me a case where I have and I will eithe apologise or say why I did so - but I don't think you can - I think you will non-answer this jsut like you non-answer me when I ask a direct question about you making a misleading post.

I am unconcerned about the evidence posted here supporting the concept of a geo-engineering forum - although I believe the "Fragile Earth" one is adequate for het purpose.

All the info people are posting about studies being done.?.......well it inspires me to a big yawn and "so what?" as a response.

You can continue to consider it all as proof of something if you want and carry on living in fear, but I see it as what it says it is - the human race trying hard to understand more about teh world we live in.

I would wish you a nice day - but I can't se how anyone vbelieving what you do could possibly have a nice day - you must be in fear every second of your life. And I can't imagine what that is like either - I've never experienced it and I am glad I dont' have to.

dont let that stop you from telling all why you didn't quote the whole sentence from that patent at any time tho......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul




Because we refuse to fear evil. Because we choose fight it.

I think your projecting your subconscious on me.

If you truly think you are promoting truth, peace and blessings be upon you.

If you think you've found your truth, then be content in it.

reply to post by pianopraze


Oh snap, i forgot to mention that the U.S. abstained from that moritorium.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by pianopraze

 

I am unconcerned about the evidence posted here supporting the concept of a geo-engineering forum - although I believe the "Fragile Earth" one is adequate for het purpose.

We should be flattered by your attention then, as your not concerned about the topic at hand
as you clearly state.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by burntheships

 

Also from the video. In September 2001:

Wow... when no aircraft were flying in September 2001 there was an net increase of 1.1 degrees.

Although the study has since been questioned, the results were an increase in diurnal range of 1.1c. Not an increase in average temp.

If they can get that basic, simple, well known, fact so wrong, what else have they gotten wrong?

reply to post by burntheships


This interesting ATS News video starring Johnny Anonymous was brought to my attention:
ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent!