This comes from my Facebook Wall. I'm going to be following up shortly (within an hour or less) putting up additional cross-referenced posts here.
Here's video that was linked too on my FB Wall:
Chemtrails all around the world
Thursday at 5:25pm via FriendFeed Â· Comment Â· Like Â· View on FriendFeed
Sorry, I think this is tinfoil hat stuff. I agree with a lot of what you post, but not this.
Thursday at 5:53pm Â· Like Â·
I have to agree with Hugh's post. I like about 90% of what you post. But I'm not sure I buy into the chemtrails thing. If someone is able to convince me this stuff is real, I'll change my mind, but I haven't been convinced yet. I found this article interesting.
Thursday at 6:26pm Â· Like Â·
Well, I know Hugh is old enough to remember jets before persistent trails. Being old enough doesn't guarantee that one paid attention to the sky before and after. I noticed it immediately — long before I ever heard or saw the term "chemtrail."
Anyway, you'll change your minds when they admit it all, which they will. It won't be that long. Then we'll see if you'll write, "Sorry for thinking you were 'tinfoil hat.'"
I will add though that being raised in Arizona gave me an extremely early view of this because of all the Air Force bases. It even hit the mainstream news where the military did admit it.
However, in addition to some people with tin foil hats, there are also people with memory holes.
The issue was important in Arizona because the particulate matter (aluminum then too) was interfering with the monsoons and heat lightening that was fixing nitrogen in the soil. The farmers were angry that their crops were failing. The chemical fertilizers were costing too much to make up the difference.
The military actually had to back off on the volume of releases. Of course, they've had nearly two decades to mess with their concoctions and have even worked behind the scenes with the Frankenfood set, such as Monsanto.
All of this will come out in a big way soon at least in the alternative media to begin with. Where you won't find much of it to start with though will be on the mainstream-left "alternative" sites such as alternet.org.
Thursday at 7:17pm Â· Like Â·
If I am proved wrong (which happens more frequently than I like), I will most definitely apologize publicly. Don't worry. But I see no *proof*. I hardly think that more persistent contrails are proof of anything - planes (airliners) fly higher with more powerful engines than they used to. More water vapor expelled, easier to freeze at the higher altitudes, whatever... If "they" were serious about whatever "they" are suspected of doing, wouldn't they use more effective dispersants, anyway?
So which of the four theories do you support, Tom? If you can point to written (not video) testimony by one pilot or groundcrew member who can swear that "I sprayed (or filled the tanks for spraying) of an aircraft with [insert chemical here]", I shall be interested. In the meantime, I see nothing I can regard as proof. And, as I say, I am willing to apologize if proved wrong. I like conspiracy theories, but I don't think the lid could have been kept on this one for so long.
Thursday at 7:26pm Â· Like Â·
By the way, Alexander Zaitchik is ignorant at best.
I live next to SEA-TAC, that's the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Before that, I lived northwest of Sky Harbor International in Phoenix. The planes releasing the chemical trails are not coming and going from those airports as either passenger or cargo planes. They fly outside the authorized flight paths. Passenger jets and cargo jets don't fly in chemtrail patterns.
Look, you have to be really naive to buy into Zaitchik's claims about this. Besides, I already told you that the military admitted about the releases over Arizona. That was before the huge clampdown on the story is all.
Thursday at 7:34pm Â· Like Â·
Sorry, I need to read something I can get my teeth into. Nothing I can see looks even as convincing as 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Thursday at 7:50pm Â· Like Â·
Hugh, I told you this was all open in Arizona. It's a fact. I was there at the time. This is firsthand. That's the way it is.
If you don't believe me, you're saying I'm lying or mistaken or delusional (false memory) or there was a huge hoax in the Arizona media at the time.
Look, Hugh, I'm on public record here about this. This will end up on my blog. You're acting like my testimony here is as nothing.
The farmers didn't exist. Well they did. The lightening wasn't lessened. It sure was. I noticed that too. It stood out. People who paid attention to the weather were remarking about it. I was one of them.
Look, I don't know where you were raised, but the sky in the desert is different. It's so clear there so much of the time. You notice the clouds. Also the trees aren't there to block the sky from view. In addition, heat lightening is as no other lightening. When a year or two goes by with hardly a trace, only someone in a coma isn't going to notice the absence of it.
Okay, it was all an issue there just as I've written here.
There is a memory hole, Hugh. There are stories that are released but then the powers that be send out the word not to keep the story alive but to kill it. Look at FOX News and the Zionist-spy-ring story.
If you choose not to believe me, that's up to you.
Thursday at 8:19pm Â· Like Â·
Please send the link to this Arizona business. I can't see anything out there (I may be looking in the wrong place).
What do you personally believe is being sprayed up there, and why?
Thursday at 8:21pm Â· Like Â·
There is no link to this "Arizona business" that I'm aware of. Everything is not on the public Internet, as you know. If there were such a link, I would have already given it to you.
I already mentioned aluminum.
As for why, there are all sorts of possibilities. In Arizona, they were claiming they needed a method to send signals around the curvature of the Earth if the satellites (there weren't nearly as many then) were knocked out and cables were severed — that sort of thing. Apparently, they were able to send signals via the particulate "cloud" or trail. They weren't giving out the fine details, just broad info. I assume they regretted that as much got out as did because the story died shortly after and I never heard so much as another peep about it. If I had known then what I know now, ....
You have to understand that this issue is ripe for all sorts of speculation and will remain so until somehow it all comes out.
The most logical conclusion is first weather control/manipulation, which is no secret that they do that. You can find out about that on the Internet. Russia and China have openly stated that they did cloud seeding in strategic places and times so their big-deal events would go off without rain. As for how much control the Pentagon does, and could, exert, that's on a "need to know basis" with them. I suspect they have more abilities than people would generally assume.
People do speculate about poisons and drugs because we know that the government has actually done aerial releases that are documented. They did them over San Francisco by plane and around New York by car. They are vastly better at keeping a lid on what they are doing now though. People are more psychologically manipulated within the services and agencies too. They are more monitored. It's pretty difficult for people to communicate via any electronic means without the filters picking it up. If they are in "sensitive" work, they will be all the more watched. Of course, there is ineptitude on the part of the watchers.
We all know that weapons development is secret. That's not a secret. Look how long the U-2 was in the air before the general public was informed. Eisenhower lied about it to the people. All presidents will lie for Empire. It comes with the territory. They think it's honorable when done for "patriotic" reasons, no matter how twisted — it's all rationalized.
Right now though, the AZ story has been pulled back in as "secret." It's not the only thing that has.
When I was young, I could go to the public library and pull out drawings (detailed) for nuclear weapons. There may be stories about that on the Internet. I have never checked. Anyway, you can't do that anymore. If you went there and started asking, you'd probably be hassled.
All sorts of things that were in the common domain were sucked back by especially the Bush-43 administration. Surely you remember this.
I put this info out there for those who are closer to the "hidden" original source material to dig it out. People have direct access to certain databases, microfiche, and microfilm, etc.
Anyway, I think I've exhausted this. If you find out anything, let me know.
Thursday at 10:11pm Â· Like Â·
Let me add this. The Alternet.org story tried to make the idea of really evil minds seem far fetched. However, there are analytical types who would make gigantic decision very dispassionately. They would dispense with the emotional and only concern themselves with survival of their side or type or whatever.
I know about this firsthand because of my family background where we fought against the very people I'm talking about here. I don't want to get into too much detail, but you can check out Herman Kahn for starters.
He was considered the number one brain of the dispassionate types. I considered him to be insane and still believe that he was.
Thursday at 10:21pm Â· Like Â·
This is a cross-reference to another discussion thread on this matter.
It is my intention to post another link on my Wall that I will likewise cross-reference here.
Yesterday at 2:06pm Â· Like Â·
Here's the new Wall-post on this matter. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557363740&v=wall&story_fbid=141197649231631
Yesterday at 2:46pm Â· Like Â·
"...creation of an aerial antenna using a barium stearate chemical trail." This is what I was saying above as to the reason given by the military about the spraying in Arizona. I'd never seen it in writing anywhere else before.
16 hours ago Â· Like Â·
I'm responding to a message - nothing secretive on Hugh's part. Hugh replied to a message I sent him asking if he was still getting Facebook notifications since I was still adding commentary. I asked him because Facebook stops notifying me on long threads if I don't chime back in. Sometimes FB doesn't notify me at all (happens on certain Pages concerning all threads on those Pages).
Look, Hugh, I like you. Of course, that can only go so far, as there comes a point in our walks where we diverge. You've said as much in your message. I don't consider you a "bad" guy (Hugh didn't suggest that I do) in the common parlance. What I want to discuss with you here is where I see us diverging on this Chemtrail issue and not because of spiritual differences (as there are people who completely disagree with me about God, etc., who nevertheless agree that there are Chemtrails behind non-commercial or ordinary private jets but rather military/intelligence or military-contractor jets). Here's where I see the breakdown between us on this, and I don't blame you here, as you will see.
You are reading those who are making sweeping claims concerning current spraying that does reach truly mere speculation. There are those in the world who just because they have seen real patterns of misbehavior, automatically assume that everything they can imagine is necessarily what the evil-doers are up to. Now, it may very well be that some of those evil-doers, or just plain stupid, fractured souls, do have in mind being allowed to get away with the levels of evil imagined by people who have basically good hearts and who are compassionate, etc. However, that doesn't mean that all the time, those at the very top in terms of veto power always go with the wicked ideas of their underlings and sycophants.
Here's what I'm saying. Even though 1) there are eugenicists in the world 2) the military has experimented on masses of people and 3) jet trails can be used to spray biological and/or chemical weapons it doesn't all mean that the vast, vast majority of the chemtrails that are right there for you to see (you have seen them) aren't what "the system" doing the releases believes are benign and even beneficial, at least on a cost-benefit basis where that system believes that the vast majority will be benefited, meaning that whatever negative side effects there are (and some people will be allergic, etc.), the benefits to the general welfare and not just to the elitists will far out weigh the negative costs.
One of my issues is primarily with this whole thing being completely anti-democratic when the system claims to be democratic (qualified: limited, representational, republican, etc.). There is a line that has been crossed where "national security" and "state secrets" are not good enough reasons not to have told the population exactly the reason for chemtrails. The people are uninformed on a major, Earth-changing (geoengineering), issue. They cannot then choose between candidates who are either for or against whatever. This, in itself, disenfranchises you.
You have zero say on the matter, with the slight exception that you can voice a tiny voice as concerns "conspiracy" thinking on the subject. That's not right in a democracy. It constitutes an anti-democratic system, which is anti-Constitution and anti-Bill of Rights and anti-Declaration of Human Rights, and the like, on its face.
Some animals are just more equal than others. Why are we living on "Animal Farm" as animals about this?
Hugh, you've correctly stated that you know there have been and are "nutcase projects" (crazy military and intelligence projects). What difference does it make in terms of openly stating whether or not you are for or against the secrecy that some anti-Chemtrail people have jumped to conclusions and made statements as if everything is chiseled in granite that all chemtrails are right now deliberately rather than possibly stupidly or ignorantly loaded with slow-kill matter?
The fact is that you don't have a say on what's going into the air the way you have a say at the grocery store when you read ingredient labels or choose natural versus artificial or organic versus just natural and about what those very terms mean under the law. You have no say and no choice even though it is extremely likely that the people who are behind and/or deeply involved in the chemtrails are the same minds who have zero problem with:
- Terminator seeds
- Fracking for gas
- Just saying oops about the BP leak and forging on while calling for even less oversight
- Clear cutting the Amazon
- Blowing the tops off every mountain in the Appalachians that has the tiniest coal seam
- Blowing innocent babies apart via Hellfire Missiles fired from predator drones operated by the same airhead types who were gleeful at murdering people and severely maiming little children in Baghdad who were unarmed and simply there because their fellow human beings who had nothing to do with 9/11 (not even remotely) were lying on the streets bleeding to death; and
- Bailing out the banksters
Of course, I could go on and on forever because the insanity goes back to the beginning (whenever that was) and is continuing as you read this.
Why are you not allowed to have the knowledge and then a voice in the matter? Why are twenty-somethings who are still wet behind the ears making these decisions and installing and manning the equipment that could easily be used to do the most despicable things? Is it because the amorphous "they" are the experts and you are an idiot who should have no choice but to go along?
I don't have such a low opinion of my own capacity. I'm positive that the only reason I'm excluded is because I not sociopathic. I don't have that streak running through me. I know it's insane to "suck it up" and "handle the truth" to slaughter the innocent for Empire, to self-sacrifice for the sake of the ultra-greedy.
I want the people to have the truth about the Chemtrails and everything else so they can choose Heaven or Hell on Earth, not just be sucked into Hell because demons try to takeover.
6 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Hugh replied in a message. You'll understand essentially what he said from my reply back to him that I'm reproducing here as follows:
That's fine, Hugh.
I do hope though that you appreciate the significance of my having mentioned the lightning and the curvature of the Earth and communications via the particulate stream and then discovered the two articles for you that mention both. I had never seen anything on the Internet mentioning either aspect before my comments to you.
I don't know what you're looking for in terms of "firm evidence" or why you need that simply to ask the government to give intelligent answers.
My point has been that the government needs to explain the trails. Regular vapor trails only form under certain conditions: temperature, humidity, altitude. The Chemtrails are there where those conditions are usually not met. How do you explain that? The government doesn't.
You never did say what you think they are. You don't really think they're regular passenger jets flying all over the place outside authorized flightpaths, do you? That's where the chemtrail jets are — off the regular jet flightpaths. The jets are usually unmarked too. I've looked at them through a high-powered telescope.
40 minutes ago Â· Like Â·
I don't know why Hugh hasn't wanted to carry on the conversation out here in comments, but I want my answers in the open. Here's another response from just now:
Okay, I see you've followed the train of thought less than I was aware.
Yes, the chemtrails violate the "laws" of physics if they are just the same as pre-chemtrail condensation trails.
As for the criss-cross trails, I've seen perhaps hundreds. I saw them before I ever saw a word about them anywhere.
Hugh, I've seen absolutely clear skies (Arizona deep, deep blue skies — they rarely exist anymore) go to complete overcast solely from jets — the whole sky — horizon to horizon — in just a matter of hours.
Some people say this stuff started in Ohio. I don't know. Arizona is loaded with Air Force.
I wish you had mentioned sooner than this that you weren't following on the lightning. The aluminum particles were reducing lightning in Arizona. Lightning helps fix nitrogen in soils. Plants need nitrogen to grow. The spraying was greatly reducing crop yields so much that farmers started complaining. That's why it made the mainstream news that one time in Arizona, long before I ever even heard of the term "chemtrails." The farmers were collecting aluminum chaff even. It wasn't even denied by the military.
Anyway, I have to get on with other stuff, as I'm sure you do too.
4 minutes ago Â· Like Â·
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)