Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

Mikeultra

mrthumpy

Mikeultra

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

So you have no answer connecting "chem-trails" to the ionosphere. No surprise there.

I don't think that pdf shows anything like what you think it does. Got anything specific?

Just focus on the last one I just put up!

"Never mind all the questions and points I've previously ignored"

I found the smoking gun in all of this, and it's like the defense attorneys are doing all they can to avoid having to acknowledge what the document proves. The government is testing chemical and biological agents on the American citizens. As long as it's done for "peaceful purposes in the name of research."

You're looking for the smoking gun without knowing if a shot has been fired. What you're doing is what most chemtrail beleivers do and just skipping from once piece of "evidence" to the next without actually getting into any kind of discussion about what you've presented. I can only assume that's because they only give what is presented the most cursory glance before accepting it as absolute proof and assume that everyone else will do the same. The thing is though the sceptics don't. They actually examine the evidence presented.

Day 14 of the U.S. Government Shutdown
The sky is almost clear of chem-trails on this Columbus Day. There is just one east of my location. It might have been done late last night.

10/14/2013 - 9:02 am - eastern - 48 degrees F

Mikeultra

10/14/2013 - 9:02 am - eastern - 48 degrees F

Temperature and humidity at altitude?

weather.uwyo.edu...

Mikeultra

mrthumpy

Mikeultra

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

So you have no answer connecting "chem-trails" to the ionosphere. No surprise there.

I don't think that pdf shows anything like what you think it does. Got anything specific?

Just focus on the last one I just put up!

"Never mind all the questions and points I've previously ignored"

I found the smoking gun in all of this, and it's like the defense attorneys are doing all they can to avoid having to acknowledge what the document proves. The government is testing chemical and biological agents on the American citizens. As long as it's done for "peaceful purposes in the name of research."

I would not doubt this claim.. Yet your still not listening to the members here on the site, and that gives me a hard time, even listening to you...

Not to mention I see you posting all weekend almost 24 hours a day, looking at the time stamps, I mean wtf? Who the hell does that?

Why don't you stop trying to convince intelligent people who are not ignorant into believing what you believe?

This behavior is not normal... At all man... You have not proven chem trails exist, yet you keep rambling on, 18 hours of the 24 a day on this thread..

WOW..

Lets give it a rest bud.. Their is a big grey area with chem trail claims.. Always has been, your no different besides a bit of the madness you leave us on the forum, then any other person trying to proclaim, The government is using Chemtrails to make us docile, kill us etc...

Dont even bother responding to me, I will not communicate with you at all, if you reply with insults, no one will be surprised, and I am a big boy, I can take it from some troll on a message board rambling on about chem trails 24 hours a day...

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

So you have no answer connecting "chem-trails" to the ionosphere. No surprise there.

I don't think that pdf shows anything like what you think it does. Got anything specific?

You don't think it shows anything? I do. Specifics you want?

(e) BIOLOGICAL AGENT DEFINED - In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bio-engineered, or synthesized component of such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing ;

1. death, disease, or biological malfunction in a human, animal, plant, or another living organism:
2. deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind or;
3. deleterious alteration of the environment.

When all else fails, use personal attacks. Standard method of operation.

Mikeultra
When all else fails, use personal attacks. Standard method of operation.

When all else fails change the subject. Standard method of operation.

Mikeultra
Day 14 of the U.S. Government Shutdown
The sky is almost clear of chem-trails on this Columbus Day. There is just one east of my location. It might have been done late last night.

10/14/2013 - 9:02 am - eastern - 48 degrees F

If it was 48 degrees F at the cruising altitude of a plane, then this planet is in REAL trouble.
It is normally well, well below zero (averaging around MINUS 55 to minus 60 degrees F) at that altitude, even during the hottest summer days. The air is so thin at high altitudes that there is not much fluctuation in summer and winter temps.



So far, you have shown us pictures of clear sky days and pictures of persistent trail (like the image above) during the shutdown. I, personally, have noticed the same thing over the past two weeks -- stretches of blue sky days interspersed with times of persistent contrails, some cloudy days, and a couple of rainy days...

...HOWEVER, how is that different than any other period of time, even when the government was operating?

Mikeultra
I found the smoking gun in all of this, and it's like the defense attorneys are doing all they can to avoid having to acknowledge what the document proves.

The smoking gun for what? You haven't even proven that someone is missing and you're already claiming a slam dunk in the murder trial.

Where's that horse for your cart?

reply to post by Mikeultra


But again, what does that have to do with - and follow me here - chemtrails being sprayed into the ionosphere. What. Does. It. Have. To. Do. With. That? Where does it connect the two? Answer one question at a time, stop avoiding replies and do some really hard thinking. If evidence is so obvious, then researching should provide you with more than what you're providing now, which is simply grasping for straws.

Mikeultra
I found the smoking gun in all of this, and it's like the defense attorneys are doing all they can to avoid having to acknowledge what the document proves.

OK -- Let's stipulate that there may be possible ways to spray things at high altitude from aircraft -- i.e., someone/the government has the capability to do this...

...In that same vein, you (Mikeultra) personally have the capability to rob someone. Does that mean I should call the police and have you arrested for robbery, just because I can show that you can do it?

Mikeultra
PUBLIC LAW 105–85—NOV. 18, 1997

EC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

what an odd code to reference - the date you give is the date it WAS REPEALED!! See here


It previously read this:

OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "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

the current law is section 1520a - which explicitly requires informed consent for any testing for any purpose

Your pictures are too small to read - I have no idea what it isn them.

Bill Clinton signed this doozy.

Actually he REPEALED IT!

Look at him today, a globalist elite NWO piece of garbage

Give you seem to have everything else in your post EXACTLY WRONG I think it is safe to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about on this matter either!

reply to post by Mikeultra

You don't think it shows anything? I do. Specifics you want?

Here is some more specifics...

Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Would you be willing to go to prison for life before blowing the whistle?

reply to post by Mikeultra


Mike. It's all well and good you putting out all those various claims on the links you have posted etc, but there is question you may want to ponder.

Given that you yourself have begun to track normal airliners leaving persisting spreading contrails and can see this with all airlines on any given day. And given that this proves that those sources frequent attempts to convince everyone that 'normal contrails' cannot do that and so must be chemtrails are blatant lies. Why cannot their other claims about chemtrails Also be lies?

What makes you believe these sources are trustworthy?

reply to post by Mikeultra

You don't think it shows anything? I do. Specifics you want?

You still have nothing proving "chemtrails".

I think you need to understand that even if the gubmint issued a statement that "chemtrails" are real and they do "spray" the atmosphere you would still have nothing linking that to white clouds in the sky from airplanes that people claim to be "chemtrails".

Aloysius the Gaul

Mikeultra
PUBLIC LAW 105–85—NOV. 18, 1997

EC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

what an odd code to reference - the date you give is the date it WAS REPEALED!! See here


It previously read this:

OLD CODE: PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "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

the current law is section 1520a - which explicitly requires informed consent for any testing for any purpose

Your pictures are too small to read - I have no idea what it isn them.

Bill Clinton signed this doozy.

Actually he REPEALED IT!

Look at him today, a globalist elite NWO piece of garbage

Give you seem to have everything else in your post EXACTLY WRONG I think it is safe to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about on this matter either!

edit on 14-10-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags

You showed that Public law 105-85 Sec 1078 was repealed and replaced with 50 USC 1520a. Thanks for pointing that out. Did you you know that both of them are identical?
Public Law 105-85 Sec 1078
files.abovetopsecret.com...
50 USC 1520a
www.law.cornell.edu...

So simply repealing and replacing means nothing. What you need to look at is the B. section titled Exceptions.
b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

The next thing to consider is C. section titled Informed consent required.
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

That might sound like the government would have to get the OK from each U.S. citizen before they were to do a chemical or biological test. If the government were to follow the letter of the law and ask every U.S. citizen for their consent beforehand, what do you think most Americans answer would be? I know mine would be NO! Even if there were some that said yes, spray me with chemicals and biologic agents, there would be the conflict between yes and no voters.

That's why informed consent is being used. The public has no idea what the implications are for such testing.
Informed consent is consent given by an entity who has a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action; consent is uninformed when the entity does not have this. The public couldn't possibly give informed consent for this type of testing.

Consider this example. New York Takes Aim at Terrorism With Odorless Gas Release in Subway
Around 8 a.m., specially placed boxes released the harmless, odorless tracer gas perfluorocarbons into the subway tunnels. The goal is to trace how a chemical or gas attack would spread through the subway system so the police department is better prepared should if an attack like that ever occurs. The idea is to help police know where to go and how to respond to help people as quickly as possible and contain any attack.
www.theatlanticwire.com...

Did New York City get informed consent from every human being before they did this test? No they did not. They told them they were doing it and did. This was just some "harmless" test, with humans in the maze.

So getting back to 50 USC 1520a and its EXCEPTIONS section. There are always exceptions to the rule.

This is not a court of law, it's a conspiracy forum. So I'm not going to be getting any fuel tests, etc, etc.

reply to post by Mikeultra

This is very a important part of the exceptions section:
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section,
The exceptions are subject to the provisions of those subsections.
Would you like to review what subsection c says?

(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

The subway tests did not involve a chemical or biological warfare agent, did they?
It wasn't a substance which was being tested, was it?
But was the Secretary of Defense involved with the tests?

Mikeultra

You showed that Public law 105-85 Sec 1078 was repealed and replaced with 50 USC 1520a. Thanks for pointing that out. Did you you know that both of them are identical?
Public Law 105-85 Sec 1078
files.abovetopsecret.com...
50 USC 1520a
www.law.cornell.edu...

As Phage has pointed out - you are wrong.

both on the wording being the same, and on the NY Subway tests being a test of biological or chemical agents on human beings.

Again.

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

This is very a important part of the exceptions section:
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section,
The exceptions are subject to the provisions of those subsections.
Would you like to review what subsection c says?

(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

The subway tests did not involve a chemical or biological warfare agent, did they?
But was the Secretary of Defense involved with the tests? Because that is what the law is about.

edit on 10/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No it did not. I used it as an example to show that if they're going to do any testing, they'll just do it. That informed consent looks good on paper, but means nothing.

reply to post by Mikeultra

No it did not. I used it as an example to show that if they're going to do any testing, they'll just do it. That informed consent looks good on paper, but means nothing.

If the testing applies to the law, consent is required.
The law does not apply to the testing in New York.