Must read the very secret Project Cloverleaf — The Science Behind it

reply to post by Afterthought


I guess you missed this about the paper? It's on Page one:

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

reply to post by ProudBird


Why don't you show everything that's on the first page?

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Of course they have to say it's fictional. They are discussing present day technology and what they are wanting to make it do in the future, so of course it's fictional. This paper may have been a bid for funds.

How about how the Army sprayed '___' over France in the 1950s?
www.prweb.com...

A Department of Justice website on the dangers of '___' states that in the early 1950s “the Sandoz Chemical Company went as far as promoting '___' as a potential secret chemical warfare weapon to the U.S. Government. Their main selling point in this was that a small amount in a main water supply or sprayed in the air could disorient and turn psychotic an entire company of soldiers leaving them harmless and unable to fight.”

The incident took place in the village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in southern France, and is described in a recent book about the 1953 death of an American biochemist, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments. The book, by investigative journalist H.P. Albarelli Jr., was published in late November 2009 by TrineDay, which specializes in books about “suppressed information.”

The strange outbreak severely affected nearly five hundred people, causing the deaths of at least five. For nearly 60 years the Pont-St.-Esprit incident has been attributed either to ergot poisoning, meaning that villagers consumed bread infected with a psychedelic mold, or to organic mercury poisoning. But Albarelli reports that the outbreak resulted from a covert '___' aerosol experiment directed by the US Army’s top-secret Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, Maryland. He notes that the scientists who produced both alternative explanations worked for the Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company, which was then secretly supplying both the Army and CIA with '___'.

The effect was devastating, as a contemporary French report made clear: “It is neither Shakespeare nor Edgar Poe. It is, alas, the sad reality all around Pont-St.-Esprit and its environs, where terrifying scenes of hallucinations are taking place. They are scenes straight out of the Middle Ages, scenes of horror and pathos, full of sinister shadows.” Even Time magazine took notice: “Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead. Pont-Saint-Esprit’s hospital reported four attempts at suicide.”

THIS was in the 1950s. How much more advanced is the government now at spraying stuff on populations? At least now they know how to make it look like natural weather phenomenon, which is a nice scapegoat when you don't want to admit you're experimenting on people or trying to kill them. We already know that the government bows down to the banks and pharmaceutical companies, so I wouldn't put anything past them.

reply to post by Afterthought

How about how the Army sprayed '___' over France in the 1950s?

Relevance?

I mean, this is really reaching here.....anyone can see how much of a stretch this is, in terms of what we know are just plain, ordinary contrails.

It's almost as if someone has a vested interest in promoting this "chemtrail" hoax and myth.....oh wait! Many, many do!!

reply to post by ProudBird


There's the term that I hear so much -- "reaching".
You don't have a better defense than to attack me and my evidence?

THEY SPRAYED '___' ON POPULATIONS! An aerosol spray!!!!
You call that reaching? I call it a damn good smoking gun. If they were so sick and twisted 60 years ago to do this, how much more dasterdly are they today? They're capable of anything. They have the technology and they'll use it whether you want to believe it or not.

reply to post by Afterthought


"reaching" because that was the 1950s, the Cold War was just "heating up", and in any case no matter how vile the event was, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with modern contrails at and above 30,000 feet altitude!

Mush as in crop "dusting" or insecticide spraying done even today, it is at a very low altitude, usually less than 1,000 feet.

Has absolutely no bearing on the contrail instances, nor even the mythical "chemtrails" either.

reply to post by ProudBird


You have no faith in their ability to learn from what they've already accomplished?

I didn't even get my first computer until 1996. I can't believe how amazing they are today.
Just look at how TVs have morphed.

Just for good measure and to make my point, Fahrenheit 451 was published by Ray Bradbury in 1953. This is the same year that the Army sprayed '___' on France. Ray Bradbury spoke about flat screen TVs in his book. Who thought in 1953 that we'd have flat screen TVs today? Well, we do.


I think you need to readjust your views and realize that technology is moving faster than you think it is. America wants to remain #1 and I believe that if they think aerosol spraying will help them in some way, whatever way, they'll do it.

You stated that the paper I linked to was fictional, well so was Bradbury's ideas. Now they're a reality.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Why don't you show everything that's on the first page?

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Of course they have to say it's fictional. They are discussing present day technology and what they are wanting to make it do in the future, so of course it's fictional.

I am pretty sure they are also discussing future technology that does not yet exist and would have to be developed:

In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.

Yep - there in the 1st paragraph of the summary.

This paper may have been a bid for funds.

More likely it was exactly what it says it is in your quote - an examination of what would be required in the future to achieve the stated ends.

But since it involves future developments it would undoubtedly be part of any case to fund such developments - if only as a very initial point.

So since we all agree that it is fiction and a wish list for the future, why does it keep getting presented as "proof" of chemtrails??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So since we all agree that it is fiction and a wish list for the future, why does it keep getting presented as "proof" of chemtrails??

Please see my above post where I explain how fiction becomes reality.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by ProudBird

 

I think you need to readjust your views and realize that technology is moving faster than you think it is.

SOME technology is moving fast - other technology is not.

The standard light aircraft engine today dates to the 1930's, aircraft wings are still aircraft wings, internal combustion hasn't really changed much for 70 years - better measurement, computers refining things - but it still uses pistons and spark plugs mostly, and apart from electronic control pretty much everything else was invented before WW2!

Spectacular advances in electronics have enabled great advances in measuring all sorts of things - but better TV's do not mean we can how spray stuff from airliners without anyone having any actual evidence of it.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So since we all agree that it is fiction and a wish list for the future, why does it keep getting presented as "proof" of chemtrails??

Please see my above post where I explain how fiction becomes reality.

Please provide some evidence that this particular fiction has actually become reality.

According to your post it is simply because someone writes about it - I invite you to improve that hypothesis so that I do not have to worry about the Wicked Witch of the West.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well, you run along and figure out how much '___' measures weight wise compared to other chemicals that can be sprayed as an aerosol. If the planes of the 1950s could carry '___' and the equipment to spray it, then I think our aircraft today can handle doing the same if not better.

reply to post by Afterthought


Have you found any '___' in any chemtrails??

The ability to spray "stuff" is not in questoin - it has been around since the 1920's. Lots of things were done in the 1950's - McCarthyism was in the 1950's - does that mean there is McCarthyism now? Thousands of US troops were killed in Korea in the 1950's - does that mean it is still happening now??

Where is the evidence for Chemtrails in the last 15 years??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Please provide some evidence that this particular fiction has actually become reality.

I'm trying to, but you and all the usual chemtrail naysayers keep saying the usual things such as "gullible", "reaching", etc.

NO EVIDENCE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU AND THE OTHER "RED PHONE" DEBUNKERS.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Where is the evidence that they have stopped experimenting with spraying in the past 15 years?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Please provide some evidence that this particular fiction has actually become reality.

I'm trying to, but you and all the usual chemtrail naysayers keep saying the usual things such as "gullible", "reaching", etc.

People posting words does not stop you posting evidence - stop making excuses!

I haven't said any such thing, and it does not matter what other people say - the evidence will speak for itself if there is any - so where is it??

NO EVIDENCE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU AND THE OTHER "RED PHONE" DEBUNKERS.

Rubbish - good verifiable evidence will convince me - just not a whole succession of assertions with bad or deceptive testing supposedly backing them up.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Where is the evidence that they have stopped experimenting with spraying in the past 15 years?

Sigh.....and another favourite chemtrail believer tactic - informal logical fallacies - in this case begging the question

So tell me - are you satisfied with you pay-check for sabotaging the chemtrail theory with egregiously silly posts?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Bad assertions? Isn't that what you and proudbird use?

Look, they spray today. Go ahead and google search herbicide spray along the American/Mexican border. The government did not learn from the Vietnam War what spraying herbicides does and they are still using it today. Granted, you probably won't find an article past 2009, but I can assure you that they're spraying to kill the plants that conceal border jumpers instead of manning the border properly.

Also, brush up on your knowledge about nanotechnology and cross reference it with what I've already provided. Once you digest all of that, come back and tell me that you don't believe the government would spray anything on you, your spouse, your mother/father, sister/brother, your children, and, especially, your grandchildren.

Have a great night.

There is a light year of difference between what the term 'research' means to Joe and Jane on the street and what it means to the military. According to the HAARP home page:

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

their prominent statement says that they all are:

Pioneering Ionospheric Radio Science Research for the Twenty-First Century

with the terms of concern being 'ionospheric research.' With questions we should contact:

377th Air Base Wing Puplic Affairs

located in:

Kirtland Air Force Base, NM

So in order to better understand what ionospheric research means to the military, we could look to history and the research into the ionosphere conducted over the past 50 years or so in order to see what it means to research:

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Explosions of nuclear material were used to research the ionosphere:

Rocket technology and nuclear weapon technology developed simultaneously between 1945 and 1963. During this time of intensive atmospheric nuclear testing, explosions at various levels above and below the surface of the earth were attempted. Some of the now familiar descriptions of the earth's protective atmosphere, such as the existence of the Van Allen belts, were based on information gained through stratospheric and ionospheric experimentation.

The US Navy exploded nuclear and hydrogen bombs in order to research the ionosphere:

The military called this "the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken."

and this reasearch created, among other disastrous consequences, an 'aurora':

This gigantic experiment created new (inner) magnetic radiation belts encompassing almost the whole earth, and injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the ionosphere to cause world wide effects. The electrons traveled back and forth along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial "aurora" when striking the atmosphere near the North Pole.

Then, the US military wanted to send up copper needles: 350,000 million of them:

The US planned to add to the number of copper needles if the experiment proved to be successful. This plan was strongly opposed by the Intentional Union of Astronomers

More explosions in the atmosphere of kilotons, mega-tons and multi-megatons followed:

It is anticipated that the earth's magnetic field will be disturbed over long distances for several hours, preventing radio communication. The explosion in the inner radiation belt will create an artificial dome of polar light that will be visible from Los Angeles" (K.H.A. 11 May 1962). A Fijian Sailor, present at this nuclear explosion, told me that the whole sky was on fire and he thought it would be the end of the world. This was the experiment which called forth the strong protest of the Queen's Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle in the UK.

New radiation belts were created while researching the ionosphere and the USSR created 3 more:

According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high- altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state.

There's more. Read the article if you want to go on understanding what researching the ionosphere means.

reply to post by luxordelphi


That's all very interesting, but what has the ionosphere (250,000 feet to 3,000,000 feet) to do with "chemtrails" (30,000 feet)?