collapse

Author Topic: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?  (Read 24840 times)

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2011, 11:33:30 PM »
ellirium113



[/quote]
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 02:51:00 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2011, 11:33:59 PM »
USArmy Tests Bio Warfare on American Cities

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTgDI82fOw8[/youtube]

just posting this to remind me to dig up more on this. Not really a 'Chemtrail' as such but in the same category of dumping stuff on us

Called "Operation Big City"

Quote
Originally Posted by malkor

yikes.

here's a thought.

step 1.  dump aluminum and barium into the soil on the pretext of saving us from global warming.

step 2. place monsanto's man as fda food czar.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor

step 3. then, with the authority gained from bill S 510, outlaw individual farming because the soil is too toxic and it's a national health hazard.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html

what do you think, too over the edge?

Agent Orange Ex-gratia Payment

The new deadline for applications is June 30, 2011.

On December 22, 2010, the Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), announced that the Government of Canada is extending the one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967.

For more information on eligibility criteria, contact Veterans Affairs Canada by visiting www.vac-acc.gc.ca or calling 1-866-522-2122.

The Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day

Homeland Security To Test Biological Sensors In MBTA Tunnels
By Karen Anderson, WBZ-TV


READ: DHS Test Summary - Environmental Assessment for Bacillus subtilis Particles to Challenge Bio-Detection Sensors in Subway Stations - [PDF][Archived]


« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 03:17:51 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2011, 11:57:19 PM »
The Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day

For three days in June 1966 and four days in June 1967, Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides were tested at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in cooperation with the U.S. military to evaluate their effectiveness. These are the only known instances that these military test chemicals were used at CFB Gagetown. Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides are not used at the base today. The base uses only federally regulated herbicides for brush control during its annual vegetation management program.

In August 2005 the Department of National Defence, with participation from Veterans Affairs Canada, Health Canada, and additional departments and agencies, initiated a fact-finding mission to gain information on the history of herbicides tested and used at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to the present day, and the potential risks to human health and the environment. A major interdepartmental effort has occurred over the past two years to conduct the analysis necessary to provide all the facts.

An independent Fact-finding and Outreach Coordinator, Dr. Dennis Furlong, was named to oversee this process. His work included providing input on the plans and reports for each fact-finding task, as well as being the principal contact for those seeking information about herbicide testing and use at CFB Gagetown. The fact-finding tasks were conducted by contracted, highly qualified non-governmental experts.

The draft reports of the scientific research were peer-reviewed by qualified, independent experts. The contractors addressed their comments, and the final reports were provided directly and concurrently to the Ministers of National Defence, Veterans Affairs, and the Fact-finding and Outreach Coordinator. Reports involving human health aspects were also provided to the Minister of Health. The Fact-finding and Outreach Coordinator, accompanied by the appropriate experts, then shared the results of each report with the public.

All of the fact-finding tasks are now complete, and there is a much clearer understanding and greater knowledge of the testing and use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown. Scientific study from the excavations, soil, water and vegetation sampling, human health risk assessments, and the epidemiological study indicates that most people who lived near or worked at CFB Gagetown were not at risk for long-term health effects from the herbicides applied there. The science also indicates that the base is safe today.

Results of the Fact-finding Tasks

Task 1

As part of the fact-finding initiative, the Department of National Defence committed to producing a comprehensive list of individuals and military units who were present at CFB Gagetown during the testing of Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other herbicides in 1966 and 1967, and during the eight to 12 weeks per year (between June and August) from 1952 to the present day when application of herbicides took place.

The contractor for this task, Canadian Development Consultants International Inc, compiled a database with relevant information on more than 115,000 individuals. Information that was not deemed to be of a personal nature (this includes such information as the names, ranks and units of some individuals, as well as the dates they were in Gagetown) was made public. Personal information (this includes such things as age, employee numbers, home addresses and family information) will not be made public.

Any information collected from individuals by the Fact-finding and Outreach Coordinator's office is also considered personal and will not be made public. Individuals who wish to submit a request for personal information may do so under the Privacy Act through the Directorate Access to Information and Privacy at National Defence.

Task 2A

The objective of this task was to review the history of the use of herbicides at the CFB Gagetown range and training area from 1952 to the present day, to compile a comprehensive database for this information, and to provide information on the types of herbicides used and how they were used.

The contractor, Jacques Whitford, determined that aside from the military products used in the herbicide trials in 1966 and 1967, the herbicides applied at CFB Gagetown over the past fifty years were regulated and commonly used across Canada. The herbicide application program at CFB Gagetown followed the policies, science, and best practices of the time, as regulated by Federal and Provincial governments. Where specific information could be obtained from historical records, rates of application of herbicides used at CFB Gagetown were either within, or in many instances lower than, the recommended application rates suggested by the manufacturer.

Task 2B

The purpose of this task was to conduct an environmental site assessment of the range and training area at CFB Gagetown.

Based on the laboratory tests, only concentrations of dioxins and arsenic in some of the soil samples exceeded the Canadian soil quality guidelines. The highest concentrations of dioxins in soil were found in the location of the 1967 test plots. Concentrations slightly above Canadian guidelines of dioxins in soil were also found in the Clones bivouac site, the Murphy bivouac site, the Enniskillen

Range, the 1966 test plots, and four other discrete sites in the range and training area. In a proactive precautionary measure, DND temporarily restricted site access to areas where dioxins concentrations were the highest (1967 test plots), as well as where human exposure to surface soils would be the most concentrated (in the bivouacs) until the results of a site specific risk assessment were completed. Further study determined that the dioxin levels in these areas posed no risk to human health.

Groundwater and surface water samples had concentrations of dioxins less than the Ontario Ministry of the Environment drinking water quality objective, which was used as a comparison due to the absence of a Canadian drinking quality guideline.

Task 2C

This task aimed to conduct a barrel investigation, and excavation program and analysis. During the excavation process, no herbicide barrels were discovered.

Task 2D

This task modelled how herbicides migrated through the air from aerial application in order to provide exposure scenarios for the health risk assessment identified in Task 3A-1.

Task 2E

The goal of this task was to assess whether herbicides and associated contaminants may have migrated through groundwater and/or surface water.

The contractor for this task, Jacques Whitford, concluded that it would be difficult, expensive and take considerable time to quantitatively estimate surface water migration. It is not possible to quantitatively estimate groundwater migration due to the variability of conditions across the base and the lack of adequate data on soils and geology. Cantox Environmental used the Jacques Whitford scoping report, together with a qualitative approach, to eliminate the water exposure pathway from further consideration in the health risk assessments.

Task 3A-1

The objective of this task was to conduct a historical human health risk assessment to determine how humans may have been exposed to herbicides and military test chemicals at the time of use, and the potential risks to human health. This study was done in three tiers. Tier 1 concentrated on the contaminants related to the 1966 and 1967 testing of unregistered military chemicals. Tiers 2 and 3 concentrated on all other years of registered herbicide use.

The contractor for this task, Cantox Environmental, concluded that the military chemicals tested at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967, the known contaminants in the herbicides used at CFB Gagetown during the annual spray program in the period prior to the late 1960s, and the active ingredients in the herbicides used at CFB Gagetown during the annual spray program posed no long-term risk to human health and safety for most individuals. Those who were directly involved during applications or who worked in the bush immediately after application may have some increased risk. The contractor also concluded that the known contaminants in the herbicides used at CFB Gagetown during the annual spray program after the late 1960s posed no long-term risk to human health and safety.

Task 3A-2

For this task, a present day contaminated site human health risk assessment, using data gathered from Task 2B, was conducted to assess current exposures and human health risks for all contaminants of potential concern identified in the water, soil, sediment, and vegetation environmental media sampled and analyzed at CFB Gagetown.

The results of this task indicate there is currently no risk to human health (as a result of herbicide use) in the areas of the base where access was restricted as a precautionary measure following the environmental site assessment.

Task 3B

The objective of this task was to perform a literature review of all epidemiologic studies examining the relationship between herbicides (those applied at CFB Gagetown) and human health, and to conduct a descriptive epidemiological study to determine whether the communities surrounding CFB Gagetown had a higher incidence of illness as compared to the general population of the province of New Brunswick.

The contractor for Task 3B, Dalhousie University led by Dr. Judy Guernsey, concluded that the communities surrounding CFB Gagetown do not have a significantly higher incidence of illness, as compared to the province of New Brunswick.

Task 3

A consolidated report for all parts of Task 3 was completed. This report includes the results of the epidemiology research integrated with the results of the human health risk assessments.

Task 4

The purpose of Task 4 was to provide information on tissue dioxin concentrations in fish and freshwater clams sampled within the CFB Gagetown Range and Training Area. These data provide estimates to whether there is a potential risk to humans from consumption of fish and freshwater clams at CFB Gagetown.

The contractor for Task 4, G.A. Packman and Associates, concluded that the levels of dioxins in fish and freshwater clams at CFB Gagetown were either below or consistent with regulated limits and values for fish and freshwater clams from other locations.


The Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 03:02:56 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 02:13:19 AM »
  Dove

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGK4K3_VD6o[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EeOPEFDGbU[/youtube]

Quote
Originally posted by valandur
 I've been saving this story that aired on a local news channel a few years ago.

Link- http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=7339345

CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'?


Here's the footage for that news story:

Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI[/youtube]

I don't know how many of you have heard of Morgellon's, but this is a critical disease right now among many many people all across the country (and perhaps in other countries).  It is an illness wherein scabs are cropping on people's bodies, and they're finding very small fibers coming out of sores all over their body.  It's very painful and irritating, from what I've read.  It feels as though they have little bugs crawling around under their skin.  Many patients are having neurological symptoms, as well.

Some (very idiotic) doctors are saying that this is all in the patient's heads, but I assure you that it isn't.  These people are very much having *real* symptoms, and it's not something that you can brush off, no matter how many docs want to do that.  As is the case with some other illnesses, if it's not in their medical books, then it doesn't exist.  ::)

The fibers have been found to be parasitic and some have been plastic fibers.  I've seen very strange glistening things covering the entire ground after it rains in the past few years.  This rain coming after a day of chemtrail spraying.  I didn't inspect them, as I didn't want to touch the stuff, but some people *have* looked at them under a microscope.  They are undoubtedly fibers of some sort.  Whether all patient's fibers are parasitic (nanotech) or plastic is unknown.  I've read of both being found. 

Most people report that the outbreaks happen after they've laid on the grass or handled other materials such as hay or plants in their gardens.  If it's not coming from the rainwater, where is it coming from?   ::)

There has been little help for these patients.  It's utterly ridiculous the treatment they've received by ignorant doctors.  One thing that seems to help quite a bit is internal and external use of high-quality colloidal silver and some other natural remedies.  Antibiotics sometimes help, but not for all people, and it seems that it tries to come back after a time.  This disease must be treated internally and externally. 

These doctors should be drawn and quartered for their incompetence and refusal to look into this farther, and for saying this is all in the patient's mind. :(

~~~

Here are just a few videos on the subject.  If you do a web search on "morgellon's", you can find much more information. 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNb2XhqW-7c[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-uSqZbEiJk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQa1LydOrqY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfoidtKEpqc[/youtube]
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 11:05:33 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 02:22:51 AM »
  Dove

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C455lMfHfb4[/youtube]

Well, let's see if the U.S. abides by this new statute put in place by the UN, eh?  It's been too cold for me to be outside for very long, so Idk if there have been trails laid for the past couple months or not.

~~~

BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails

Posted on October 28, 2010
Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
By ETC Group


Quote
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked

NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group.

The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environmental and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts risks have been appropriately considered as well as the socio-economic impacts. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.

The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.

“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney.

“This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.”

Delegates in Nagoya have now clearly understood the potential threat that deployment – or even field testing – of geoengineering technologies poses to the protection of biodiversity. The decision was hammered out in long and difficult late night sessions of a “Friends of the chair” group, attended by ETC Group, and adopted by the Working Group 1 Plenary on 27 October 2010. The Chair of the climate and biodiversity negotiations called the final text “a highly delicate compromise.” All that remains to do now is gavel it through in the final plenary at 6 PM Friday (Nagoya time).

“The decision is not perfect,” said Neth Dano of ETC Group Philippines. “Some delegations are understandably concerned that the interim definition of geoengineering is too narrow because it does not include Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. Before the next CBD meeting, there will be ample opportunity to consider these questions in more detail. But climate techno-fixes are now firmly on the UN agenda and will lead to important debates as the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit approaches. A change of course is essential, and geoengineering is clearly not the way forward.”


Read full text here.

I just came across a link for the full feature version of that documentary:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA[/youtube]

Grand Distraction: Chemtrails

Quote
In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson, a well known theoretical physicist and mathematician, proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming. In the 90's, Edward Teller, a physicist and fellow of the renowned Hoover Institute, expounded on the idea of spreading fine particulates into the atmosphere as a means of reflecting roughly 1% of the sun's rays back into space.

While the government is reluctant to admit anything, there has been increasing evidence regarding operations that have been carried out within and outside the U.S., based on the recommendations and theories of Dyson and Teller.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPeSg_Q89qY[/youtube]
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 11:13:10 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 02:23:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by treeshaker
What do yall think about the black-line chemtrail phenomena?


Shadow



In the last image you posted the sun is on the left. The contrail is actually above the thin clouds. The angle of the sun makes a shadow of the contrail that appears to be in front of the plane because of the angle

Wanna see one on Venus



See? two contrails with shadows

 ???  ::)

Quote
Oh and I almost forgot!
Do you know that I was told that there is a link between agent orange and autism. This was told to me by a Doctor.... :o

Don't know but would not surprise me... never looked into that
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 11:16:08 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2011, 02:24:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by treeshaker
Thanks for the reply zorgon.. That's what I thought...
Venus! How and the world did those get there? Tell me it was one of our probes and not the folks that live there.... :o
Thanks!

As far as I know we don't have any scheduled flights on Venus  :D

But I DO have the SMOKING GUN on Chemtrails... remember me mentioning Project Cloverleaf?  Well here it is...

Quote
In 1997, Edward Teller co-authored a white paper, “Prospects for physics-based modulation of global change”, where he advocated the large-scale introduction of metal particulates into the upper atmosphere to apply an effective “sun screen”. A subsequent series of tests to create a polymarised and ionised mixture of certain metals, including aluminium, barium, thorium and selenium, among other contents, was perfected and tested in US facilities. A joint public-private operation, initially called “Cloverleaf”, was operationalised and subsequently supported by US state and federal weather modification legislature.

Edward Teller... hmmm now where have I heard THAT name before?

 ::)

anyway...

Quote
Throughout the continental US, dozens of tanker and other aircraft are daily applying thousands of gallons of aerosol nano-particulates that serve several objectives, including the purported ability to reflect UV radiation. Similar operations are being conducted in Canada and parts of Europe.

Matt Andersson, President, Indigo Aerospace, Chicago, IL, US

Geo-engineering trial follows in US slipstream

Papers by Edward Teller LLNL

Global Warming and Ice Ages:
I. Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change
- [PDF][Archived]

Active Climate Stabilization: Practical Physics-Based
Approaches to Prevention of Climate Change
- [PDF][Archived]

 :o :o :o
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 11:21:12 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2011, 02:25:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by valandur
 
Lots of really good information in this video...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxvWLrUeE8[/youtube]

 Her web site(s) contain all of the data she refers to in the vid.

http://www.californiaskywatch.com/

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/


Here are the links to Intra flights that she mentions in the video -

links to the .pdf files that show the data that Mrs. Peterson highlights on the flight maps she received from Congressman Thompson.

Taken from - http://www.californiaskywatch.com/content/jet-trails

25F 2003 FAA Commercial Jet Flights Arriving Bay Area Airports July 17 2003 FAA Flight Records Page 6.pdf

25F 2003 FAA Commercial Jet Flights Arriving Leaving Area Airports Intraflights July 17 2003 FAA Flight Map Page 5.pdf

25F 2003 FAA Commercial Jet Flights Departing Bay Area Airports July 17 2003 FAA Flight Map Page 7.pdf

25F 2003 FAA Commercial Jet Flights Yellow Shows Intra Flights July 17 2003 FAA Map Page 4.pdf



« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 11:51:14 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2011, 11:59:44 AM »
 :o There are over 500 PDF documents at that site  :o
All Archived now :D - [PDF][Archived]

That site needs a detailed search and study. An awesome resource on contrails vs chemtrails

From the first document I picked at random... well okay it was the first one in the list and had NASA in it :P

25 1 2005 NASA 8 Persistent Jet Contrails Newsletter 2005 Page 8.pdf

I find this url address (yet another NASA odd url for the archives :D )

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/



So NASA is going to educate us about contrails  8)

 ::)

They have some nice public domain photos though :D


Photo by Ralph McConnell in Hertford, NC, Feb. 20, 2004 looking toward the northeast. Submitted by Aileen Seshun.

Quote
Multiple Persistent Spreading Contrails
This is a fairly common sight on the East Coast, where lots and lots of airplanes fly between the major cities of the Eastern Seaboard. However this photo captures a wonderful display of these contrails, showing them at various stages of "spreading".


Photo by Dr. Paul Filmer, Feb. 20, 2004.

Quote
View from the Air
On the same day and in the same area as above, here is a view from the air. This is taken on a southbound flight over North Carolina at 9:45 am on Feb. 20, 2004. From this perspective, one can see the large number of contrails from the morning's air traffic being carried slowly eastward over the Atlantic Ocean by the prevailing winds.



Thanks to Didier for contributing this photo.

Quote
Criss-crossing contrails

This photo shows a series of contrails creating a cross-hatch pattern across the sky. It was taken in spring 2004 near the town of Chartres, France. This is not too far from Paris.

Contrails - Persistent Spreading - NASA

Thanks NASA - nice pics :D
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 12:13:23 PM by zorgon »

Offline ProtplasmicTraveler

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Gold 2
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2011, 01:59:25 PM »
One of the most eye opening things I ever have come across was a collection of official documents of the State of Pennsylvania published by Samuel Hazard the State's official registrar in 1848.

As part of William Penn's Great Law authored shortly after his arrival to govern the proprietary colony bearing his name that the King of England had rewarded him with, he decreed that all acts of and pertaining to government had to be recorded. This collection of documents included those that predated Penn's arrival in the colonies and basically outlined the history of the Eastern Seaboard of the United States from the time where European settlers numbered less than a 1,000.

Many of the documents were in a state of decay when Hazard decided to publish and transpose them all.

Among them were accounts of early Cholera outbreaks that had decimated and wiped out some entire European settlements while other European settlements nearby were left unscathed by the outbreaks.

Trying to determine why some didn't suffer the illness while others did based on some common identifiable external circumstance led the to the discovery that coal was used as a primary heating fuel in the villages that didn't suffer cholera outbreaks while wood was used as the primary heating fuel in the villages that were wiped out by the disease.

The physicians of the day concluded that coal the smoke from the burning coal had changed the atmosphere in a way that eliminated the cholera bacteria preventing the disease from spreading in the process.

This led to Penn and the government selecting coal as the fuel of choice in the colony and the birth of the American coal industry.

So the fact is that altering the atmosphere deliberately to achieve a goal in this case the elimination of cholera outbreaks is something that the government will do.

What isn't so certain is what chemical trails from jet planes are meant to accomplish. The presumption is its likely something bad but it should be considered also that it actually have some benefit like the burning of coal was believed to have had.

While I wouldn't place a wager leaning either way, I would bet that they are deliberately changing the atmosphere for some reason with the chemical trails left by some jets.

The possibility that they might and might be doing it secretly becomes a lot more plausible as you delve deeper into the little known portions of documented history that don't make the school textbooks or encyclopedias.

If more people became generally aware of just what government is truly capable of through becoming better aware of just what it's done in the past, demanding accountability and disclosure regarding such things would become a lot easier.

As long as they can divide the population with naysayers who ignorantly dismiss things out of hand based on some misguided presumption we don't have much of a chance.


Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2011, 09:37:17 AM »
So, another group of people reporting high levels of barium, aluminum oxide, and other salts.  :o

Where is all of this contaminant coming from if not from geoengineering?


Suffolk Co. NY To Hear Proposal To Ban Chemtrails


Quote
On Dec. 6, New York’s Suffolk County government will hold a public hearing on a proposal to ban aerial spraying of aluminum oxide, barium, sulfur, and other salts into the air over the county without first filing an Environmental Impact Statement with and receiving approval from the county’s Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.


Exempted from the proposed ban are aerosol spraying operations for agriculture, and for lyme disease, Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), West Nile virus (WNV), and other disease vector control operations.

The hearing will be held at the Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K. Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive in Riverhead, NY at 2:30 pm.........


..........“If this proposal becomes law in Suffolk County, Long Island, it would be the first in the nation. It would be a starting point for others to follow,” said LISW in a press release.

“Eventually, our governments would have to investigate why our trees are dying in record numbers; why our waters contain toxic levels of aluminum, barium and strontium; why 90% of us are vitamin D deficient; why our crops are failing; and where all of this crazy weather is coming from.”

Cindy Pikoulas of LISW spoke with New York Sky Watch radio on Nov. 20, when she advised that tree samples from Suffolk show high levels of barium, strontium and aluminum. She is asking Long Islanders to have their water and trees tested for these chemicals in order to build a body of evidence that would spur investigations by health and environment authorities.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27866

Quote
Below is the full text of Suffolk’s proposed legislation: WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on [December 6], 2011, a proposed local law entitled, "A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY" now, therefore, be it           

RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows:                       

LOCAL LAW NO. _____-2011, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK

A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY                         


BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows:

Section 1.  Legislative Intent.

This Legislature hereby finds and determines that Suffolk County is a leader in environmental protection and has several programs to protect soil and groundwater from contamination.                         

This Legislature also finds and determines that air pollution is another environmental issue that can impact the health and safety of County residents and may also contaminate soil and groundwater.                         

This Legislature further finds and determines that concerns have been raised that business and government entities may be discharging polluting chemicals, including barium, sulfur, salts, and aluminum oxide, into the air, which may impact weather and other environmental elements.                         

This Legislature finds that such particulates eventually fall from the atmosphere, exposing the public to these air pollutants and, upon landing, may contaminate soil and water.                                               

This Legislature determines that County residents may be exposed to these chemicals while they are in the atmosphere, which can cause respiratory and other health problems.                         

 This Legislature also finds that, to protect County residents from potential harm, any person who plans to discharge these chemicals into the airspace over Suffolk County should first file an Environmental Impact Statement with and receive approval from the Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality.                         

Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County prior to taking such action.

Section 2.  Definitions.   

As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity or business of any kind.

Section 3.  Requirements. 

Any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk must file a completed environmental impact form, as established in Section 4 of this law, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality and with the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature and receive the approval of the Division of Environmental Quality prior to engaging in such discharge.

Section 4.  Form Established.   

The Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to develop an environmental impact form to be used by persons wishing to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk.  Such form shall require applicants to detail the nature and purpose of their proposed discharge and any potential environmental and/or public health impacts that may result from such discharge.

Section 5.  Exemption.

The requirements set forth in this law shall not apply to any person engaging in aerosol spraying for agricultural or vector control purposes.

Section 6.  Penalties.

A.  Any person who violates any provision of this law shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for an initial violation, with a fine of $5,000 for each subsequent violation.

B.  Any civil penalty may only be assessed by the Commissioner of Health Services following a hearing and opportunity for an alleged violator to be heard.

Section 7.  Rules and Regulations.

The Commissioner of the County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and promulgate such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law. Section 8.  Applicability.                         

This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law.

Section 9.  Severability.

If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.

Section 10.  SEQRA Determination.

This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection.  The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law.

Section 11.  Effective Date.

This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State.   
 
 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 09:40:24 AM by burntheships »
"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

Offline burntheships

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2759
  • Gold 268
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2011, 10:01:13 AM »
  Some other things to consider...
Are people in the US vitamin D deficient? I really dont know, is this on the rise?



11 News Special Report: Deadly Contrails in the Sky?

http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/11_News_Special_Report_Deadly_Contrails_in_the_Sky_134296918.html

Quote
A controversial theory is gaining popularity-- a theory that has some saying those contrails are the government using the sky as their own personal chemistry experiment; an experiment that some fear is dangerous.

The technical term is Geo-engineering.

"The plans to put chemicals into the atmosphere will pollute our air, our water and our soil."

President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition Rosalind Peterson says chemicals are being sprayed into the air via jet planes, all in an attempt to combat global warming.

"They’re changing our climate and they're reducing the amount of sunlight that's reaching the earth,” says Peterson.........


........Peterson says because of geo-engineering, less direct sunlight makes its way into the atmosphere causing massive deficiencies of Vitamin D among humans.

She says rickets and other childhood diseases are on the rise as a result of the lack of Vitamin D.

All government agencies deny the existence of chemical trails.

 
 
"This is the Documentary Channel"
- Zorgon

Offline Phedre

  • The Matrix
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Gold 13
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2012, 12:54:31 PM »

I am posting this in this topic thread because it has a lot of good information in that I would hate to see go "away".

We were supposed to have high winds and blowing dirt coming. But has not really materialized yet.  Last night about 6:30 P.M. there where about 5 planes in the sky at once, all at different altitudes, which is good because they where "criss crossing" each other.

What I did see is big white planes, with some sort of apparatus attracted to the tail section that the "trails" where coming out of.  Another thing that I have noticed, that these "jet" planes make absolutely NO noise and they are quite low. All I had where some cheap binoculars and I don't own a camera, (I am rather "tecky" backward). Is the no "NOISE" thing well known? We had a "drone" come over a couple of times and it was "loud". I also might add I live in the northwest in "Puck-Huddle" town.  About 200 miles from any major airport. And we have never been on any-ones flight plan until the trails started years ago.  I also might add, that we have a "nosebleed epidemic going on here, including me! :o

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2013, 01:20:54 PM »
Do you remember when...








Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19932
  • Gold 879
Re: Chemtrails: Real or Delusion?
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2013, 01:22:26 PM »
Chemtrails- FBI Former Chief Ted Gunderson Tells TRUTH!!

[youtube]UxKcn4_mR2s[/youtube]

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[Today at 06:35:07 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[Today at 06:23:13 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[Today at 05:41:06 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by zorgon
[Today at 04:48:19 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[Today at 04:06:56 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Irene
[Today at 09:45:51 AM]


Australien Skies 2 - Exclusive Premiere by thorfourwinds
[February 20, 2018, 10:10:11 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 20, 2018, 08:21:05 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by petrus4
[February 20, 2018, 05:10:21 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Ellirium113
[February 20, 2018, 04:10:16 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 20, 2018, 01:52:22 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by space otter
[February 20, 2018, 07:11:59 AM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by Eighthman
[February 20, 2018, 05:53:51 AM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 06:54:51 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 06:28:01 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 05:44:09 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 03:28:14 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 03:05:34 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by robomont
[February 19, 2018, 02:35:45 PM]


Re: The Question We Should Be Asking by ArMaP
[February 19, 2018, 01:51:36 PM]