QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Jun 3 2008, 11:32 PM)
I did. They seem to be about funding government research into lessening the harmful impacts of drought and hail. Seems laudable to me.
Thanks for the response. One thing I am trying to figure out is why some have said that the two bills are in identical language. Unless I am missing something, they are not. The Udall version seems to emphasize the things you're talking about along with hydrology. The Hutchison version, to me, is more in our faces with the need to legalise "weather mitigation."
The traditional cloud seeding operations are already legal. All states have to do is file their operations with the NOAA. There doesn't seem to be a need for a "weather mitigation" law.
QUOTE
How does this have anything to do with "chemtrails"?
"Chemtrails" as a word has become useless. It has become defined as "conspiracy chatter." I do realise that there is not concrete proof that the new bills are attempts to legalise "chemtrails." Yet, imho, they are attempts to do that.
The top section of my humble forum/blog contains a lot of info as pertaining to the "chemtrails" controversy. Perhaps I have taken some liberties equating the bills with deliberate aerosol dispersals. I would love to be proven wrong. I need to see evidence of commercial airliners not only producing "persistent contrails." I need to see evidence that all aircraft are capable of contributing to white-out conditions. That shouldn't be so difficult for NASA or any other governmental branch to prove, if it is the truth.
Sometimes aircraft are flying low enough where I can see the "chemical trails" shooting out of the tail. There is something called the Appleman Chart, which explains that certain conditions are needed for the creation of "persistent contrails." A place like Arizona doesn't have the humidity needed to explain all their white-outs.
And I am not saying that chemtrails are all about coming out of apparatuses from the tail or wings. Military jet fuel doesn't have the same strict specifications of commercial jet fuel. Also, aircraft can be "run dirty." I can track down links if necessary, but there was one atmospheric scientist called Penner who offered such an idea.
Respected scholar Bob Fitrakis actually
used to report on this issue back in the early part of this decade. My main goal has been to show that chemtrails is not such a crazy idea. One can provide many links showing that this isn't science fiction. Case in point is HAARP. On the surface, it seems like it's a hoax. But then one can easily find out that it is about real technology based on the ideas of Edward Teller. Teller proposed the dispersal of aluminum particulates into the stratosphere. Energy is then beamed out of HAARP-like facilities. That energy bounces off of satellites and then pushes the electro-jet. Basically, HAARP as seen in the patents has the ability to push the weather around.
There is also the work of Paul Crutzen and others who talk about dispersing sulfates into the stratosphere. The proposals to do so are based on the need for such particulates to stray aloft for longer periods of time.
"Chemtrails," however, are being reported in the troposphere. I lean towards thinking the chemtrails are some kind of protection against uv-b rays and for frankensteinian attempts to dilute severe weather. There is a company named Gel Tech Solutions, better known as Dyn-omat, which claims to be able to diminish hurricanes.
Because of all the closed-minded debunkers and crazy believers, it is very difficult to get a good thread going on this topic. Perhaps I should start one in the conspiracy section. But I am loathe to do that, because then the topic becomes immediately skewed as being an internet concoction.
I am not trying to make claims that cannot be backed up. I do appreciate your post and hope that this response has helped to clarify where many of us are coming from. There must be a way for us to get beyond the circular, predictable debates that turn into enigmas.
I want to see total proof to put my concerns to rest. Yes, obviously I have a dog in the hunt. I admit that.
QUOTE
BTW, I do accept that yes, the government does own planes that are used to alter precipitation levels. Cloud seeding with silver iodide etc. to stimulate rain is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seedingIt can be shown that
governments have had no qualms about experimenting without any regard for the effects on human life and the planet. Studies have come out that back up the contention that materials used are not harmless salts. Multiple schlerosis clusters are emerging due to the presence of barium. Alzheimers has been shown to have links to the presence of heavy metals like aluminum.
Here's one more photo from Cpellatt. It shows how the target of white-outs tends to be the sun. This is why I lean towards the uv-b ray theory. The trails are simply too low to be attempts to off-set global warming. The hurting ozone layer gets next to no coverage compared to global warming. I simply want proof that the following for example is a result of all air traffic interacting with atmospheric conditions. I've yet to see it. I've only seen a lot of convolution from what appears to be a scripted chemtrails are kooky debate.
Unfortunately, it is easier to prove the convolution part than to foster dialogue which looks at the best evidence. For example, the link above to a Fitrakis article mentions how the word chemtrails got into a Kucinich bill draft back in 2001. What few people realise is that a spooky Carol Rosin from some cointelpro-like group infiltrated the peace in space movement. She not only wrote the word chemtrails, she added in extra-terrestrial space weapons. She is easily tied into the nutty Disclosure Project and with the nazi Werner Von Braun.
Personally, I tried to work within the structure of the major chemtrail forums. Unfortunately, I soon realised that they are full of easily debunked nonsense. Perhaps the worst aspect of those forums has been their emphasis on "conspiracy chatter." While they had no trouble fostering an emotional aversion to "debunkers," they made no effort to clean up their own shop. That is why I believe such places were established with the intent of muddying the waters.
