It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[halva]

Arianna Huffington has just written an article called 'The Pentagon Sounds the Alarm on Global Warming'. At the end of it she says: 'The Democratic nominee needs to remind the White House — and the American people: It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.'

There would be nothing wrong with a Democratic Party candidate doing that, but it should not be ignored that there are by now very large numbers of Americans who realise that 'fooling with Mother Nature' is something currently proceeding on a gigantic, planetary, scale, with the blessings of not only of the Bush regime but also of many opponents of Bush who are genuinely concerned about global climate change and are supporters of 'geoengineering'.

To Americans like this, Arianna's remarks about fooling with Mother Nature may seem to be underrating their intelligence, or knowledge.

The geoengineering issue has now been addressed by the activists of ATTAC-Hellas in Greece, which is Arianna Huffington's native land also:

See
http://www.attac-hellas.org/seminars/geoengineering/programmeenglish.htm

Further information at:
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/Hall.htm

The genuinely grave situation of the planet should not become an excuse for manipulative danger-mongering and for acceptance of classification of climatic change as a 'national security' question, if this is going to mean a continuation of the dishonesty and lack of transparency with which the Pentagon has so far operated on this question, and characteristically operates on all questions.

It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'.

[jayreynolds]

The author of the preceding post, "halva", is Mr. Wayne Hall. He is a recruiter for the "chemtrail" conspiracy cult. He is seeking to propagandize people here to believe that when they see contrails from jets in the sky that they are being sprayed by military jets to combat global warming.

This hoax has been extant for over five years now, and has been debunked by pilots, meteorologists, and scientists from the USA and Europe. It has spawned a cult of belief not unlike a religion, yet without salvation. Members are led into a never ending conundrum of fantasy, fake 'activism', worthless purchases of books, videotapes, medicines, and "protective products" produced by their cottage industries. Some have been provoked to make threats to shootdown commercial jet airliners.

Be aware of information the cult doesn't want you to know, visit my website to see the rest of the story.

[halva]

O.K. A response from the Usual Suspects.

How about from someone else?

[jayreynolds]

Here is the sort of lame propaganda Mr. 'halva' (Wayne Hall) distributes to promote the chemtrail hoax.

The photo is an obvious photoshop job where an airplane was pasted into a sky shot.

http://www.willthomas.net/Articles/greekreport.htm

This article appears to be from a tabloid in Greece which quotes Hall, and Wayne Hall has distributed it to a Canadian website for republication. How much clearer can it get, folks, fake pictures to support a fake hoax.

What are the motives behind promoting this hoax?

Well, for one, try following the money trail. :idea:

How about this?
The Canadian webmaster, William Thomas, to whom Wayne Hall distributed his faked picture, has his "chemtrail" video for sale-
Chemtrails: Mystery Lines in the Sky:

http://www.harmonycentral.org/cart/view_product.php?product=WTCTVHS


Don't watch videos? Not to worry, Buy the book!
"Chemtrails" Confirmed- yeah, right
http://www.harmonycentral.org/cart/view_product.php?product=WTCC&PHPSESSID=474add0ae2c93d3c7f8370fcf0ae0db4

Here's something for everybody, T-shirts, coffee mugs, more videos, baeball caps, tote bags, all emblazoned with anti-"chemtrail" slogans.
Lotta good thaose things will do somebody, right Wayne? Guess who benefits, hmmmmmmmm? :?:
http://www.cafeshops.com/cloud_busters/

What's that, somebody told you "chemtrails" made you sick? Fear not, for a mere $40.00 you can "detoxify" that nasty aluminum and barium they sprayed on you(and their own families?). Get your snake oil right here, folks: :!:
http://www.herbalhealer.com/air-pollution.html

Lastly, for those willing to "Take on the Evil Reptilian Alien Overlords of Darkness" :twisted: , join the 'Etheric Freedom Fighters', the most lunatic of "chemtrail" factions, which is a front for people who sell plastic resin "Powerwands" and "chemtrail-busters". A "Pro-Powerwand"(who the hell knows what it's for?) sells for a mere $450.00! :idea:

http://eff2.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=vendspec&action=display&num=1067651113

How's that for an introduction into this zany cult?

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried, folks, LOL! :roll:

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Since we're into posting links, try this one:

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html

The photomontage on the Ethnos story was the inspiration of some irrelevant junior journalist in the photographic department of the newspaper. Giannis Kritikos, who took the Ethnos interview, publicly apologized for it and his apology was posted in the Rumpus Room section of the Chemtrails Central Forum, which was subsequently closed down owing to Reynolds' never ending slanders and ad hominem attacks.

If Arianna Huffington wants to check on this she can ring the Ethnos newspaper in Athens and ask for Giannis Kritikos.

[jayreynolds]

I see that Mr. 'halva'(Wayne Hall) does not deny distribution of the faked photo to the Canadian website. Hmmmmmmmmmm? :idea:

I read the first sentence at the link provided by "chemtrail" propagandist and found a misleading statement:

"For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in the mainstream media."

No coverage eh? Perhaps you need to find better researchers!

USA TODAY- Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/2001-03-07-contrails.htm

Sacramento Bee- Lawmakers swat down Internet's tall tales
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3665147p-4690977c.html

Vancouver Courier - Trail of Conspiracy
http://www.vancourier.com/085101/news/085101nn1.html

Weatherwise(syndicated) - Chemtrail Controversy
http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html

Finally, the "Lightwatcher" website 'halva' directs us to is substantively misleading. The premise on that site is that 'chemtrails' are military tanker jets spraying "dust" to combat global warming. That conspiracy theory is based on speculative research which considers various 'what-if' scenarios such as building giant "space parasols" to shield the earth from the sun.

Lightwatcher, however, misleads the readers by stating the following-

"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days, (provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the 1987 total ton-miles will be required."


NOTE: "Lightwatcher" says that only 1010 kg(2027 lbs.) of dust would stop global warming. What kind of magic pixie-dust is this?

Folks, the actual research is available http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/454.html#pagetop

The actual amount of "dust" stated in the article was 10 to the tenth power kilograms, or 10 BILLION kilograms!

One 747 cargo jet can carry 100,000 kg, so to loft 10 billion kg would take 100,000 flights, and this must be repeated every 83 days! A rather big difference from the 1010 kg the liars of the chem-cult wanted you to accept as true.

Pretty obvious why "Lightwatcher" didn't want you to know the real figure, isn't it? There is no end to the sophistry, false and misleading propaganda this cult puts out. Thankfully, if free and open discussion is possible, liars can be outed as such, and few will fall for the chemtrail hoax.


Sorry to spoil your fun, 'halva'. But then again, you reap what you sow.

[halva]

Reynolds, what do you have to say about Arianna Huffington's advice to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change, now that it has been given prominence by the new report from the Pentagon?

[jayreynolds]

No, Mr. Halva, you first. You cannot simply expect Mrs Huffington to ignore how you attempted to midlead her.

YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

If she had become a follower of your cult, she would have been discredited among journalists, she would have become a laughing-stock.

So now it's YOUR turn, halva. I'm sure Mrs. Huffington would like to know how a man from Greece would stoop so low.

[Dona Terry]

“Release in our skies by military aircraft of non-fuel related chemical vapors� i.e., CHEMTRAILS


Below is a section of the proposed 2004 Democratic Party Platform of the Dubuque County of Iowa.

SNIP:
Chemtrails:
Many of the vapor trails across Iowa have been verified, through Senator Harkin’s office and the USAF, to be Chemtrails placed in the sky by UASF training pilots. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the substances being released in these Chemtrails do not guarantee non-toxicity to humans, animals, or plant life. Citizens of the USA are being exposed to these substances daily and have never educated or even notified about this practice.

The US Congress shall enact legislation to put an immediate halt to the release of non-fuel related chemical vapors in our skies. Congress shall investigate the complete history of the release of Chemtrails and the motives that make this practice commonplace. The spread of Chemtrails should be permanently banned.
END OF SNIP

The inclusion of this plank in this county's Democratic Party platform validates what thousands of us have seen with our own eyes, in the skies above America.

Simply look up and see for yourself; don’t brush this off just because this Jay Reynolds person is debunking it. This guy has spent untold thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars trying to convince people that nothing is unusual, but he is wrong. People have reported that he uses personal ridicule, insults, and harassment to try to keep this message from the public about the release in our skies of non-fuel related chemical vapors.

Do a search on the Internet on “chemtrail� and it will bring up over 29,000 web pages devoted to this subject. Look at the sky, decide for yourself.

Dona Terry
Founder of Chem Trail Tracking USA Message Board
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/
A Yahoo Group of concerned citizens who report on a daily basis when they see the release of chemical aerosol in their area

[jayreynolds]

I find it pitiful that Dona Terry comes to the table all swelled up proudly bearing, not proof after five years of waiting that "Chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails, but rather her fellow cultists lame attempt to piggyback their hoax on a legitimate political group.

Doing some checking, it seems the Dubuque Democrats are led by a professor of physics and chemistry. :shock:
I already know what he will think of chemtrails once he examines the so-called facts, so Dona better kiss your latest phyrric victory goodbye. :(

Now that's activism. :lol:

BTW, since you brought it up, Dona, please refer us to the MSDS sheets for what you claim is "being released". I'm sure this will be of interest to Mrs. Huffington.

Jay
=====================


From: Jay Reynolds

To: Dr. Jason Stecklein,
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Clarke College, Dubuque, IA
Chairman, Dubuque County Democrats
572 West 5th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
(563) 588-3550

Dear Dr Stecklein,
It has come to my attention that the Dubuque County Democrats, which you chair, has reportedly included in it's platform on environmental issues
language about "Chemtrails". Please be aware that "chemtrails" are part of an internet hoax which claims that jet contrails are actually military planes spraying various nefarious substances.

The text from your platform, which is now being circulated around the internet, allegedly reads:

"Chemtrails:
Many of the vapor trails across Iowa have been verified, through Senator Harkin’s office and the USAF, to be Chemtrails placed in the sky by UASF training pilots. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the substances being released in these Chemtrails do not guarantee non-toxicity to humans, animals, or plant life. Citizens of the USA are being exposed to these substances daily and have never educated or even notified about this practice.

The US Congress shall enact legislation to put an immediate halt to the release of non-fuel related chemical vapors in our skies. Congress shall investigate the complete history of the release of Chemtrails and the motives that make this practice commonplace. The spread of Chemtrails should be permanently banned."

Mr. Stecklein, I have no problems with your group's advocation of a ban on "spraying" harmful chemicals without regard to the environmental laws of our country. I do, however, take exception with the way this platform assumes that such a thing is taking place now. The facts show that the "chemtrail" hoax has developed a cult-like following that has gone past the point of science, logic and reason and into the realm of belief unsupported by any concrete proof whatsoever.

I urge you, therefore, to carefully examine the website I created which compiles what I have learned by studying the progression of the hoax over the last five years. I also urge you to carefully examine the many "chemtrail" websites out there and critically evaluate their objectivity and scientific accuracy. Given your background in physics and chemistry, I believe you will come to the inevitable conclusion that your platform needs some revision. Please let me know what your plans are on this matter.

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds
website: http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/
==================
"Chemtrail" hoax websites:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chemtrails&btnG=Google+Search

[Sore Throat]

I applaud you Arianna for your superb column on George W. Bush's attack on the environment and the health of the American public.

You and your readers might also find the following interesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/02/27/notes022704.DTL&nl=fix

"Mother Nature, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BushCo just really, really loathes this planet "

Mark Morford, SF Chronicle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some real world consequences of global climate change:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/02/27/cape_residents_face_harsh_reality/

"Cape residents face harsh reality
Insurance costs rising as firms restrict coverage"


By Sasha Talcott and Bruce Mohl, Globe Correspondent and Globe Staff, 2/27/2004

A growing number of property insurance companies are restricting coverage or pulling out of Cape Cod and the Islands, leaving policyholders in the lurch. ...more
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of ChemTrails, or geoengineering, that is being debated here has an ever growing interest by a large part of the American population who have witnessed the disappearance of their once blue skies, now replaced by a steel grey haze and high altitude quasi-cirrus clouds. That many of these emanate from the back of airplanes is beyond dispute, as it is so readily directly observed.

The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high sulfur content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate.

The concept of such geoengineering has, however, been widely discussed throughout reputable scientific circles as a method of mitigating the undesirable consequences of our reliance on fossil fuels and the resultant greenhouses gas release.

If the present threats to our climate stability were deemed sufficiently severe, policy changes could be made that would undoubtly have an economic consequence on our oil and coal companies.

Faced with such a threat, these companies would certainly invest substantially to protect their own economic self-interest, to the detriment of the vast majority of the American public.

Just as the tobacco were notorious for enlisting the "best science money could buy", so too is the situation today.

Readers will have to decide the true motivation of those who attempt to wisk away the reality of global climate change and the ensuing consequences for the planet.

Increasingly, notable scientists - Nobel Laureates and National Medal of Science Recipients, are speaking out against Bush and his environmental policies.

http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsirelease.html

While greed and corruption will hang on as long as possible to extract every last ounce of profit from the last drop of oil, true Americans are increasing realizing that for the sake of the country and our future generations, we need to rapidly move toward new technologies (and new jobs here in the US) that promote non-polluting, renewable forms of energy.

It is reasonable to question the motivation of those who state that this is unrealistic or can't be done.

For an extensive discussion on Anthropogenic Induced Climate Change, see:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000094.html

[jayreynolds]

I pledge to never use airconditioning in my new home. I didn't install provisions for one.

I use a solar powered water pump to supply my home with spring water which would otherwise flow to the sea and be wasted.

Will Arianna Huffington turn off the air conditioning in her 8,000 sq. ft. Bentwood mansion? :shock:

I'm thinking how much water it takes to keep her grass looking nice there in the desert.

People in glass houses..........

Mr. Throat, at one time you claimed that "chemtrails" were ethylene dibromide,er.....um.... barium,er....um.... brucellosis....er....um, aluminum,er....um... or caused flu-like symptoms. :roll:

Nice to see you've settled on global warming, er.....um....anthropogenic induced climate change, er.....um..... wasn't that anthropogenic induced climate instability?

Well, maybe you just haven't made up your mind what the panic-du-jour is today, LOL. :lol:


still haven't come up with a good explanation why those "chemtrails" sprayed aluminum oxide don't show up on weather radar, have you my dear Throatee? Perhaps they are just water vapor after all, eh?

ha!
Jay Reynolds

[Inhale2theChief]

Chem trails? LMAO ya H20 Vapor is a chemical alright,ya friggin losers!

[Yaak]

Jet aircraft exhaust is causing cloud formation. There are those who claim these clouds are being intentionally manufactured to help slow global warming. This does not make sense. Clouds trap and hold heat, particularly at night. Therefore, if anything were to be added to jet fuel to curb global warming, it would need to cause the sublimation, and not the creation, of contrails (ice crystals).

[liakopoulos]

I wonder why mr Raynolds attacks all those who care about this poor planet. As a physics professor I sugest that he should stand down from his unspeakable beliefs on chemtrails and stop poisoning a task, that is already difficult ,against those who order the spraying.

[Yaak]

I do not perceive Mr. Reynalds posts as attacks on anyone, unless your definition of attack includes exposing the truth, liars and charlatans. Mr. Reynalds does care and that is precisely why he has posted here. Our planet and our country have enough genuine problems to be solved without creating and wasting our time on imaginary ones.

If you believe that the clouds being caused by aviation are a problem, then approach it from that perspective. You will receive much more attention, cooperation, assistance and information from those that you contact concerning the issue, than if you assault them with conspiracy theories.

[amber]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. A lot of people think he is a chemtrail debunker, when in fact he is one of us. By constantly drawing attention to Chemtrails in such a vociferous manner , Mr Reynolds is, in fact, playing the role of double agent and is, in fact, keeping the issue firmly to the fore, and we thank him for that.
As a person of reasonably sound mind, I have never bought a book, videotape, medicine or ‘protective product’ related to chemtrails. Neither have I threatened to shoot down a commercial jet. I propose that any sensible person reading Jay’s diatribe will sense the hysteria that colours or ‘clouds’ (if you’ll pardon the pun) his view of the issue. I would ask you to consider, too, that he is pushing his own website.
Mr Reynolds has in his time, and in his own indomitable way, done more to make people aware of the reality of the Chemtrail issue, than many of my esteemed colleagues. And for that, we thank himJ

[jayreynolds]

liakopulus wrote:
"I wonder why mr Raynolds attacks all those who care about this poor planet. As a physics professor I sugest that he should stand down from his unspeakable beliefs on chemtrails and stop poisoning a task, that is already difficult ,against those who order the spraying."

Dear liakopulus,
In the first instance, why would you consider our planet a "poor planet"?
The planet we live on is rich, diverse, ever-changing, and created by God Almighty from the beginning. My personal opinion is that ours is certainly not a "poor planet".

I take exception with your characterization that I could possibly "attack all those who care". I will admit that I take my comission to expose the works of darkness very seriously, for if the good do nothing in the face of evil, it prospers. I am sure you would not knowingly allow people to be
misled, either.

If indeed you are a physics professor, which the facts of that matter have yet to be shown, you would be the first that I know of to follow the beliefs of the chemtrail cult, in a public way. I do not, as you have done, ask you to "stand down" from that belief. I believe in freedom of belief, even if that belief is false. In order to have my own freedom of belief, I must allow you to have your own.

That said, the marketplace of belief being an open marketplace, do not take my espousing of my own beliefs, or facts, or logical deductions as "attacks" upon your own beliefs. You may, however, take them as challenges, for if beliefs are to become widely held they must withstand the challenges of all comers. That is the only way that false beliefs can be left behind, and mankind progresses.

And so we can now move away from simple belief, the province of religion, and come to the realm of science, a realm in which you, if indeed a physics professor, should be familiar. I would expect a physics professor worth his salt to have thoroughly examined the facts about ordinary contrails and the claims about putative chemtrails before establishing a belief in the former's existence, yes of course you would.

As the owner and host of this forum, Mrs. Huffington, might perhaps be unsure of the physics relating to contrails vs chemtrails you would be uniquely suited to explain to her, and the at-large readership, answers to the following questions:

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions. :lol:


Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

I can only hope that the factual information I provide has been informative to the majority who take time to examine it.

Perhaps the best evaluation of my success would be to examine the number of regular posters at the chemtrail messageboards, and divide that number by the number of registered members. The quotient is small enough to show that the great mass of members can only be classiifed as 'inactive'.

That said, in a recent post at the messageboard which you co-moderate,
a poster stated:
""But in 1991, the composition of jet fuel used by commercial and military jet aircraft in the U.S. was changed from JP4 to somewhat less flammable JP8. A Department of Defense source says the move "has saved some lives" in air crashes. Ethylene fibroid is a key component of JP8."
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=technosphere&action=display&num=1073374651

Do you and your co-moderators find the text in bold to be accurate?
If you know it is false, why not mention the fact? If you do not know, why not find out? Do you personally find that the prime purpose of "chemtrail" activism is to replace the ever failing membership rolls? I have many more questions and hope you will return with answers, as we have not had many opportunities for discussion.

Amber, visiting your messageboard at the link above, I note that products claiming to "stop chemtrails", as well as books and tapes on the subject are advertised. I sell no chemtrails related merchandise, and would never allow such things to be advertised there.

Perhaps 'amber' doesn't personally buy any of the products advertised at her message board(maybe that tells us something of their value), but the webpage certainly engages in advertising for them. They are all sham products, worthless ripoffs and she know it.
Jay

[halva]

The initial tension and rigour that characterized this thread has almost instantly degenerated into a flaccid boredom that would not hold the interest of Arianna Huffington or any other intelligent person for five seconds.

Face it, Reynolds, you thought you were going to win an easy victory here, you haven't won it, and now have no strategy other than attrition through boredom.

[jayreynolds]

Mr. Halva,
No YOU face it, halva, you are trying to skirt around the issue of the false and misleading propaganda you referred Mrs. Huffington to on page one of this discussion. Perhaps that has been perceived by you as a relaxation of tension but is merely your internalization, and not what has actually taken place.

The top of this page reads:
"Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues."

Mrs. Huffington headed the prestigious Cambridge debating society and knows what it means when a person in debate fails to address straightforward questions. It means that person is a loser.

I will repeat my questions to you:
YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

========================

I add to your list of questions, which mount ever higher even as you fail to address them, 'halva':

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

=================================
I am patiently waiting for answers to these most simple, basic questions which are primary in nature. They are the central defining issues framing any debate about the existence of "chemtrails". Unless you engage in debate over these issues, you concede defeat. That is the bottom line and always will be, 'halva'.

Bring it on.
Jay Reynolds

[Azerelus]

Contrails/Chemtrails - both are dangerous:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/goesscience.htm

Points out that jets cause the formation of clouds which changes the weather. This is NASA note the .gov

http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/eco-list-old/1997-September/000526.html

Hints at how contrails (or chemtrail if you want) may have a more drastic impact than previously thought.

Let alone the amount of material (unburnt jet fuel) I find http://www.caa.co.uk/dap/environment/default.asp?page=52 to be interesting.


"The emissions of nitrogen oxides lead to the production of ozone in the upper troposphere. There is also increasing scientific concern about the sulphur oxide and soot emissions. The impact of aerosol and cloud formation from these species could potentially have a large but currently uncertain impact on climate change."

Sounds very much like what chemtrail folk (the more reasonable ones) have been saying for a long time, there is something wrong in our skies.

Now I know Jay that you feel that it is your duty in life to rush in and tell everyone that everything is ok. However I would like to point out to you that pollution is not ok. And the research being done on the so called harmless contrail (chemtrail) is revealing hidden dangers.

Perhaps you should examine the bath water, it would appear that you are throwing out the baby with that bathwater.

[jayreynolds]

Azerelus brings out some factual information I covered in my very first article(1999) about the "chemtrail" hoax. This was five years ago-


"Since contrails are composed of water in the form of ice crystals, and they often eventually form cirrus type clouds, their effects are the same as natural clouds. Clouds influence our weather both by blocking the suns rays and by absorbing and radiating back heat emitted by the earth itself. Since air traffic is increasing as much as 5% per year, and the traffic is sometimes concentrated into corridors, the local and worldwide climate may be affected.

Over the last decade, NASA has been conducting the Atmospheric
Effects of Aviation Project concerned with the possible effects of jet aircraft effluent in the stratosphere, primarily on ozone chemistry, and more recently in the troposphere, including climatic effects of jet aircraft contrails."
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/linesinsky.html

In a more recent article in Earth Island Journal, I updated with relevant new research:
"The contrails formed do have a small effect on climate similar to natural cirrus clouds. Their high thin nature actually tends to warm the surface of the earth by reflecting heat back towards the surface. Contrail coverage of the earth currently amounts to 0.1 percent, and is projected to increase to 0.4 percent by 2050."
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=646&journalID=66

My point has always been that what these people are calling "chemtrails" are merely ordinary contrails. On that, azerelas and I can agree. The scientists, meteorologists, and airline pilots that venture to make statements such as yours, Azerelas, among the inner sanctums of the chemtrail cult, are branded 'debunkers" and summarily banned from inclusion in the conversation.

Ironically, jets create the same pollution whether they leave contrails or not, the contrails are practically all water. If the promoters of the "chemtrails" hoax were actually against pollution perse by aircraft, they would have to be against all flights, not just the ones in which linear contrails were visible.

No, Azerelas, the hoax goes deeper, far deeper than mere environmental concerns. It has drawn in a diverse herd of new-age/alien/government conspiracy types of the most extereme sort. The 'big-tent' mentality has allowed bad elements with ulterior motives to find easy residence among true believers. The glass-house syndrome has elevated tolerance among the faithful that no institutional progress has been made, no one evaluates critically within the cult because to be critical of others means allowing yourself to be criticized. This has led them on a path directly towards error and away from rationality.

Legitimate environmental groups have spurned the chemmie advocates once open discussion is allowed such as on this forum. If you are interested in such activism, you should contact Holger Peterson, a Danish astronomer who has formed an interest group concerned about ordinary contrail effects, but who has been banned from participation at the "chemtrail" cult websites. Don't take my word for it, ask him for yourself:
Holger's resource room on contrails:
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/notes.html
Holger's website:
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/
Holger's International Clear Sky Asociation
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/ICSA/

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Since Azerelus has kindly answered the question you asked me, Reynolds, perhaps you could answer my previous question. What do you think of Arianna Huffington's appeal to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change as outlined in the new Pentagon report?

[Sore Throat]

The fact that numerous, objective, measureable indicators (glacial retreat, rising global temperatures, melting of permafrost, coral reef bleeching, rising sea level, etc.) all point to accelerating climate change, those who refuse to acknowledge these realities are modern day intellectual equivalents of the Flat Earth Society.

You don't see Nobel Laureates lining up to say that everything is OK...no need to worry. Oil and energy companies...and their paid lackies...sure.

With over six billion humans collectively contributing to climate change, we are now living at a stage in the history of our planet that is entirely unprecedented.

Many scientists have discussed geoengineering as an approach for dealing with the consequences of the increase of greenhouse gases.

Fertilization of the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth has already been carried out in several areas of the world.

Multiple projects are also underway to study effective means of CO2 sequestration.

These facts cannot be disputed.

Similarly, numerous projects have been proposed to use a variety of means to alter the atmosphere to reduce incident solar radiation. Such projects have even been discussed openly on the CBS Evening News.

Given the urgency which many scientists feel about the rate of climate change, is it really that proposterous to assume that experimentation in these venues could already be underway?

What is likely is that if such projects were underway, without the informed consent of the population, there would be severe political consequences once their reality was revealed.

Why? Collateral damage. The law of gravity. What goes up must come down.

If foreign substances are being sprayed into the atmosphere, it is likely that there would be consequences for weather patterns (condensation nuclei which would affect precipitation) as well as the human health impacts of the chronic breathing of sub-micron particles.

Respiratory illness and childhood asthma are currently approaching epidemic levels.

While there are many sources of air pollution (especially now that the Bush junta has eased clean air restrictions for coal burning energy companies), there is a limit to what the American public will tolerate, especially when it's the health of their families that is at risk.

[jayreynolds]

"Since Azerelus has kindly answered the question you asked me, Reynolds"

No such thing has happened, halva. I have perused the three documents Azerelus referenced. One is from Dr. Claire Gilbert, who disputes the chemtrail hoax on my side, she even republished my article debunking the hoax- "Those Mysterious lines in the Sky". One is from NASA, which co-published, along with FAA, EPA, and NOAA a factsheet disputing "chemtrails". The last link speaks only of contrails. None of what Azerelas wrote answered any of the questions I previously asked.

I repeat the questions YOU, halva, must answer to Mrs. Huffington about the false and misleading link you referenced her attention to on page one of this thread-

YOU posted the agitprop link above which proved to be deliberately misleading.

YOU explain why YOU would attempt to mislead Arianna Huffington into thinking that 1010 kg of dust would cure global warming.

YOU explain why you and your fellow cult members have run around the internet seeking good journalists with reputations you could piggyback on, since your own reputations are already discredited.

YOU explain why in five years no reputable journalist, meteorologist, jet pilot, or aviation organization has backed your cause.

I add to your list of questions, which mount ever higher even as you fail to address them, 'halva':

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If YOU rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await YOUR scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

I need not remind you, halva, that Mrs. Huffington was head of the prestigious Cambridge University Debate Society and is well aware that in debate the party unwilling or unable to answer on point in debate is by default the loser.

This is the third chance YOU have had to explain yourself to her. :oops:

You have called out to all your friends at three other messageboards to come and run interference but anyone can see you are cornered like a Saddam in a hole. No one will answer for YOU, you must answer for your own actions. Will you go down so easily?

Jay Reynolds :twisted:

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds posts:


"The contrails formed do have a small effect on climate similar to natural cirrus clouds. Their high thin nature actually tends to warm the surface of the earth by reflecting heat back towards the surface. Contrail coverage of the earth currently amounts to 0.1 percent, and is projected to increase to 0.4 percent by 2050."

Here is the reality:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29940

Jetting Toward Climate Change

CHICAGO, Illinois, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - Commercial jet aviation has the potential to soon become the number one cause of human caused climate change, according to a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

The study by Dr. Katta Murty cautions that major increases in commercial flights and expansions of airports would not only add to greenhouse gas emissions, but could further harm the protective ozone layer that surrounds the Earth.

Current industry projections predict the world's air transportation industry could triple within two decades.

"It is an important problem to analyze at what altitudes additional releases of greenhouse gases will have maximum impact on global warming," according to Murty.

"This study also points out that the much more rapid melting of polar ice near the North Pole compared to that at the South Pole," she said, "may have been caused by the very large fraction of jet air flights in the world occurring over the northern polar region."

Murty says jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.

According to Dr. David Travis, professor and chair, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, research "has demonstrated that jet contrails have caused substantial increases in the high cloud coverage over the most heavily trafficked regions of the United States and Europe."

Travis says these increases in high clouds have led to suppression of the temperature range causing both daytime cooling and nighttime warming in areas where contrails are most abundant.

"During the three days following September 11th - when no commercial aircraft were flying - the skies across the United States were remarkably clear with a much wider range in temperature between day and night, giving an indication of how the U.S. climate used to be prior to the days of aviation," Travis said.

The findings of these researchers - along with the recently publicized study by consultants to the U.S. military warning of the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change - are more evidence the United States needs to rethink its transportation system, says Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO).

"Now, more than ever, there is support and urgency to demand a U.S. moratorium on all airport expansion projects currently in the works," Saporito said. "Furthermore, there is a real need for environmental impact reviews to be taken seriously and results stringently enforced."

************************************************** ********

and if that's not bad enough, consider:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040301/040301-5.html

Climate change set to poke holes in ozone

Arctic clouds could make ozone depletion three times worse than predicted.

PHILIP BALL

The thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic could be much worse than we thought, because of a side-effect of global warming.

If the upper reaches of the Arctic atmosphere get colder - a predicted consequence of climate change - then the rate of ozone depletion could be three times greater than currently forecast, according to Markus Rex of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, and his co-workers.

"I was surprised to see these results," says Drew Shindell, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York. "We never suspected the models were this far out of whack," he says.
Rex and his colleagues studied climate conditions in the Arctic over the past ten winters to calculate how ozone destruction depends on the weather. They found a surprisingly strong relationship between ozone loss and the amount of polar stratospheric clouds, they report in Geophysical Research Letters 1.


These clouds form 20 kilometres above the ground in winter-time, and are sometimes called 'mother-of-pearl clouds' because of their shimmering appearance.

But they are not harmless things of beauty: the clouds provide reaction surfaces for chemicals eating away the Earth's protective ozone. Chemical reactions in the clouds convert chlorine from industrially produced compounds, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) found in old refrigerators, into a reactive form that breaks apart ozone molecules.

The destruction of ozone allows more ultraviolet rays from the sun through to the surface of the planet, harming humans and the ecosystem close to the poles.

Colder air in the stratosphere is thought to promote the formation of these clouds and the destruction of ozone. But it has proven difficult to appreciate the scale of the problem. On average the Arctic stratosphere has cooled barely perceptibly over the past few years, but Rex and colleagues say the winter-time conditions are getting more conducive to ozone destruction. The amount of stratospheric cloud has been climbing steadily since at least the late 1960s, they say.

If Rex's findings and models prove correct, then all our predictions about future ozone depletion are under-estimates, says Shindell.

It is not all bad news: Rex points out that even if polar stratospheric clouds continue to increase in size and number, the amount of CFCs should decline as the chemicals have largely been phased out. However, they do hang about in the atmosphere for a long time, so they will continue to cause ozone depletion for several decades yet.

References:

1.Rex, M. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L04116, (2004).

************************************************** **********

One final observation.

Have you ever know anyone who so virulently, pathologically, invested so much of their time attempting to disprove something they felt wasn't real?

How much of your life has been invested in trying to prove something...anything...wasn't real?

What would be the underlying motivation?

Who would profit by such activities?

Follow the money.

[halva]

Reynolds this is not Dodge City and I am under no obligation to join in a gunfight with you in the main street, whenever and wherever you want it, just because you demand it.

I would be quite within my rights to refuse to talk to you at all until you apologize for dragging back an issue, that of the photomontage at the Ethnos newspaper, for which you have already received adequate explanation, publicly. Yet you merely tell the world when I mention this not unimportant fact, that I 'do not deny' your renewed accusations.

Why did you bring it up again in? This in itself is enough evidence of your fundamental lack of integrity, dispensing people of any obligation to debate with you.

Here is what the Ethnos journalist Giannis Kritikos already wrote on this issue, and you have read, since it was posted publicly, and you responded. The only reason I cannot simply link you to it again is that the site it was on has been closed down due to your never ending disruption of it. A policy which you are attempting to continue here. But you will fail, because the world has moved on.

Giannis Kritikos wrote:

'Dear Mr. Hall,

Those friends of ours who have pointed out the confusion that may be caused by the illustration we published are quite right, which was a combination of two photographs: one of an aeroplane and one of a photograph with lines of cloud. In any case, the montage, which was done by colleagues in another department that handles page layout, was not so very....'realistic' and it was obvious that the aircraft was unconnected to the rest of the real photograph.

It was an omission on our part not to make clear in the inscription that this was an illustration of what was being discussed in the text and not a regular photograph. The same is true of our omission to cite the name of the publication of William Thomas. I sincerely apologize to everyone concerned.

The explanation is as follows: in the initial draft for the article, which was larger and occupied two pages, there was more text, and other photographs with corresponding titles and the necessary explanations. A little before printing there had to be a rearrangement of the material, reducing the size of the article. In the changes which were carried out hastily, so that the article could fit, a part of the text was left out along with other photographs, and what was left could indeed have led to misunderstanding in relation to the only 'photograph' accompanying the report.

We intend to return to this subject with additional information that has emerged from our own research, but the war in Iraq has taken up a large part of the pages of our newspaper and obliges us to leave it for later.

Wherever you judge suitable you may use these explanations we have provided,

With best wishes,

Giannis Kritikos'

You will note that when I sent the Ethnos article to William Thomas I did not attempt to hide the fact of the photomontage. In fact I mentioned it, because it was irritating.

To return to your demand for an individual-to-individual debate on your terms, any of your relevant points that Azerelus hasn't dealt with Sore Throat has. Sore Throat doesn't use the term 'chemtrail'. He uses your term 'contrail', and I personally couldn't care less which word is used. It is enough for me that there be recognition that 'something is wrong with our skies' and that activity which is currently being pursued secretly be exposed to honest public debate, as a first step to deciding democratically whether or not it should be continued.

As Azerelus aptly remarked, you 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', and that is the least of your offences. You have set yourself the task of mercilessly hounding anyone who tries consistently to promote public debate on what is going on in the skies, and you have indeed succeeded in putting a number of our less robust colleagues out of action.

What you are now attempting to do at Arianna Huffington's forum is what you have done before at a direct democracy forum in which I participate. You burst into the forum in a similar manner hurling accusations and after much rhetoric on the subject of democracy managed to enlist some of the weaker-minded people on the forum (along with outside collaborators you had brought with you) into voting that the chemtrails/contrails/geoengineering subject be removed from discussion.
That was an unmoderated forum which had been specifically set up as a 'free discussion' counterpart to another moderated forum where votes could be taken and decisions made. Because of the nature of the forum, many participants abstained from voting in protest at the attempt to turn a free discussion forum something it was not intended to be and could not be. It is not possible to have a legitimate vote without a moderator.

But the handful of votes you picked up were enough for you to proceed to pose as the defender of democracy and expel from discussion the subject you did not want to see discussed.

Having succeeded in that, your interest in democracy disappeared and you left the forum.

I suspect that your interest in Arianna Huffington's article on climate change and the Pentagon report is of a similar quality to the interest in democracy that led you previously to the Continuing International Conference on Direct Democracy forum.

This is why I ask you to tell us now what you think of Arianna Huffington's intervention in the climate change debate. In fact I suspect that you are not interested in it at all.

[amber]

"One final observation.

Have you ever know anyone who so virulently, pathologically, invested so much of their time attempting to disprove something they felt wasn't real?

How much of your life has been invested in trying to prove something...anything...wasn't real?

What would be the underlying motivation?

Who would profit by such activities?

Follow the money. "


"Reynolds this is not Dodge City and I am under no obligation to join in a gunfight with you in the main street, whenever and wherever you want it, just because you demand it."



Mr Reynolds feels it's his mission from God himself to protect the world, and those who consider chemtrails a reality, from themselves. He is indeed pathological about it. Consider the fact that he has followed Halva across the net to post in this forum. And this is not the first time he has followed him to harrass him. Were we in the 'real world' rather than cyberspace, this would constitute stalking. JR shows an unhealthy need to be in halva's 'face'. And you have to ask yourself, is this stalking behaviour really about chemtrails? Or is the chemtrail issue a mask for some unconscious, underlying psychological need or drive on JR's part?
Also, any reading of JR's previous encounters with anyone who stands up to him, will show that, more often than not, it ends up with him demanding a telephone number. I, for one, find this disturbing.
As far as I know, the world revolves around the sun, not JR. He is not the pinnacle of truth and righteousness, and has no right to continually parade himself as such, demanding people answer to HIM. Make your own mind up about chemtrails - JR clearly thinks you are incapable of doing so.

[jayreynolds]

I direct the attention of readers, again, to the text at the top of this page.

"Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues."

The issue put on the table atthe start of this debate, and that IS what this forum was intended for, was this-

halva wrote:

"It is time for there to be exposure, and honest public debate, about what is ALREADY being done by the proponents of geoengineering 'solutions'."

That sentence, written by halva, asked for "public debate". As this forum was created for debate, and halva has called here for a debate, there is no room for anyone to complain if I, or anyone else, joins here in a debate. None whatsoever.

The sentence written by halva, in debate, is known as a "proposition", a formal declarative statement, a claim, a contention. In this case halva made it clear he contended that geoengineering "is ALREADY being done".
This is a proposition of FACT, not one of values, or policy.

As the negative debater, I countered with-
"He is seeking to propagandize people here to believe that when they see contrails from jets in the sky that they are being sprayed by military jets to combat global warming." I then directed readers to my own website for evidence that affirmed by position. I also provided an example of previous deception by 'halva' in the form of the distribution of the faked photograph.

In rebuttal, halva directed readers to the 'lightwatcher' website as evidence supporting his proposition that geoengineering was "ALREADY" taking place.

On the negative I showed conclusively that that website misled readers by claiming that 1010 kg of material could accomplish geoengineering, while in fact, the research cited a value of 10 billion kg and 100,000 flights of jumbo jets every 83 days, clearly an impossibility.

Note that halva never responded negatively to any evidence I proposed at my website, because he cannot argue against it. Note that halva never responded negatively to my exposure of the falsity found at the 'Lightwatcher" webpage, because the issue of falsity I raised at that site is undeniable.

At that point, halva ceased to debate.
-He no longer provided evidence supporting his proposition of geoengineering
-He would not argue against my contention regarding falsity at the lightwatcher page
-He would not deny his distribution of the fake photograph for republication at William Thomas' website, though he did explain how it was faked
-He would not return to his proposition and explain how his alleged "geoengineering chemtrails" differed from ordinary contrails

In actuality, halva has ceased to debate. He has conceded. He lost.

Now, to Amber.
You wrote:
"Consider the fact that he has followed Halva across the net to post in this forum. And this is not the first time he has followed him to harrass him. Were we in the 'real world' rather than cyberspace, this would constitute stalking."

halva made public postings on at least three other message boards inviting people to debate at this very thread. You, along with many others reading this got here in resonse to his notices. It is disingenuous for you to criticize my coming here after reading his notices because you came after reading exactly the same notice! As noted previously, this forum was established by Mrs. Huffington for debate and my participation here has been to debate in a substantive way. Unfortunately for halva, he has conceded.

Luckily for you, I am still here available and see you have made an affirmative proposition-

"Mr Reynolds feels it's his mission from God himself to protect the world, and those who consider chemtrails a reality, from themselves."

I take it from your statement, that you agree with halva about "chemtrails", and declare that they are "a reality".

I now respond to the negative by stating that "chemtrails" are nothing more than ordinary contrails, clouds of water vapor, and are not a deliberate form of "spraying" as you have stated previously(yes I have the quotes of you saying so, don't deny them).

I now challenge you, amber, to support your contention with evidence by answering the following questions:
What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.


Jay Reynolds

[amber]

Protest all you like Jay, I would expect you to do no less.

You deny following halva around the net like some love sick puppy?

Your actions speak louder than your endless, endless words.

It is disingenuous of YOU to PRETEND you came here for healthy debate, no one who knows you believes that for a moment.
Halva invited me over here in the same way that a person with a rat infestation invites in a rat catcher. And lets face it, halva has become your Pied Piper. So don't insult people's intelligence with your claims to be interested in debate.


I now challenge you, amber, to support your contention with evidence by answering the following questions:
What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions.

Blah, blah, blah, blah...don't you ever get sick of the sound of your own voice? You're like a broken record.

'Eagerly await' my answers all you like. I used to have a stalker that stole my knickers of the washing line on a regular basis. He 'eagerly awaited 'me hanging them out, so I dried them indoors. Can you imagine his dissappointment at not getting his fix?
You're like a dog on heat JR, and I won't give you your fix, for the sake of your own mental health.

Now, no prizes for guessing what your reaction to my refusal to provide you with what you want is going to be, Jay. Your nothing if predicatable. And just to put it into words of one syllable, so that even your over-worked, narcissistic, single brain cell can understand - I am CHOOSING not to provide you with your essay. Grind your teeth and gnaw your hands all you want...I am withholding your gratification.
[/quote]

[jayreynolds]

I note that amber has refused to offer evidence to the affirmative for her proposition that "chemtrails[are] a reality". Her refusal to debate the issue constitutes her concession of the affirmative, she loses by default.

To the affirmative for my contention that halva publicly posted invitations to this forum, I proffer the following as evidence:

"posted 02-28-2004 02:11 AM
I have started a thread at Arianna Huffington's forum entitled: 'It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" -
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=56903#56903
Please join in." halva
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002048.html
=====================
Thread started on: Feb 29th, 2004, 11:12am »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out this posting at Arianna Huffington's forum:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=57138#57138
and Jay Reynolds' response to it.
-halva
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1078 071155
=======================
From: "halva_gr" <halva@h...>
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:49 am
Subject: Pentagon Report and Arianna HuffingtonR
Check this out on the site of Arianna Stassinopoulou-Huffington:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6429
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/106752
========================
I still await a response from "Professor" leocopulus. If none is forthcoming today, I can only assume he has conceded and withdrawn from debate. :lol:

Won't any proponent of "chemtrails" have the temerity to engage in debate? This is certainly no way to publicize your cause before Mrs Huffington. If this continues she might actually have to conclude that none of you actually believe in it.



Jay Reynolds

[frankmann]

arianna, i can see now how right i was with my small donation to your governorship candidacy,even though i am not from your state. although i did not know much about you at the time, i did find your articles to be right on target and therefor took a chance.

well i want to say that i was right in supporting you. i also wnated to say how much i appreciate receiveing your column's in the email.

and now this! i discovered your forum and what a breath of fresh air it is! there are many forum's out there but i have to rate your's as among the top three of the twenty that i participate in. in fact i have recently dropped almost all of those forums in favor of yours and a couple others.

keep up the good work, and God bless your effort to enlighten this nation! we need many more of you, badly!

frankmann

[amber]

I note that amber has refused to offer evidence to the affirmative for her proposition that "chemtrails[are] a reality". Her refusal to debate the issue constitutes her concession of the affirmative, she loses by default

Bingo! YOU get the prize for being predictable, Jay!

Obviously the use of one syllable words was a bit optimistic on my part.

My refusal to debate with you, is simply that. Refusing to speak to someone is not evidence of being mute, is it?

If you ask a woman out, Jay (or a man) and she ignores you, do you take that as an affirmation that she/he wants you? Hmmm....perhaps you do.
Yea, most stalkers do that...see a woman's behaviour, that to a normal person would clearly indicate lothing and disinterest, as being confirmation that she wants the stalker. Stalkers cannot conceive that their victims would NOT want them. Believe it or not I do NOT want to debate with you. It's nothing to do with chemtrails...It's purely personal, so please, feel free to take offence.

I notice you keep trying hard to convince people that you are here at halva's invitation...I'm still not convinced, are you Jay?

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote:
"What do you[Jay Reynolds] think of Arianna Huffington's appeal to Democratic candidates to take up the issue of climate change as outlined in the new Pentagon report? Let us deal gently with the truth. No more scaremongering: about nukes, about the climate, about terrorists, about anything."



I have just now completed reading both the executive summary and the full 22 page report. I am wondering if either halva or Mrs. Huffington have actually read it for themselves? Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive. It was not created to be used as a weapon against the very administration which comissioned it and any attempt to do so would be akin to taking a "poison pill", as those who read the actual report will find.

In the second place, I discourage any candidate who actually seeks to win against President Bush to not attempt to win by promoting speculative doomsday scenarios which engender no hope of victory. The last President who tried such a ploy was Jimmy Carter in his famous "Malaise" speech. That sort of rhetoric, even if true, is not what Americans want to hear and one cannot expect to win by it. In the case of President Carter, the result was the loss of the presidency to Ronald Reagan.

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

It is clear that you choose to not engage in debate, after making an affirmative statement that chemtrails are a reality in a debate, you offered no evidence for your position. You lose. Your choice. Don't make it any harder on yourself.

Next?
Jay

[amber]

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?

Just because you repeat something ad nauseum, does not make it true, or have you got tourettes syndrome or some similar malady?


you offered no evidence for your position

I'm sitting down, infront of the PC...would a photo do?

You lose..rrrrr

[jayreynolds]

I'm sitting down

You may remain seated. :lol:
Jay

[Sore Throat]

Considering the favorable policy modifications that the oil and energy companies have purchased from the Bush junta, can you imagine the concessions that the insurance lobby has obtained?

Can you imagine a single group who would have greater financial concerns about mitigating the accelerating effects of global climate change?

Once again, follow the money.

************************************************** ***********
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/03/03/rtr1284302.html

Insurer warns of global warming catastrophe threat

In GENEVA item "Insurer warns of global warming catastrophe threat," please read in first paragraph ...the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened... instead of ...the costs of global warming threatened... (corrects to show the threat is from all natural disasters, not global warming alone. Qualifies same in second paragraph).

A corrected version follows.

By Thomas Atkins

GENEVA, March 3 (Reuters) - The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making.

In a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda, Swiss Re said the economic costs of such disasters threatened to double to $150 billion a year in 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Center attack annually.

"There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time," Swiss Re said in the report.

"The human race can lead itself into this climatic catastrophe -- or it can avert it."

The report comes as a growing number of policy experts warn that the environment is emerging as the security threat of the 21st century, eclipsing terrorism.

Scientists expect global warming to trigger increasingly frequent and violent storms, heat waves, flooding, tornadoes, and cyclones while other areas slip into cold or drought.

"Sea levels will continue to rise, glaciers retreat and snow cover decline," the insurer wrote.

EXPONENTIAL RISE

Losses to insurers from environmental events have risen exponentially over the past 30 years, and are expected to rise even more rapidly still, said Swiss Re climate expert Pamela Heck.

"Scientists tell us that certain extreme events are going to increase in intensity and frequency in the future," Heck told Reuters by telephone. "Climate change is very much in the mind of the insurance industry."

Over the past century, the average global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, the largest rise for the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years, Swiss Re said.

In the short- and medium-term, simply knowing that the planet is warming will allow society to adapt, for example, through infrastructure to cope with more-frequent floods or by instructing farmers to use drought-resistent cereals.

In other cases, governments need to restrict risk-taking, such as approving housing developments in low-lying areas, and improve catastrophe management capabilities.

In the long term, Swiss Re said, greenhouse gases widely thought to trigger global warming will need to be reduced, the use of fossil fuels cut and new energy technologies developed.

"The role of the insurance industry is through establishing risk adequate tariffs and to give the risk taker the opportunity to implement appropriate measures to reduce the chance of possible losses," Heck said.

************************************************** **********

By the way, this warning isn't from hippie, tree-hugging Greenpeace activists...

this is coming from staid, conservative Swiss insurance underwriters.

And like I said, just how much political clout do you think that this lobby has.

So here's a final question:

How can the Bush junta satisfy both those who want to continue the ever expanding use of fossil fuels, and at the same time appease those who are impacted by the consequences of this action?

Then revist the scientific circles that advocate geoengineering mitigation as a partial, stop-gap solution.

Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring.

Follow the money.

[jayreynolds]

Sore throat has stated the following:
"Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring."

Mr. 'Sore',
Are you now taking the affirmative position "that this[geoengineering] is in fact occurring."?

If not, just say so.

If so, on with the debate.

You moved in debate with the affirmative, it is now encumbent upon you to factually and logically support your case with evidence.

I will take the negative position, that what you claim as "chemtrails" or "aerosol operations" or "geoengineering" are actually ordinary contrails.

You might wish to try your hand at the questions which seem to have stumped all your colleagues, questions central to your issue, questions which will come out whether you like them or not:

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

Let the debate begin,
Jay Reynolds

[Sore Throat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30538-2004Mar4.html

2003 Likely Europe's Hottest in 500 Years

By PAUL RECER
The Associated Press
Thursday, March 4, 2004; 2:33 PM


WASHINGTON - Last year's deadly summer in Europe probably was the hottest on the continent in at least five centuries, according to researchers who analyzed ancient temperature records. More than 19,000 people died.

Researchers at the University of Bern, Switzerland, collected and analyzed temperature data from all over Europe, including such climate measures as tree rings from 1500. They found that the climate has been generally warming and last summer was the most torrid of all.

"When you consider Europe as a whole, it was by far the hottest," said Jurg Luterbacher, climatologist and the first author of a study appearing this week in the journal Science.

Luterbacher said the study showed that European winters are also warmer now. The average winter and annual temperatures during the three decades from 1973 to 2002 were the warmest of the half millennium, he said.

Some studies have linked rising average temperatures in North America and elsewhere to global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but Luterbacher said his team did not attempt to make such a connection.

"We don't make any analysis of the human influence," he said. "We don't attempt to determine the cause. We only report what we find."

Other climatologists, however, say the new study agrees with models that have predicted a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.

Stephen Schneider, a climate expert at Stanford University and a prominent advocate for human-caused global warming, said the Luterbacher paper is consistent with what climate modelers have been predicting for 20 years.

"The data is starting to line up showing that those projections were correct," Schneider said. "We warned the world that this was likely to happen because we believed the theory, but couldn't actually prove it was happening. Now the data is coming in."

In the study, Luterbacher and his team analyzed the temperature history of Europe starting in 1500 to the present. For the earliest part of the half millennium, the figures are estimates based on proxy measures, such as tree rings and soil cores. But after about 1750, he said, instrumented readings became generally available throughout Europe.

During the 500 years, there were trends both toward cool and toward hot. The second hottest summer in the period was in 1757. That was followed by a cooling trend that continued until early in the 20th century. The summer of 1902, for instance, was the coolest of the entire record.

Starting in 1977, the record shows "an exceptionally strong, unprecedented warming," the researchers report, with average temperatures rising at the rate of about 0.36 degrees per decade.

Then came last summer.

"The summer of 2003 exceeded 1901 to 1995 European summer temperatures by around 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)," the study said. "Taking into account the uncertainties (in the study method), it appears that the summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any other summer back to 1500."

Record temperatures were recorded in most of the major cities of Europe last summer, with many readings over 100 degrees. Authorities have attributed thousands of deaths to the excess heat, making the heat wave one of the deadliest weather phenomena in the past century.

In France, the toll was estimated at about 14,802 dead. About 2,000 more than normal died in August in England and Wales. On Aug. 11, Britain's hottest day on record, there were 363 more deaths than average and the temperature reading reached 101.3 in Brogdale in southeastern England.

Altogether in Europe, based on official numbers collected by The Associated Press, there were more than 19,000 excess deaths in the summer months. France was hardest hit, but the average number of summer deaths increased by 4,175 in Italy, 1,300 in Portugal and more than 1,000 in the Netherlands.

The intense heat also wilted crops, caused wildfires and continued a centurylong trend of melting the continent's glaciers.

Luterbacher said some mountain glaciers have shrunk by 50 percent in the past century in Europe, and some ice fields lost 10 percent of their mass last summer alone.

In addition, he said, the long trend of warming temperatures is now melting the high altitude permafrost - the soil that usually remains frozen year-round - and that some buildings, bridges and roadways are now threatened with unstable foundations.

And it may get worse, said Luterbacher. He said some studies forecast that if the warming trend continues, Europe may have summers like 2003 every other year starting late in this century.

[jayreynolds]

It appears that Mr. 'Sore' intends to disrupt substantive debate on the subjet of geoengineering by throwing up "chaff".

That is a fitting description of his last posting considering some of his past allegations. :roll:

He has made no attempt to even claify if/if not he takes a position in debate, he has made no rebuttal, nor does he address the challenge questionsin any way. He appears to be conceding by failure to participate in debate.

I cannot stop him from posting irrelevant material, but will remind Mrs. Huffington that he is yet another in a serial cast of "chemtrail geoengineering" proponents who will not engage in debate on point.

If anyone else cares to debate in a rational manner bring it on. :lol:

Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Now that Reynolds has abandoned the attempt to represent himself as a protector of Arianna Huffington, supposedly protecting her and her respectable politics from corruption by non-respectable lunatic cultists, and has made it perfectly clear that he is a political opponent of hers and a supporter of President Bush, matters are considerably simplified.

This is all just about politics. Reynolds punts on Bush saving his skin. We want to remove Bush from power.

Anyone interested in more of the early history of the contrails/chemtrails/geoengineering, see:

http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessageRange?topicID=303 6.topic&start=1&stop=20

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds states, "I cannot stop him from posting irrelevant material".

This is of course the only tactic that a professional debunker can take.

To say that issues of climate change are not relevant to a discussion of geoengineering (that being ONE of the possibilities of what we are witnessing) is laughable.

For years Reynolds has argued against the realities of climate change. Apparently now that the solid research evidence is overwhelming, he is forced to take a different tact.

Once it was only devout enviornmentalists raising the alarm. And the debunkers choose to label them "watermellons...green on the outside and red on the inside".

Now it's Nobel Laureates, National Science Medal winners, Pentagons advisors, Swiss insurance underwriters, and an increasing number of common citizens throughout the world who are expressing their concern.

The question is, given these realities, what can be done?

What is being done?

And do the people have the right to know WHAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR in the way of government sanctioned programs?

One other observation.

Reynolds is well known amongst a variety of Internet boards for his highly caustic and bullying demeanour. It is for that reason that he has been banned from a number of sites. It should be clear to all that he is once again attempting to dictate the terms and ground rules of this discussion for all participants.

I assume that moderators will track this behavior and act in an appropriate manner.

I will continue to provide a framework for our discussion of atmospheric modification....in my own way and in my own time, on my own terms.

************************************************** **********

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29956

Senators Grapple With Politics of Global Warming

Source: Environment News Service
Byline: J.R. Pegg


WASHINGTON, DC, March 4, 2004 (ENS) - The burning of fossils fuels is changing the climate and this change will have profound impacts on humanity and the Earth's biodiversity, a panel of scientists told the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday. The combined testimony of the panelists demonstrated the clear scientific evidence that supports that message, but whether it is enough to convince the elected officials of the U.S. government to take action is far less certain.

"The question of how and when we deal with the threat of global warming is one of the great tests for our generation of elected officials," said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat. "The question is do we have the courage to begin to bring about the changes to protect us, our children and grandchildren?"

Wednesday's hearing was part of an ongoing effort by Arizona Republican Senator John McCain to rally more support for the climate stewardship bill he and Lieberman have coauthored.

The legislation would require some sectors of the U.S. economy to enact mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Of the six most damaging greenhouse gases, CO2 is the most abundant.

The bill was defeated in the Senate last October by a vote of 53 to 44, but supporters of the legislation said the vote was a watershed moment in the U.S. debate over the issue of global warming.

It was the first action on the issue by the Senate in six years.

McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he is determined not to abandon the proposal.

"This is an issue of worldwide importance," McCain said. "We will get another vote and see if there is any temperature change in the Senate this spring."

It is the changing temperature of the Earth that has McCain and others worried. The vast majority of climate scientists note that human emissions have already caused temperatures to increase slightly. They predict that if greenhouse gas emissions are left unchecked, surface temperatures on Earth will rise between 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Higher temperatures caused by the increased levels of greenhouse gases are expected to result in rising sea levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, erratic and severe weather patterns, and a host of other environmental problems that could have far reaching economic and social impacts.

It is politics - not science - that is prohibiting action on global warming, said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat.

"The failure of some of those in office to acknowledge these impacts is at best myopic, at worst irresponsible," Lautenberg said. "If we ignore 30 years of scientific data, we are putting ourselves in jeopardy."

"We have to do more than study global climate change," Lautenberg said. "It is time for action."

But the Bush administration does not agree and neither do many of its Congressional allies. They have consistently questioned the validity of the science behind global warming and argued against mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who make such arguments do so despite "their lying eyes," McCain said.

Global warming skeptics should take a look at the Arctic, said Dr. Robert Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society and the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

The ACIA is an international team of 300 scientists, experts, and indigenous residents of the Arctic region who are preparing a comprehensive analysis of the impacts and consequences of climate variability and changes across the region.

"The trends are absolutely clear," Corell said. "The climate is changing in the Arctic rapidly."

In Alaska and western Canada, the average winter temperatures have increased by as much as three to four degrees Celsius over the past 60 years.

During the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice extent has decreased, on average, by about 10 percent, and this change has been 20 percent faster during the past two decades.

Continued melting of sea ice will lead to significant changes in the surface reflectivity, cloudiness, humidity, exchanges of heat and moisture, and ocean circulation, in particular along coastlines and near ice margins.

"Indigenous people have been observing these changes for some time," Corell told the Senate committee.

The cultures, livelihoods and health of the indigenous people of the Arctic are under threat from global warming, Corell said. Warmer climates could bring insects with diseases these people have never known and the species they depend upon, such as the polar bear, are unlikely to survive if global warming continues unabated.

The fate of the Arctic is as a "window into the future" and a preview for what the rest of the world is likely to see over the next generation, Corell said.

Dr. Lee Hannah, a research fellow with Conservation International, told the committee that climate change is the "major new threat to global biodiversity."

"Even a perfect conservation effort cannot save species from extinction in the face of unchecked climate change," Hannah said.

The challenge for policymakers is to figure out how to deal with the realities of global warming, according to Dr. Jerry Mahlman, a climatologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The viable options, Mahlman said, are mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to the effects of climate change, or doing nothing - business as usual.

It is the third of these choices that "appears to be the unstated national and international policy," Mahlman said.

McCain questioned Mahlman about allegations that the Bush administration pressured him to tone down his message about climate change at past hearings.

"The real pressure was to make sure that I was not testifying something about the science that was embarrassing to the administration," said Mahlman, who added he avoided the concern by testifying as a private citizen.

McCain acknowledged that there is little, if any support for his bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"My proposal was widely touted but it is really an incredibly modest proposal," McCain said. "But we need a beginning."

McCain's bill would set a nationwide cap on industrial emissions of C02 and reduce those emissions down to 2000 levels by 2010 through an emissions trading system.

It does not address the C02 emissions from the nation's automobiles, which represent some 20 percent of the U.S. total.

By contrast, the 37 other industrialized nations that have ratified the Kyoto climate protocol are committed to reducing their CO2 emissions an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels during the five years from 2008 through 2012.

With less than five percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for about 22 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

[foot_soldier]

Test

[foot_soldier]

Now it's Nobel Laureates, National Science Medal winners, Pentagon advisors, Swiss insurance underwriters, and an increasing number of common citizens throughout the world who are expressing their concern.

Very true. They have in fact been expressing their concern for some time now - years, actually. What's happening, finally, is that it's becoming more and more difficult to suppress and/or obfuscate the open public expression and dissemination of factual climate change- and climate change policy-related information - and the expression of an increasingly informed public concern.

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote:
"Now that Reynolds has abandoned the attempt to represent himself as a protector of Arianna Huffington, supposedly protecting her and her respectable politics from corruption by non-respectable lunatic cultists"

Anyone interested in more of the early history of the contrails/chemtrails/geoengineering, see:

http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessageRange?topicID=303 6.topic&start=1&stop=20
=========================
What halva refers us to is a letter written by Diane Harvey(AKA sedona, sedonadiane) to a USAF Colonel.

Perhaps readers need to become more familiar with MS Harvey's other beliefs, which by many accounts are indeed lunatic. Try this:

http://www.rense.com/general8/golden.htm

Or if her views about the battle between humans and Grey aliens isn't clear enough, check out this chemtrail site:

"Yes, the Greys are very nasty little "handmaidens" of darkness, working to establish ever-new levels of totalitarianism, in total accord with the purposes of the human dark ones. Whatever the actual relationship is: when different forces act on the same wavelength, out of the same general motive, they support and strengthen each other.

I live in a town full of "cute" (!) little images of the Greys- on bumper stickers, as posters, on t-shirts: it's quite the blatant indoctrination going on. THIS IS CHILLING."

"Whatever torments human beings in the ways the Greys do... is not being invited to do so subconsciously or otherwise by the human soul. We humans have our natural range of genuine spiritual difficulties, which are lovingly designed to stimulate growth away from ego. These are not imposed by totalitarian measures, do not involve mind control by other beings, the imposition of superior force by extraterrestrials, or paralyzing fear.
(For example: the higher orders of angels are awesome, but not terrifying.)

Greys may as well be demons for all the difference there is: in fact- I suspect they are actually worse. In any case, they are materially powerful PARASITES."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000016.html

Diane Harvey has, publicly at least, become disengaged with the chemtrail issue and is no longer a player, under that screen name.
Invoking her as a reference in debate is a mistake Mr 'Sore' would have advised you to not do, halva.

Her reputation was partially destroyed by her own lunatic views on aliens, and her self-destruction, along with Mr 'Sore' against chemtrail promoter Clifford Carnicom was memorable, to say the least.
================
To 'Sore Throat', please continue posting your weather/climate information here. I am sure you will be welcome, and as usual, boring. When you post relevant discussion on chemtrails/geoengineering, I will engage.
Jay

[Sore Throat]

I can only imagine how "boring" Jay Reynolds must find the daily, and growing number of reports on dramatic climate change and the consequences for our society. This is a reality that he has fought to deny for years.

How shattering this must be for him and his mentors.

Yet it is becoming increasingly obvious that he and his backers can no longer stop the floodtide of information that is reaching the American public.

An awareness is growing.


For those new to this topic, I would suggest looking at the following references:

1. Edward Teller Advances Global Warming Cure

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html


2. Sunscreen for Planet Earth
GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/981/teller.html


3. Climate Controls
If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a
moral outrage, we could cool the world.

By Gregory Benford

http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Note: This is really a must read. I found the following quotes particularly interesting:

"Some geoengineering systems appear possible to deploy now, and at reasonable cost. They could be turned on and off quickly if we got unintended effects. It would be relatively easy to run small-scale experiments to answer questions about how our current atmosphere behaves when one alters the kind of dust, or aerosols, in it. Nuanced knowledge is crucial; the biosphere is a highly nonlinear system, one that has experienced climatic lurches before (glaciation, droughts) and can go into unstable modes, too."

"Not all mitigation efforts need take place on land or sea. In fact, the most intuitive approach may be simply to reflect more sunlight back into space, before it can be emitted in heat radiation and then absorbed by carbon dioxide. People understand the basic concept readily enough: Black T-shirts are warmer in summer than white ones. We already know that simply painting buildings white makes them cooler. We could compensate for the effect of all greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution by reflecting less than 1 percent more of the sunlight."

"Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. "

"But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react--those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes. Not letting the radical greens set the terms of discussion will matter crucially."

Well worth reading the entire article.

4. GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT
Jay Michaelson - Stanford University

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two


5. Climate Engineering
A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context,
and possible impacts.

Ben Matthews

http://www.chooseclimate.org/cleng/cleng.html

[halva]

I second Sore Throat's call for Reynolds to be banned from this forum.

Anyone familiar with the Chemtrails Central Forum, of which I was a member of the Council when such a Council existed), will know that I have advocated banning from discussion groups any individual persistently denying that aerosol spraying from aircraft (or at least some kind of activity of aircraft that results in unprecedented clouding of skies necessitating public discussion of the phenomenon) is occurring. And any individual showing by irony or innuendo that such is his belief or claimed belief.

It is from experience with Reynolds more than anyone else that I reached the conclusion that such a policy is necessary. Reynolds clearly attributes no significance to his having shown me in the most tangible way, by attributing to me a desire to deceive the world by circulating a faked photomontage of an aircraft spraying a very visible trail of some kind - when it is obvious from Giannis Kritikos' letter that I had nothing to do with the concocting of the photomontage and obvious from my message to Will Thomas that I never concealed its status as photomontage because I remarked on it (it irritated me) - that he is a LIAR and not only a liar but an incorrigible liar, because he continues to make the same accusation even in the face of iron-clad evidence of being mistaken and continues to demand the right to continue dialogue with a person he has insulted in this fashion, and continues to insult.

When one has discovered such a fact about another person, when it is so simple to see the quality of his assertions about a matter whose truth and falsehood is so easy to judge, why should he be relied on in any way in determining the truth and falsehood of other matters which are not so easy to judge? There are so many other people around with expertise on the relevant subjects to whom one can turn for information.

Reynolds, who is an extreme case, is not the only reason I came to the conclusion that 'chemtrail debunkers' should be banned from sites discussing the problem. Very much energy is consumed at Chemtrail Central, and was consumed even moreso in the past, arguing the toss with debunkers at CTC on chemtrails/contrails and ignoring other much more valuable potential interlocutors: the environmental organizations, Greenpeace, the multitude of scientists and NGOs who have come forward to warn of the environmental dangers facing the planet, with first and foremost the issue of climate change. There was a widespread tendency at CTC and other 'chemtrail' discussion sites to be rather hostile to environmental groups because of an assumption that it was THEY who should be telling the world about 'chemtrails' and calling for action. The general feeling was that Greenpeace and other such groups must be sold out and corrupt because otherwise they would already be pressing the 'chemtrail' emergency button.

I eventually wrote an article in which I tried to put forward an explanation for the stance of the environmental organizations, calling for a change in policy in relation towards them.

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/Hall.htm

With the starting point of this text, as a member of the secretariat of ATTAC-Hellas, I was able to organize a joint seminar last month with Greenpeace in Athens Greece on the subject of climate change and geoengineering.

The level of discussion at that seminar was, I believe, quite high. It was, moreover, a discussion which, unlike the repetitive and nerve-wracking screaming matches with people like Reynolds, (and many other less pathologically aggressive 'debunker' counterparts) can hopefully lead somewhere, including joint political action.

I was not successful in my call at CTC for removal and banning of all 'debunkers'. Sore Throat, for one, who was also a member of the CTC Council, did not support me.

But as evident from his posting above, he would like to see Reynolds removed from the Arianna online forum. As indicated I support this call.

Reynolds future is bound up with the fortunes of the kind of politicians he supports, the Bush cabal. He will sink or swim with them. If fortune turns against them, Reynolds' only hope will be to be allowed to trade on the usefulness of his knowledge. Two adjustments will be needed: he will have to abandon all moral judgement of others (such as his judgement of Arianna Huffington's supposed high energy-consumption lifestyle). Occupying as he does the absolutely lowest rung of the moral hierarchy, he will have to get used to abstaining from moral judgement of anyone other than himself. And he will have to get out of the habit of lying, because the information provided by liars is suspect. A record of truthfulness will have to be re-established by him if he is to have any hope of his skills being in demand when his present political protectors have become history.

[Sore Throat]

Let it be clear that I did not "call on a ban of Jay Reynolds" from this discussion group.

His presence servers a purpose as he represents the position of the Bush junta and the major polluters of this planet.

Unless he reverts to the unscrupulous attacks that characterized his previous bannings, there is value in exposing his position for what it is.

I trust that the moderators of this board will be able to determine if, and when, a line has been crossed.

I would prefer Halva, that I be allowed to speak for myself.

[jayreynolds]

'Halva', the voice of true democracy. Calls for banning of dissenting opinions at a forum dedicated to "lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate.

'halva', the man who brings up the subject of geo-engineering in the affirmative, then when his evidence is shattered, withdraws from debate on geoengineering.

His next move is to call for his opponent to be banned!

halva, you sure know how to convince Mrs Huffington of your debating skills.

You are nothing but a little totalitarian loser. No different from the nazis that held Mrs Huffington's father in a camp during the war.

Wayne 'Goebbels" "halva" Hall

[jayreynolds]

Mr. 'Sore',

I am reiterating my previous question to you. You did not answer this question yet. This is a question that you have already answered elsewhere, to the affirmative, and yes I can bring in the quotes if needed.

Since this forum was specifically formed for debate, and the topic set up by halva was debate over "geoengineering", it requires the participants to take positons either affirmative and negative so that the debate can become defined and progress.

Not taking a position is an admission that one is not prepared to debate. It is known as 'waffling' in political circles, and is a position from which no persuation can occur, for if the persuader himself will not take a position, how can he ever expect to persuade others?

I reiterate my question-

Sore throat has stated the following:
"Then tell me we're crazy to think that this is in fact what is occurring."

Mr. 'Sore',
Are you now taking the affirmative position "that this[geoengineering] is in fact occurring."?

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

Mr. 'Sore' and Mr. 'halva',
Scientific inquiry into problems is generally aided by becoming familiar with the subject matter through education and study. I am curious, do either of you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned, why not?

Once technical competency is established, research is undertaken using strict scientific methods and review of known research. Have either of you
accomplished such research? Is so, where have you published it? If not, which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

Scientific credibility is known to be established by publication in peer reviewed journals. Can either of you direct readers to such publications which describe "chemtrails"?
If not, why not?

Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for either of you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did either of you, or any othet "chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

halva- why did you not attend this seminal event, just an ecological train ride away? (PS- you had better read all 400 pages of the proceedings, I am getting ahead of you already)

European Conference
Aviation, Atmosphere and Climate
30 June - 3 July 2003
Germany
http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/aac/

'Sore', why did you not rent booth space here, just a few hours away?

American Association for Aerosol Research Conference
AAAR 2003 Annual Conference
Hilton Anaheim, Anaheim, California
October 20-24, 2003

These questions need to be answered for Mrs. Huffington to be able to examine your expertise and credibility. Failure to answer shows that you are a failure in your field, or are simply not serious.

Jay Reynolds, Bachelor of Science, Marine Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1977

[jayreynolds]

'Sore' wrote:
"The issue of ChemTrails, or geoengineering, that is being debated here has an ever growing interest by a large part of the American population who have witnessed the disappearance of their once blue skies, now replaced by a steel grey haze and high altitude quasi-cirrus clouds. That many of these emanate from the back of airplanes is beyond dispute, as it is so readily directly observed.

The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high suflur(sic) content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate."

'Sore' has now stated that "chemtrails" are simply contrails, but that they are a form of geoengineeringwhich could contain either:
1. "rich engine mixtures"
2. "high suflur(sic) content fuel"
3. metallic particles and/or polymers

The debate is defined!

I challenge Mr. 'Sore' to provide actual factual proof that any of his scenarios are factual.

I will take the negative position, that what he describes are ordinary contrails in every respect, no different than those produced fifty years ago when planes first reached altitudes allowing them to commonly form.

Let's go, 'Sore'. I'm sure Mrs. Huffington awaits your supposed "proof".

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

anybody home?

[Sore Throat]

Notice how conveniently Jay Reynolds ignores the content of all the geoengineering articles I have presented.

As if they don't exist.

As if the climate change that they are directed toward mitigating doesn't exist.

Note no comment on the Benford article citing, "Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. "

As if such proposals don't exist.

Ignoring numerous mitigation projects underway throughout the world (ocean ion fertilization, CO2 sequestration, etc.) ...as if they don't exist.

Assuming, on blind faith we must imagine, that somehow, any form of atmospheric mitigation project is absolutely implausible...virtually impossible....so strong is his FAITH. He knows, without a doubt.

Because Jay Reynolds HAS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF, that ALL aircraft contrails are NOTHING but normal jet exhaust and water vapor.

Based on the data that this Bachelor of Science, Marine Engineering from Texas A&M University has collected?

Or simply his BELIEF that all is normal?

Is it also his BELIEF that the US government has never intentionally exposed its citizens to harmful substances, justified as essential for NATIONAL SECURITY? ...and is he oblivious to the revelations of such programs decades AFTER they were executed on an unsuspecting, and non-consenting, population?

Perhaps he hasn't seen the numerous articles that state that CLIMATE CHANGE is a far greater threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY than TERRORISM.

Are we to believe that our caring and concerned government would sit idly by and do NOTHING in the face of this threat?

Has he forgooten how quickly the present rulers will sacrifice the lives of our sons and duaghters to protect our freedom (to burn oil that is) under the guise of a WAR ON TERRORISM? How rapid is the response to a threat to our NATIONAL SECURITY.

National security is also based on economic security. Is Jay Reynolds ignorant of the massive and mounting insurance costs attributed to climate change?

Just waht does this Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering actually BELIEVE?

And why is he so determined to force all others to accept, unquestioning, his point of view?

[foot_soldier]

I think we're already seeing the beginning of a pattern of changing climate in some parts of the world including this country. Is everyone aware of what happened in the Dallas, TX area yesterday when a line of thunderstorms went through there and did incredible damage right up into southeastern Oklahoma where three people were killed? I just read tonight that a "wind gust" blew a city bus off a bridge in Chicago when a line of storms went through that area today.

I think we're polluting ourselves into some pretty unstable conditions - that's just my opinion. As for "geo-engineering", I personally don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that this kind of thing may in fact be underway in the form of pilot studies at the least. The Bush administration seems to be pushing coal-fired power generation as of this year - probably because of the impending crisis regarding future availability of oil. What this administration wants to do is develop technology to capture CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, liquefy the CO2 and then pump it underground. There are several pilot projects already underway in this regard. Pilot projects for ocean carbon sequestration have been underway for years now. Personally I think this approach to the CO2 emissions issue is insane not to mention short-sighted but that's just my opinion.

As for atmospheric geo-engineering, it wouldn't surprise me. Something is going on with our skies - I do see that much and it doesn't look very good.

[amber]

He is a recruiter for the "chemtrail" conspiracy cult. He is seeking to propagandize people… It has spawned a cult of belief not unlike a religion, yet without salvation.

Speaking of religion and cults - before pointing the finger at ordinary people, concerned at the disappearance of our blue skies; the repercussions on health; and the long-term damage to the atmosphere…perhaps JR should look to his own government, for signs of fanaticism

Take a look at this superb article on Rense:http://www.rense.com/general50/laugh.htm

A few quotes will illustrate the REAL cult that is driving this world to the point of destruction:


“By joining forces in a destructive "means justifies the ends" crusade to both control and convert the world, the Neoconservatives and Religious Right have created a playground for wicked gods. Each needs the other to achieve its goals. And the glue that holds them together is a man whose own words indict him as the proverbial village idiot who has no clue about either means or ends, but who serves at this point in history as both the enabled and the enabler. “

Ledeen is possibly the most dangerous and influential neocon of all the Iran-Contra madmen who are back in power…."God," Ledeen explains, "understands that all men are evil, and the only way to achieve peace is through total war." Ledeen believes "the sparing of civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority...The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people

God walks with them; talks to them and issues militant edicts to us through them. Most are Republicans -- proud "born again" Christians who speak deleriously of "God's will and the blood of Jesus Christ" -- but their true religion is cold, hard politics.

Jerry Falwell, who believes the "idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country." We even giggled when Attorney General John Ashcroft assured graduates at Bob Jones University that "America has no king but Jesus."

DeLay believes that fundamentalists should "overturn the separation of church and state and bring government under religious control."


But few are more frightening than Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who strode to the Senate chamber shortly after 9-11 to announce that the attacks were punishment by God because we were not sufficiently in awe of Israel. Inhofe said God told him Israel is "entitled" to the West Bank, and the U.S. should not pressure Ariel Sharon to stop killing Palestinians.
According to Inhofe, God angrily slung three airliners full of unsuspecting souls into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, incinerating more than 3,000 innocent citizens, and furiously rammed another plane into the Pennsylvania countryside -- because America was not sufficiently subservient to Israel. Inhofe believes America got what it deserved, and we should heed God's "wake up call" lest He strike us again...

Were I a US citizen, I would be asking for psychiatric reports on my leaders.

A president that believes he is on a mission from god; with colleagues that receive messages from god, are JR’s benchmark for sanity and normality? Sanity is believing that "the sparing of civilian lives cannot be the total war's first priority...The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people’?

Yet anyone who has noticed CTs are cult members? :shock: Are YOU a born again Christian, JR? Does god speak through you? Is that why you think you hold the monopoly on the truth?

[halva]

Just taken delivery of Liakopoulos's video of contrails-chemtrails-aerosol spraying over Thessaloniki which shows scenes truly worse than anything I have ever seen over Athens.

[halva]

I post this despite the fact that it will set Reynolds off again:

CHEMTRAILS NOW TAUGHT IN U.S. SCHOOLS
by
William Thomas

A is for Apple.
B is for Boy.
C is for Chemtrails.

At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet.

Anyone with question about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids."

The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air".

"I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?"

Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are really referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.

"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air."

You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing!

RUNNING ON EMPTY
"Be real interesting to see the politics of the folks putting this out." SmT suggests.

In the current White House, those politics are as "crude" as invading oil-rich Iraq over a bogus nuclear threat - while permitting Pakistan to export atom bomb materials to terrorist organizations in return for the chance at an election-boosting capture of Osama bin Laden by US forces in the Hindu Kush later this month. [New Yorker Mar1/04]

So why shouldn't the same petty petrol politics produce textbooks for kids inheriting a nightmare? Led by a piggish petroleum president, with most major nations cutting back, US oil consumption is rising as steeply as supplies of cheap crude are collapsing.

The coal connection is this: In order to briefly "stretch the glide" of the fast-looming end of cheap oil that will utterly transform life as we know it, America's unelected oil president recently revoked pollution regulations on more than 2,000 of the nation's biggest polluting coal-fired power plants.

Ironically, this move - like so many others made by an oil-addled White House - will only hasten an Earthwreck as shattering to all onboard as a lurching square-rigger striking a rocky reef. Except our spaceship is surrounded by the cold, irradiated vacuum of deep space.

It turns out that a single 150-megawatt coal-burning power plant produces more emissions than 300,000 cars. Termed an "Extreme Human health Hazard" by the EPA, microscopic coal particles also rot lungs, stop hearts, kill lakes, choke cities - and stunt the lives of school kids with deadly sulphuric acid rain. [AP Aug27/03; LA Times Aug28/03]

Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo - and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm - belched enough sulphur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.

World scientists looked at deliberately putting megatons more sulphur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depress orbiting astronauts. And decided that a sulphur sunscreen is not a swift idea.

But not this Jr. High science text. "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" is the only consideration.

Even this claim is bogus. SmT says he looked, but the section on the downstream costs associated with the health and environmental effects of massive coal pollution - or the 10 million tons of a chemical sunscreen suggested by the late Edward Teller - "seemed to have been left out."

Ditto "the cost to the solar industry". Or cumulative impacts on kids, critters and plants on which our future depends.

DIMMING PROSPECTS
Sunlight is already on the way out. Repeatedly expressing shock at how quickly our space colony's life-support systems are failing, scientists are finding levels of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface decreasing by almost 3% a decade.

"Global Dimming" is too small to detect with the eye. "But it has implications for everything from climate change to solar power and even the future sustainability of plant photosynthesis," reports the Guardian.

All those jet-propelled vacations and car trips to the corner store add up. Since 1960, 10% less sunlight has reached Earth's inhabitants. Levels of solar radiation reaching parts of the former coal-belching Soviet Union are down almost 20%.

In any greenhouse, the rule of a green thumb is that every 1% decrease in solar radiation results in a 1% drop in plant productivity.

"It's actually quite a big deal,� says Graham Farquhar, a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra. But get this: Farquhar doesn't think that identified pollutants, "by themselves would be able to produce this amount of global dimming." [Guardian Dec18/03]

The baffled Aussie should check out the role of contrails in turning off sunlight. Since the Jet Age took off in the 1960s, normal condensation trails from five million jet flights every year have been found to block 10% of sunlight across Europe and the USA. Over heavily trafficked Atlantic and American air-routes, artificial cloud cover caused by jet engine pollutants has increased 20%. [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]

Chemtrails are another major sunblock. Measurements taken with a calibrated photometer by Clifford Carnicom in Santa Fe show a rapid reduction in sunlight - from a value of 97% on a “clear day� to around 80% during the early stages of heavy chemtrailing. Using a simple UV radiation meter, this reporter has confirmed similar drops in sunlight beneath artificial "chemcasts" on Canada's west coast.

WHAT JANE AND DICK DIDN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL TODAY
In a country whose self-appointed regime routinely censors scientific studies, at least some 7th grade science are more focused on indoctrinating kids with risky techno "quick-fixes" than conscious conservation and common sense.

Forget science. SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate "IronX" experiments did indeed trigger plankton "blooms" that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.

But – oops! – his kid's science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading "dead zones". [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]

Where are the picture, SmT wonders, "of people planting trees, or turning down thermostats, or bicycling, or any of the other ways not to add to the problem?"

Though his family gave up the idea of home schooling, he says, "it's perhaps time to reconsider."

Perhaps it's also time to reconsider state-sponsored brainwashing. And other escalating consequences of our carbon addiction, as well.

[jayreynolds]

'Sore' wrote:
Notice how conveniently Jay Reynolds ignores the content of all the geoengineering articles I have presented.
As if they don't exist.


Dear Readers,

I have reviewed the content of the several geoengineering articles posted. My reply is that none describe aerial operations which coincide with the general description of what are called 'chemtrails' by the majority of 'chemtrail" cultists. None describe actual air operations, all are speculative in nature. In essence, Mr. 'Sore' is asking the reader to make a 'leap of faith', to conclude that simply because, in his opinion, such a thing as geoengineering by spraying from airplanes is discussed, that means it is happening.

I can also direct readers attention to numerous articles which declare that
"chemtrails" are a form of missle defense, a biological death spray, or a weapon weilded by alien reptilian beings to alter human DNA.

Though absurd, by 'Sore's' reasoning, since such wacko ideas are written about means they are taking place also!

'Sore'
wrote:
Note no comment on the Benford article citing, "Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. "
As if such proposals don't exist.

My commentary has only begun after it became clear that 'Sore' made a sufficiently strong affirmative to define debate.

Regarding the idea that jet engines could be set to burn "rich", the result of such an action would appear thusly:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~jjuvonen/riat97/b52.jpg

Yes, burning "rich" on a jet engine means smoke. It also means money, money for extra fuel, money for extra maintenance due to fouling by soot. It means someone deliberately defeating the goal of all mechanics, which is to set up an engine to run efficiently. It also means reduced range due to excess fuel consumption. It also means reduced power as an inefficient engine cannot fly as fast, as far, or climb as quickly as an inefficiently tuned one.

Simply said, the idea that a secret conspiracy could be currently taking place to somehow convince thousands of owners, mechanics, and pilots abuse their aircraft's engines by "Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich" is ludicrous, for the reasons stated above..

However, if 'Sore wanted to prove such a contention, he would eagerly seek allies within the aviation community, wouldn't you think? Over the past five years, numerous airline pilots have approached 'Sore' to tell him that what he calls "chemtrails" are simply ordinary contrails. Almost without exception they have been banned from participation by noisome protest from the "chemtrail" cult.

Summing up, 'Sore' has produced no empirical evidence whatsoever that what he calls "chemtrails" but have exactly the known characteristics of ordinary contrails are, "IN FACT" jet engines burning "rich".


'Sore' wrote:
Assuming, on blind faith we must imagine, that somehow, any form of atmospheric mitigation project is absolutely implausible...virtually impossible....so strong is his FAITH. He knows, without a doubt.
Because Jay Reynolds HAS THE DEFINITIVE PROOF, that ALL aircraft contrails are NOTHING but normal jet exhaust and water vapor.
Based on the data that this Bachelor of Science, Marine Engineering from Texas A&M University has collected?
Or simply his BELIEF that all is normal?

In debate, the person arguing the affirmative is obligated to present evidence for his case. In his posting, 'Sore has only produced speculation, and no empirical evidence whatsoever. Thus far he has asked for readers to make a leap of faith from his speculation to a conclusion.

Speculation in the absence of any evidence does not make his case!

As he has done so many times before on other forums, he then turns to the ludicrous idea that I should prove that such a thing as "chemtrails" cannot exist. This is a 'last resort fallback position' for those arguing the affirmative who have no evidence. They take the readers for fools who don't recognize the ploy wherein 'Sore' has asked me to disprove a negative, something that doesn't exist and that there is no evidence for!

It is as if 'Sore' contended that he could produce golden eggs from his anus. Lacking evidence, his only retort would be that I should
prove that he cannot produce golden eggs in such a way!



'Sore' wrote:
Just waht this Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering actually BELIEVE?


Dear Readers,
My beliefs are not important in this debate. This debate was defined by 'Sore' as:

"The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high suflur(sic) content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate."

Note that 'Sore opens the debate by challenging the facts not anyone's beliefs. It was proper for him to do so, because-

His claim of "chemtrails" being a case of 'geoengineering" is a claim of fact, not a claim of belief!

My claim of fact, to the negative of his affirmative, is that what he calls "chemtrails" are in all respects ordinary contrails. The evidence I present is available at my website below. I challenge 'Sore' with the following questions, questions that he has dodged thus far, and questions which he dodges because he has much to hide.

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

Dear readers, watch carefully to see if 'Sore' will answer the questions above. His case has thus far presented no actual evidence, relying soley on speculation. My questions are simple, basic, and are issues of fact, issues which he appears loathe to respond to.
Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

In addition to my previous questions, the following:

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given youir interest?

[halva]

One of the most heinous aspects of Reynolds' professional activities is that to the extent they are successful they strengthen the probability that when the public awakening occurs on this subject, it will be chaotic, uncontrolled and violent.

This is not danger-mongering. Personally, my activity is directed towards averting an outcome of this kind. Also, outbursts of chaotic, uncontrolled and violent political behaviour are usually orchestrated. Nevertheless, Reynolds' responsibilities in this respect are already heavy.

There is also the point that William Thomas' schoolbook shows that a section of the power elite is pursuing a 'break it to them gently' approach which is clearly being sabotaged by Reynolds. It really is time for Reynolds' handlers to issue him a new set of instructions. He is a 'loose cannon'.

[foot_soldier]

Very interesting.

Sounds like Mr. Reynolds needs to hang it up. He's way behind the curve where public awareness of the larger picture is concerned. Many people have been aware of what's coming for quite some time now. A lot of people have been thinking about these things since the 70's when many original alternatives to our insatiable fossil fuel addiction were enthusiastically supported by the people and then effectively suppressed by the fossil fuel, transportation and energy lobbies.

Maybe Mr. Reynolds thinks God will save us from ourselves.

At any rate the current administration seems to have co-opted the entire issue of climate destabilization and made it into an issue of national security. How else could they justify the kind of control they seem to think is becoming necessary for management of emerging climate change-related crises? After all, "National Security" is what, in their minds, is justifying the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. And Mr. Bush seems confident that the National Security card is what's going to get him re-elected in November. I think it's very possible that he may be running out of mileage on that card. I sure hope so.

Interesting information re: what is being taught in middle-school science classes - especially the material on geo-engineering. I guess they figure it's easier to brainwash the kids and just ignore or confer the "filthy liberal" epithet upon the adult generation many of whom are fully aware of what's being done to this planet in order to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based economy that really needs to be replaced with something less damaging to our life support systems.

Edited to add that in the end it's the will of an informed public that is going to catalyze genuine change for the better.

[jayreynolds]

Though he refuses to debate the actual issues, I will nevertheless respond to some of 'halva's comments.


'halva' wrote:
One of the most heinous aspects of Reynolds' professional activities is that to the extent they are successful they strengthen the probability that when the public awakening occurs on this subject, it will be chaotic, uncontrolled and violent.

This is not danger-mongering. Personally, my activity is directed towards averting an outcome of this kind. Also, outbursts of chaotic, uncontrolled and violent political behaviour are usually orchestrated. Nevertheless, Reynolds' responsibilities in this respect are already heavy.

Perhaps we should examine the history of the 'Chemtrailtrackingusa' sect of the "chemtrail" cult. It is especially informative to see what they have had to say in the course of events, since 'halva' is a member of this group!
=====================
Message 80722
"I would love to acquire a Grail SA-7 S.A.M. and just pull over on the side of the road one day and take out one of these freakin things!!! BOOM !!!"

message 87783
"I will commend anyone who actually takes one of these chemplanes out with a heatseeker. I mean I've noticed them for like ever now!! And am getting sick and tired of seeing this shit! It's obvious nobody seems to give a shit so that puts us in the worst and last resort type position. So I say nab one these fuckers outta the sky! And you succeed then I commend you!"

Message 89199
"My house was buzzed for ten minutes on Sunday afternoon by a small helicopter flying at tree-top level. The helicopter was low enough that it could have been brought down with a rifle and I have some friends who would not have hesitated to do so."

Message 90353
"Here at the
Grand Canyon they seem to be giving us a
break. Only very light spraying every few
days. Perhaps if one of us had a Stinger
we would have a few more tangible clues.
Did I say that?? Not my fault."

Message 96005
"hey, I got an idea: how about having an anti airplane gun, surely someone might have one, and wait for an heavy chemtrailed day with at least 5 airplanes at once and SHOOT them (in the gas tank, so it will not crash on people or houses) and have to mind the spraying mechanism to disable the pilot from stopping the spraying so the airplane will continue to spray as it lands, then the land around the plane will form giant cloud that will spread miles and miles and miles nobody will miss this one! but if its impossible to make them to press the spraying button to
make the landing look normal, then go ahead, shoot to make the planes EXPLODE in the air, so there will be a GIANT thick chemical nasty cloud every place there was the plane, and that cloud will surely fall down and everyone will notice it for sure"

Message 98015
"WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW! IF WE CAN PROVE THESE PLANES ARE SRPAYING US< THEN WE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND SHOULD TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES TO INDENTIFY AND DISMANTLE THESE PLANES! WHILE WE ARE AT IT, LETS JUST GET RID oF THE WHOLE DAMN COMMERCIAL AIRLINE INDUSTRY!! THERE NEEDS TO BE A RADICAL CHANGE, THINK ABOUT IT...WE CAN STOP THIS. SABOTAGE AND DESTROY ALL AIRCRAFT UNDER
OPERATION BY THE MILITARY AND COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN COVERT AEROSOL SPRAYING AND OPERATION CLOVERLEAF. iT IS A WEAPON AGAINST US AND THERE IS NOTHING SAYING OR STOPPING US FROM TAKING CARE Of THIS ON OUR OWN"

[jayreynolds]

since 'Sore' seems to be having problems coming to grips with answers to my questions, feel free to give them a shot.
Jay Reynolds

[halva]

I am at the moment reading the memoirs of Edward Teller, 'father of the hydrogen' bomb and of the Star Wars 'anti-missile shield' and author of the article 'The Planet needs a Sunscreen'.

A Hungarian of German education whose world was thrown into chaos by Germany's losing World War 1, Teller was one of the most vigorous advocates of the theory of 'nuclear deterrence'. The study of the factors that shaped the mentality of this man, who must have more responsibility than any other one person for the current state of the planet, is worthwhile for anyone who has the time and motivation to pursue it.

There must have been a synergy between the tragic elements of Teller's experience as a Hungarian, and a Hungarian Jew at that, (though not religious), and the peculiarities of the American polity, with its inbuilt legimitacy problem owing to its revolutionary origins and the constitutional doctrine of the 'sovereignty of the people' on which it was founded.

Teller grew up in a Hungary in the midst of a similar situation of non-legitimacy: the post-World War I Hungarian republic stripped of half its population and groping for a legitimacy comparable with that of the Austro-Hungarian constitutional monarchy.

The contradictory element in the doctrine of the 'sovereignty of the people' is that between sovereignty as a constitutional myth and sovereignty as a potential practical claim. There is always the possibility that some real political grouping may claim to speak on behalf of 'the people' and in so doing threaten 'the sovereignty of the people'.

Republican polities beset with this internal contradiction of 'popular sovereignty' are forced into continual improvisation and continual invention of enemies, external and internal.

Teller justified his work on the atomic bomb by the spectre of the Nazis gaining possession of it, a threat which proved illusory. After the Nazi defeat it was the Soviets who were said to be the threat, because of their potential to develop first atomic bombs and then hydrogen bombs. Although Stalin (like Hitler perhaps) was sceptical of the military utility of nuclear weapons, and regarded them as a device 'to frighten those with weak nerves', with enough political intransigence if proved possible for the USA to keep the Soviets on the nuclear weapons road and so keep in existence the threat so necessary for the internal cohesion of the American republic.

Teller ceased to be a team player after World War II, when there was a loss of interest among scientists at Los Alamos in pursuing nuclear weapons development. He had to lobby very hard to keep the hydrogen bomb project on the road, and more importantly, had to
begin to rely on the support of those outside his own peer group of scientists, among whom he was beginning to be stigmatised because of the role he had played in the Oppenheimer investigation. He changed from being a Democrat to being a Republican. More and more in the projects he pursued, he relied on mobilising the prejudices of rank-and-file scientifically uneducated Republicans.

Reynolds is a fine specimen of the type of person on whom Teller depended to secure approval for all his projects from the hydrogen bomb through Star Wars to the 'Sunshield' programme.

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds states:


I have reviewed the content of the several geoengineering articles posted. My reply is that none describe aerial operations which coincide with the general description of what are called 'chemtrails' by the majority of 'chemtrail" cultists. None describe actual air operations, all are speculative in nature. In essence, Mr. 'Sore' is asking the reader to make a 'leap of faith', to conclude that simply because, in his opinion, such a thing as geoengineering by spraying from airplanes is discussed, that means it is happening.

I guess he didn't read the articles, because what is being described from all across the country is precisely what is described in these articles.

Reynolds further attempts to belittle the value of the reports I present with the following:


I can also direct readers attention to numerous articles which declare that "chemtrails" are a form of missle defense, a biological death spray, or a weapon weilded by alien reptilian beings to alter human DNA.

Let's consider the sources of the reports I posted:

1. Edward Teller Advances Global Warming Cure

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

National Center for Policy Analysis


2. Sunscreen for Planet Earth
GLOBAL WARMING IS TOO SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE POLITICIANS

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/981/teller.html

The Hoover Institution


3. Climate Controls
If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a
moral outrage, we could cool the world.

By Gregory Benford

http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

Gregory Benford is a professor of physics at the University of California at Irvine

4. GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT
Jay Michaelson - Stanford University

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two

5. Climate Engineering
A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context, and possible impacts.

compiled for Scientists For Global Responsibility, November 1996
Ben Matthews

School of Environmental Sciences, UEA, Norwich


Not exactly the reptilian death weapon that Jay Reynolds would imply in his inept attempt to belittle and discredit these works.

Does he deny the existence of the precise climate change conditions that such studies propose to mitigate through geoengineering?

If so, he is very much in the scientific MINORITY today, akin to the "scientists" who claimed that tobbaco was not addictive, did not cause cancer. We all have memories of that fight. CEOs before Congress, testifying UNDER OATH, that they did not believe that tobacco was addictive.

Ah yes, we've all seen it before, IN SPADES !

And we remember.

And what was the motivation? GREED ! Profit! And no concern for public health and the lives that were destroyed.

Ah yes, WE REMEMBER !

And then, just as now there were the corporate henchmen, the paid apologists and lobbyists...

the Judas, taking their twenty pieces of sliver.

Ah Yes, WE Remember!

And it's not just their words...it's their STENCH!

[foot_soldier]

Does he deny the existence of the precise climate change conditions that such studies propose to mitigate through geoengineering?

Sure he does. It's his job. "jayreynolds" is no different than any of the other fascist right-wing trolls who consistently show up as soon as a serious discussion of climate change is launched on a new message board. Their one goal is to disrupt continuity and render threads too repellent for most people to consider participating in. He seems more aggressive than most - in fact, having read several of his posts here I have to say that (in my opinion) he's a bit of a sociopath to say the least. Normal human beings don't conduct themselves so rudely in a public venue.

Anyway, his type shows up everywhere that serious discussions of environmental issues are being attempted.

[halva]

Footsoldier, if you have any influence with Arianna Huffington or with the moderators here tell them to kick Reynolds' ass off this forum.

[jayreynolds]

Dear Readers,

As predicted, 'Sore', in his last posting, made no attempt at refuting any of my own assertions with FACTS supporting his case. He merely repeated the same url's as before to articles describing speculative IDEAS about aerial geoengineering, for he well knows none of the articles speaks about actual ACTS of aerial geoengineering taking place. The balance of his posting about tobacco is irrelevant, unless he now contends that tobacco is a form of covert atmospheric geoengineering!

Also as predicted, he completely dodged each of the ten simple questions put to him.

Repeatedly dodging these questions should send up red flags to anyone watching closely!

I will now explain exactly why 'Sore', 'foot soldier', and 'halva' won't touch my questions, and even have begun begging for my banning for repeating them.

===========================
1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

In five years, 'Sore' has never publicly discussed his name, his education, or his form of employment. He appears to be a 'shadow man', comprised totally of anonymous postings on messageboards, and incapable of personal action. He doesn't have strong enough conviction in his cause to even put his name to it. He did not cite an actual scientist with credibility that takes "chemtrails" seriously, because none exist.

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

'Sore' knows that no sound scientific information exists about "chemtrails".
The hoax is promoted by scientific illiterates, chemmie morons, outright fakes, and mental defectives. I can cite numerous examples, and 'Sore' knows it.

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

'Sore' was informed by me, in advance, about the American Aerosol Association's convention in his area and was encouraged by me to hire a small booth and present his claims to the relevant scientists. He refused to do so. This underscores the weakness of his case, he knows full well how ridiculous the "chemtrails" hoax appears to legitimate scientists. He hasn't real faith in his claims, and doesn't do genuine activism.

4. What is your personal definition of "chemtrails"?

I would have expected this question to be an easy one. For how can one debate an act if one does not first define the act, and how it can be recognized? The answer, however, is not so easy as it may appear to be, and 'Sore' knows exactly why he has to dodge it, at all costs
The reason he avoids this one is because when he recites characteristics the chemtrail cult calls a typical "chemtrail", the description is
EXACTLY THE SAME AS ORDINARY CONTRAILS!

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

This question is avoided by 'Sore' because 'chemtrail" cultists use an interesting ploy to lure in new members. They can hardly generate acrimony towards the portion of ordinary contrails which dissipate quickly, there is simply nothing to point a finger of suspicion towards. In defining 'chemtrails" they tend to exclude those that quickly dissipate.

However, for the same reasons as ordinary clouds persist, or not, ordinary contrails can stay visible for many hours in the sky. In general, despite this fact being known and explained for decades, "chemtrail" cultists generally insist that persistent trails seen in the sky are the "chemtrails", while those which dissipate quicker are ordinary contrails.
Typical propaganda in this respect can be seen in this photo from 'halva's'
sect which calls itself "ChemtrailtrackingUSA":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/

Were he to cite such a personal distinction, which he has done previously, he knows full well it can be countered by expert testimony, scientific literature, and historic photos dating back fifty years+ showing that persistence is an ordinary and explainable facet of normal contrails.

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

See (7) above.

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

There is none, see (6) and (7) above.

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

One would think this would be easy. There exist on the internet archives of thousands, if not tens of thousands of photos of alleged "chemtrails". However, archives of ordinary contrails also exist, some dating back to WWII. Here is a selection from the US National Archives, documented and filed with accession numbers on their faces:
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/wwiitrails.html
Here is another selection, many more recent spectacular photos:
http://com1.runboard.com/b13thcentury.fthenewdebunkatorium.t4

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

Thomas is simply incorrect, and 'Sore' knows it. Thomas was the driving force which established the "chemtrail" hoax five years ago. He is known to regularly mislead people with inaccurate information. Despite his record, he does produce a volume of 'noise' which is seized upon by cultists willing to use anything, even from discredited sources.

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?

I doubt that 'Sore' has written them, despite my recommendations that he do what would seem an 'activist' sort of thing to do! He knows full well that the authors, both those advocating and those against, would uniformly explain many reasons why aerial geoengineering is not taking place, and in some cases, could cite reasons for it's impracticality.
===================================

Pay close attention to see if 'Sore' is able to produce FACTUAL rebuttals to my explanations above. Most likely he will only attempt sarcasm, insinuation, speculation, or unsupported claims if he touches it at all.

A word of caution to 'Sore', if you choose to NOT rebut my assertions with facts, that choice is tantamount to conceding, by default, that they are accurate.

Readers competent to assess debate should recognize and pay close attention to how he handles this! :lol:

I call on 'Sore' to engage in factual debate, for thus far, no facts whatsover have been cited supporting his case. If you have facts instead of speculation, you had better begin to use them, for your speculation in the 'Bull' market has run into a 'Bear' of facts and is experiencing 'Diminishing' returns! 8)



Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote:
Footsoldier, if you have any influence with Arianna Huffington or with the moderators here tell them to kick Reynolds' ass off this forum.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Make no mistake about it. If I lived in 'halva's' village, I would have already been burned at the stake. :)

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

"Mr 'Sore', for five years now you have made claims that people are experiencing 'flu-like' symptoms and increased asthma due to "chemtrails". I notice that you have also survived and been able to continue to proselytize in the ensuing years.

If a person truly had a belief that the life of their family and themself was being endangered by aerial 'spraying', that they would have long ago begun to wear a gas mask. :shock:

11. Is it difficult to find suitable executive business attire that coordinates with the gas mask? :?

12. What sort of questions do people ask about the gas mask at the multinational pharmaceutical corporation where you work? :oops:

You can answer those last two questions privately if you like. :P

Jay Reynolds

[gaiacomm]

Mr. Reynolds:

Allow me to introduce myself to you...My name is Dr. Judah Ben-Hur.
You may wish to due a diligence on me first before we begin.

I have done one on you.

If you wish to direct your questions to me concerning geoengineering I will attempt to answer what I can.

I am more than qualified to debate the subject in either direction.

I may even be able to discuss chemtrails as well!

I trust the below statement that I pasted here is accurate!
Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues.

[gaiacomm]

Mr. Reynolds:

This may be old news,Try this for now!


Livermore researchers determine biosphere unaffected by geoengineering schemes
Using models that simulate the interaction between global climate and land ecosystems, atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have shown that compensating for the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect" by decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) could create a more vigorous ecosystem while helping to curb global warming.

The study suggests that planetary-scale engineering projects to lessen the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface will likely do little to prevent the effects of increased greenhouse gases on the terrestrial biosphere. In fact, plants could experience growth spurts.

In a paper entitled: "Impact of Geoengineering Schemes on the Terrestrial Biosphere," Livermore researchers Bala Govindasamy, Starley Thompson, Philip Duffy, Ken Caldeira and University of Wisconsin collaborator Christine Delire, modeled the impact on Earth's land biosphere due to various schemes that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface. The research appears in the Nov. 26 online edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Our models show plant life getting a big boost from the carbon dioxide fertilization when atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled due to anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions," Govindasamy said. "We noticed that in a CO2-enriched world, the terrestrial biosphere was largely unaffected by decreases in surface solar radiation by a couple of percentage points through various geoengineering schemes."

In earlier research, scientists have maintained that greenhouse gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels are one of the largest sources of global warming because they cause an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methods to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide vary from storing it in the deep ocean to reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) that could largely counteract the warming influence of more greenhouse gases.

"Critics suggested that 'turning down the sun' could harm terrestrial ecosystems that depend on light for photosynthesis, but this new work shows that a change in solar flux to stabilize climate would have little effect on the terrestrial biosphere," Caldeira said. "In fact, turning down the sun a bit reduces evaporation and therefore gives the plants more water for photosynthesis so that they may actually grow better in a geoengineered world than they do today."

The researchers, however, strongly caution against adopting any geoengineering scheme because "there are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization." Among these are the risks of system failure and unpredictable responses of Earth's climate system to large-scale human intervention ecosystems.

"First, geoengineering schemes impose a variety of technical, political and economic challenges. International consensus to develop and maintain the schemes would be difficult. Failure of a scheme could be catastrophic," said Govindasamy said. "CO2 fertilization could impact ecosystem goods and services not represented by our land biosphere model, such as plant species abundance and competition, habitat loss, biodiversity and other disturbances."

The LLNL-led group used a general circulation model coupled to a model of land vegetation to conclude that the change in solar flux needed to stabilize climate would have little effect on net primary productivity in land.

Contact: Anne Stark
stark8@llnl.gov
925-422-9799
DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

I thought it might at least get an opinion. And yes I got it from the internet. Libraries are somewhat time consuming and are closed on Sunday's.

[Sore Throat]

This is what I do know.

I have witnessed contails forming behind high altitude jet aircraft all of my life.

With but a brief two year period during college, I have lived my entire life on the Pacific Coast of California, primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I am well aware of the climate of this area.

In 1999, there was a sudden, dramatic change in the characteristics of SOME of the trails being left by SOME aircraft.

The principal differentiation was their high degree of persistence, allowing them to stretch horizon-to-horizon, lasting for literally hours, dissipating only gradually to form a high level whispy cirrus-like cloud cover.

This, I know without a doubt, I had not previously experienced in my life.

This FACT I know.

I began using atmospheric soundings to determine whether or not such persistence was reasonable based on EMPERICAL EVIDENCE of actually MEASURED ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.

What became increasingly obvious was that on frequent occasions such persistent trails would be laid down on days when local atmospheric soundings would indicate far less than ideal conditions for such contail persistence. The local soundings, taken from balloons released from the Oakland Airport, with data published on the Internet, are obtained twice a day. These provide a consistent, objective measurement of atmospheric conditions. These measurement can be further characterized by regional weather and satellite shots of pressure and humidity aloft.

The inconsistencies rapidly became apparent.

Persistent trails would form when the area was experiencing extremely DRY conditions with HIGH PRESSURE.

I doubt anyone discussing this issue HONESTLY would argue that such conditions are conducive to contral persistence.

In the San Francisco Bay Area there are three major airports...Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose.

Air traffic patterns are well established and regulated...and by and large, daily air traffic is a relative constant (with of course the exceptional periods when our air defense systems allow terrorists to fly hijacked airplanes into buildings).

Assuming that the laws of atmospheric science are a constant (which I BELIEVE they are), and that on a daily basis there is a relatively constant flow of air traffic, then one would reasonably expect the horizon-to-horizon trails to ALWAYS exist when the MEASURED (these are FACTS now) CONDITIONS are comparable.

The FACT is, that is not the case. There are many, many days, when MEASURED atmospheric conditions are MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE to highly persistent contrails...and yet, they simply aren't produced under those conditions.

WHY NOT?

If the debunkers argue that such trails are PERFECTLY NORMAL, and are simply ice crystals in the cold of the high altitude atmosphere, why can't they reasonably explain the variability that exists?

Remember, we're talking about the same day in and day out aircraft leaving persistent trails on days when ALL EMPERICAL EVIDENCE would indicate that they should not exist...

and on other days, when MEASURED ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS would be MUCH MORE FAVORABLE to contral persistence, they simply dissipate within a minute or so, just like we have known ALL OF OUR LIVES.

THEY CAN'T explain this...and they never have.


And for the record, I don't claim to know WHY OUR GOVERNMENT IS ENGAGED IN SUCH A PROGRAM....and I never have said that I know.

I do believe that accelerating global climate change could be a rationale for such a mitigation effort, it certainly does not prove that this is actually the reason for what we are seeing.

It could simply be a cover for a far more nefarious black project.

One other observation, Jay Reynolds has no data collected at altitude, that proves that ALL that we are seeing from ALL AIRCRAFT is only normal aircraft exhaust.

And that too, is a FACT.

And if he does claim to have such data, well then it only further proves what he really is.

[jayreynolds]

"Dr. Judah Ben Hur" wrote:
"It is high time I and others like me use
our intellect and technology to stand up against an oppressor and rid
ourselves of this infection.
O Muslims, muster your resolve and hit the embassies of America, England, Australia and Norway, their interests, their companies and their employees ... Set the ground ablaze under their feet... Kick these criminals out of your homelands.


If you want to get a rise out of the DRAGON then you must go into the cave where it is and kill its food supply and its offspring while it sleeps or is out of the cave searching and destroying other villages.

Once the dragon is dead then your homelands will once again belong to whoever ALLAH has given it to.

Remember, you will NEVER conquer any of these lands until you slay the dragon!

In the holy name of ALLAH I ask of you all, the ones that REALLY are not AFRAID to DIE to join a new coalition of individuals whose mission is one that I have been writing on.

A Jihad on a global scale is required without fear of death from all peoples that share this common thread of FREEDOM. I for one am willing to give up my life so that others may drink the cup of life.

The United States of America is in its last days like a bull in the ring with the matador right before the sword is plunged.

We scientists have been used by many corporations and governments and I guess the creation has now decided to turn on its creator.

My people sometimes call me an Inman for whatever reason, but I promise you without fear of death I will use whatever means at my disposal to vanquish any oppressor that causes any pain to any religious group, PERIOD!

I am not a terrorist but a scientist who has technology at his disposal that is far superior to any B-52 or any other so-called weapon.

The advantage I have as stated earlier, is I have assets, technology, secrets, and a willingness to be put to death during the struggle."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001893-2.html

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

I hope that you will post everything about me rather than a calculated portion. Its important for you to tell the whole truth about me.
Why just post sections?

And I stand behind every word and statement I have ever made. I also take full responsibility and accountability for my actions as well.

When do we debate or discuss geoengineering or is this forum used to throw stones at glass houses?

I will not cast a stone in return!

[jayreynolds]

As predicted, 'Sore' emerged to show us:

-not claims supported by factual documentation
-not claims supported by research
-not claims supported by meticulous recordkeeping
-not claims supported by notarized affidavits
-not claims supported by charts
-not claims supported by graphs
-not claims supported by instrumentation
-not claims supported by expert witnesses
-not claims supported by standard photography
-not claims supported by telescopic photography
-not claims supported by atmospheric soundings
-not claims supported by satellite imagery
-not claims supported by skew-T charts
-not claims supported by atmospheric pressure maps
-not claims supported by measured atmospheric conditions

What 'Sore' just posted were many claims supported by, you guessed it-
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT FAITH

Here is what readers are left with when the excess wording is taken out:

-"I have witnessed"
-"I have lived"
-"I am well aware"
-"I know without a doubt"
-"I began using atmospheric soundings"
-"I BELIEVE"
-"I don't claim"(yeah, right)
-"I do believe"

IN OTHER WORDS, "TAKE MY WORD FOR IT"

-he doesn't even put his real name behind his claims
-he doesn't even show proof that he lives California
-he doesn't show proof he isn't just a high school student trolling
-he didn't even take the golden opportunity to present before the nation's leading aerosol scientists, which he could have done easily
-he didn't even write a report
-he didn't even create a website like most "chemtrail" cultists do

Dear readers, I have watched this jelly- minded 'Sore' for the past five years. We have debated many times. To the novice, coming upon his claims for the first time, one could actually think the person genuinely believes what he is writing.

Nothing at all could be further from the truth.

What he has really accomplished in all his tenure, besides posts on
chem-cult messageboards?

'Sore', in five years of alleged 'research', has just shown the public the sum total of all that he has acquired. It's all right there above in his last posting.

NOTHING BUT HOLLOW CLAIMS

At the end, 'Sore' finally comes clean, here's the bottom line:


'Sore' wrote:
I do believe that accelerating global climate change could be a rationale for such a mitigation effort, it certainly does not prove that this is actually the reason for what we are seeing.

Dear readers, in the final analysis, 'Sore' comes up a wannabe. Just another pathetic "chemtrail" cultist, a one-dimensional cardboard cutout, blown over by the quickest wind of truth. This is the truth about chemtrails you always wanted to know about, folks. It's just a bunch of freaks bleating on internet messageboards, bits on a screen, with no foundation in reality at all.

Jay Reynolds

[gaiacomm]

Mr. Reynolds:

Do you have a comment on this?


Livermore researchers determine biosphere unaffected by geoengineering schemes
Using models that simulate the interaction between global climate and land ecosystems, atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have shown that compensating for the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect" by decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) could create a more vigorous ecosystem while helping to curb global warming.

The study suggests that planetary-scale engineering projects to lessen the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface will likely do little to prevent the effects of increased greenhouse gases on the terrestrial biosphere. In fact, plants could experience growth spurts.

In a paper entitled: "Impact of Geoengineering Schemes on the Terrestrial Biosphere," Livermore researchers Bala Govindasamy, Starley Thompson, Philip Duffy, Ken Caldeira and University of Wisconsin collaborator Christine Delire, modeled the impact on Earth's land biosphere due to various schemes that would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface. The research appears in the Nov. 26 online edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Our models show plant life getting a big boost from the carbon dioxide fertilization when atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled due to anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions," Govindasamy said. "We noticed that in a CO2-enriched world, the terrestrial biosphere was largely unaffected by decreases in surface solar radiation by a couple of percentage points through various geoengineering schemes."

In earlier research, scientists have maintained that greenhouse gases emitted from the burning of fossil fuels are one of the largest sources of global warming because they cause an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methods to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide vary from storing it in the deep ocean to reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet (geoengineering) that could largely counteract the warming influence of more greenhouse gases.

"Critics suggested that 'turning down the sun' could harm terrestrial ecosystems that depend on light for photosynthesis, but this new work shows that a change in solar flux to stabilize climate would have little effect on the terrestrial biosphere," Caldeira said. "In fact, turning down the sun a bit reduces evaporation and therefore gives the plants more water for photosynthesis so that they may actually grow better in a geoengineered world than they do today."

The researchers, however, strongly caution against adopting any geoengineering scheme because "there are many reasons why geoengineering is not a preferred option for climate stabilization." Among these are the risks of system failure and unpredictable responses of Earth's climate system to large-scale human intervention ecosystems.

"First, geoengineering schemes impose a variety of technical, political and economic challenges. International consensus to develop and maintain the schemes would be difficult. Failure of a scheme could be catastrophic," said Govindasamy said. "CO2 fertilization could impact ecosystem goods and services not represented by our land biosphere model, such as plant species abundance and competition, habitat loss, biodiversity and other disturbances."

The LLNL-led group used a general circulation model coupled to a model of land vegetation to conclude that the change in solar flux needed to stabilize climate would have little effect on net primary productivity in land.

Contact: Anne Stark
stark8@llnl.gov
925-422-9799
DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

I thought it might at least get an opinion. And yes I got it from the internet. Libraries are somewhat time consuming and are closed on Sunday's.



J.R.

Do you have a thought about this pasted article from the internet?

[foot_soldier]

Footsoldier, if you have any influence with Arianna Huffington or with the moderators here tell them to kick Reynolds' ass off this forum.

I don't have any influence with anyone connected with this venue, I'm sorry. I'm here because I was interested in what people had to say about Ms. Huffington's recent column re: the current administration's orientation to the climate change issue. It seems this thread has become a platform for some kind of personal vendetta - not what I expected. But frankly I'm not all that surprised to see yet another climate change discussion thread taken over by someone like "jayreynolds". As I said before, he's only one of many of this type whose main purpose is to ruin thread continuity by bringing in all kinds of unrelated garbage.

The article re: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories' recent study concluding that atmospheric geo-engineering [solar insolation management specifically, I guess] would not adversely affect Earth's biosphere seems to indicate that there is in fact a protocol of this nature at least under very serious consideration if not already being implemented. Actually, given the appalling proliferation of jet emissions these days I wouldn't be surprised if either there are just too many planes in the air now or there is in fact some kind of project underway to reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation. It sure looks like that kind of a project in progress would probably look.

[gaiacomm]

Yes, you are correct with your assumptions. There are many programs underway of which some are regulated and some not.

There have been many attempts to re-stablize the environment by using methods that are in some cases just ideas.

But yet they are being attempted.

There are pages and pages of data on the internet that can be researched to give an overview of current geoengineering activities.

Many schools of engineering are now offering degree programs in various
fields to continue the investigation and correction of this planets biosphere.

Some programs are funded thru various federal and private grants with individual agendas.

[gaiacomm]

SoreThroat:

I have read your various posts and I find them to have good insight and valuable information for the novice and professional. I have found your opinions and concerns valuable and enlightening.

Keep up the good work and don't let the stones get in your way!

[gaiacomm]

I have also had the pleasure to debate and discuss issues with Halva on other forums. Halva is also well informed and sincere in his path of reasoning. Halva has also provided me with a wealth of information on chemtrails and other political issues. I respect his opinion as well.

We should keep this thread on the issues at hand and not stray into futile debate on issues of ego and control. The environment is a serious concern and any help from us all should prove helpful for Arianna's cause.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

When you cut and paste an article from the internet you should allow it to remain in its original context. This will give the reader an accurate account of the original text rather than one that has been dressed up for effect! I refer to the one you posted on Dr. Judah Ben-Hur.

[foot_soldier]

There are many programs underway of which some are regulated and some not.

Do you include deep-marine and terrestrial CO2 sequestration in your statement quoted above? How about ionization of the atmosphere over urban areas in order to mitigate ozone pollution? Thanks.

[gaiacomm]

There are many programs underway of which some are regulated and some not.

Do you include deep-marine and terrestrial CO2 sequestration in your statement quoted above? How about ionization of the atmosphere over urban areas in order to mitigate ozone pollution? Thanks.


Answer:

Without getting into too much detail at this point there are programs abound that are engaged in deep marine C02 seguestration: Example: http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/deep/release.htm

There are other sites on the internet thru various grants and univerisites that are very active in finding causes and solutions.

There also have been studies conducted to ionize the upper layers above 30 Kilometers to mitigate ozone pollution. Ozone in its natural state is conducive to the environment. The airborne products that are injected into the upper layers of the atmosphere have caused in some cases ireversable damage to various delicate layers of the atmosphere.

We as users of the oxygen content for our lifeforce are slowly posioning ourselves with our own technology improvements.

We are also removing our plant life which we need to live and exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide with no replacement in site.

[gaiacomm]

foot_soldier:

You ask some very good questions. I am impressed that you too offer good insight into issues that concern us all.

Thank you for being you!

[halva]

Quote:
'Sore' wrote:
I do believe that accelerating global climate change could be a rationale for such a mitigation effort, it certainly does not prove that this is actually the reason for what we are seeing.

Reynolds wrote:
Dear readers, in the final analysis, 'Sore' comes up a wannabe. Just another pathetic "chemtrail" cultist, a one-dimensional cardboard cutout, blown over by the quickest wind of truth. This is the truth about chemtrails you always wanted to know about, folks. It's just a bunch of freaks bleating on internet messageboards, bits on a screen, with no foundation in reality at all.

halva writes:

I have expended much effort trying to persuade Sore Throat that the fact that 'chemtrails' (or the peculiar and high-density aircraft emissions that we have been giving that name) may be serving purposes other than
(as well as?) climate mitigation is not a reason for not linking the examination of them with the climate change debate, which is an ongoing debate extending far beyond the circles of those talking about the strange phenomena they are seeing in the sky.

The 'chemtrails' debate does not deserve to be in the ghetto it is in, to a great extent due to the diligent exertions over five years and more of individuals like Reynolds.

It is revealing that Reynolds seizes on this remark of Sore Throat, (which in the past would have been a reason for Sore Throat not to join in the present discussion), and attempts to discredit him on the basis of it.

There are good grounds for Reynolds' being concerned that those opposing his lies about what is happening in the sky and those opposing his uninformed or disinforming stance on climate change might come together in a common front.

[Sore Throat]

Jay Reynolds states:


Dear readers, in the final analysis, 'Sore' comes up a wannabe. Just another pathetic "chemtrail" cultist, a one-dimensional cardboard cutout, blown over by the quickest wind of truth. This is the truth about chemtrails you always wanted to know about, folks. It's just a bunch of freaks bleating on internet messageboards, bits on a screen, with no foundation in reality at all.

As long as we're at it, let me provide a few additional indisputable FACTS:

It is true I have posted my concerns about the modification of our atmosphere for five years.

Reynolds has been present that entire time as well, and his litany remains the same. "Everything is normal. Nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Anyone who thinks so is a crazed cultist. Don't believe what you see. Your memories of the sky are not valid. You MUST accept MY POINT OF VIEW."

That has been Jay Reynolds' constant dirge.

And this has come in the most bullying way possible.

A reasonable person would have to ask why anyone would spend so much time involved with something that they consider a complete fantasy?

What could possibly be the payoff?

Maybe that is the key word... PAYOFF.

In any event, think about it.

Who do you know that spends their daily waking moments focused entirely on arguing that something, ANYTHING, is not real?

It's never any made sense to me.

Here are some other facts:

The United States government has engaged in spraying harmful substances on unsuspecting, and non-consenting American citizens. These activities have caused deaths and illness. The government has suppressed the release of any information about these projects for decades.

Does Reynolds acknowledge this FACT?

Does he condone such activities?


For many years Reynolds has visciously attacked those expressing concerns about climate change.

Has Reynolds changed his long held position on this subject? ...or does he stubbornly adhere to his position that "global warming is a hoax"?

Will he even acknowledge making such claims?

These are relevant points to the discussion of ChemTrails.

Let's watch and judge the honesty of Jay Reynolds on these matters.

Here's another Truth.

I have NO DATA that I have personnal collected from actual contrails at altitude.

That's right... NONE. Nor have I ever claimed to have any.

Reynolds knows full well that I have posted suspect satellite shots, Skew-T data (atmospheric sounds) over the years.

But no actual chemical and biological analyses of samples take at altitude.

Nor am I aware of anyone who has.

It's a truly unfortunate reality...as these samples could shed a great deal of light on the issue we are discussing.

The fact of the matter is, this is NOT a study that will be supported by the government, or agencies or institutions dependent on ongoing government financial support.

If we are to obtain such samples it will have to be done through a privately funded effort, and it will be a non-trival expense.

If there are readers of this board who would like to wipe that smug smile off the face of Jay Reynolds and are in a position to provide the necessary financial support for a project of this type, please contact Mrs. Huffington.

Very quickly there could be a major breakthrough in real data on what is being released into our atmosphere...and the air we must breathe.

I would be happy to lend my support to such an activity.

[/b]

[foot_soldier]

File this with Ms. Huffington's recent column:

March 8, 2004

Scientist 'gagged' by No 10 after warning of global warming threat
By Steve Connor and Andrew Grice
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=499013

Downing Street tried to muzzle the Government's top scientific adviser after he warned that global warming was a more serious threat than international terrorism.

Ivan Rogers, Mr Blair's principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush's policy on climate change.

In January, Sir David wrote a scathing article in the American journal Science attacking Washington for failing to take climate change seriously. "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," he wrote.

Support for Sir David's view came yesterday from Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, who said the environment was at least as important a threat as global terrorism. He told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost: "I think we still overestimate the danger of terror. There are other things that are of equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the environmental global risks."

Since Sir David's article in Science was published, No 10 has tried to limit the damage to Anglo-American relations by reining in the Prime Minister's chief scientist.

In a leaked memo, Mr Rogers ordered Sir David - a Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministers - to decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4's Today .

"To accept such bids runs the risk of turning the debate into a sterile argument about whether or not climate change is a greater risk," Mr Rogers said in the memo, which was sent to Sir David's office in February. "This sort of discussion does not help us achieve our wider policy aims ahead of our G8 presidency [next year]." The move will be seized on by critics of Mr Blair's stance over the Iraq war as further evidence that he is too subservient to the Bush administration. It will also be seen as an attempt to bolster the Prime Minister's case for pre-emptive strikes to combat the threat of international terrorism, which he outlined in a speech on Friday.

Sir David, who is highly regarded by Mr Blair, has been primed with a list of 136 mock questions that the media could ask if they were able to get access to him, and the suggested answers he should be prepared to give. One question asks: "How do the number of deaths caused by climate change and terrorism compare?" The stated answer that Sir David is expected to give says: "The value of any comparison would be highly questionable - we are talking about threats that are intrinsically different."

If Sir David were to find himself pushed to decide whether terrorism or climate change was the greater threat, he was supposed to answer: "Both are serious and immediate problems for the world today." But this was not what Sir David said on the Today programme on 9 January when the Science article was published.

Asked to explain how he had come to the conclusion that global warming was more serious than terrorism, Sir David replied that his equation was "based on the number of fatalities that have already occurred" - implying that global warming has already killed more people than terrorism.

The leaked memo came to light after a computer disk was discovered by an American freelance journalist, Mike Martin, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle, where Sir David gave a lecture.

"The disk was lying on the top of a computer in the press room and I popped it into the machine to see what was on it," said Mr Martin, whose own article is published on the ScienceNow website, an online service operated by Science.

Mr Rogers' memo, written a few days before the Seattle conference, was aimed at limiting his exposure to questions from US and British media. While in Seattle, Sir David sat on a panel of scientists at one carefully stage-managed press conference, but his press office said he was too busy to give interviews afterwards to journalists.

Lucy Brunt-Jenner, Sir David's press officer, said she could not comment on internal government documents but said it would be wrong to suggest that Sir David was in any way muzzled. "Sir David had a press conference and he was available to the media at three times," Ms Brunt-Jenner said.

But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, said: "It's a clear attempt by the Prime Minister to keep Sir David quiet. The Government's chief scientist is the nation's chief scientist and I'd expect him to say what he thinks."

It sure is interesting to watch our world leaders falling all over themselves to keep lids on information that so many are already acutely aware of.

[foot_soldier]

Sore Throat wrote:


For many years Reynolds has viciously attacked those expressing concerns about climate change.

Has Reynolds changed his long held position on this subject? ...or does he stubbornly adhere to his position that "global warming is a hoax"?

From the look of his tabloid-style website it would seem that attacking those concerned about climate change is a full-time job for "jayreynolds". And anybody who would use the rather extreme descriptor "hoax" in reference to such a complicated issue is coming from a very limited (and deliberate) frame of reference in my opinion. Why do people even bother to argue with someone like this? I don't get it. As far as I can tell he's a just very entrenched member of a very small minority at this point. People may be unsure of how we are going to deal with this issue but I don't think there are many people left who would completely deny that we do have a problem.

Gaiacomm, thank you for the reference link to CO2 sequestration.

[halva]

The reason that people bother to argue with Reynolds is that he invades any forum from which he has not been banned (and banning him requires considerable determination and persistence even from the narrowly technical viewpoint) launching personal attacks of the kind you have have seen. Would it have been possible for me not to respond, on a forum where I am an unknown newcomer, to allegations that I deliberately conspired with Will Thomas to foist on the public fake photomontage of 'chemtrail' planes?

That was Reynold's opening shot, in relation to me, when he came here.

[jayreynolds]

Yes, halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas.

Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?

Do you think now that it has helped your cause?

Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?

Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?

If so, prove that you did, let us see his response.

It looks to me like an intentional act of deception.

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

'Sore' wrote:
"I have NO DATA that I have personnal collected from actual contrails at altitude.
That's right... NONE. Nor have I ever claimed to have any.
But no actual chemical and biological analyses of samples take at altitude.
Nor am I aware of anyone who has.
It's a truly unfortunate reality...as these samples could shed a great deal of light on the issue we are discussing.
The fact of the matter is, this is NOT a study that will be supported by the government, or agencies or institutions dependent on ongoing government financial support.
If we are to obtain such samples it will have to be done through a privately funded effort, and it will be a non-trival expense.
If there are readers of this board who would like to wipe that smug smile off the face of Jay Reynolds and are in a position to provide the necessary financial support for a project of this type, please contact Mrs. Huffington.
Very quickly there could be a major breakthrough in real data on what is being released into our atmosphere...and the air we must breathe.
I would be happy to lend my support to such an activity."

Let us examine his conclusion:

"I would be happy to lend my support to such an activity."

But does 'Sore' actually lend his own personal support, or regularly solicit support from his fellow believers?
Is he telling us the truth, or just 'blowing smoke'?

The particular sect of the chemtrail cult which 'Sore' belongs to, 'Chemtrailcentral.com', exhibits text which claims the group has-
1866 members

Consider the following:
1866 members times $1.00 each per day= $1866.00 per day
not enough money yet, 'Sore'?
$1866.00 per day times one year= $1866.00 x 365 days=$681,090.00
Not enough money yet, 'Sore'?
$681,090.00 times five years= 3 million 405 thousand,four hundred fifty dollars
This is the amount that you really should have, 'Sore':
$3,405,450.00 !!!!!!!

A rather large sum, which most would consider a small fortune, certainly sufficient to hire a professional environmental firm to properly conduct aerial surveys, carefully document in situ sampling of several contrails, conduct a professional analysis of the sample, and write a report. You could probably buy the damn plane with that kind of stash!

I closely read as much of the forum at 'Chemtrailcentral.com' as possible.
No such fund has been collected, and no effort is underway to create one, not by 'Sore', or anyone else.

By his own INACTION regarding what should be considered the "Holy Grail" of "chemtrails, 'Sore" reveals that to collect actual samples and analysis is NOT on his agenda.

In his previous post during this debate, 'Sore' has made it quite clear he has no proof that "chemtrails" are anything other than normal contrails.

He has stated uncategorically that it is his "BELIEF".

I submit to you, the readers, that the reason 'Sore', and each of the 1866
others have not begun a sample program is that they simply do not wish to challenge their "BELIEF".

After all, how many religions would actually fund studies that could disprove their beliefs?

This leads us to ask, "Well just what IS the agenda of 'Sore' and the other 1865 members of 'chemtrailcentral'?

Are they really trying to solve a conundrum?
No, if that were true, they would have begun collecting money for the sampling long ago.

Then what exactly is 'Sore' doing here?
Since he has no actual proof(he said it already), and he has no interest in getting the proof he knows he should get(he demonstrated that above), there must be another reason.

From "Warning Signs of a Destructive Cult"
"A destructive cult has only two basic purposes: recruiting new members and fund-raising."

I submit that, other than generating money for the sellers of "chemtrail" related material, the only other purpose of the "chemtrail" cult is to recruit members.

I ask 'Sore' to demonstrate what other tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?

Jay Reynolds

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

It seems to me in my opnion that you are avoiding the questions and answers yourself. Deflecting the issues unto someone else, judging someone without all the facts, and spending so much time in writing your well thought out responses is only leading to wasting space and time on this forum.

The planet is still spinning and needs our support, people everywhere are suffering and dying for whatever reason, the environment is clogging lungs and destroying our kidney's with posioned water. Your scientific help is needed. You are a scientist, remember? It is your duty to serve and not to be served.

J.R., you seem to be quite intelligent at least it seems that way.

With a degree and experience in what you have would also add some credit to you but you waste so much energy attacking and defending a futile position.

Why not conserve it and join us all in saving our planet and gaining control of our government that is spinning out of control!

Maybe in your own words you could kindly help us all in answereing your own questions or at least point us in the direction in finding them ourseleves.

Cease the attacks on us and join in the debate with honest dialogue!

J.R. its ok to be human! Nobody will laugh.



Below are your words:
not claims supported by factual documentation
-not claims supported by research
-not claims supported by meticulous recordkeeping
-not claims supported by notarized affidavits
-not claims supported by charts
-not claims supported by graphs
-not claims supported by instrumentation
-not claims supported by expert witnesses
-not claims supported by standard photography
-not claims supported by telescopic photography
-not claims supported by atmospheric soundings
-not claims supported by satellite imagery
-not claims supported by skew-T charts
-not claims supported by atmospheric pressure maps
-not claims supported by measured atmospheric conditions

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

While re-reading your various posts something caught my eye once again.

This a cut and paste from the original post without tamper:

What 'Sore' just posted were many claims supported by, you guessed it-
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT FAITH

Here is what readers are left with when the excess wording is taken out:

-"I have witnessed"
-"I have lived"
-"I am well aware"
-"I know without a doubt"
-"I began using atmospheric soundings"
-"I BELIEVE"
-"I don't claim"(yeah, right)
-"I do believe"

J.R., it was the faith that caught my attention. As a Physicist myself I first need FAITH in order to come up with ideas and with FAITH the proof of my ideas always follows!

Thank you for re-establishing that fact!

There should be more Sore's on this planet that have that type convictions!

[amber]

Contrail Man; your constant use of the word cult in relation to Chemtrail's is getting really boring. Did you happen to get your academic qualifications whilst held in a psychiatric unit, by any chance? Because any institution that granted you any form of degree must have lowered their standards by several miles. You come across, even via a keyboard, as foaming at the mouth and drooling pools of saliva. Please for all our sakes, start taking the medication again. :wink:

The majority of people involved in the chemtrail boards were not struck by some divine message saying 'I am the god of chemtrails, follow me and I will give you the keys to the kingdom'. Only a neanderthal would believe that and keep repeating it.

Chemtrails are a matter of observation not belief. Continued observation by normal sane people. Decent people.

Contrail Man insists we provide scientific proof as though scientists are men of high moral standing and the holders of truth. We must believe scientists, because they ARE scientists ie we have to have faith that they will not lie to us, mislead us and will do what's in the interests of humanity.

Just like Josef Mengele, the nazi SS doctor, who in the name of science chose who got to live and die at Auschwitz. This scientist who in the name of science experimented on twins; killing them sometimes just to prove a scientific point to another scientist; sending their eyeballs in through the post to his mentor, in the name of science; and a thousand other dispicable acts of evil experimentation...all in the name of science.

In court observation..ie witness testimony, is accepted as evidence. Also in court both prosecution and defence both hire their own scientific experts....Why does each side need an expert in the same field? Surely the truth is the truth? If the two scientists are looking at the same evidence in court, why is there a dispute over the meaning?

Science and scientists are fallible, and should not therefore be seen as the only way to discuss issues. People's experience and observations cannot be lightly dismissed...if it is good enough for a court of law, it's good enough for JR.

A woman over here in the Uk, has just been released from prison after years. Her two children died from cot death/SIDS. An expert scientist at her trial hid evidence that would have cleared her of murdering her children...because he was THE expert and there was no one to challenge him. They are are now investigating all the cases that he was involved with, for similar miscarriages of justice.

And who can forget our Doctor Shipman? A scientist, a doctor who the authorities refused to challenge when the death count of his patients forced a local undertakers to query it with the police. No other scientist would investigate him because he was a doctor, beyond reproach and INCAPABLE of murder! It is now estimated that before he was caught that he murderd up to 500 people...many of whom could have been saved, if the notion that a scientist cannot do wrong wasn't part of our psyche.

The families of Shipman's victims observed his odd behaviour and questioned it long before the authorities got their 'scientific' proof. Had those observations been acted upon, families would still be together.

I think you get my point.

[gaiacomm]

Amber:

I hope this link points a direction for you:

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/

[gaiacomm]

Seekers:

Here is another link of interest:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309088658/html/

[gaiacomm]

Seekers:

A final link for those who are interested in weather mod.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309090539/html/

I hope these few links I have posted and with statements I have made will at least foster honest dialogue between you all and bring about an exchange of information that can be used to better ones self and others around you.

Technology has once again allowed us all to communicate with each other globally and share our ideas with each other.

Ariannas forum should be used as a vessel of thought provoking information exchange rather than a place to pretend. There are forums on the net that allow for that type of exchange.

All of you have important issues to discuss and with reason to.

Combine your knowledge and resources with each other and see the power that is created.

Knowledge is power as you all know!

Forgive the ones that are ignorant of their own ignorance and help those that ask!

Stay informed and never give up the fight for TRUTH!

Goodbye! :idea:

[jayreynolds]

Dear Readers,

Isn't it interesting that NOT ONE of those who claim to believe in "chemtrails" will even attempt to answer these three brief, simple, and basic questions?

Not 'Sore', not 'amber', not 'halva', not 'foot soldier'?

Why are they so shy about?

Could it be that these questions open a bag of worms, a pandora's box,
do they lead down a path these people are afraid of?

What is it about these questions that makes them sooooooo hard?

THAT is somethig to think about!

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions, if you dare.

Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

'Sore' began by stating his affirmative in debate:

"The key question is whether such contrails are in fact artifically enhanced through burning rich engine mixtures, high sulfur content fuel, metallic particles and/or polymers, is still an issue of debate."

He has only thus far approached the one item, "burning rich engine mixtures".

I countered with the facts that gas turbine engines burning rich:
-would have to be purposefully set that way, defeating specifications rigidly enforced in the aircraft industry
-make smoke, which would be visible to the naked eye
-have decreased range, which would be noticed by pilots compared to published range
-have increased fuel costs, which would be detectable statistically
-have increased fouling with soot and smoke, causing maintenance problems

All of those symptoms would be items that could be researched and tested, then published or rejected, none have or ever will be examined by the "chemtrail" cult.

Thus far, 'Sore' hasn't addressed his other claims:

1.High sulfur content fuel
2.metallic particles
3.polymers

You didn't think I was going to let those claims slide, did you, 'Sore'?

I challenge you to elaborate, show supposed 'proof' or claimed 'facts' about those, not just idle speculation in a popular magazine. Surely in your five long arduous years of 'research' you have something tangible to offer in support of these 'three pillars' of your "chemtrail" claims?

Also, tell us exactly which section of the document called
"Chemtrails Over America"(url below) did you take part in creating, and which part do you support as being accurate at this time?


http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa


Jay Reynolds

[jayreynolds]

Hello, 'amber'.

You sound like a very angry person right, now. Maybe you need to take a powder, my dear. Snuggle up in uncle jay-jay's armchair.

Now, relax, and let's discuss a little about the source of your anger.

While this forum was created, as you can see at the top of this page-
for "debate", you haven't availed yourself of any substantive debate, honey.

You have short-circuited what this forum is all about, dumpling. I know, I know, you feel inadequate in debate because, well, after all, your old buddy chem11 isn't going to come bail you out. Here you can't just ban me when I ask tough questions, and yes, face the facts, you really don't have any and never will, have you?

All these are due to your own inadequacy, which is what has really gotten your panties in a twist, right, sweetie? It wasn't really about me at all. It could have been anybody, and likely it is almost everybody. Your own family doesn't believe that stuff about "chemtrails", so why should I or anybody else?

As for your buddies, 'sore', 'halva', and the others, well, you really can't blame ME if they let you down, now can you? Face up to it, they are just bloody wankers that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Once they met a real man willing to hold their feet to the fire, they just turn into quivering little jellyfish and speak of 'belief'.

Really, though, as the old folks used to say, "It's better to try out a new horse before you cross the river."

What would have really happened, if, for example, Mrs. Arianna Huffington had taken, like so many before, all this "chemtrail" nonsense at face value?

What if she had just considered everything proven and ready for trial like you say it is, 'amber'?

The result would have been a catastrophe, she would have become a laughingstock, like Dennis Kucinich. Didn't take long for him to 'see the light', now did it?

No, consider it a favor from me that you guys get debunked by Jay Reynolds early on at an obscure messageboard, and not a more public venue. If you had really gotten in the big show, you would've been waaaay out of your league. Your cult definitely isn't ready for 'prime time' yet, sugar.

So take it as a lesson learned amber. Better you get the bad news early on.

Jay Reynolds
------------------
PS-
Hey, amber, when you are ready to quit the "chemtrail" cult, I'm always in need of a cheap shill.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

I couldn't help but notice that you insist on insult. I could not sit by and allow you to continue this waste of space with your nonsense of words that only reflect who you are inside.

I know that deep inside you there must be someone who really cares and cares to help.

Your numerous posts only reflect the pain and insecure feelings you have by not being able to fully acheive your potential as a person or even a man!

Its ashame to waste such a brilliant mind as yours to play hide and seek with ones who only wish to know.

I am also aware that you will not directly address me with responses because of your fears of the unknown.

Playing with the ones that you think don't know? Then why not pick on someone your own size?

Have considerations for those with faith and help the ones that need it.

I thought that I could leave this forum in peace but I see you always have to get the final word and push buttons.

Maybe I will remain around a bit more to oversee your pointless words.

Your website is quite interesting and seems to reflect you quite well.

Have you answered your questions yet or is it more fun to pick on others?

Where is your respect or did you leave it with the whales?

[jayreynolds]

Dear Readers,
The following was posted three years ago by 'Sore', take careful note of how much advancement he has made in that time:
Jay Reynolds
======================================

posted 09-28-2000 10:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who question the likelihood of a government program of atmospheric modification should read the following:
"GEOENGINEERING: A CLIMATE CHANGE MANHATTAN PROJECT" -Deborah www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two

"Turning Down the Heat" -arkansas_skywatcher www.cosmiverse.com/space092101.html

"Edward Teller Advances Global Warming Cure" -bucky b www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

"Climate Controls" -bucky b www.reason.com/9711/fe.benford.html

Then come on back and tell us why this just wouldn't, couldn't happen. Tell us why there is NO similarity between what thousands are observing and what has been proposed in detail.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000042.html
====================================
Now, everybody sing along with 'Brother Sore'

GIVE ME THAT OLD-TIME RELIGION!
GIVE ME THAT OLD-TIME RELIGION!
GIVE ME THAT OLD-TIME RELIGION!
GIVE ME THAT OLD-TIME RELIGION!

IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR 'SORE'!

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

It seems that with the energy placed on your posts that maybe you could answer your questions any way you like. You seem to have a sincere belief that everyone is wrong.

So oh great one tell us a story!

Cut and pasted from a post of J.R. untouched and not tampered with:

What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

If you rely on the statements or writings of others in your explanation, please cite the sources by name and location, publication, etc, in the standard manner.

I eagerly await your scientific and factual answers(not beliefs) to these questions, if you dare.

Jay Reynolds

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Readers do not respond to J.R. for a bit. Let him run out of fuel first!

J.R. you already know that I am more than qualified to debate with you on whatever subject you desire.

Why not try me?

[foot_soldier]

"gaiacomm" wrote:


There also have been studies conducted to ionize the upper layers above 30 Kilometers to mitigate ozone pollution.

gaiacomm, are you referring to ionization of the upper troposphere near the tropopause in order to mitigate the leaching [mixing] of emissions pollution into the lower stratosphere where these emissions could possibly damage the stratospheric ozone layer? If I'm interpreting you incorrectly could you please clarify? I'd really appreciate that. I'd also be very grateful for any reference you might be able to provide.

My mention of localized ionization of the atmosphere over urban areas in order to mitigate ozone pollution was in reference to surface [tropospheric] ozone pollution and associated photochemical smog, not stratospheric ozone. Do you know anything about this? Apparently this technology is being implemented in Mexico City and a few selected urban areas in the U.S.

I'd be grateful for any insight you can provide. Thanks.

[gaiacomm]

Seekers:

In my opnion this thread has run its course. J.R. is the only one that is insistent on negative commentary to insult and insight unrest among all of you that wish to know to understand and get answers for your questions.

How can that be when there is someone who wishes to spread roasted seeds in the ground in hopes that they will grow when in fact we know that roasted seeds are no good for planting.

J.R. it is quite obvious that you and I will not debate for good reason.

But is it possible thru professional courtesy to refrain from posting your volumunous chatter of words and at least allow others to learn.

If you are ignorant of your ignorance then I at least will understand and look the other way but if you are not then you should be ashamed of yourself!

[gaiacomm]

"gaiacomm" wrote:


There also have been studies conducted to ionize the upper layers above 30 Kilometers to mitigate ozone pollution.

gaiacomm, are you referring to ionization of the upper troposphere near the tropopause in order to mitigate the leaching [mixing] of emissions pollution into the lower stratosphere where these emissions could possibly damage the stratospheric ozone layer? If I'm interpreting you incorrectly could you please clarify? I'd really appreciate that. I'd also be very grateful for any reference you might be able to provide.

My mention of localized ionization of the atmosphere over urban areas in order to mitigate ozone pollution was in reference to surface [tropospheric] ozone pollution and associated photochemical smog, not stratospheric ozone. Do you know anything about this? Apparently this technology is being implemented in Mexico City and a few selected urban areas in the U.S.

I'd be grateful for any insight you can provide. Thanks.




Answer:

Above 45 Kilometers. The studies are conducted thru NASA and DOD respectivly with NOAA overseeing the effects to report to the regulation committee.

I will check into Mexico City with what you mentioned.
You are on the right path.

Use this link as a starter:

http://www.mardiros.net/atmosphere/index.html

[foot_soldier]

From a reference link posted by "Sore Throat"


Fortunately, there is a ready alternative to dust in any form: jet fuel. Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich can leave a ribbon of fog behind for up to three months, though as it spreads it becomes invisible to the eye. These motes would also come down mostly in rain, not troubling the brow of the EPA. Fuel costs about 15 percent of airlines' cash operating expenses, and running rich increases costs by only a few percent. For about $10 million, this method would offset the 1990 U.S. greenhouse emissions. Adding this to the cost of an airline ticket would boost prices perhaps 1 percent. An added asset is that quietly running rich on airline fuel will attract little notice, doesn't even change sunsets, and is hard to muster a media-saturated demonstration against.

But there are, as always, side effects. Dust or sulfuric acid would heat the stratosphere, too, with unknown impact. Some scientists suspect the ozone layer could be affected. If a widespread experiment showed this, we could turn off the effect within roughly a year as the dust settled down and got rained out. (Smaller experiments should show this first, of course.)

These ideas envision doing what natural clouds do already as the major players in the total albedo picture. A 4 percent increase in stratocumulus over the oceans would offset global carbon dioxide emission. Land reflects sunlight much better than the wine-dark seas, so putting clouds far out from land, and preferably in the tropics, gets the greatest leverage.

This article also mentions ocean carbon sequestration which is already known to be underway in several locations around the world.

On the subject of loading the upper troposphere with a thin layer of sulfur particles from jet emissions "burning rich" in order to "offset the 1990 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" - this could be done with already existing commercial airline flights, couldn't it? I.e. if it were just a matter of modifying fuel content this would be feasible and probably cost-effective. If this is being done would it explain the high visibility of the contrails we're seeing these days? Please read this, anybody, and let me know what you think. Thanks.

Climate Controls
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml

[foot_soldier]

From a reference link posted by "gaiacomm"

http://www.mardiros.net/atmosphere/formation_ozone.html


One billion years ago, early aquatic organisms called blue-green algae began using energy from the Sun to split molecules of H2O and CO2 and recombine them into organic compounds and molecular oxygen (O2). This solar energy conversion process is known as photosynthesis.

Some of the photosynthetically created oxygen combined with organic carbon recreated CO2 molecules. The remaining oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere touched off a massive ecological disaster with respect to early existing anaerobic organisms. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, CO2 decreased.

The part I'm interested in is this:

The remaining oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere touched off a massive ecological disaster with respect to early existing anaerobic organisms. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, CO2 decreased.

Does this also hold true in reverse? I.e. if atmospheric CO2 increases, does oxygen decrease? If yes, I would think that if atmospheric oxygen decreases, there would be increased proliferation of anerobic organisms.

Mainly I would like to find out if escalating atmospheric CO2 levels could actually cause a displacement of oxygen.

Thank you for this website. Still reading...

[halva]

Gaiacomm I don't think the thread has run its course. Keep monitoring, if you have time.

The most important moves we make are and will be in the real world, but we can keep this shop window in operation here. It can open a few eyes, perhaps.

One of the techniques used by the Greek Orthodox Church to counter heretics such as the Jehovah's Witnesses is to challenge them to debate in a public meeting.

This is an effective strategy because although Jehovan's Witnesses are not bullies and sociopaths like Reynolds, their methodology has many similarities. It is based on a person-to-person apolitical approach, totally factoring out the social dimension in human interaction. Reynolds' blustering and bravado is based entirely on his record as an internet stalker. Let us see if we can get Arianna Huffington to arrange a public meeting where Reynolds (plus whatever supporters of his he would like to bring along) can confront a meeting of chemtrails activists.

He will meet the same fate as Jehovah's Witnesses in confrontations with groupings of the Christian Orthodox. In fact, he will do what the Jehovah's Witnesses do: avoid such confrontation and stick to the one-to-one personal approach.

Reynolds macho personality is not a phenomenon of the real world. It exists in his mind. He is an internet phony.

[halva]

The Coming 'ET Threat'
Will Be A Lie
From Duncan Roads
nexusmagazine@optusnet.com.au
3-8-4


Hi Jeff -

I have attached below the startling testimony by Carol Rosin to the Project Disclosure (Steven Greer). Take note of the date, it is well before Sept 11, and subsequent events. It deals with the hidden agenda to weaponize space under cover of four bogus threats - specifically, a Russian threat (culminating in Star Wars); a terrorist/rogue nations threat (son of Star Wars); followed by an asteroid threat, and finally a hostile ET threat.

I am sure you are familiar with it, but given recent history I feel more people should consider this agenda as a likely candidate for one of the hidden reasons behind the 'war on terror' etc. I have already published it years ago, and mention it at any conference I speak at. I am always astonished at how few so-called UFO researchers have even heard of her, given that they all should have read all of the testimonies delivered to Greer's Disclosure Project.

Duncan Roads
Editor,
NEXUS Magazine

Testimony of Dr Carol Rosin

December 2000

Dr Carol Rosin was the first woman corporate manager of Fairchild Industries and was spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun in the last years of his life. She founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space in Washington DC and has testified before Congress on many occasions about space based weapons. Von Braun revealed to Dr Rosin a plan to justify weapons in spaced based on hoaxing an extraterrestrial threat. She was also present at meetings in the '70s when the scenario for the Gulf War of the '90s was planned.


CR: Dr Carol Rosin
SG: Dr Steven Greer

CR: My name is Carol Rosin. I am an educator who became the first woman corporate manager of an Aerospace Company, Fairchild Industries.

I am a Space and Missile Defense Consultant and have consulted to a number of companies, organizations, and government departments, even the intelligence community. I was a consultant to TRW working on the MX missile, so I was part of that strategy, which turned out to be a role model for how to sell space-based weapons to the public. The MX missile is yet another weapon system that we didn't need. I founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space, a Washington DC based think tank. I am an author and have testified before Congress and the President's Commission on Space.

When I was a Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries from 1974 through 1977, I met the late Dr Wernher Von Braun. We first met in early 1974. At that time, Von Braun was dying of cancer but he assured me that he would live a few more years to tell me about the game that was being played- that game being the effort to weaponize space, to control the Earth from space and space itself. Von Braun had a history of working with weapons systems. He escaped from Germany to come to this country and became a Vice President of Fairchild Industries when I had met him. Von Braun's purpose during the last years of his life, his dying years, was to educate the public and decision-makers about why space-based weapons are dumb, dangerous, destabilizing, too costly, unnecessary, unworkable, and an undesirable idea, and about the alternatives that are available.
As practically a deathbed speech, he educated me about those concepts and who the players were in this game. He gave me the responsibility, since he was dying, of continuing this effort to prevent the weaponization of outer space. When Wernher Von Braun was dying of cancer, he asked me to be his spokesperson, to appear on occasions when he was too ill to speak. I did this.
What was most interesting to me was a repetitive sentence that he said to me over and over again during the approximately four years that I had the opportunity to work with him. He said the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers was to use scare tactics That was how we identify an enemy. The strategy that Wernher Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered to be the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told that they had "killer satellites". We were told that they were coming to get us and control us-that they were "Commies."

Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism. Then we were going to identify third-world country "crazies." We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons.
The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it.

Asteroids- against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons.

And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. "And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens and all of it is a lie."

I think I was too naοve at that time to know the seriousness of the nature of the spin that was being put on the system. And now, the pieces are starting to fall into place. We are building a space-based weapons system on a premise that is a lie, a spin. Wernher Von Braun was trying to hint that to me back in the early 70's and right up until the moment when he died in 1977.

What he told me was that there is an accelerated effort in place. He didn't mention a timeline but he said that it was going to be speeding up faster than anybody could possibly imagine. That the effort to put weapons into space was not only based on a lie but would accelerate past the point of people even understanding it until it was already up there and too late.

When Von Braun was dying in front of me, the very first day that I met him, he had tubes draining out of his side. He was tapping on the desk telling me, "You will come to Fairchild." I was a schoolteacher. He said, "You will come to Fairchild and you will be responsible for keeping weapons out of space." The way he said it with this intenseness in his eyes, and added that very first day, the first time I met him, that space-based weapons were a dangerous, destabilizing, too costly, unnecessary, untestable, unworkable idea.

The last card that was being held was the extraterrestrial enemy card.

The intensity with which he said that, made me realize that he knew something that he was too afraid to mention. He was too afraid to talk about it. He would not tell me the details.

I am not sure that I would have absorbed them if he had told me the details or even believed him in 1974. But there was no question that that man knew and had a need to know, I found out later.
There is no doubt in my mind that Wernher Von Braun knew about the extraterrestrial issue. He explained to me the reasons why weapons were going to be put into space, the enemies against whom we were going to build these weapons, and that all of that was a lie. He mentioned that extraterrestrials were going to be identified as the final enemy against whom we were going to build space-based weapons back in 1974.

The way he said it to me, there was no doubt in my mind that he knew something that he was too afraid to talk about.

Wernher Von Braun never spoke to me about any of the details that he knew related to extraterrestrials except that one day extraterrestrials were going to be identified as an enemy against whom we are going to build an enormous space-based weapons system. Wernher Von Braun actually told me that the spin was a lie-that the premise for space-based weaponry, the reasons that were going to be given, the enemies that we were going to identify-were all based on a lie.

I have been tracking the space-based weapons issue for about 26 years.

I have debated Generals and Congressional Representatives. I have testified before the Congress and the Senate. I have met with people in over 100 countries. But I have not been able to identify who the people are who are making this space-based weapons system happen. I see the news. I see the administrative decisions being made. I know that they are all based on lies and greed.
But I have yet to be able to identify who the people are. That is after tracking this issue for 26 years. I know that there are big secrets being kept and I know that it is time the public and decision-makers pay attention to the people who are now going to be disclosing the truth. Then we need to make some definite changes and build a system in space that will benefit every single person, and all of the animals, and the environment of this planet. The technology is there. The solutions to Earth's urgent and long-term potential problems are there. I have a feeling that once we start studying this extraterrestrial issue, all of the questions are going to be answered that I have had for 26 years.

But I have concluded that it is based on a few people making a lot of money and gaining power. It is about ego. It is not about our essence and who we really are on this planet and loving each other and being at peace and cooperating. It isn't about using technology to solve problems and heal people in the planet. It isn't about that. It is about a few people who really are playing an old, dangerous, costly game for their own pocketbooks and power struggle. That is all it is.

I believe that this entire space-based weapons game is initiated right here in the United States of America. What I hope is that with this information that is being disclosed, the new administration will to do what is right. That is to transform the war game into a space game so that we use the technologies that are available not just as spin-offs of war technology, but as direct technological applications to build a cooperative space system that will benefit the entire world and that will allow us to communicate with the extraterrestrial cultures that are obviously out there.

Who would benefit from these space-based weapons? They are the people who work in that arena, people in the military, in industries, in universities and labs, in the intelligence community. This is not just in the United States but it is worldwide. This is a worldwide cooperative system. Wars are cooperative. Just as peace will be when it breaks out. But right now there are a lot of people benefiting.

This is what our economy has been based on in this country and spreading around the world-war. People suffer as a result. It is not fair. It never has been. People have screamed: "out of swords let us build plow shares, let's have peace and hold hands around the world," but it hasn't worked because too many people are benefiting. Not only are they benefiting financially, but from what my experience is there are people who actually believe that Armageddon should happen so we have to have these wars.

So, it is going from the pocketbook, to the religious right: some people actually believe that we have to have wars for these religious reasons. There are people who just love war. I have met warriors who just love to go to war. Then there are the good people, the soldiers, who just take orders. They have to feed their children and send them to college so they want to keep their jobs.

People in laboratories have told me that they don't want to work on these technologies for war but if they don't they won't get a paycheck. Who is going to pay them? But what I see is that there are not only dual uses for these technologies but there are many uses for the same technologies.
We can build space hospitals, schools, hotels, laboratories, farms, industries. It may sound far out but if we don't do that we are going to build battle stations and weapons pointed down all of our throats and into space. Apparently we have been doing some of that already.

We have a choice now that can be made. We can all benefit-all of the people in the military industrial complex, in the intelligence community, in universities and labs, in the United States and all over the world-we can all benefit. We can just transform that industry so easily with just a decision based on our highest consciousness, our spirituality, and on the fact that we have no choice unless we all want to die. And we don't. So we can all benefit financially, spiritually, socially, psychologically; it is technologically and politically feasible to transform this game now and everybody will benefit.

In 1977, I was at a meeting in Fairchild Industries in a conference room called the War Room. In that room were a lot of charts on the walls with enemies, identified enemies. There were other more obscure names, names like Saddam Hussein and Khadafi. But we were talking then about terrorists, the potential terrorists. No one had ever talked about this before but this was the next stage after the Russians against whom we were going to build these space-based weapons. I stood up in this meeting and I said, "Excuse me, why are we talking about these potential enemies against whom we are going to build space-based weapons if, in fact, we know that they are not the enemy at this time?"

Well, they continued the conversation about how they were going to antagonize these enemies and that at some point, there was going to be a war in the Gulf, a Gulf War. Now this is 1977, 1977! And they were talking about creating a war in the Gulf Region when there was 25 billion dollars in the space-based weapons program that had yet to be identified. It wasn't called the Strategic Defense Initiative, at least. Not until 1983. This weapons system, then, had obviously been going on for some time and I didn't know anything about. So I stood up in this meeting in 1977 and said, "I would like to know why we are talking about space-based weapons against these enemies. I would like to know more about this. Would someone please tell me what this is about?" Nobody answered. They just went on with this meeting as though I hadn't said anything.

Suddenly, I stood up in the room and said, "If nobody can tell me why you are planning a war in the Gulf when there is a certain amount of money in a budget so that you can create the next set of weapons systems that will be the beginning of the sell to the public about why we need space-based weapons, then consider this: my resignation. And you will not hear from me again!"

And nobody said a word, because they were planning a war in the Gulf and it happened exactly as they planned it, on time.

SG: Who was at this meeting?

CR: The room was filled with people in the revolving door game. There were people that I had seen once in a military uniform and other times in a gray suit and an industry outfit. These people play a revolving door game. They work as consultants, industry people, and/or military and intelligence people. They work in the industries and they revolve themselves through these doors and right into government positions.

I stood up in this meeting and asked if I was hearing correctly. That when there was 25 billion dollars expended in the space-based weapons budget, that there was going to be a war in the Gulf, stimulated, created, so that they could then sell the next phase of weapons to the public and the decision-makers. This war was going to be created so that they could dump the old weapons and create a whole new set of weapons. So I had to resign from that position. I could no longer work in that industry.

In about 1990 I was sitting in my living room looking at the money that had been spent on space-based weapons research and development programs and I realized that it had come to that number, about 25 billion dollars, and I said to my husband, "I am now going to stop everything. I am now going to stop and sit and watch CNN television and I am going to wait for the war to happen." My husband said, "Well, you have finally gone over the edge. You have flipped out."
Friends said, "You have really gone too far this time. There is not going to be a war in the Gulf, nobody is talking about a war in the Gulf."

I said, "There is going to be a war in the Gulf. I am going to sit here and wait for the war in the Gulf." And it happened right on schedule.

As part of the war game in the Gulf, we in the public were told that the United States was successful in shooting down Russian Scud Missiles. We were rationalizing new budgets based on that success. In fact, we found out later, after the budgets were approved for the next phase of weapons, that it was a lie. We did not have successful shoot-downs the way we were told. It was all a lie, just to get more money put in the budget to make more weapons.

I was one of the first people to go independently to Russia when I heard that they had "killer satellites."
[See the testimony of Dr Paul Czysz. SG]

When I went to Russia in the early 70's, I found out that they didn't have killer satellites, that it was a lie. In fact, the Russian leaders and people wanted peace. They wanted to cooperate with the United States and with the people of the world.

Another time I called Saddam Hussein when he was lighting his oil fields on fire. My husband was in the kitchen while I was making this phone call. I got a call back from his First Attachι with Saddam Hussein nearby and he asked, "Are you a reporter? Are you an agent?

Why do you want to know?"

I said, "No. I am just a citizen who helped to start the movement to prevent the weaponization of outer space and I have found that a lot of stories that I have been told about weapons systems and the enemies are not true. I wanted to find out what would satisfy Saddam Hussein so he would stop making these oil fields catch fire and stop antagonizing people." He said, "Well, nobody has ever asked him that question, what he wants."

So, when I hear that there is a possible threat of extraterrestrials-and I look at the history of thousands of years of possible ET visitations, and hear the disclosures of honest military-intelligence- industry people who have had experiences with UFO's, with crashes and landings, with live and dead bodies of extraterrestrial beings-I know it is a lie. And if I am ever told that these are enemies against whom we have to build space-based weapons systems, based on my own personal experience of having worked in the military industrial complex on weapons systems and military strategy, I am going to know it is a lie.

It is a lie.

Not only will I not believe it, but I am going to go out as loudly as I can and tell everyone to take a look. They [the ET's] have not taken us away yet. We are still here after thousands of years of visits. If in fact they are still visiting us now and we have not been harmed then we have to look at this as something that is not a hostile occurrence.

It would be my hope and my intention to do everything I could to work with people who are working to communicate with and cooperate with these extraterrestrial beings. They are clearly not hostile. We are here. That is enough proof for me.

There is no limit to how people can choose to live on this planet. We have a chance to do that and I think that the window is closing rapidly. I don't think that we have much time in which to make that decision. We are too close in too many ways to having some horrible disaster happen, having some sort of war take place, whether it is from high technology or an exotic weapons system.

We need leadership and it has to start with the United States President and that is who we all have to reach. If you are international, if you are around the world, if you are in the United States of America, whether you are from any party, any belief system or religion- the United States Commander in Chief, the President of the United States is the person that needs to be reached.

We need to say that we want an ultimate, comprehensive, verifiable ban on all space-based weapons

[halva]

The fact that this woman believes 'there are extraterrestrials out there' - which I do not, until convinced to the contrary - does not significantly detract from what she is saying, particularly if the other side also starts evoking the existence of extraterrestrials in justification of their activities.

If we are going to postulate extraterrestrials, at least the idea of friendly extraterrestrials is not subject to exploitation in the way that the idea of hostile extraterrestrials is.

By the way, I don't think there is any point in trying to 'reach' the President of the United States. The European Union (leading the rest of the world) has to be helped to bring an end to US global hegemony. One can also go through the routine of appealing to the United Nations, but expect nothing.

[jayreynolds]

"Let us see if we can get Arianna Huffington to arrange a public meeting where Reynolds (plus whatever supporters of his he would like to bring along) can confront a meeting of chemtrails activists."

halva, such a debate is nearing ten pages right here, right now.

You have been calling for my banning from public debate, and now you want more?

halva, if you personally wanted debate, you would do so, right here, right now. The record is in print before Mrs Huffington, right here, right now, exactly how a debate goes between Jay Reynolds, alone, against six or seven "chemmies" -all at one time.



Jay Reynolds

PS, nice distraction attempt with the irrelevant alien stuff, havla...... :roll:

Jay

[jayreynolds]

who will take on the "devil's dozen"?

Jay Reynolds

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?

11.halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas. Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?
Do you think now that it has helped your cause?
Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?
Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?

12.What tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?

13.Tell us exactly which section of the document called
"Chemtrails Over America"(url below) did 'Sore' take part in creating, and which part do you support as being accurate at this time?
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america.htm#coa



Well, that's a "baker's dozen".
Choose 12 from the list and bring it on.
Jay Reynolds

[halva]

Given that it is not in my personal power to ban you from this forum and given that you continue to use the platform you have to impugn the manhood or womanhood and/or assault the personality of other participants here, I merely wish to demonstrate that your strutting bravado is entirely a by-product of the medium you infest, the internet, that you are a charlatan and that in real life you could not possibly externalise the personality you project from your computer keyboard. In other words that you are a non-existent person, a zero, a nonentity.

Your pre-emptive declining the challenge to a real-life public meeting, should it be organizable, merely confirms this.

[jayreynolds]

Halva, if you can get Mrs. Arianna Huffington to agree to personally moderate a public one-on-one debate between 'Sore' and myself, that would be super. You may bring along any contingent you like. I reserve the right to bring along my own invitees from the journalistic, military, scientific, meteorological, environmental and aviation fields.

Since your side made the challenge, you must agree to pay only half of my airfare.

Costs could be lessened if 'Sore' agreed to meet me in Santa Fe, New Mexico, roughly halfway to the west coast from my location. In that instance, a second debate with Jay Reynolds vs. Clifford Carnicorn would be possible. I would not require travel compensation for such a trip.

Let me know ASAP when Mrs. Huffington agrees to personally moderate such a debate. Once she agrees to personally moderate the debate, we can discuss rules and the choosing of a panel of judges. Bring it on.

Jay Reynolds

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Debate with me and I will pay for everything!

Choose whatever subject you want. Choose whoever you want and I will bring just myself. I do not need support!

In fact we can arrange for TV and radio coverage if you like!

Halva:

Yes, I will observe!

So J.R. , what is your pleasure?

[gaiacomm]

SoreThroat:


Here is a pasted portion of your question:

On the subject of loading the upper troposphere with a thin layer of sulfur particles from jet emissions "burning rich" in order to "offset the 1990 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions" - this could be done with already existing commercial airline flights, couldn't it? I.e. if it were just a matter of modifying fuel content this would be feasible and probably cost-effective. If this is being done would it explain the high visibility of the contrails we're seeing these days? Please read this, anybody, and let me know what you think. Thanks.


Answer:

Lets first understand that chemtrails can be created by natural and manmade injections of various gases into the atmosphere.

Oil refineries and other exhaust processes including cars and aerosols ad to the formula for eventual displacement of vital carbon and oxygen balances.
Jet fuel is a part and by mixing and matching its formula can also ad to the degradation of the delicate environment.

Nature makes no mistakes and only responds to injected chemicals and other forms of radiation.

You would need millions of jets flying every day in various paths to have a dramatic impact and create the pronounced chemtrails that you observe.
But you are correct with your assumption that it does contribute.

But consider every injection that changes and creates the problems you observe.

J.R. knows some answers and refuses to play but attempts to make us all look like fools when in fact he is just as afraid as many are because he knows that he and his family are being slowly destroyed by the chemical and radiation infestation and he has no power to stop it.

A defenseless child in a mans world and all he can do now is to throw pebbles at the giants in hopes of their retreat!

[gaiacomm]

The part I'm interested in is this:

The remaining oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere touched off a massive ecological disaster with respect to early existing anaerobic organisms. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, CO2 decreased.

Does this also hold true in reverse? I.e. if atmospheric CO2 increases, does oxygen decrease? If yes, I would think that if atmospheric oxygen decreases, there would be increased proliferation of anerobic organisms.

Mainly I would like to find out if escalating atmospheric CO2 levels could actually cause a displacement of oxygen.

Thank you for this website. Still reading...

Back to top

Answer:
If you displace an atom from its space another will fill it thus causing a new form of matter to be created. So if carbon gets in the way of oxygen the void has to be filled by the stronger of the two.

Take a jar and fill it up with water...where does the air go in the jar?
Take the same jar and empty the water and where does the air come from that now fills the jar?

[gaiacomm]

Seekers:

I copied this link un tampered from J.R.'s website. It gives a good answer to contrails only...but its a start!


http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf

[gaiacomm]

Seekers:

This is J.R.'s marine engineering:'

History link:

http://www.stfaiths100.freeserve.co.uk/

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Are you still in goodstanding? Are you still a professional?

http://www.imarest.org/theimarest/default.asp

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Could not find you here!

http://www.sname.org/index.shtml

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

What about this?


http://www.sma.sp.edu.sg/html/AMR.htm

[gaiacomm]

J.R.


Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_engineering

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Or even here?


http://www.tamug.edu/mare/

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Maybe you know about this?

http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe_naval_exam_specs.pdf

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

You get my point!

If you have nothing creditable to ad to this forum I strongly suggest you cease from posting here and find another forum that allows children to pretend!

[jayreynolds]

http://www.tamug.edu/active/searchgrad.asp?What+First+Name+or+Initial%3F=&What+Last+Name+or+Initial%3F=&Class=1977&degree=&state=

Giacomm, don't expect me to get intodiscussion with you. You are a nutcase.
Jay

[gaiacomm]

http://www.tamug.edu/active/searchgrad.asp?What+First+Name+or+Initial%3F=&What+Last+Name+or+Initial%3F=&Class=1977°ree=&state=

Giacomm, don't expect me to get intodiscussion with you. You are a nutcase.
Jay


J.R.

Thank you for the compliment!

Giacomm is spelled Gaiacomm

[halva]

I remember Richard Nixon once being quoted as saying it suited him for people to think he was a nutcase.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Here is your link!


http://www.tamug.edu/

Now all can study your background!

[gaiacomm]

NUTCASE: Dictionary Entry and Meaning
Pronunciation: 'nutkeys


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a whimsically eccentric person

Synonyms: crackpot, crank, fruitcake, nut, nut case, screwball

See Also: eccentric, eccentric person, geek, oddball

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Your grades in High School and College are quite interesting.

Your classmates in both areas seem to have interesting opnions including your teachers.

Your past employers also ad some insight.

But because of privacy issues It would not be fair to go public!

[gaiacomm]

John
Reynolds (given name)

Jay (nickname)
1977 (year grad)
MARE (degree major)



-

reality2u30@hotmail.com (email address)

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Its been some time since you graduated.

Did you design new turbines that use diesel fuel that pollute the air? Or toilets that flush raw sewage into the sea? Or kitchens that drop waste into the sea ? Or engines that throw back pollutants into the air and sea?, or did you take into account the environment when you were in school?...and all of this contributes to chemtrails of sorts the very thing you try to avoid and have dedicated a website to.

And to ad to your frustrations and fears you still cannot do anything to stop it. You feel so alone don't you so fearful that you are so trying to fit in and yet you still throw stones at others and mock others and parade around like a peacock in heat!

You make fun of those that wish to know truth and yet you still live in OZ.

Come from behind the mask you little man and stand before those that will forgive you for being you!

J.R., why so much pain? Its ok to be human, we will not laugh!

[gaiacomm]

Published on Monday, January 19, 2004 by Süddeutsche Zeitung
Bushwhacking Mother Nature: US Environmental Destruction Abroad
by Heather Wokusch

While some German politicians are worried about the closing of US military bases in their regions, others fear nasty surprises will surface after the Americans depart. The United States has consistently valued military power more than the environment - but at what price?

Some in the White House argue that US national interests transcend greenie niceties, and this certainly was the case with Bush's 3-day stay at Buckingham Palace last year. US security forces trashed the Royal Gardens, historic statues and even the palace itself in an effort to provide the best environment for the president. The Queen's ensuing outrage didn't seem to bother Washington: if US self-protection mandates despoiling a patch of land far away, then so be it.

The issue of US military bases overseas arouses similar conflicts. According to Gary Vest, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security, "There is not a [US] military base in the world that doesn't have some soil or ground water contamination. That is just a given."

A classic case involves the Clark and Subic bases in the Philippines, which after closing in 1992, were discovered to be veritable death traps: wells had been poisoned by insecticides, industrial waste and toxic metals had been buried in random landfills, and petroleum had leaked from underground tanks. As a result, ground water and nearby agricultural lands were contaminated, and Filipinos living at or near the bases suffered from disproportionately high rates of illness.

It gets worse: while the cost of decontaminating Clark and Subic was estimated to be $1 billion, the US claimed to be exempt from any clean-up liabilities, and even refused to provide technical assistance and pertinent documents.

Germany's tough environmental laws and strategic importance have ensured more favorable treatment thus far, but significant problems remain. In 1999, a US Department of Defense inspector general said base cleanup costs in Germany could total at least $1 billion.

Yet another black mark in the US environmental record abroad concerns toxic weaponry dumped on countries such as Afghanistan. Via independent monitoring of weapon types and delivery systems, the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) indicated that "radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads were being used" by US-led coalition forces during 2001's Operation Enduring Freedom. UMRC's follow-up assessments of uranium contamination in Afghan civilians' urine samples found "abnormally high levels of non-depleted uranium," 400% to 2000% higher than normal population baselines.

Put bluntly, in addition to littering the Afghan countryside with cluster bombs and a seismic shock warheads, it appears US-led forces helped irradiate the local environment, with unspeakable civilian health implications.

Same story in Iraq. In the 1991 Gulf War, depleted uranium (DU) bullets and shells were widely used by US forces because of DU's ability to cut through conventional armor plating on tanks. DU-weaponry burns upon contact, emitting radioactive dust which can then spread across a large region.

Experts at the Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that while 375 tons of DU were used in Iraq during the Gulf War, up to 2,200 tons of DU were dumped on the country by US-led coalition forces during the 2003 invasion. DU remains destructive for 4.5 billion years.

But military bases and the War on Terror and aren't the only justifications given by the US for its assault on the global environment; its War on Drugs has dealt Mother Nature a separate death blow.

The White House has mandated a sharp increase in funding for aerial spraying of coca and opium poppy crops abroad, despite evidence that domestic drug treatment programs are 20 times more effective than eradicating drug supply at the source.

Aerial eradication, a process by which toxic herbicides are indiscriminately dumped from airplanes onto the land and water below, flies in the face of logic. A United Nations' study, for example, found that coca cultivation in Colombia tripled between 1996 and 2001, despite nearly one million acres of Colombian land having been sprayed during that time.

More alarmingly, an herbicide commonly used in US-sponsored Colombian eradication programs is Roundup Ultra, a broad-spectrum Monsanto product which destroys food crops, water supplies and Amazonian bio-diversity along with the intended coca and poppy plants. According to its warning label, Roundup Ultra should not directly come into contact with bodies of water, people, grazing animals, and desired crops; regardless, the US is funding Colombia to spray such herbicides over hundreds of thousands of hectares each year.

The theme is clear: too often America's War on Fill-in-the-Blank becomes a war on the environment, a trumped up justification to rape and pillage Mother Nature in the name of increased personal security.

And too often this approach backfires into a spiral of destruction and resentment.

It's safe to say George W. Bush will not be invited back to Buckingham Palace anytime soon - consider that door slammed. Given the ongoing attacks on American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would appear US interests are not welcome there either. And it's doubtful that aerial drug eradication in Latin America will lead to much else than hungry locals enraged at Yankee destruction of their habitat.

The White House has to learn that it's impossible to secure a sustainably safe environment through the destruction of nature and endangerment of people abroad.

Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be contacted via her web site: www.heatherwokusch.com

[gaiacomm]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-07-23-enviornmental-plan_x.htm

[foot_soldier]

File with Ms. Huffington's recent column:

March 9, 2004

Senate committee backs $60 million "abrupt climate change" research program
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/09/national1256EST0599.DTL

A $60 million program for researching sudden or unexpected changes in the climate would be created under legislation that won approval Tuesday by a Senate committee.

By voice vote and with little discussion, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee sent the bill to the full Senate for consideration.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told fellow committee members the bill was important for Alaska. He had previously expressed concern with climate warming problems in his home state such as melting permafrost, possible village relocations, receding Alaskan forests and submerged air strips.

Under the bill, the research program for studying "abrupt climate change" -- rapid alterations that people, animals and plants have difficulty adapting to -- would be established within the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It would be run by NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.

In October, the Senate rejected a plan to address global warming. Senators voted 55-43 to defeat a bill co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., who heads the Commerce committee, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., that would have cut industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

All the sponsors of the abrupt climate change bill -- Maine Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington state Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt. -- voted for the McCain-Lieberman bill, while Stevens voted against it.

McCain and Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, the committee's most senior Democrat, also have asked congressional investigators to detail the effects of global warming on federally owned lands and coastal waters, an environmental group said Tuesday.

San Francisco-based Bluewater Network said its 2002 report on the subject prompted the senators' request that the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, estimate the impact of global warming and predict the timing of the consequences.

[jayreynolds]

"SORE"- What has happened to you, just going to give up?

What about halva's invitation for debate moderated by Mrs. Huffington?

Will you be available?

Don't wimp out so easily.
here's a chance on the questions again:

WHAT MAKES CHEMMIES DODGE THESE QUESTIONS?

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?

11.halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas. Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?
Do you think now that it has helped your cause?
Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?
Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?

12.What tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Why not use your energy to inform us of what you know?

You are informing us of what you do not know which demostrates to others that your sole purpose is to promote yourself as a ( ).

As you can read from the last posts, we are attempting to exchange and inform each other of knowledge.

Its quite obvious that you fear me and with reason.

I understand why you do not challenge me in debate.

Others have seen the results and the lack of your response to my challenge.

Why not find another place on the internet to play and leave us alone!
But this is a free forum and freedom of speech is within your right.
Just as it is that no person does not have to respond to your chatter.

Taunting people for your pleasure is a sign of many misfortunes in your management of your self.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

In outer space sound is not heard! In cyberspace words are not read!

[gaiacomm]

"SORE"- What has happened to you, just going to give up?

What about halva's invitation for debate moderated by Mrs. Huffington?

Will you be available?

Don't wimp out so easily.
here's a chance on the questions again:

WHAT MAKES CHEMMIES DODGE THESE QUESTIONS?

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

10. Have you personally corresponded with any of the advocates of geoengineering you cite? If so, how did they respond, if not, why not, given your interest?

11.halva, please explain WHY you sent a photo that you knew was fake to Thomas. Did you think that such a faked photo would help your cause?
Do you think now that it has helped your cause?
Do you regret that it shows viewers a make-believe reality?
Did you ask Thomas that it be removed from his website?

12.What tangible thing has come of the "chemtrails" hoax?




J.R.

Would you like me to answer these questions?

Just a simple yes or no will do!

[jayreynolds]

You are a farce, irrelevant. I don't give a damn what you do.
Jay

[gaiacomm]

You are a farce, irrelevant. I don't give a damn what you do.
Jay


J.R.

Your words directly reflect what you yourself are inside.

And yes you care what I do because you know I can!

You are afraid of me, you fear what I may say, you fear what I know, you fear the thought that I know you!

Jay come out come out wherever you are!

I am waiting! Lets play

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

You will not get the last word and you know it.

Readers:

I openly challenge Jay to a debate of his choosing!

I openly call on Jay to confront the issues he avoids!

I openly call on Jay to stop posting here if he cannot stand on his own two feet. We cannot force him to stop and banning him is wrong. Let him leave own his own accord.

Jay, in front of your peers I challenge you!

[jayreynolds]

Sore, halva, 'amber', 'foot soldier', Dona terry, etal.

You have ceased debating(or never began) with me because you were beaten. The only one who speaks for "chemtrails" here now is swiftly discrediting you even further. Perhaps that is for the best. If any of you wish to be beaten again, I am available.

Dear Readers,
Meet Giacom, the new "chemtrails" spokesperson. I always said that a significant portion of the "chemtrail" cult membership was mentally unstable. Now witness first hand just how vile the chemmies can be!
This insane idiot may now sweep the floor.
Jay Reynolds
======================

"Dr. Judah Ben Hur" wrote:

"It is high time I and others like me use
our intellect and technology to stand up against an oppressor and rid
ourselves of this infection.
O Muslims, muster your resolve and hit the embassies of America, England, Australia and Norway, their interests, their companies and their employees ... Set the ground ablaze under their feet... Kick these criminals out of your homelands.


If you want to get a rise out of the DRAGON then you must go into the cave where it is and kill its food supply and its offspring while it sleeps or is out of the cave searching and destroying other villages.

Once the dragon is dead then your homelands will once again belong to whoever ALLAH has given it to.

Remember, you will NEVER conquer any of these lands until you slay the dragon!

In the holy name of ALLAH I ask of you all, the ones that REALLY are not AFRAID to DIE to join a new coalition of individuals whose mission is one that I have been writing on.

A Jihad on a global scale is required without fear of death from all peoples that share this common thread of FREEDOM. I for one am willing to give up my life so that others may drink the cup of life.

The United States of America is in its last days like a bull in the ring with the matador right before the sword is plunged.

We scientists have been used by many corporations and governments and I guess the creation has now decided to turn on its creator.

My people sometimes call me an Inman for whatever reason, but I promise you without fear of death I will use whatever means at my disposal to vanquish any oppressor that causes any pain to any religious group, PERIOD!

I am not a terrorist but a scientist who has technology at his disposal that is far superior to any B-52 or any other so-called weapon.

The advantage I have as stated earlier, is I have assets, technology, secrets, and a willingness to be put to death during the struggle."

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001893-2.html

[foot_soldier]

"gaiacomm" wrote:


Above 45 Kilometers. The studies are conducted thru NASA and DOD respectivly with NOAA overseeing the effects to report to the regulation committee.

I will check into Mexico City with what you mentioned.
You are on the right path.

I'm primarily interested (for the moment) in atmospheric ionization in the lower troposphere for purposes of breaking down ozone pollution in urban areas. This is in fact being done in (over) Mexico City for at least the last three years and probably a little longer. Anyway, thank you for the feedback. I will continue to look into ionization projects in progress - some of them also involve the breakdown of nuclear waste from what little I've read.

This is a superior link:

http://www.mardiros.net/atmosphere/index.html

Thank you very much for this reference. I have found it very helpful to an understanding of two or three small connections I've been trying to make.

"gaiacomm" wrote:


If you displace an atom from its space another will fill it thus causing a new form of matter to be created. So if carbon gets in the way of oxygen the void has to be filled by the stronger of the two.

Thank you. I was trying to clarify the distinction between chemical and physical processes in this particular case and you have answered my question. There are some regions of the U.S. where atmospheric CO2 concentration is approaching 400-450 parts per million in the summer and early fall. I suppose atmospheric O2 concentration would eventually be affected by an elevated CO2 level, wouldn't it?

Anyway, thanks for your patience. Forgive my bluntness but I think we're polluting the shit out of our air and water and that debating this particular issue any further is an inexcusable waste of time. The time for significant action is long overdue. Just my opinion. Thanks again.

[foot_soldier]

You sound like a screaming Queen. Sorry, but that's my honest opinion.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Again you tamper with truth. When you cut and paste for your own self interest then your character is spoiled.

There is alot of data on Dr. Judah Ben-Hur other than on the Chemtrail website...why not search google and then cut and paste that data.

Here is the info from the internet in context:

Dr Aiman Al Zawahiri, Maulvi Shahab, Sheikh Usama bin Laden

O Muslims, muster your resolve and hit the embassies of America, England, Australia and Norway, their interests, their companies and their employees ... Set the ground ablaze under their feet... Kick these criminals out of your homelands.

Now ask yourselves how are you going to carry out these orders without a coordinated plan?
Think about the order that is given, to hit the embassies, for what? The rulers or masterminds of the fate of Islam are not in those buildings! Again destroying and killing innocent people is not the true way of the KORAN.

By bringing NORWAY into this arena is wrong, those people are peaceful and support peace. If you want to get a rise out of the DRAGON then you must go into the cave where it is and kill its food supply and its offspring while it sleeps or is out of the cave searching and destroying other villages.

Now once you do that, then when the DRAGON returns and sees what you have done to its cave I, will be in a rage of revenge and will not be able to think clearly, at that moment is when you strike and fight the dragon with your shield to protect you from the fire and when the moment is right climb to a ledge and without fear of death jump on the back of the dragon and strike your sword into its flesh until it DIES. It will be a ride of your life!

The dragon is only as powerful as ones fear feeds it are! What will confuse the dragon will be the fact that you stood alone without fear to come and kill it.

The people of the United States are not your enemies; so do not waste time and energy trying to murder them.

They are innocent sheep that has no true Shepard to lead them. They are lost in the wilderness and are already afraid and cold. Find the so-called sheperd and his brothers and sisters and you will find the dragon and its cave, then either collectively or by yourself go in with the name of ALLAH and defend the HONOR and RESPECT due a great warrior.

Don’t be cowards or swine by hit and run tactics against the wrong people.

Once the dragon is dead then your homelands will once again belong to whoever ALLAH has given it to.

Remember, you will NEVER conquer any of these lands until you slay the dragon!
Islam will become extinct if you do not listen to your heart and focus on the solution not the problem.
The USA also broke away from tyranny thru force, but times and minds have changed, for the USA and its allies.

Now slay the DRAGON!

Judah Ben-Hur
King of Judea

Posted on Talibanonline


The first paragraph is not a quote from Dr. Judah Ben-Hur. Do your research little man.

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

I expect you to do what you do because you are afraid!

Now would it be nice for someone to post your private info on the net or tamper with it to create another you?

You have singled out a small taste of data and even that you did not keep in context which leads me to believe that your website is full of false truths.

The proof is that you tampered with the data on Dr. Judah Ben-Hur.
Children like yourself should be punished. But in your case everyone reading these posts knows that you have lost the entire debate and have lost your dignity.

You were beaten by someone that did not wish to beat you, but your ignorance and ego once again carried you on and now you must live with the pain that even in cyberspace their are rules of the land.

Go away from this place while you still can!

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Why do you sign your name at the end of each post with a promo string to your website? I thought the link is already there below your post that people can click on!

A yes the ego, I forgot.

Foot soldier:

The answer to your question on your last post is: Yes you are correct...keep up the good work!

Jay, its just you and me now!

So whats next?

Everyone is reading and waiting.

Or are you a coward with no backbone?
Remember we are in cyberspace where we can all be kings and queens!!!

Can you see me Jay because I can see you!.....a modified pc anywhere!!

[gaiacomm]

J.R.

Now its between you and me!

Come on Jay everyone is waiting!

Take me on I dare you! Oh yes that fear again is in the way!
What can we do to get your confidence up?

Jay you are beaten....gracefully leave this forum.
You have attempted to miss inform. Your website is full of copied info with very little substance.

Jay, keep your manhood before that is even taken from you!

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

I am still waiting!

Its different when someone else is the agressor is it not?

You feel so defeated and small.

Your like a big kid in the yard that bullied other children until someone from another street came in and challenged you!

Jay, put up or stop posting!

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

Ok I will treat you like a child now!

Chemtrails are real! You cannot discount that fact.
GeoEngineering is real! You cannot discount that fact.
Various photos of chemtrails are real!
Jay is afraid!
Jay has no life!
Jay needs the internet to survive!
Jay cannot dominate this forum!
Jay is afraid of Gaiacomm!
Contrails are real!
Jays worse fear is the internet being shut down.
Jay needs to accept defeat!
Jay hates to lose to smart people!
Jay plays dirty!
Jay tampers with information!
Jay is self serving!
Jay is Jay! or John or whatever!


Jay we are all waiting...after all you wrote that I am the new spokeperson for chemtrails!

So lets get started!

[halva]

Reynolds it was you, not I, who proposed that you debate with Sore Throat. I didn't say who should represent our side. If Gaiacomm wants to, that's fine by me.

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

Your time is running out.

Don't you just hate payback?

Remember all of those people you insulted with your chatter?

Well now they are all here watching and waiting. Its funny how when I post you stop posting. Then when the dust settles you come back like a coward.

The members on the Chemtrail website and this site have all been contacted using private email accounts to direct them to this forum.

Now Gladiator lets debate you have a very large audience that is watching.

Don't tell me you are not a gladiator but the fool!

Jay you now have the floor! Are you giving it to me?

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

It seems that I win the debate!

The verdict to you for losing is to banish you from this forum never to be heard from again!

So banish yourself Jay, we won't...be a man and do something right for a change.

Readers:

I challenged Jay numerous times and he did not wish to accept...so he has given over to the acceptance of the Chemtrails saga and his opinions are not accepted on this forum anymore!

Chemtrails has one the debate!

Jay has admitted that Chemtrails are real and that he was wrong with his statements and Jay will adjust his website to reflect the new truth.
Jay is sorry for being in the dark on chemtrails and he wishes to be forgiven for his ignorance!

[halva]

Under Pressure Bush Agrees To Answer 9/11 Questions
Compiled by the UQ Wire Editor

In this digest edition of the UQ Wire:

1. THE BACKDOWN: Scott Mclellan Gets A Grilling On Bush, Rice
& 9/11
2. THE BACKDOWN IS REPORTED: Bush to Privately Answer More Sept.
11 Questions
3. Former Bush I Official Proffers Insight on White House Stonewalling
4. This Morning's Papers: Calls For Bush To Talk / Draw Attention
To Stonewalling
5. Rally for Bush & Clinton Administration Public Testimony about
9/11

**************
THE BACKDOWN
Scott Mclellan Gets A Grilling On Bush, Rice & 9/11
For complete briefing see
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00142.htm

Q Has the President agreed to take as much time as is necessary
to answer the questions of the 9/11 Commission?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Bill, a couple things. One, I would like
to start off, before I get to that specific question, and just
talk about the unprecedented cooperation that this administration
has provided to the 9/11 Commission, which is a legislative --


Q How do you know it's unprecedented?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- which is a legislative body. And I think you
can look at the facts, Helen, and I'm going to get to a couple
of those in just a second, if you'll let me. We have worked closely
and cooperatively with the commission. We have worked in a spirit
of cooperation with the commission. The President strongly supports
the work of the commission. If there is something we can do in
addition to all the steps that we are already taking to prevent
something like September 11th from ever happening again, we want
to know about it, and the sooner, the better.

That's why this administration has provided more than 2 million
pages of documents to the commission; provided more than 60 compact
disks of radar, flight, and other information; more than 800
audio cassette tapes of interviews and other materials; more
than 100 briefings, including at the head-of-agency level; and
more than 560 interviews. We have bent over backwards to make
sure that the commission has all the information they need to
do their job. The commission chairman, himself, has stated that
there is not a single piece of information that they have asked
for that we have not provided the commission access to.

Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with
the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future.
We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have
discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable
period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with
answers to all of their questions.

Q Is that the one-hour time frame?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I'm referring to. And let me put this
in perspective, though. I think, one, keep in mind, you're talking
about a sitting President of the United States. It's extraordinary
for a sitting President of the United States to sit down with
the legislative body like the 9/11 Commission. But the President
is pleased to do it. Certainly a sitting President has many great
responsibilities to tend to; none more important for this President
than acting to prevent attacks like September 11th from ever
happening again on American soil.

The commission has already had access to all the documents and
information they have requested, including our most sensitive
national security documents. The commission has already visited
with numerous White House staffers and administration officials.
The commission is also looking at this in a larger context. The
commission is looking at how these threats materialized over
a period of years leading up to September 11th. We are talking
about a period of seven or eight months, for this administration.
So I think many of their questions have already been asked and
answered.

But the President believes their work is very important. It's
important to our efforts to prevent these type of attacks from
happening again on American soil. And so he's pleased to sit
down with them and visit with them. And we believe that -- obviously,
you have to set parameters when you're talking about a sitting
President of the United States. And we believe we've set aside
a reasonable period of time. But the President intends to answer
all their questions.

Q Even if it takes more than the assigned amount of time?

FOR MUCH MUCH MORE
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00142.htm

*************

THE BACKDOWN IS REPORTED
Bush to Privately Answer More Sept. 11 Questions
The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 9, 2004; 2:57 PM

President Bush will answer privately all questions raised by
a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,
the White House said Tuesday, softening its insistence that Bush's
testimony be limited to an hour.

MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43010-2004Mar9.html


**************

Former Bush I Official Proffers Insight on White House Stonewalling

President George W. Bush's recent campaign advertising indicates
that he is proud of his record on 9-11. If this is the case,
Mr. Bush and key members of his administration have nothing to
hide regarding the events of 9-11, including their reasons for
ignoring repeated warnings by heads of state and intelligence
agencies worldwide. Global citizens who support the United States
through prayers, deposits in US headquartered banks, purchase
of US corporation products, stocks and bonds, and use of US currency,
appreciate that the value and liquidity all of these transactions
of our time and money depend first and foremost on the rule of
law -- in short, the value of the US government's word.

If Mr. Bush and key members of his administration are not prepared
to provide open transparency about the events of 9-11 and their
handling of it, then Mr. Bush's public relations conveys a false
pride -- one that may have a devastating impact on the federal
credit that is a linchpin behind American government, military
and banking.

The Administration's testimony on 9-11 should be open to the
public, it should address the unanswered questions put forward
by responsible citizens groups and the 9-11 families and it should
last as long as is required to ensure these questions are answered
satisfactorily to all concerned.

If the Administration's testimony is not open and complete, we
may come to learn through 9-11 that the emptiness of our word
and the war profiteering afforded by secret budgeting, bookeeping
and policymaking ---while useful to raising the largest campaign
war chest in the history of our planet -- are greater threats
to our national security than terrorism.

Catherine Austin Fitts
Solari [www.solari.com]
Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner,
Bush I
Former Managing Director & Board Member, Dillon Read & Co. Inc.


**************

This Morning's Papers: Calls For Bush To Talk / Draw Attention
To Stonewalling

White House vs. 9/11 Panel: Resistance, Resolution
By Dan Eggen -- Washington Post -- Tuesday, March 9, 2004

[snip]
Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said
the jockeying between the two sides "has seemed almost scripted."

[snip]

MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41468-2004Mar8.html

Bush owes 9/11 answers, not TV ad
Marie Cocco – Newsday – March 9, 2004

[snip]
And so I have a deal for this president. I won't ask him to pull
the campaign ad off the air if he will pull down the iron wall
he's erected between his White House and those charged with pursuing
the truth.

The latest barrier is the president's refusal to be interviewed
by the commission investigating 9/11 except under rules he himself
writes. He refuses to talk to the full commission, only to the
two co-chairmen. He says he'll appear for only an hour and only
in private. Vice President Dick Cheney wants the same strictures.


MORE:
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc093700994mar09,0,6066158.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

Panel may force Condi chat
By JAMES GORDON MEEK -- DAILY NEWS D.C. BUREAU -- Tuesday, 3/9/04


[snip]
Rice's role in the commission's final report "will be limited
because it was an interview that wasn't done under oath, and
the President's is going to be limited as well," Kerrey said.

[snip

MORE:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/171784p-149871c.html

**************

Rally for Bush & Clinton Administration Public Testimony about
9/11

--Please join this Citizens' led effort to honor the 9.11 victims
by demanding full accountability for, and answers to questions
about, the 9/11 attacks.--

9/11 CitizensWatch encourages all concerned citizens and 9/11
victim family members to convene at the Stewart Ave (off Merrick
Ave) entrance at Eisenhower Park in East Meadow, Long Island
at 4PM on Thursday, March 11th to send a clear message to the
Bush and Clinton administrations that we expect them to testify
publicly before the 9/11 Commission about the how and why these
occurred.

What:
A rally in support of a full and transparent investigation into
9/11 demanding complete White House & Clinton Administration
cooperation with the 9/11 Commission.

Where:
Eisenhower Park, East Meadow (Long Island) -- Stewart Avenue
entrance

When:
4 PM, Thursday, March 11th

Who:
Concerned citizens and victim family members of all parties interested
in answers and accountability over 9/11.

Why:
The whole world changed on September 11, 2001 and thousands died
including those from over 80 countries. The world deserves to
know the whole truth and seek deeper understanding. Americans
must demand the truth from our government.

For more information please contact:

Kyle F. Hence
kylehence@earthlink.net

Check http://www.911citizenswatch.org for last minute changes
or additional information.

***************

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Scoop website is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

It seems that I win the debate!

The verdict to you for losing is to banish you from this forum never to be heard from again!

So banish yourself Jay, we won't...be a man and do something right for a change.

Readers:

I challenged Jay numerous times and he did not wish to accept...so he has given over to the acceptance of the Chemtrails saga and his opinions are not accepted on this forum anymore!

Chemtrails has one the debate!

Jay has admitted that Chemtrails are real and that he was wrong with his statements and Jay will adjust his website to reflect the new truth.
Jay is sorry for being in the dark on chemtrails and he wishes to be forgiven for his ignorance!

[halva]

Blair to be asked if US played role in silencing of chief scientist

By Steve Connor, Science Editor


Tony Blair is to be questioned about an attempt to silence the Government's chief scientific adviser after he claimed that global warming was more serious than terrorism.

Norman Baker, the environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said he would write to Mr Blair asking him whether he had come under pressure from the US government to rein in the scientist Sir David King.

Sir David had publicly criticised the Bush administration for failing to take climate change more seriously, which led to him being rebuked by Ivan Rogers, the principal private secretary at 10 Downing Street. Mr Rogers wrote to Sir David advising him to avoid media interviews and to play down the comparison between climate change and international terrorism.

Mr Baker wanted to know whether the Prime Minister was behind the attempt to silence Sir David and whether Mr Blair had come under pressure from Washington to act against his own chief scientist.

"Sir David has a duty, on behalf of the nation, to speak up," Mr Baker said. "He must not be pushed around like some trainee civil servant. His advice that climate change is at least as big a threat to us as terrorism is clear, and has been echoed by Hans Blix [the former UN chief weapons inspector]."

Caroline Spelman, the Tory environment spokeswoman, said the Government should be encouraging people to speak up about global warming rather than silencing them. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said ministers were committed to tackling both terrorism and climate change and there was no trade-off between the two.

[halva]

If there is to be a public meeting in California, a good place for it to be held would be in Santa Cruz, where there is a very active local citizens' group against chemtrails:

http://www.skyhighway.com/%7Echemtrails/index.html

[jayreynolds]

halva wrote;
"If there is to be a public meeting in California, a good place for it to be held would be in Santa Cruz, where there is a very active local citizens' group against chemtrails:
http://www.skyhighway.com/%7Echemtrails/index.html

I perused the webpage you cited, halva. No proof whatsoever is given that shows the supposed "chemtrails" as being other than ordinary contrails.

The website says-

"THEY ARE CONSANTLY SPRAYING US WITH THEIR CHEMICALS AND USING KC-135 U.S. & NATO AIR FORCE FIGHTER PLANES TO DO IT."

Why, then do all the photos just show lines in the sky? It is perfectly possible to use a telephoto lens to take pictures which can determine the class and identify the planes that make the contrails. here is an an example:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/132340/L/

Now why aren't "chemtrail" websites plastered with photos showing military KC-135 tanker jets "spraying", eh, halva?????[/b]

[jayreynolds]

Halva-
The world is reading, the world is watching, the world is waiting.

Halva fiddles while the "chemtrails" hoax burns.
Jay
===================
"In my opinion Reynolds' bravado is phony. It is a product of Internet and could not be sustained in real life."

What lies has Jay Reynolds told at Arianna's?
Why don't you answer his questions and be done with it?

That sounds appropriate to me since the topic of this board doesn't exist in real life either. Even your names are phony. Jay Reynolds is a real person. He posts his name, telephone number and address.
Why don't you call or write him?
What are your names, phone numbers and addreses?
What are you hiding from?
Are you ashamed?
You should be.
http://com1.runboard.com/b13thcentury.fthenewdebunkatorium.t45
======================
lexta replies:
"I for one would like to see the debate and I might even show up myself depending on where and when it is. Personally, I could care less whethre or not his "bravado" is real. He has valid questions which I haven't seen you answer in the Arianna forum. If you'd answer those questions in a real debate that'd be worth the price of admission."
===================
Moliani replies:
A question from Jay Reynolds from
the Arianna Forum:
WHAT MAKES CHEMMIES DODGE THESE QUESTIONS?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

I was wondering if you are aware of this up coming conference to be held in Greece?
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2004/air04/index.html#RC

halva dodges the question:

"I'm not a scientist. I'm a citizen."

Where is liacopulus, who claimed to be a Physics professor?

I contend he was a fraud. No genuine scientist supports "chemtrails".

In the past, halva dropped the name of a distinguished Greek scientist,
Dr. Nikos Katsaros, Director of Research, Institute of Physical Chemistry, NCSR "DEMOKRITOS", Aghia Paraskevi Attikis 153 10, Athens,
Greece.

Dr. Katsaros also happens to be editor of the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

halva's implication was that Katsaros believed in "chemtrails", however, when I wrote Dr. Katsaros, his response left some doubts in my mind as to the veracity of halva's claim....
in other words, halva had lied.

"Dear Mr Reynolds
As you probably know there is no scientific evidence whatsoever concerning chemtrails and there composition."

There you have it, folks. Science has spoken in Greece.
Halva has fallen.

[jayreynolds]

"In the latest number of "Aiginaia", the cultural/historical magazine of Aigina, there is an article on Chemtrails by Nikos Katsaros.
Much of the information it contains has already been made available in Greek in the mass circulation newspaper "Ethnos" and in the more activist magazine "Schedia sta anoichta tis Aiginas" of the Aigina Citizens' Initiative.

"Aiginaia" is a more 'upmarket' publication. That is the main difference."

"Latest words from Dr. Nikos Katsaros is that "POLIS" TV station has recently replayed his February chemtrails interview several times in response to public demand. There was very heavy chemtrails spraying over Athens last week."

"A new chemtrails activist is emerging in Greece: Liakopoulos, from Thessaloniki, but he is active at the national level. He is typecast as being of the 'extreme right'."
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001716-3.html

So, where are the Greek scientists when debate is joined?

Are they all afraid of grilling like a well seasoned Souvlaki?

[foot_soldier]

"gaiacomm" -

Thanks for your last reply regarding oxygen. I think this is as much an intuitive matter as one that can also be conclusively apprehended via the more left-brain approaches if you get my drift. Anyway, the meek shall inherit the earth and my guess is they'll be in good company. Let the flaming egos of the world continue with their games.

Sincerely,
foot_soldier

[gaiacomm]

"gaiacomm" -

Thanks for your last reply regarding oxygen. I think this is as much an intuitive matter as one that can also be conclusively apprehended via the more left-brain approaches if you get my drift. Anyway, the meek shall inherit the earth and my guess is they'll be in good company. Let the flaming egos of the world continue with their games.

Sincerely,
foot_soldier


Yes I agree with you!
Good statement!

[gaiacomm]

Dr. Nikos Katsaros

Jay...
Dear Mr Reynolds
As you probably know there is no scientific evidence whatsoever concerning chemtrails and there composition."

Would you mind posting the entire response or is this another tampered document to serve only you?

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

Why not contact these as well!

Still waiting for your letter in context!Editors and Editorial Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Virtual Editorial Center] [Editorial Board] [Advisory Board]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtual Editorial Center
Editor-in-Chief ( starting January 19, 2004 )
Dr. Francis F. Muguet
LMA, ENSTA (Ecole Nationale Sup鲩eure de Techniques Avanc饳), 32 Boulevard Victor, F-75739 Paris Cedex, France.
Tel. (33) 1.45.52.60.19, Fax : (33) 1.45.52.52.82, muguet@ensta.fr, muguet@mdpi.org.
Chairman of the Civil Society Working Group on Scientific Information.
World Summit on the Information Society


Production Editor
Prof. Yuri G. Bushuev
Ivanovo State University of Chemistry & Technology
7 Prosp. F. Engel'sa, 153460 Ivanovo
Russian Federation
bushuev@isuct.ru

Associate Production Editor
Dr. Yevgeniy Podolyan
Department of Chemistry, Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39217-0510, USA.
Tel: (601) 979-4114, Fax: (601) 979-7823
podolyan@ccmsi.us


Managing Editor and Publisher
Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI), Matthaeusstrasse 11, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 79 322 3379, Fax +41 61 302 8918, E-mail: lin@mdpi.org
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/


Editors

Founding Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Dr. Jerzy Leszczynski
Department of Chemistry, Jackson State University, Jackson , MS 39217, USA.
Tel. (601)979-3482, Fax (601)979-7823, E-mail: jerzy@ccmsi.us
http://ccmsi.us/leszczynski/



Dr. Eugene V. Babaev
Chemistry Department, , Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia Tel: 7-(095)-939-3020, Fax: 7-(095)-932-8846, E-mail: babaev@org.chem.msu.su
http://org.chem.msu.su/~babaev

Dr. Marie-Christine Bacchus
Laboratoire de Spectrometrie Ionique et Moleculaire, 43, Bd du 11 Novembre, 69622 VILLEURBANNE Cedex, France. Tel. +33 4 72 43 10 83, fax: +33 4 72 43 15 07, e-mail: bacchus@lasim.univ-lyon1.fr

Dr. B. Blessington
Pharmaceutical Chemistry Section, Pharmacy Department, Bradford University. Bradford BD7 1DP, UK. Tel. 44 (0) 1274 234704, fax 44 (0) 1274 235600. e-mail: b.blessington@brad.ac.uk
http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/bblessin/

Dr. Abhijit Chatterjee
Environmental Functional Material Group, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
AIST Tohoku, 4-2-1 Nigatake, Miyagino-ku, Sendai 983-8551 JAPAN, email: c-abhijit@aist.go.jp
Phone: +81-22-237-5211, Fax: +81-22-237-5217
http://www.aist.go.jp/TNIRI

Dr. Henry Chermette
Chimie Physique Theorique, bat 210,, UNIVERSITE CLAUDE BERNARD DE LYON, (et Inst. Recherches sur la Catalyse), 43 bd du 11 novembre 1918, F-69622 VILLEURBANNE Cedex, France. Tel. +33 4 72 44 84 27, Fax +33 4 72 44 80 04, e-mail cherm@catalyse.univ-lyon1.fr or e-mail cherm@in2p3.fr

Prof. Dr. Henryk Chojnacki
Institute of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, I-30, Wyb. Wyspianskiego 27, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland. Tel. +48 071 3 20 35 20, Fax +48 071 320 33 64, E-mail: chojnacki@kchf.ch.pwr.wroc.pl

Prof. Gunars Duburs
Latvian Institute of Organic synthesis
Aizkraukles Street 21 Riga LV 1006
Latvia
Tel.: 371 7551232 Fax: 371 7550338, e-mail: gduburs@osi.lv
http://www.osi.lv/strukt/strukt7.html or http://www.lza.lv/scientists/dubursg.htm

Dr. Dario A. Estrin
Departamento de Quimica Inorganica, Analitica y Quimica Fisica and INQUIMAE, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aire, Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellon 2, (1428) Buenos Aires, Argentina. Tel. 54-11-4576-3378, Fax: 54-11-4576-3341, E-mail: dario@pepa.q1.fcen.uba.ar
http://www.q1.fcen.uba.ar/personal/estrini.html

Dr. Marta B. Ferraro
Departamento de Fisica, Universidad de Buenos Aires (FCEN), Ciudad Universitaria, Pab. I, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina. tel:+5411-4576-3353, or +5411-4576-3390 (x835), fax +5411-4576-3357, E-mail: marta@df.uba.ar

Prof. Dr. Carlos F.G.C. Geraldes
Departamento de BioquÃ*mica
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia
Universidade de Coimbra
3001-401 Coimbra
Portugal
Tel. + 351 239 853609
Fax + 351 239 853607
email: geraldes@ci.uc.pt
http://www.ci.uc.pt/bioquimica/interess/geraldes.htm

Dr. Alan Hinchliffe
Reader in Chemistry, UMIST, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD, UK. +44 (0) 161 200 4554 fax +44 (0) 161 228 7040, e-mail Alan.Hinchliffe@UMIST.ac.uk
http://www.ch.umist.ac.uk/hinchlif.htm

Prof. Dr. Kimihiko Hirao
Department of Applied Chemistry
Graduate School of Engineering
University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan 113-8656
Phone & Fax : +81-3-5841-7241
E-mail: hirao@qcl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
URL: http://www.appchem.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/appchem/labs/hirao/

Prof. Dr. Ivan Hubac
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Comenius University, 84215 Bratislava, Slovakia, Tel. 421-7-65428100, fax 421-7-65425882, E-mail: hubac@fmph.uniba.sk or hubac@dcs.fmph.uniba.sk

Prof. Dr. Francesc Illas
Facultat de QuÃ*mica, Departament de Quimica Fisica, Universitat de Barcelona, C/ Marti i Franques 1, 08028 Barcelona, Spain. Tel. 34-93-402 1229, Fax 34-93-402 1231, e-mail: f.illas@qf.ub.es
http://www.qf.ub.es/area4a/area4a1.html

Dr. Sabre Kais
Associate Professor of Chemical Physics
Department of Chemistry
1393 Brown Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Tel: (765) 494-5965, Fax: (765) 494-0239, E-mail: kais@power1.chem.purdue.edu
http://power1.chem.purdue.edu/~kais/index.html

Dr. Nikos Katsaros
Director of Research, Institute of Physical Chemistry, NCSR "DEMOKRITOS", Aghia Paraskevi Attikis 153 10, Athens,
Greece. Tel: 00301 6503645, Fax: 00301 6511766, e:mail katsaros@mail.demokritos.gr

Dr. Edward C. Kirby
14 Lower Oakfield; Pitlochry Perthshire PH16 5DS Scotland U.K. Tel.& Fax 0044 1796 473 211, e-mail ekirby@cix.compulink.co.uk

Prof. Dr. Antonio Lagana
Dipartimento di Chimica
Universita' di Perugia
Via Elce di sotto 8
I-06123 Italy
tel +390755855527
fax +390755855606
Email: lag@unipg.it
http://www.chm.unipg.it/chimgen/mb/theo1/group.html

Dr. Domenico Laforenza
Responsible for the CNUCE Advanced Computing Department
CNUCE-Institute of the Italian National Research Council
Room #35
CNR's Campus ("Area della Ricerca" )
Via Alfieri, 1
56010 Ghezzano, Pisa, Italy
Phone: +39 050 315-2992 (Direct)
Mobile: 0348-3962628
Fax: +39 050 3138092 (G4), +39 050 3138091 (G3)
Email: Domenico.Laforenza@cnuce.cnr.it
http://brunello.cnuce.cnr.it/domenico/domenico.html

Dr. Danuta Leszczynska
Associate Professor
FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
2525 Pottsdamer Street, Tallahassee, FL. 32310, tel: 850-410-6119, fax. 850-410-6142
E-mail: danuta@eng.fsu.edu, http://myprofile.cos.com/dleszczynska
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/departments/civil/research/arsenicremedia/index.htm

Prof. Dr. Can Li
Director, State Key Laboratory of Catalysis, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dalian 116023, CHINA. Tel: 86-411-4671991(ext.728), Fax: 86-411-4694447. E-mail: canli@ms.dicp.ac.cn
http://www.canli.dicp.ac.cn/

Dr. Xian-Guo Li
College of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering
Ocean University of Qingdao
Qingdao 266003
P. R. China
Tel: 86 532-2032482, ext. 8318, 86 136 876 78572 (Mobile), Fax: 86 532-2032483
E-mail: lixg@mail.ouqd.edu.cn

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Linert
Institute of Applied Synthetic Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/153, A-1060 Wien, Austria, Europe. Tel.: ++43 - 1 - 58801 - 15350, Fax.:++43 - 1 - 58801 - 15399, email: wlinert@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.ias.tuwien.ac.at/research/fgwl/

Prof. Dr. Yurii E. Lozovik
Head of Department of Nanophysics, Institute for Spectroscopy, Russian Academy of Sciences, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142092, Russia. tel.(+7)(095) 334 08 81, fax (+7)(095) 334 08 86, e-mail: lozovik@isan.troitsk.ru or lozovik@isan.msk.su

Prof. Dr. José J. G. Moura
Departamento de QuÃ*mica
Centro de QuÃ*mica Fina e Biotecnologia
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
2825-114 Monte de Caparica
Portugal
Tel. + 351 21 294 8382
Fax + 351 21 294 8550
email jose.moura@dq.fct.unl.pt
http://web www.dq.fct.unl.pt/bioin

Prof. Dr. Roman F. Nalewajski
K. Guminski Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Jagiellonian University, R. Ingardena 3, 30-060 Cracow, Poland. Tel. (48-12)- 633- 6377 ext 2024 Fax: (48-12) 634-0515, E-mail: nalewajs@chemia.uj.edu.pl
http://www.ch.uj.edu.pl

Prof. Dr. Antonio Aguilar-Navarro, Departament de QuÃ*mica FÃ*sica, Facultat de QuÃ*mica
Universitat de Barcelona
C/ MartÃ* i Frnaquès, 1
08028-Barcelona (SPAIN)
tel. +34 93 402 12 24, fax:+34 93 402 12 31, e-mail: antonio@qf.ub.es
http://www.qf.ub.es

Dr. Ebbe Nordlander
Inorganic Chemistry 1, Chemical Center, Lund University, Box 124, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. Ph: +46 46 222 8118, Fax: +46 46 222 4439, E-mail: Ebbe.Nordlander@inorg.lu.se
http://wwwinorg.inorgk1.lu.se/proj.htm#proj6

Dr. Jesus Vicente de Julián Ortiz
Institut de QuÃ*mica Computacional, Facultat de Ciències, Universitat de Girona, Campus de Montilivi, 17071 Girona, Spain. Tel +34 - 972 418 367, Fax +34 - 972 418 356, e-mail julian@goya.combios.es
http://iqc.udg.es

Prof. Dr. Sourav Pal
Physical Chemistry Division, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411 008, India. Tel: (off) +91-20-5893300, Fax: +91-20-5893044, e-mail pal@ems.ncl.res.in
http://www.ncl-india.org/research/theory/theory.html

Prof. Dr. Juan J. Perez
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, ETS d'Enginyeria Industrial de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal, 647 08028 Barcelona, Spain. phone 34-93-4016679, fax 34-93-4017150, e-mail: juanje@eq.upc.es

Dr. Lars G. M. Pettersson, Dept of Physics, Stockholm University, Box 6730, S-113 85 Stockholm, Sweden. Phone: +46-8-16 46 12, Fax: +46-8-34 78 17, e-mail: lgm@physto.se
http://www.qc.physto.se/

Dr. Michel Petitjean
ITODYS (CNRS, UMR 7086), 1 rue Guy de la Brosse, 75005 Paris, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 44 27 48 57, FAX : +33 (0)1 44 27 68 14
Email: petitjean@itodys.jussieu.fr or ptitjean@ccr.jussieu.fr
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html or http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html

Dr. Ana Proykova
Dept.of Atomic Physics, University of Sofia, 5 James Bourchier Blv., Sofia-1126, Bulgaria. tel.+359-(0)2-6256 828, E-mail: anap@phys.uni-sofia.bg
http://cluster.phys.uni-sofia.bg:8080/

Dr. Humberto Soscun
(1) Laboratorio de QuÃ*mica Inorgánica Teórica, Dep. QuÃ*mica, Fac. Exp. Ciencias, La Universidad del Zulia, Ap. 526, Grano de Oro, Módulo No.2, Maracaibo, Venezuela. e-mail: hsoscun@sinamaica.ciens.luz.ve; hsoscun@hotmail.com
Tel: 58 261 7598125; Fax: 58 261 7311348

Prof. Dr. Stephan P. A. Sauer, Chemistry Laboratory IV, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. Tel. +45-35320268, Fax: +45-35320299, E-mail: sauer@kiku.dk
http://fyskem.ki.ku.dk/sauer

Prof. Dr. E. Suraud
Laboratoire de Physique Quantique, Universite Paul Sabatier, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse cedex France. Tel. +33 5 61 55 60 67, Fax : + 33 5 61 55 60 65
E-mail: suraud@irsamc2.ups-tlse.fr
http://irsamc1.ups-tlse.fr/

Prof. Dr. Stefan Toma
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, SK-842 15
Bratislava, Slovakia, Tel. 00421-2-60296 208,
Fax 00421-2-60296 690, E/mail toma@fns.uniba.sk
http://www.fns.uniba.sk/~kor/toma/toma.html

Prof. Robert Q. Topper
Robert Q. Topper
Chair and Associate Professor
Department of Chemistry, Medical Technology and Physics
Monmouth University
400 Cedar Avenue, > West Long Branch, NJ 07764-1898; USA
1+(732)571-4418 (voice);1+(732)263-5213 (fax)
rtopper@monmouth.edu

Dr. Alexandre Varnek
Institut de Chimie, 4, rue B. Pascal, Strasbourg 67000, FRANCE
tel. +33- 3.90.24.15.49 FAX +33-3.90.24.15.45
E-mail: varnek@crypt.u-strasbg.fr or varnek@chimie.u-strasbg.fr

Dr. Lichang Wang
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
e-mail: lwang@chem.siu.edu
Phone: 618-453-6476
Fax: 618-453-6408
http://www.science.siu.edu/chemistry/wang/

Dr. Zdenek Wimmer
Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, Flemingovo namesti 2, CZ-16610 Prague 6,
Czech Republic
Telephone: (+420 2) 2018 3281 or 2018 3219
FAX: (+420 2) 2431 0090
E-mail: wimmer@uochb.cas.cz
Homepage (Institute): http://www.uochb.cas.cz

Editorial Advisory Board
Prof. Dr. R. Stephen Berry
Department of Chemistry and the James Franck Institute, The University of Chicago, 5735 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
E-mail: berry@uchicago.edu
http://chemistrydev.uchicago.edu/fac/berry_group/
Prof. Dr. Petr Carsky
J.Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry, Academy of Sciences of teh Czech Republic, Doleskova 3, 18223 Prague 8, Czech Republic. phone: (4202)-6605-3665, fax: (4202)-858-2307, E-mail: petr.carsky@jh-inst.cas.cz
http://www.jh-inst.cas.cz

Prof. Dr. David C. Clary, FRS
Department of Chemistry
University College London
20 Gordon Street
London WC1H OAJ , UK
Fax: 020 7679 4560
Phone: 020 7679 1488
email: d.c.clary@ucl.ac.uk
http://www.chem.ucl.ac.uk/people/clary/index.html

Prof. Dr. Marc Henry
Laboratoire de Chimie Moléculaire de l'État Solide, UMR ULP-CNRS 7513 "Chimie des Métaux de Transition" Université Louis Pasteur, Insitut Le Bel, Bureau 504, 4, Rue Blaise Pascal, 67070 Strasbourg Cedex, France
Tel: +33.3.90.24.13.56, e-mail: henry@chimie.u-strasbg.fr
web: http://www-chimie.u-strasbg.fr/~lcmes

Prof. Dr. Hanspeter Huber
Institut für Physikalische Chemie, Klingelbergstrasse 80, 4056 Basel, Switzerland. Tel: 267 38 30, FAX: 061 267 38 55, EMail: Hanspeter.Huber@unibas.ch
http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/PC/Huber/Huber.html

Prof. Dr. Uzi Kaldor
School of Chemistry, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel. Tel.972-3-6408590, Fax 972-3-6428273, E-mail: kaldor@jade.tau.ac.il
http://www.tau.ac.il/~kaldor

Dr. Jerome Karle*
Laboratory for the Structure of Matter, CODE 6030, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. 20375-5341, USA. Phone +1 202-767-2665; fax +1 202-767-0953, e-mail williams@harker.nrl.navy.mil

Prof. Dr. Venceslav Kaucic
National Institute of Chemistry &
University of Ljubljana
P. O. Box 660
1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Phone: +386 1 4760-256
Fax: +386 1 4259-244, e-mail: slavko.kaucic@KI.si
http://www.ki.si

Prof. Dr. Erik Larsen.
Chemistry Department
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University
Thorvaldsensvej 40
DK-1871 Frederiksberg
Denmark
Phone + 45 35 28 24 09
Fax + 45 35 28 23 98
e-mail: Erik@KVL.DK
http://www.kemi.kvl.dk/~erikl

Prof. Dr. Yuan-Tseh Lee**
Academia Sinica, 128, Sec. 2, Yen-Chiu-Yuan Road, Nankang, Taipei 115, Taiwan, R.O.C. Tel: 886-2-2789-9404, Fax: 886-2-2785-3852, E-mail: ytlee@gate.sinica.edu.tw
http://www.iams.sinica.edu.tw/introa/research.html

Prof. Dr. Jerzy Konarski
Head of Laboratory of Theoretical Spectroscopy and Theoretical Chemistry, President of the Polish Chemical Society, Faculty of Chemistry, A.Mickiewicz University of Poznan, Grunwaldzka 6, PL-60-780 Poznan, Poland. ph (+4861)86-99-181 ext.461, fax ( +4861)86-58-008, (+4822)83-11-304(Office of the President of Polish Chemical Society), mobil phone (48)604-525-166, e-mail: konarski@ROVIB.amu.edu.pl

Prof. Dr. Cheuk-Yiu Ng
Ames Laboratory and, Department of Chemistry, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Tel: 515-294-4225, Fax: 515-294-5825, Email: cyng@ameslab.gov,
http://www.chem.iastate.edu/DeptInfo/Ng/Ng.html

Prof. Dr. Minh Tho Nguyen
Department of Chemistry, University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200F, B-3001 - Leuven, Belgium. Tel. 32-16-327361, Fax 32-16-327992, e-mail: minh.nguyen@chem.kuleuven.ac.be

Prof. Dr. Torbjörn Norin, Organic Chemistry, Teknikringen 56, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. tel.: +46 (8) 7908122 fax.: +46 (8) 7912333, e-mail: tnorin@kth.se
http://orgsgi.orgchem.kth.se/index.html

Prof. Dr. Piotr Petelenz
K.Guminski Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Jagiellonian University, Ingardena 3, 30-060 Krakow, Poland. Tel. (0-48-12) 633 63 77 ext. 2212 (office), Fax (0-48-12) 634 05 15, tel. (0-48-12) 632 54 56 (home), e-mail: PETELENZ@Trurl.ch.uj.edu.pl

Prof. Dr. Charles L. Perrin
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0358, USA. E-mail cperrin@chem.ucsd.edu

Prof. Dr. Henryk Ratajczak
Centre Scientifique de l'Academie Polonaise des Sciences
74, rue Lauriston
75116 Paris, France
Tel.: 01 56 90 18 34
Fax : 01 47 55 46 97
E-mail: akademia@club-internet.fr

Prof. Dr. Jacek Rychlewski
Professor of Theoretical Chemistry
Department of Quanm Chemistry
Faculty of Chemistry
A.Mickiewicz Univerty
ul.Grunwaldzka 6, 6780 Poznan, Poland
te. 48-61-8291275
fax 48- 61-8568008
E-mail: rychlew@rose.man.poznan.pl

Prof. Dr. Valentine Sergienko
Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
50, Svetlanskaya St., 690950, Vladivostok, Russia
Tel: (4232) 264997, Fax: (4232) 261025, E-mail: sergienko@hq.febras.ru

Prof. Dr. Laszlo I. Simandi, Head
Department of Catalysis
Institute of Chemistry
Chemical Research Center
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
H-1525 Budapest, P.O. Box 17
FAX: (36-1) 325-7554
PHONE: (36-1) 325-9177
e-mail: <simandi@cric.chemres.hu>
http://www.chemres.hu/KKKI/groups/catalysis

Prof. Dr. Chun-che Tsai
Department of Chemistry, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242-0001
USA. Tel: (330) 672-2989, Fax: (330) 672-3816, E-mail: ctsai@kent.edu
http://molgraf.chem.kent.edu/~chemweb/faculty/tsai.htm

Prof. Dr. A.J.C. Varandas
Departamento de Quimica, Universidade de Coimbra, P-3049 Coimbra Codex, Portugal. ph: 039-852080, office: 039-835867, fax: 039-827703, email: varandas@qtvs1.uc.pt

Prof. Dr. Jacques Weber
Department of physical chemistry
University of Geneva
30 quai Ernest-Ansermet
1211 Geneva 4
Switzerland
Phone: +41.22.702.6530 (direct), +41.22.702.6529 (secretary), Fax: +41.22.702.6518, E-mail: Jacques.Weber@chiphy.unige.ch
Website: http://lcta.unige.ch


Notes:
*Winner of the 1985 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
**Winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Chemistry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IJMS (ISSN 1422-0067)
Last change: 29 January 2004, Webmaster: lin@mdpi.org
© 2001-2004 by Molecular Diversity Preservation International MDPI), Basel, Switzerland

[gaiacomm]

Jay;

Contact these people if you dare!

[halva]

All of these issues can be left for the real-life public meeting, when the two sides can measure their strength.

As far as Nikos Katsaros is concerned, he and I have spoken together about chemtrails/aerosol spraying/geoengineering on two occasions where he came out very heavily against 'chemtrails' both times. He has also contributed a couple of chapters to Liakopoulos' book, where the content is similar. If I look around I could find all of the text of his answer to Reynolds, which would contextualise his saying that there is no proof of chemtrails. His point was that there should be funding for the relevant research. Rather similar to what Sore Throat was saying.

I could also translate Katsaros' articles, but what's the point of doing all this just to satisfy the beleaguered ego of a Reynolds, allowing him to continue to clutch at every last straw?

Let him turn up at the real-life meeting.

If I asked Katsaros to come here and stand before Reynolds' judgement tribunal in cyberspace, his response would be that he could not be bothered. He reacts to what he sees going on around him in the Greek environment. Reynolds has no reality for him.

As I said, Reynolds is a phantom. A non-existent person.

That will be evident when we have our public meeting in California.

[halva]

Here are photographs of the two public meetings with Nikos Katsaros. On the second thread you have to scroll down:

http://www.diplomatictimes.com/hddf/hddf/aginameetinjuly.htm

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=technosphere&num=1073367108&start=60

[jayreynolds]

halva mentions that he has spoken to Dr. Katsaros, twice.


Dr. Katsaros wrote me saying,

"As you probably know, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever concerning chemtrails and there composition."

Sounds like you were not successful in persuading Dr. Katsaros, halva!

I challenge you, 'halva' to provide an accurate translation of his remarks, as I contend he will not himself show any evidence of support for the hoax.
-----------------------------
Below is the text of my reply to him. I believe he is now much better informed, and that he will continue to admit that there is no evidence whatsoever concerning chemtrails.

Dear Mr.Katsaros,

Thank you for your reply. It is only through communication that understanding can happen. I will make some responses and answer your questions below.


>As you probably know there is no scietific evidence whatsoever concerning chemtrails and there composition.This is my concern and the concern of others about the origin and the chemical composition of chemtrails.

As I understand it, you have viewed the William Thomas video. He revived the chemtrails hoax in 1999 by claiming to have a laboratory analysis of "chemtrails" which said they were ethylene dibromide.
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/sick.html

Later the same year, Thomas changed his claim to say he had a lab analysis which proved "chemtrails" were molds, bacteria, and enzymes. http://www.netowne.com/environmental/contrails/willthomas/skysamples.htm A

Still later, Thomas claimed to have a laboratory analysis showing mica and silica were in chemtrails.
http://www.netowne.com/environmental/contrails/willthomas/chemtrails5.htm

It has become clear since 1999 that Thomas will never show those claimed lab analysis because they do not exist, he had lied. Thomas then changed his claim to say that "chemtrails" were aluminum, again claiming a lab analysis which is never shown.

This pattern shows us that deception and lies have ruled the chemtrails claims from the beginning as they still do.

>Alternatively do you have any scientific evidence that chemtrails is just an "internet hoax" as you mentioned in your letter?

As a man of science from Greece, the birthplace of logic and reason, I am certain you know that a negative event cannot be falsified or disproven. You would certainly not expect to scientifically disprove the greek concept of "The Evil Eye", would you?

"Chemtrails" do exist, but are simply ordinary water crystal contrails. In scientific logic, 'Occam's Razor' tells us to look towards the simplest explanation for a phenomenon. Most often, people like yourself have not been directed towards valid scientific information about normal contrails. The promoters of the hoax know that to continue, their victims nust remain ignorant. Here is the best reference material I can quote to you about the subject of aircraft emissions, pay special attention to chapter 3.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/

The current claim that "chemtrails" contain aluminum CAN be tested.
Aluminum is known to be highly reflective of radar emissions, and is even used by the military to confuse enemy radar-seeking missiles. If, in fact, airplanes were spraying visible clouds of aluminum, these would appear as fast-moving stripes of color coincident with the speed and direction of the planes observed by eye on normal weather radar available to ordinary viewers. As you will find, the chemtrails do not show up! This test can be made by anyone, and I encourage you to do so. Please repeat the test while making observations at an airport radar center to see for yourself that the contrails you see come from ordinary jetliners.

>I personally believe that no Aluminum oxide or other chemicals are used,but who is responsible to prove it?

But of course it is the ones who make the chemtrails claim who are responsible for presenting such proof. They have made many claims for which they have never shown the proof which they stated they had. One is reminded of the fable of the "Boy Who Cried "Wolf"!"

>I have not seen any official statement from any international organization or big nations stating that chemtrails do not exist.

Just as the government of Greece does not spend resources dispelling "The Evil Eye", those entrusted with the people's money do not without reason set out to disprove most hoaxes. However, after receiving many questions an accusations, the US Air Force did respond, first with a press release about the ethylene dibromide hoax and later with a website about the chemtrails hoax:
http://www.pr.wpafb.af.mil/JP8plus100.html

http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_chemtrail.shtml

Additionally, after being accused of involvement, the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) and the National Aeronatic and Space Administration(NASA) in concert produced a fact sheet explaining how what are called "chemtrails" are actually ordinary contrails.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf

Internationally, the organization THE INTERNATIONAL CLEAR-SKY ASSOCIATION
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/ICSA/
formed by Danish astronomer Holger Peterson, is concerned about the effect persistent contrail clouds have on astronomy. Holger has found that the chemtrail hoax has hurt his legitimate efforts towards a clear sky for astronomy. Please view his most excellent slide show of persistent but ordinary contrails.
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/S/choise.html

Mr. Katsaros, I hope to hear back from you after you have time to review the references I cite. Let me now if this has increased your understanding, and if you can see that chemtrails are just contrails.



Jay Reynolds


>Best vregards

>Dr Nikos Katsaros
>Director of Research
>NCSR DEMOKRITOS
>
>

[Sore Throat]

Who are you going to believe?

Sir David King and the thousands of reptuable scientists and Nobel Laureates from around the world that agree with his position...

or a self-published, supremely egotistical contrarian with ties to the oil and energy companies?

For the time being it's still a free country.

Make your choice and act accordingly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3498830.stm

Scientist urges US climate help

The US will have to help combat climate change if extreme weather events are to be avoided, the government's chief scientist has warned.

Sir David King told a Lords select committee inquiry into climate change of concerns about possible environment changes if global temperatures rise.

Last summer's European heat wave and flooding two years earlier could occur more frequently over time, he said.

Action to "reduce the risks" needed to be taken by nations, including the US.

Possible changes could include ocean currents, monsoons and melting polar ice caps if global temperatures are allowed to rise unchecked through carbon fuel burning.

"These severe events will occur more frequently, and the understanding of what is driving this will become more apparent," Sir David said.

"I think nations around the world will understand that in order to reduce the risks action will have to be taken.

"And amongst those nations has to be the United States, which is currently responsible for emitting about a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide."

The US has been criticised worldwide since President Bush pledged not to support the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding global warming reductions.

Sir David's appearance at the select committee came a day after he denied reports that he was being "muzzled" by Downing Street.

No 10 had sent a memo to him after he said climate change was a bigger problem than the threat of terrorism.

However, Sir David has continued to conduct media interviews.

In January, Sir David wrote an article for the American journal Science criticising the US Government for failing to take global warming more seriously.

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," he wrote.

Predictions coming true

We've now had ten of the hottest years on record over the last two thousand. And all of the predictions are now coming true unfortunately.


He told the Lords committee that the scientific community had reached a consensus that global warming was man made and "is essentially fossil fuel burning".

Sir David also disclosed that BP, Amoco and Shell were in talks about putting money into a new UK energy research centre.

He said this would have a key role in predicting climate change and temperature rise.

A key energy research laboratory, part of the old Central Electricity Generating Board, was shut down when the electricity industry was privatised in the 1980s.

Details about the new research unit will be unveiled shortly, he said.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3498830.stm

[Bonehead9]

Who are you going to believe?

Sir David King and the thousands of reptuable scientists and Nobel Laureates from around the world that agree with his position...

or a self-published, supremely egotistical contrarian with ties to the oil and energy companies?



Are you talking about the chemtrail hoax here or global warming? The two issues are totally separate, and as far as I have read, Jay has only addressed the issue of the chemtrail hoax.

If you are claiming that “thousands of reptuable scientists and Nobel Laureates from around the world� believe in chemtrails, I would like to see some back up to that claim.

:D

[Bonehead9]

My kind of climate :D

[Enviroman]

Halva,

I have a background in Environmental Science and worked at an airport during university studies, so I pretty knowledgeable about aircraft types.

If you can post some detailed photos of planes with chemical spraying gear visible, and some lab report data, I would do what I can to assist with interpretion of the photos and data.

Some empiracle, objective data and photos would be wonderful!

Thanks

[Bonehead9]

Halva,

I have a background in Environmental Science and worked at an airport during university studies, so I pretty knowledgeable about aircraft types.

If you can post some detailed photos of planes with chemical spraying gear visible, and some lab report data, I would do what I can to assist with interpretion of the photos and data.

Some empiracle, objective data and photos would be wonderful!

Thanks


Well Enviroman, I also have some background in environmental science.
Therefore I would like to direct your attention to the numerous "studies" that have been posted on the internet by Mr. Clifford Carnicom.

Please read this. (http://www.carnicom.com/rain2.htm)

Do you think that this is accurate and "empiracle" data?


How about this? (http://www.carnicom.com/precip1.htm)

Do you think that this is a valid test? Can you think of any ways that this test method could have been improved? (have you ever heard of AAS?). Do you think that adequate quality assurance/ quality control was utilized in this experiment? Can you think of any ways that the reliability of the test could have been improved? How many potential sources of interference can you name for these tests?

Here is another interesting report (http://www.carnicom.com/bio10.htm) for your reading pleasure.

And finally, the piece de resistance, can you give us an objective, unbiased, evaluation of this report? (http://www.carnicom.com/lab1.htm)

[Bonehead9]

Oh, and as for pictures

Here you go:

[Sore Throat]

Bonehead9 wrote:


Are you talking about the chemtrail hoax here or global warming? The two issues are totally separate, and as far as I have read, Jay has only addressed the issue of the chemtrail hoax.

If you are claiming that “thousands of reptuable scientists and Nobel Laureates from around the world� believe in chemtrails, I would like to see some back up to that claim.


In this case Bonehead9 I am talking about accelerating climate change, not Chemtrails.

While you post a WW II picture that is a favorite of Jay Reynolds, it would appear that you have not taken the time to study his web site or past writing where he has repeatedly claimed that global warming is a hoax.

His precise words.

Could it be that he is finding his increasing minority position on this subject is no longer even faintly defensible?

How deceiving graphs can be with exponential scales (timeline). What is of concern is the current rate of change. But then, you wouldn't want to discuss that.

As far as Chemtrails and Global Warming being totally separate issues...that's your opinion.

Voluminous proposals on the use of geoengineering to mitigate current climate change would clearly indicate that this is a false assumption on your part.

[Bonehead9]

ST, do you have any comments on Carnicom's "Science?"

[Bonehead9]

Oh, and how are the commercial air cariers suposed to run regulary scheduled routes with out flying repetative flightpaths?

[jayreynolds]

A friend of 'halva's from from Greece made one post on this thread, on page one.
-----------------
liakopoulos
Post subject: Unaxplainable attacks by Raynolds

"I wonder why mr Raynolds attacks all those who care about this poor planet. As a physics professor I sugest that he should stand down from his unspeakable beliefs on chemtrails and stop poisoning a task, that is already difficult ,against those who order the spraying."
----------------------
Then halva wrote:
"As far as Nikos Katsaros is concerned, he and I have spoken together about chemtrails/aerosol spraying/geoengineering on two occasions where he came out very heavily against 'chemtrails' both times. He has also contributed a couple of chapters to Liakopoulos' book, where the content is similar.
----------------------
Since halva has touted this Liakopoulos' supposed book about "chemtrails", and had posted that he was a physics professor, I decided to do some searching, just who is this Liakopoulos?
Guess what I found?

Liakopoulos is an anti-semite racist that carried the hoax about 4000 jews being warned to stay home from the WTC on 9/11.
---------------------
Greece.
Greek investigations and anger.
* Five Israelis are held in NJ prison because of "puzzled behavor",
* 4000 Israelis were absent from their work,
* Ariel Sharon had canceled his flight to NY.

Traces that have been collected by a team that work with Physist & Journalist Mr. Demosthenis Liakopoulos in Thessaloniki have alerted Greece as for the dark back ground about the strike in NY. Mr Demosthenis Liakopoulos from his everyday TV show in Thessaloniki from TELEASTY and later from BEST chanel has give the clues
in public. Later Mr Georgios Karatzaferis has investigate the clues and after hours found from Israeli newspapers the edvidences. After 2 days html pages has been removed. Mr Karatzaferis is giving a "boost" to this (also Mr Liakopoulos) and asssumes those clues very important. Thats why as an x-minister he set a question to the Greek Parliament to Mister Afairs Mr Papandreou. Mr Karatzaferis is in cooperate with Mr Liakopoulos and his team to collect more clues than allready have presented from his newspaper A1. Also at 23th Israeli Embassy has answered at those facts by a way that confronts the 4000 case only without mention anything about the other 2 matters. We Greeks are against to the blind strikes that USA may do, because we are not agree without edvidence to baptize guilty just suspects all over the world. Specially and because we have traditional rellations with the East (our ancient source) we pray and we promiss to you that as Greeks we gonna standup infront to anyone superior that he is wrong, and he is not act as human.
http://www.pdastreet.com/boards/America-Under-Attack/messages/357.html

Ah-ha, so Liakopoulos is a racist nincompoop who works for a TV statiion named Teleasty, owned by Georgios Karatzaferis. Wonder what the TV station is like? Who is Georgios Karatzaferis?
---------------------------------
Further checking into the Teleasty TV station and it's owner
Georgios Karatzaferis yields:

"13: MP and leader of Ultra-nationalist LAOS party George Karatzaferis Through his newspaper Alpha Ena, television channel TeleAsty, and statements and parliamentary questions (Jewish involvement in 9/11 and suspected Jewish origins of Greek politicians) Karatzaferis is notably Greece’s most vocal propagator of anti-Semitism and conspiracies theories. "
http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_print.cfm?ItemId=8328

--------------
HALVA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING BRINGING GREEK RACISTS INTO THE CHEMTRAILS DEBATE?
YOU MADE IT SOUND LIKE YOU WERE DOING GREAT THINGS IN GREECE.
NOW THE TRUTH COMES OUT, YOU ARE ONLY INFLUENCING RACIST ANTI-SEMITE TYPES.
THIS LOOKS PRETTY BAD FOR YOU HALVA AND THE PROOF IS ALL LAID OUT PLAIN AND NICE. ELLYN WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT, THOUGH.

[gaiacomm]

Link:

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html

[foot_soldier]

March 11, 2004

Chilling global forecast
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/10/1078594434768.html

From the article:


Yesterday Dr Matear explained that if global warming continued melting Arctic ice and increasing evaporation, boosting rainfall in the North Atlantic, "the North Atlantic could be flooded with fresh water. The flood of fresh water reduces the density of the surface and prevents the water from sinking deep into ocean," he said, adding that the vertical sinking of sea water helped drive ocean circulation.

Officially called the thermo-haline circulation, the pattern is sometimes dubbed the Great Conveyer Belt.

Dr Matear said the decline in oxygen levels in deep water of the Southern Ocean was exactly what computer modelling suggested would be seen if global warming slowed this circulation, reducing the cold water flowing south of Australia. "Cold water is high in oxygen," he said.

Dr Matear said although it was too early to say what impact a shutdown of ocean currents would have on Australian temperatures, he agreed Europe could be sent into a severe chill.

"A decline of five degrees by end of this century . . . that wouldn't be unrealistic."

Dr Matear said a decline in oxygen levels would be particularly serious for sea life in the tropics, where the warmer water is already oxygen-poor.

[gaiacomm]

history:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/con_chem.htm

[Bonehead9]

Ben Hur, gaiacon, Iman, or whatever you call yourself. you have posted some links that reference Clif Carniom's site. Do you care to coment on the so-called research that I linked to above?

[Sore Throat]

...that we breathe.

From 1991 the mean concentration in California air was 26.7 nanograms/cubic meter to 50.8 nanograms/cubic meter in 2002....a doubling in my book.

Know of any other toxic heavy metals that have doubled over that time span?

Just how healthful do you think it is for us to be exposed to increasing concentrations of this toxic heavy metal?

Where do you think that it is coming from?

Do the people have a reasonable expectation to get answers from the government agencies that their tax dollars support?

How much are you willing to take?

source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/toxics/statepages/bastate.html

[Sore Throat]

Patrick Minnis, J. Kirk Ayers and Steven P. Weaver, Surface-Based Observations of Contrail Occurrence Frequency Over the U.S., April 1993--April 1994 , NASA RP-1404, December 1997, pp. 83, (4MB).

http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/refer/1997/NASA-97-rp1404.refer.html

Worth careful study.

Note in particular the DOCUMENTED frequency of persistent contrails prior to the barrage that people from all across the country suddenly noticed in 1999.

[Sore Throat]

http://datasystem.earthkam.ucsd.edu/cgi-bin/datasys/ks_imageview.pl?dzs=images&ekmenu=on&onoff=188&size=765&file=level6.ppm&bestname=STS099.ESC.01191313&back=12747b&flatmapfile=&minmax=-90.0,-180.0,90.0,180.0

[Yaak]

Barium is added to Diesel fuel as an anti-smoking agent; .075%. The coal smoke cloud that envelops the Earth contains barium, mercury and arsenic. Now, everybody take a deep breath.

[foot_soldier]

From the reference posted by "gaiacomm"

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html


It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%. An increase in cloud amount changes the region's radiation balance. For example, solar energy reaching the surface may be reduced, resulting in surface cooling. They also reduce the terrestrial energy losses of the planet, resulting in a warming. Jet exhaust also plays a role in modifying the chemistry of the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. NASA and the DOE are sponsoring a research program to study the impact contrails have on atmospheric chemistry, weather and climate.

What I find really annoying is that the
"it's only normal contrails" commentary seems to
quite deliberately and consistently stop at that
very point - as if the kind of mess displayed in
the above-posted photos is nothing to be concerned
about. There's plenty of literature out there that in
fact indicates otherwise - that in fact the increasing
incidence of persistent "normal contrail" coverage
IS something to be concerned about.

So, whatever the reason for the last few years'
highly-visible and relatively continuous proliferation
of persistent contrails, I don't buy the "it's only
normal contrails" litany. I think it's disingenuous
at best and criminally deceptive at worst.

[liakopoulos]

I would like to answer all mr Raynold's questions on behalf of HALVA, but first I would like to understand his unger and fury against him. Why is mr Raynolds so concerned about those who trace the chemtrails issue? It is defenately certain that he has a lot of free time to spend in front of his keyboard or certain interests to protect. So ,dear mr Raynolds give us your degree of education so that I can use the appropriate terminology for you to comprehend everything.

[jayreynolds]

Liakopoulos,
The information you request has already been discussed on this forum.
Documentation was provided. I have a Baccalaureate degree in Engineering from Texas A&M University.

First, Leokopoulos, explain how you concluded that 4000 jews at the World Trade Center got prior warning before 9/11.

Then, since you have written a book on the subject of "chemtrails", answer these questions:


1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

[jayreynolds]

Sore posts pictures of contrails. Where are your telescopic pictures of the planes themselves? Unless you provide them, in abundance, it is clear that after five years you have no serious intentions to dicover that the planes you see are normal commercial jets making ordinary contrails.

You are a phony, 'Sore'. Exposed as a "chemtrail" do-nothing, have-nothing. Just a silly "believer" not ever willing to even take decent photos of the planes you say are making you sick.

What a joke you are. Answer the questions, silly man, your avoidance of them speaks volumes.
Jay

[amber]

Mrs Reynolds stated:


HALVA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING BRINGING GREEK RACISTS INTO THE CHEMTRAILS DEBATE?
YOU MADE IT SOUND LIKE YOU WERE DOING GREAT THINGS IN GREECE.
NOW THE TRUTH COMES OUT, YOU ARE ONLY INFLUENCING RACIST ANTI-SEMITE TYPES.
THIS LOOKS PRETTY BAD FOR YOU HALVA AND THE PROOF IS ALL LAID OUT PLAIN AND NICE.
...Liakopoulos is an anti-semite racist that carried the hoax about 4000 jews being warned to stay home from the WTC on 9/11.


That would be right Mrs Reynolds, throw an accusation on anti-semiticsm at anyone who believes the events surrounding 911 are suspicious to say the least...how's that glass house you are living in btw:


FROM JAY'S OWN WEBSITE: Upon returning from 12 years offshore, Jay was astonished at the changes he found in his nation. The loss of American rights, the submersion of sovereignty, lowering of educational achievement, and the decline of America's preeminence in manufacturing were especially troubling. Seeking answers and solutions, he allied with WILLIAM COOPER, a great American who has been documenting these changes and their possible outcomes. Jay's research has helped in the production of a newspaper, VERITAS, the Harvest-Trust website, and Mr. Cooper's nightly broadcast "The Hour of the Time". His writing has been featured on several websites and newspapers, and he hopes to provide the best information possible, fully documented and verifiable by any reader. He is willing to listen to all viewpoints ( IN WHICH PARALLEL UNIVERSE WOULD THAT BE?) and strives to establish reality based on factual information and logical analysis. His work has been completely without remuneration and is for the benefit of all. (BLESS HIS COTTON SOCKS :roll: )


Mr.Cooper? :?:


People, as well as facts are prone to stumble into one of the many conspiracy universes. Once inside, the vortex only gains in size and strength, sucking in everything that person touches. Bill Cooper, who calls himself an independent UFO researcher, has entered such a universe, and it's likely that he will never return. He identifies with his theory so completely that he thinks anyone who challenges it--even his friends--do so only because they're part of the conspiracy. It is no use to point out contradictions, or even trivial errors, because Bill Cooper knows THE TRUTH.

Now that sounds like a familiar personality on this board; Mrs Reynolds, you seem to have picked up a few of the traits of your late friend :shock:


Though William Cooper is a self-professed regular guy and ex-military man, his claims rival the Weekly World News for sensationalism. Cooper doesn't merely believe that our government signed a formal treaty with extraterrestrials in 1954, or that we have already set up a base on the planet Mars, or any number of other bizarre claims; he knows these things to be true, because while working for Naval Intelligence, he actually saw the secret documents that prove them.
Cooper burst upon the UFO scene with these claims in 1988, and has been a controversial and infamous figure ever since. He gives public lectures, is heard on the radio, sends out newsletters and, in 1991 came out with a book, Behold a Pale Horse. In UFO research circles, Cooper is best known for accusing his colleagues to be CIA agents and for physically threatening them. According to researcher Bob Lazar, "Everyone seems to have a Bill Cooper story..." Since 1988, Cooper has been accused of being an alcoholic, a liar and a fascist or even worse, written off as a psychopath; with the exception of Jacques Vallee, his critics have focused more attention on his belligerent personality, than on the obvious contradictions and factual errors of his story
Behold a Pale Horse is a fine example of conspiratorial logic. Therein, Cooper includes every gory detail of the sinister alien plot to control humanity, as well as the documents which supposedly back it all up.


Hang on a second...aliens...Jay's best buddy KNEW that aliens are a reality :shock: But wasn't it jay that said a few posts back....


Diane Harvey has, publicly at least, become disengaged with the chemtrail issue and is no longer a player, under that screen name.
Invoking her as a reference in debate is a mistake Mr 'Sore' would have advised you to not do, halva.
Her reputation was partially destroyed by her own lunatic views on aliens,

Lunatic views :?:
he (JAY) allied with William Cooper, a great American who has been documenting these changes and their possible outcomes. Jay's research has helped in the production of a newspaper, VERITAS, the Harvest-Trust website, and Mr. Cooper's nightly broadcast "The Hour of the Time".

Hmmm...double standards?...hyspocrisy? Alzheimers? Mrs Reynolds?


Cooper also openly stated his belief that both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing were carried out by the US government as a means of using the threat of terrorism to put in place a fascist police state in the name of "National Security."

Your best buddy believed in the conspiratorial view of 911, Mrs Reynolds?
Yet you saw fit , in huge bold letters on this board, to accuse Halva's colleague of being anti -semitic for raising similar concerns:

HALVA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING BRINGING GREEK RACISTS INTO THE CHEMTRAILS DEBATE?
YOU MADE IT SOUND LIKE YOU WERE DOING GREAT THINGS IN GREECE.
NOW THE TRUTH COMES OUT, YOU ARE ONLY INFLUENCING RACIST ANTI-SEMITE TYPES.


Does that description apply to Mr Cooper, too, Mrs Reynolds? :?:

Mrs Reynold's also said on this forum:


Simply said, the idea that a secret conspiracy could be currently taking place to somehow convince thousands of owners, mechanics, and pilots abuse their aircraft's engines by "Changing the fuel mixture in a jet engine to burn rich" is ludicrous,


Ludicrous? :?: Yet your colleague Mr Cooper stated that:


he could confirm "150 per cent" of the ‘Lear Hypothesis’; a paper by John Lear containing allegations of the US Government’s alliance with ETs who, in exchange for advanced alien technology, were ‘allowed’ to abduct unwilling human subjects for experimentation and the harvesting of biological material

So, Mrs Reynolds, Governments possibly spraying populations with chemicals from aircraft is a ludicrous secret conspiracy that you cannot accept, but the reality of secret governemnt alliance with ET- and alien abductions and implants -is not ludicrous and you CAN accept THAT? :?

So before you start slinging terms such as 'cults, nutcases, anti-semites'...etc perhaps you should be a bit more transparent about your previous affiliations :?:

I cannot believe that you worked with a man who you describe as ' a great American' and yet mock and sneer at everything he stood for :shock:

[Bonehead9]

Barium is added to Diesel fuel as an anti-smoking agent; .075%. The coal smoke cloud that envelops the Earth contains barium, mercury and arsenic. Now, everybody take a deep breath.


Not only that, but it Sore bothered to look at the data from CARB, he would see that the state wide increase in the average barium level is influenced by two monitoring sites in L.A.

Not exactly a major widespread trend as he makes it out to be.

[jayreynolds]

I am no longer associated with William Cooper.

[amber]

I am no longer associated with William Cooper.


As he was shot dead by police, your dissassociation his hardly surprising is it? SO you get no brownie points for that.

You proudly claim an association with him on your OWN website, which we are constantly reminded to visit at the end of each of your ubiquitous posts. So your claim to be no longer assocaited with him is disingenuous, 'Mrs Reynolds'.

[jayreynolds]

"bonehead wrote:
Not only that, but if Sore bothered to look at the data from CARB, he would see that the state wide increase in the average barium level is influenced by two monitoring sites in L.A."

'Sore' has been made aware of those facts, and for the benefit of his case, he needs to show his statistical analysis of the barium levels from each of the sites which influenced the chart. He knows, however, that doing so wrecks his case, and it becomes clear that barium is an urban problem.

He brought it up, he implies it is relevant, he has challenged others to respond, we have, but he keeps bringing up the same lame chart without addressing the two sites which bias the mean.

This is what 'Sore said about his chart TWO YEARS AGO!:

"Note dramatic increase in maximum barium concentrations detected in 1999!
Everyone should try to obtain comparable data from their own state agencies responsible for air quality.
Next step...our own air sampling with analyses by certified laboratories (on clear and "cloudy" days)."
YOU WROTE THIS TWO YEARS AGO, WHERE ARE YOUR SAMPLES, 'SORE'?
"I'm ready for them mark...
be they thieves in the night, lurking spooks, crowing roosters, housewives from Indiana, spelunkers (in dark caves of ignorance) or the more mundane debunkers (earning their thirty pieces of silver)...
...yep, I'm ready...
Anytime
Anywhere
Let It Be"

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001161.html
====================================
OK, 'SORE', YOU SAID TWO YEARS AGO YOU WERE READY, THAT YOUR NEXT STEPS WERE THE SAMPLES, WHERE'S THE BEEF?

So, 'Sore', are you going to dodge this question, too?

BTW, the fellow who brought the subject of barium into the chemtrail hoax was named A.C. Griffith. 'Sore' and Deborah helped write "Chemtrails over America". You can read all about it at the link below. After I exposed his hoax, A.C. Griffith went into hiding and has never since appeared publicly on a chemtrail forum. He does, however, have lackeys which are named at the end of this link:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000004.html

EXPLAIN YOUR COMPLICITY IN "CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA", 'SORE',
AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT YOUR BARIUM CHART, YOU BROUGHT IT UP NOW DEAL WITH IT.

I read you like an open book, 'Sore'. Every page I turn opens to yet another failed promise, another unsupported speculation, another hoax exposed. Keep on posting, for with your own words you show the world the weakness of your case, the absolute poverty of your so-called arguments, and your foolishness. They can see with their own eyes how pitifully you defend the hoax, not even willing to answer basic questions for they reveal yet more falsity, ignorance, and deceit. When I am through wth you not even an insane chemmie moron will give you a glance, because you betray their faith every time you trip over your own landmines.

[gaiacomm]

Ben Hur, gaiacon, Iman, or whatever you call yourself. you have posted some links that reference Clif Carniom's site. Do you care to coment on the so-called research that I linked to above?

Answer:

Any data has value it just depends on what you seek and what you need for your question...something like dumpster diving...or another mans tarsh is another mans treasure...

Your links have value and there are some truths to them!

And you can address me with any name you choose!

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

I still read that you still post slander and instigate turmoil.

You spend so much time discounting others and pointing fingers.

Why not use the space to educate others of your position rather than attack. You are quick to point out where everyone is wrong and you are right. That is not signs of a debater.

Facts and un-tampered facts on the chemtrail issues should be presented in a unemotional forum. Remember you are a scientist?

You get alot more with sugar than bleach!

[gaiacomm]

I would like to answer all mr Raynold's questions on behalf of HALVA, but first I would like to understand his unger and fury against him. Why is mr Raynolds so concerned about those who trace the chemtrails issue? It is defenately certain that he has a lot of free time to spend in front of his keyboard or certain interests to protect. So ,dear mr Raynolds give us your degree of education so that I can use the appropriate terminology for you to comprehend everything.


Hey Jay...seems to me that you have another challenger!

Readers:

I have already beaten Jay in debate! So we have one point ahead for chemtrails. Now there is another who wishes to debate with Jay.

So Jay give us another point!

[gaiacomm]

Hey Jay why this?

Contrails, or 'Trails-CON?
A website reviewing the facts and the claims about the Contrails/Chemtrails controversy
by Jay Reynolds
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/

[gaiacomm]

William Cooper Update
Sierra Times 11.06.01


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Details are still sketchy on what caused the Cooper shootout on November 5, 2001, but a fax sent from the Apache County Sheriff's office sheds some more light on the subject. William Cooper was fatally wounded during a late night gunfight. Contrary to what was reported earlier, it was not a SWAT raid, but a simple confrontation between police and Cooper. One Apache County deputy, Robert Martinez was critically wounded in the exchange. Here's what we know so far:

According to the Sheriff's report, several deputies were positioned outside the Cooper residence to serve a warrant for Aggravated Assault and two counts of endangerment. Cooper had stated numerous times in the past that he would not surrender to law enforcement via his website and shortwave radio. Obviously, law enforcement took him seriously. The showdown began at approximately 12:15 pm local time.

After leaving his residence in his vehicle, the report states that Cooper confronted plain clothed deputies a short distance away. "As Cooper drove back to his residence, deputies attempted to stop him using a fully marked patrol vehicle to block the driveway. Cooper refused to stop or comply with verbal orders by the deputies", according to the report.

Cooper then drove around the patrol car to evade the arrest, and the report stated that he tried to run over one of the deputies en route back to his residence. Cooper was then followed a short distance to his residence where this time he was confronted by uniformed deputies. "After refusing once again to comply with the deputies orders, Cooper exited his vehicle and began running toward the house, firing shots with a handgun toward the deputies", the report said. No where in the report did it mention that Cooper only had one leg - the other lost in combat long ago. Cooper died on the scene.

When Deputy Martinez took a head shot, officers returned fire, the report said. According to the Sheriff's office, "the surgery on Martinez went well" , but the condition is still critical. There was a positive history written up about Martinez in the report, but nothing positive about Cooper, of course.

Cooper had made it known that he would take action against law enforcement from years back stating, "trespassers will be shot on discovery." He also denied violating any laws during that period as well. Cooper has a history of harassing and threatening local residents with deadly force, according to the report. He was recently charge with aggravated assault and endangerment, as well as wanted by the U.S. Marshall's Service on unrelated felony charges. Cooper had spent the last month challenging the government's claims about what caused the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11.

Most who knew of Cooper all state that he was a hard man to get along with - if at all. His demeanor and attitude was "unfriendly" at best. Although state-sponsored media called Cooper a "national militia leader", no one has yet to come forward who was under his command, nor has anyone to this point come forward to claim his 'militia rank'. None of those who knew Cooper and spoke to Sierra Times wanted to go on the record, but the best statement was, "he was a son-of a bitch, but he was our son-of-a bitch". The new Patriot Act of 2001 has many wondering if the Cooper take down was just the beginning in silencing the voices on opposition in the Country. "Are they just starting in alphabetical order?" one person asked. Cooper was best known for being the first to provide evidence of explosives being found inside the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, including the type of explosive used.

According to his webmaster, "It appears at this time to be totally unrelated to the disputes he had with the federal government." There were no federal agents involved with the gunfight.

Angel Shamaya and Shonda M. Ponder contributed to this story.

[gaiacomm]

http://www.hourofthetime.com/

[gaiacomm]

Readers:

Jay will not post as long as he thinks I am here. He is like a roach in the kitchen when you turn the lights on!

[amber]

From YOUR website Jay


Seeking answers and solutions, he allied with William Cooper, a great American who has been documenting these changes and their possible outcomes. Jay's research has helped in the production of a newspaper, VERITAS, the Harvest-Trust website, and Mr. Cooper's nightly broadcast "The Hour of the Time".

This quote mentions the nightly broadcasts you helped produce:



Given that Rush Limbaugh and even President Clinton had commented publicly on Cooper in the years before his death, both calling him a dangerous fanatic, as well as the fact that Cooper's weekly radio show was later listed as among the primary political influences on Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh,


At what point did you 'dissassociate'? :?:

Did you share his views at one time? Do you now?

This is serious stuff, Mr Reynolds..were not taking about some unknown, inconsequential mate of yours...We are talking about you being heavily involved with someone, whom the, then, President of your country described as a 'dangerous fanatic'.

You cannot accuse people of being involved in cults; as being nutcases; as being anti-semitic and then gloss over the significance of this association with
I am no longer associated with Mr Cooper

[liakopoulos]

Well ,well, well ! As I have always suspected from the begining. Raynolds acts like an operative of the DARK SIDE OF ZIONISM. Zionism is the patriotic movement of the jews and their purpose is to execute their right to have a secure country ,where to live in peace. Everybody, including myself, recognises this elementary right. BUT, there is the dark side of zionism that oppresses and terrorises the jews, having as an ultimate goal to control the world under one government. Their high level operatives are mostly jews selected from the jew getos all over the world. If someone, anyone, says anything against them ,then they call him a racist, a fanatic, an antisemite ect. So I don't think there is anything to say to Raynolds who is not simply preoccupied but deliberatelly tries to make a joke out of everything concerning the chemtrails issue. Raynolds has always a lot of time to spend in front of his keyboard and he posts more than half the submitions in this forum. WHO ARE YOU mr RAYNOLDS? Who is your boss? Why are you obsessed with everybody who simply seeks the truth? Is it because you care, or just because you being payed for? I hope you can come up with a couple of good answers and not insults, because I am neither a racist nor an antisemite since many of my friends are jews.

[liakopoulos]

REMEMBER TO DISPUTE EVERYTHING. In greek "memneso apesten"

[gaiacomm]

REMEMBER TO DISPUTE EVERYTHING. In greek "memneso apesten"


Jay, come on we are waiting!

I have already beaten and won with you already so I just read now!

You do not have to fear me now, Jay!

It seems that you will lose again you little man!

[gaiacomm]

A Definition of Zionism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

[gaiacomm]

Who Is a Jew?
Level: Basic


Origins of the Words "Jew" and "Judaism"
The original name for the people we now call Jews was Hebrews. The word "Hebrew" (in Hebrew, "Ivri") is first used in the Torah to describe Abraham (Gen. 14:13). The word is apparently derived from the name Eber, one of Abraham's ancestors. Another tradition teaches that the word comes from the word "eyver," which means "the other side," referring to the fact that Abraham came from the other side of the Euphrates, or referring to the fact Abraham was separated from the other nations morally and spiritually.

Another name used for the people is Children of Israel or Israelites, which refers to the fact that the people are descendants of Jacob, who was also called Israel.

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

In the 6th century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham's heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today.

In common speech, the word "Jew" is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word "Judaism" is used to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word "Indian" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site.

Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship. See What Is Judaism?

This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.

Although all Jewish movements agree on these general principles, there are occasional disputes as to whether a particular individual is a Jew. Most of these disputes fall into one of two categories.

First, traditional Judaism maintains that a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew, regardless of who his father is. The liberal movements, on the other hand, consider a person to be Jewish if either of his parents was Jewish and the child was raised Jewish. Thus, if the child of a Jewish father and a Christian mother is raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Reform movement, but not according to the Orthodox movement. On the other hand, if the child of a Christian father and a Jewish mother is not raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Orthodox movement, but not according to the Reform movement! The matter becomes even more complicated, because the status of that children's children also comes into question.

Second, the more traditional movements do not always acknowledge the validity of conversions by the more liberal movements. The more modern movements do not always follow the procedures required by the more traditional movements, thereby invalidating the conversion. In addition, Orthodoxy does not accept the authority of Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis to perform conversions, and the Conservative movement has debated whether to accept the authority of Reform rabbis.

About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked me why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) we use patrilineal descent.

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.

About the Agudath Ha-Rabonim Statement
In March, 1997, the Agudath Ha-Rabonim issued a statement declaring that the Conservative and Reform movements are "outside of Torah and outside of Judaism." This statement has been widely publicized and widely misunderstood, and requires some response. Three points are particularly worth discussing: 1) the statement does not challenge the Jewish status of Reform and Conservative Jews; 2) the statement is not an official statement of a unified Orthodox opinion; 3) the statement was made with the intent of bringing people into Jewish belief, not with the intention of excluding them from it.

First of all, the Agudath Ha-Rabonim statement does not say that Reform and Conservative Jews are not Jews. Their statement does not say anything about Jewish status. As the discussion above explains, status as a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe; it is simply a matter of who your parents are. Reform and Conservative Jews are Jews, as they have always been, and even the Agudath Ha-Rabonim would agree on that point. The debate over who is a Jew is the same as it has always been, the same as was discussed above: the Reform recognition of patrilineal decent, and the validity of conversions performed by non-Orthodox rabbis.

Second, the Agudath Ha-Rabonim is not the official voice of mainstream Orthodoxy. Their statement does not represent the unified position of Orthodox Judaism in America. In fact, the Rabbinical Council of America (the rabbinic arm of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America) immediately issued a strong statement disassociating themselves from this "hurtful public pronouncement [which] flies in the face of Jewish peoplehood."

Finally, before one can denounce a statement like this, one should make an attempt to understand the position of those making the statement. According to Orthodoxy, the Torah is the heart of Judaism. All of what our people are revolves around the unchanging, eternal, mutually binding covenant between G-d and our people. That is the definition of Jewish belief, according to Orthodoxy, and all Jewish belief is measured against that yardstick. You may dispute the validity of the yardstick, but you can't deny that Conservative and Reform Judaism don't measure up on that yardstick. Reform Judaism does not believe in the binding nature of Torah, and Conservative Judaism believes that the law can change.

The Agudath Ha-Rabonim did not intend to cut Reform and Conservative Jews off from their heritage. On the contrary, their intention was to bring Reform and Conservative Jews back to what they consider to be the only true Judaism. The statement encouraged Reform and Conservative Jews to leave their synagogues and "join an Orthodox synagogue, where they will be warmly welcomed." I believe the Agudath Ha-Rabonim were sincere, albeit misguided, in this intention. I have known several Orthodox and Chasidic Jews who believed that if there were no Reform or Conservative synagogues, everyone would be Orthodox. However, my own personal experience with Reform and Conservative Jews indicates that if there were no such movements, most of these people would be lost to Judaism entirely, and that would be a great tragedy.

The opinion of mainstream Orthodoxy seems to be that it is better for a Jew to be Reform or Conservative than not to be Jewish at all. While we would certainly prefer that all of our people acknowledged the obligation to observe the unchanging law (just as Conservative Jews would prefer that all of our people acknowledged the right to change the law, and Reform Jews would prefer that all of our people us to acknowledged the right to pick and choose what to observe), we recognize that, as Rabbi Kook said, "That which unites us is far greater than that which divides us."

Famous Jews
Would you like to know if your favorite TV star is Jewish? Do you want a list of famous Jewish scientists? Is Phillies catcher Mike Lieberthal Jewish or isn't he? Then check out the website Jewhoo! Formatted to look like a parody of Yahoo, this site is not a search engine at all, but is a reference source listing famous Jews in every field of endeavor. It's a fun site, and worth checking out even if you don't want answers to specific questions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 5756-5761 (1995-2001), Tracey R Rich

[gaiacomm]

Hating Jews

When do anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism overlap?

Cathy Young




Last November, an arson attack against a Jewish school in Paris prompted Le Monde, a left-leaning daily hardly known for pro-Israeli sympathies, to editorialize that "disapproval and condemnation of Israel’s policy in the Palestinian territories have clearly lowered the barrier -- already unclear to some -- between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism."

The resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide, fueled largely by the backlash against Israel since the start of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, has been the subject of much heated discussion. At the heart of the debate is the question: Has criticism of Israeli policies become a vehicle and a cover for anti-Jewish prejudices that are otherwise unspeakable in polite society?

Or, conversely, has the charge of anti-Semitism become an all-too-convenient way to silence critics of Israel and of the policies of Ariel Sharon’s government?

It is beyond dispute that the hatred of Israel that now emanates from large sections of the Arab and Muslim worlds is intertwined with the most virulent strain of Jew-hatred.

A typical example is the screed delivered by Malaysia’s then-prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, to the 10th Islamic Summit in October 2003, in which he declared that "the Jews rule this world by proxy" and mused that "they invented and successfully promoted socialism, communism, human rights, and democracy" as means to gain that control. For years now, the mostly government-run media in Arab countries, including "moderate" ones such as Egypt, have been feeding their audiences a stream of anti-Semitic vitriol that would do Nazi Germany proud.

Some of this fare is documented in the new book The Return of Anti-Semitism (Encounter Books), by Commentary Senior Editor Gabriel Schoenfeld. There’s the recycling of anti-Semitic forgeries and canards, including the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There’s Holocaust denial, sometimes accompanied by expressions of regret that the Holocaust didn’t happen. There’s the reappearance of the "blood libel" that accuses the Jews of using the blood of Gentile children in their rituals.

It has also been obvious for some time that the anti-Israeli backlash in Western Europe has been accompanied by a disturbing surge in literal Jew bashing -- almost all of it perpetrated by Arab immigrant youths. From Paris to Berlin to Amsterdam, Jews wearing religious garb or Stars of David have been beaten, synagogues have been firebombed, and rocks have been thrown at buses carrying Jewish schoolchildren.

But things get murky when it comes to the charge that anti-Semitism manifests itself in much of the hostility directed at Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. Schoenfeld unequivocally endorses this view as he documents the vilification of Israel by respectable European intellectuals and the European media. Even in the United States, he claims, support for the Palestinian cause on progressive, multicultural campuses such as Berkeley has been tainted with Jew baiting.

This charge has been made by others, notably Harvard President Lawrence Summers in a speech delivered in late 2002. While Summers was careful to note that "there is much to be debated about the Middle East and much in Israel’s foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously challenged," some accused him of seeking to stifle legitimate debate on these issues by equating criticism of Israel with bigotry.

Sorting out the rights and wrongs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beyond the scope of this column. Schoenfeld makes a convincing case that European media coverage has been skewed. Israeli retaliation for terrorist acts often has received far more attention than the terrorist acts themselves; civilian casualties in operations primarily directed at military targets have been equated with murderous violence that intentionally targets civilians.

It is also true that the condemnation of Israel reeks of double standards. A deafening silence surrounds far worse human rights violations by numerous Third World regimes. There is a movement on American college campuses calling for divestment from companies that do business with Israel; in Europe, hundreds of academics have signed a petition urging a moratorium on research grants to Israeli scholars. There is no push for similar penalties against Russians, despite Russia’s war crimes in occupied Chechnya.

All this has led Israeli cabinet minister and former Soviet dissident Anatoly Scharansky to declare that "Israel has effectively become the world’s Jew," designated for pariah status because of deep-seated prejudice.

But is this anti-Semitism? This is hardly the first time the progressive intelligentsia has applied double standards to human rights abuses. Vile as apartheid was, it’s absurd that in the 1980s South Africa was treated as though it were worse than the Soviet Union. Now Israel is the left’s right-wing regime du jour, seen as a Western colonial outpost in the Third World oppressing the "wretched of the earth."

Extreme and unfair though denunciations of Israel may often be, labeling them anti-Semitic raises troubling questions. Is this a conservative version of political correctness -- the equivalent of crying racism when African regimes are attacked as corrupt or incompetent?

And yet the fact is that critiques of Israel often do morph into more old-fashioned anti-Semitism, partly because of the equation of Israeli and Jew. Schoenfeld quotes the British writer Petronella Wyatt, who has written that conversation about the Middle East in educated British circles often abounds in such comments as, "Well, the Jews have been asking for it, and now, thank God, we can say what we think at last." A columnist for the London Observer has publicly declared that he refused to read pro-Israel letters signed with Jewish-sounding names.

There are also many instances of anti-Israel posters and cartoons employing shockingly anti-Semitic language and imagery, including the old "Christ killer" label. A cartoon in the respectable Italian newspaper La Stampa showed an infant Jesus lying in front of an Israeli tank, the caption saying, "Don’t tell me they want to kill me again."

Far more common is the ploy of equating the Israelis with the Nazis: posters depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a swastika armband, comments about "the Zionist S.S.," comparisons of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. Calling Sharon a hard-liner or a warmonger is hardly anti-Semitic, contrary to what Schoenfeld seems to imply -- but comparing the head of the Jewish state to Hitler, who sought to exterminate the Jews, is beyond obscenity.

As Schoenfeld points out, it is a mistake to think that "real" anti-Semitism has to involve a naked hostility to Jews simply for being Jews, whether based on religion or ethnicity. In the 19th and 20th centuries, anti-Semitism was often associated both with anti-capitalism (since the Jews were seen as the epitome of the money-grubbing bourgeoisie) and with anti-communism (since the Jews were seen as the vanguard of Bolsheviks and other radicals).

Today, all too often, extremist anti-Israeli rhetoric becomes a vehicle for the kind of bigotry that one might have hoped was extinct in the civilized world. Critics of Israeli policies have a special responsibility to condemn it.



Contributing Editor Cathy Young is a columnist for The Boston Globe and the author of Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality (Free Press) and Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (Ticknor & Fields).

[Bonehead9]

Ben Hur, gaiacon, Iman, or whatever you call yourself. you have posted some links that reference Clif Carniom's site. Do you care to coment on the so-called research that I linked to above?

Answer:

Any data has value it just depends on what you seek and what you need for your question...something like dumpster diving...or another mans tarsh is another mans treasure...

Ah, but true scientist don’t go dumpster diving. Like collectors of fine antiques, scientists are interested in the “provenance� of the data. In other words, data found in the trash is expected to be contaminated with trash.


Your links have value and there are some truths to them!

Only some truths? That must mean that there are a whole lot of untruths in there. Tell me, who makes the distinction between what is true and what is not? You? Sore Throat?

Again, for the data to be considered valid, everything has to be valid, not just some of it. As a “scientist� I would have though that you understood this.


And you can address me with any name you choose!

O.K. then, how about I just call you Lance. :)

[gaiacomm]

Ben Hur, gaiacon, Iman, or whatever you call yourself. you have posted some links that reference Clif Carniom's site. Do you care to coment on the so-called research that I linked to above?

Answer:

Any data has value it just depends on what you seek and what you need for your question...something like dumpster diving...or another mans tarsh is another mans treasure...

Ah, but true scientist don’t go dumpster diving. Like collectors of fine antiques, scientists are interested in the “provenance� of the data. In other words, data found in the trash is expected to be contaminated with trash.


Your links have value and there are some truths to them!

Only some truths? That must mean that there are a whole lot of untruths in there. Tell me, who makes the distinction between what is true and what is not? You? Sore Throat?

Again, for the data to be considered valid, everything has to be valid, not just some of it. As a “scientist� I would have though that you understood this.


And you can address me with any name you choose!

O.K. then, how about I just call you Lance. :)



Bonehead:

Ok, Lance is fine!

So now what is your point?

[gaiacomm]

Ben Hur, gaiacon, Iman, or whatever you call yourself. you have posted some links that reference Clif Carniom's site. Do you care to coment on the so-called research that I linked to above?

Answer:

Any data has value it just depends on what you seek and what you need for your question...something like dumpster diving...or another mans tarsh is another mans treasure...

Ah, but true scientist don’t go dumpster diving. Like collectors of fine antiques, scientists are interested in the “provenance� of the data. In other words, data found in the trash is expected to be contaminated with trash.


Your links have value and there are some truths to them!

Only some truths? That must mean that there are a whole lot of untruths in there. Tell me, who makes the distinction between what is true and what is not? You? Sore Throat?

Again, for the data to be considered valid, everything has to be valid, not just some of it. As a “scientist� I would have though that you understood this.


And you can address me with any name you choose!

O.K. then, how about I just call you Lance. :)




Bonehead:

There are scientist that dumpster dive to get data on trash. Scientists that monitor trash dumps for methane, etc. Environmental scientists that do the same.....

Data collection starts like a puzzle with pieces first...you should know that!

Only some truths? That must mean that there are a whole lot of untruths in there. Tell me, who makes the distinction between what is true and what is not? You? Sore Throat?


Answer:
Posters like you and Jay!

[Enviroman]

What does Judaism have to do with this though?

Do we have anything to scientifically corrobborate the aircraft trails lasting longer than in the past? I would prefer to steer clear or anything that is perception or feeling based, in preference to data that is objective and verifiable.

Who would have the detailed photos of the planes with their spraying gear that I can see? I can probably identify the kind of plane, if it a good enough photo. What airports do these planes fly from? Some airports have specific viewing areas, and even if not, would be easy to get a good photo. I am sure someone has to have some.

Thanks

[gaiacomm]

What does Judaism have to do with this though?

Do we have anything to scientifically corrobborate the aircraft trails lasting longer than in the past? I would prefer to steer clear or anything that is perception or feeling based, in preference to data that is objective and verifiable.

Who would have the detailed photos of the planes with their spraying gear that I can see? I can probably identify the kind of plane, if it a good enough photo. What airports do these planes fly from? Some airports have specific viewing areas, and even if not, would be easy to get a good photo. I am sure someone has to have some.

Thanks



Readers:

Its about time someone new is focused.
Good questions...now lets see who has the answers!

[gaiacomm]

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/chemtrailsworld.htm

[jayreynolds]

Liakopoulos,

You have not answered the questions you promised to answer.
Perhaps these questions are only answerable by Jews smarter than yourself?

I will repeat them:

First, Leokopoulos, explain how you concluded that 4000 jews at the World Trade Center got prior warning before 9/11.

Then, since you have written a book on the subject of "chemtrails", answer these questions:


1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

[gaiacomm]

Jay your racist comments should stop!

I strongly suggest that you stop!

Join Arianna and other guests in a lively, ongoing, and non-obscenity laced debate of the issues.

Please respect others and stick to chemtrails and not race!

[gaiacomm]

[quote="jayreynolds"]Liakopoulos,

You have not answered the questions you promised to answer.
Perhaps these questions are only answerable by Jews smarter than yourself?

I will repeat them:

First, Leokopoulos, explain how you concluded that 4000 jews at the World Trade Center got prior warning before 9/11.

Then, since you have written a book on the subject of "chemtrails", answer these questions:

Jay:

You just don't get it do you?

Readers:

I again think a new thread with subject well defined be started and leave jay to his own devices!

Jay, Can you answer some or all of your questions?
You do not need to repsond to me because we all know that you FEAR me!

[gaiacomm]

Liakopoulos,

You have not answered the questions you promised to answer.
Perhaps these questions are only answerable by Jews smarter than yourself?

I will repeat them:

First, Leokopoulos, explain how you concluded that 4000 jews at the World Trade Center got prior warning before 9/11.

Then, since you have written a book on the subject of "chemtrails", answer these questions:



Jay:

You just don't get it do you?

Readers:

I again think a new thread with subject well defined be started and leave jay to his own devices!

Jay, Can you answer some or all of your questions?
You do not need to repsond to me because we all know that you FEAR me!



1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. halva cites William Thomas in his case for "chemtrails". William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

[amber]

Still no answers, Mrs Reynolds?

How deep did your association go with Mr Cooper?


You have not answered the questions you promised to answer.
Perhaps these questions are only answerable by Jews smarter than yourself?

Your friend had some thought about Jews, Jay...did you share them?


Rather than a UFO researcher, Cooper is a classic conspiracy theorist, who cloaks 19th century xenophobia in Space-Age guise. His book even contains a reprint of the entire text of "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion," with a prefatory note, explaining that references to "The Jews" should be replaced by "Illuminati" and the word "goyim" replaced with the word "cattle." Though Cooper is trying to leave the Jews out of his list of conspirators, he's not trying hard enough.

[jayreynolds]

To 'amber',
I would be happy to discuss my personal life on another thread. There we can share equally, you can tell me your name address, etc, then we can each share who we associate and don't associate with. Then our respective personal beliefs can be discussed on a level paddock.
Please let me know where you would like to meet for this.
As far as Jews go, I love them. I was formerly employed by a Jewish gentleman named Leon Hess. If you had attended Cooper's annual meetings, you would have found many Jewish people in attendance.
Funny, when I dfended the Israelis against a chemtrail bigot named Mario Borsellino, he started calling me "Jew" Reynolds!
Jay
----------------------
To 'Giacomm',
I regret that I am not worthy to debate with you. When I came to understand you were the "King of Judea" I understood that you exist on a completely different mental and physical plane than myself, and never the twain shall meet.
Jay
-----------------
To: 'foot soldier',
I agree with your concern that a discussion of ordinary contrails isn't taking place here. However, this thread was originally described by halva as being for a discussion about "chemtrails" and 'Geoengineering".

I suggest you answer fully the questions I ask. If all "chemtrail" believers
would do so honestly, the hoax would be over soon and your concerns can be addressed. Till then, real activism for that cause will be overshadowed by an irrelevant hoax.

Considering how much time you people put into this, sn't it strange how no "chemtrail" conspiracy promoter has wondered out loud if the "chemtrails hoax was actually started to discredit genuine anti-contrails activists?
Jay
--------------------------
To halva,
You previously wrote, "In the latest number of "Aiginaia", the cultural/historical magazine of Aigina, there is an article on Chemtrails by Nikos Katsaros."
Please provide a translation so that your"chemtrail" activist friends can see what the good Dr. has to tell them. Translation is your line of work, and you have been fairly silent since yesterday. Problems with that?
Jay

[gaiacomm]

To 'amber',
I would be happy to discuss my personal life on another thread. There we can share equally, you can tell me your name address, etc, then we can each share who we associate and don't associate with. Then our respective personal beliefs can be discussed on a level paddock.
Please let me know where you would like to meet for this.

Jay
----------------------
To 'Giacomm',
I regret that I am not worthy to debate with you. When I came to understand you were the "King of Judea" I understood that you exist on a completely different mental and physical plane than myself, and never the twain shall meet.
Jay
-----------------
To: 'foot soldier',
I agree with your concern that a discussion of ordinary contrails isn't taking place here. However, this thread was originally described by halva as being for a discussion about "chemtrails" and 'Geoengineering".

I suggest you answer fully the questions I ask. If all "chemtrail" believers
would do so honestly, the hoax would be over soon and your concerns can be addressed. Till then, real activism for that cause will be overshadowed by an irrelevant hoax.

Considering how much time you people put into this, sn't it strange how no "chemtrail" conspiracy promoter has wondered out loud if the "chemtrails hoax was actually started to discredit genuine anti-contrails activists?
Jay
--------------------------
To halva,
You previously wrote, "In the latest number of "Aiginaia", the cultural/historical magazine of Aigina, there is an article on Chemtrails by Nikos Katsaros."
Please provide a translation so that your"chemtrail" activist friends can see what the good Dr. has to tell them. Translation is your line of work, and you have been fairly silent since yesterday. Problems with that?
Jay



Jay:

Thank you for responding!

I appreciate your comment and opnion.

It is amazing how you hang with criminals of which some get shot do death for lawlessness.
I guess you are judged by the company you keep Jay...

Yes you and others know that I beat you back into your hole!

And interesting enough so will everyone else! You are who you are !

You deflect, insult, tamper with evidence, have no clue about chemtrails or contrails, you taunt for pleasure, you are ignorant of your ignorance, you play on peoples fears and concerns, you create false data, you have no grip on science, you have not contributed to the scientific academia,
you have no credentials of any merit, and the internet is the best lover you can get!

[gaiacomm]

Jay:

Its Gaiacomm not Giacomm!

Just thought you like to know...but we know you don't care!

Jay....you should improve your firewalls and close your ports! Do you always leave your computer doors unlock?

Someone is watching I am sure....

[amber]

I would be happy to discuss my personal life on another thread. There we can share equally, you can tell me your name address, etc, then we can each share who we associate and don't associate with. Then our respective personal beliefs can be discussed on a level paddock.


You are obsessed with getting people's names, addresses and telephone numbers aren't you? Is that healthy? :roll:

YOU are the one who chose to put your life's story on the net, and repeat the link in your posts, just in case anyone should miss it. Why put up the information and then moan if someone questions it?
I would never be as stupid as to put personal details on the net, and trust me, with your background and obvious psychological problems, you would be the LAST amoeba on earth that I would divulge personal info to. As for a level playing field...you've never fought fair, why should you start now?

Even if you refuse to answer the Cooper questions...you have shown yourself in your true colours; now perhaps those that don't really know you can judge your mantras with a better understanding of who you really are.

[Enviroman]

I am still requesting quantifiable data and detailed photos of planes and their specialized spraying equipment.

There just seems to be so many side issues and people are talking about everything but evidence and data.

I am still hoping someone can provide the kind of data or evidence, things that one could include in a lab report. Or photographs of an aircraft, with type and equipment visible.

[halva]

Gaiacomm there would be no point in starting another thread at this forum. There has been a debunker invasion since Reynolds looked to be in danger yesterday. The familiar malodorous aura that hangs over the places they frequent has established itself here also and is not likely to go away.

The debunker presence has also led to an escalation of off-topic postings and general aimlessness in discussion.

I don't plan to go away from here, and I would not recommend that any other non-debunker do so either.

However, if anyone has serious issues they wish to discuss, including climate change with or without the chemtrail/geoengineering aspect, and would like to do so unmolested by Reynolds or those who have followed him to this site, one place which has so far managed to remain fairly free from debunker infestation is Megasprayer:

http://chem11.proboards2.com/

Many of the good people here already post there anyway.

[Bonehead9]

OK, Halva, getting back to the subject of chemtrails.

The following questions have been asked (both here and in other venues) of those who believe in chemtrails.

(Q) Is there valid evidence that indicates that the so-called “chemtrails� are anything other than normal contrails?

(A) No. After over 5 years, those who believe in chemtrails have yet to produce one valid, piece of physical evidence in any shape or form. That is:

No laboratory data collected and analyzed in a scientifically viable manner, with proper quality control procedures to identify and eliminate all possible sources of cross contamination has ever been presented that shows “chemtrails� to be anything other than normal contrails. Nope, nothing.

No evidence of any spray equipment mounted on an airplane. Not even a bad Photoshop fake.

No evidence of any “chemtrail� manufacturing facility producing any of the materials that they claim are being sprayed over head, all over the world, 365 days a year. That is “a big global nothing.�

Not one of the thousands of professional airline pilots, who would be the one group of civilians best qualified to directly observe spraying operations, has come out in support of the chemtrail theory. Nada, none, nix, nil.

Not one of the thousands of meteorologists, in the U.S. has ever supported the chemtrail theory. Zero, zilch, zip.

Not one of the thousands of pilots, aircrew, mechanics, administration personnel, ground support, base personnel that would be either directly or indirectly involved in such an operation if it were run on the scale claimed by Halva and friends has ever stood up and said “duh, I’m spraying my family and friends too, maybe this is wrong.� No-one, nobody, nary a soul.




Face it guys and gals, they don’t exist.

[gaiacomm]

Just an idea and only that...But I see your point!

Jay is finished here! He is so fearfull of me and paints me as a madman which is ok because it is his opnion.

As long as you stick with facts.

[gaiacomm]

I am still requesting quantifiable data and detailed photos of planes and their specialized spraying equipment.

There just seems to be so many side issues and people are talking about everything but evidence and data.

I am still hoping someone can provide the kind of data or evidence, things that one could include in a lab report. Or photographs of an aircraft, with type and equipment visible.

Answer:

I know where you can get the info you need. You will of course have to have a Top Secret status. And you will not be able to post the results but at least you will know!

[gaiacomm]

OK, Halva, getting back to the subject of chemtrails.

The following questions have been asked (both here and in other venues) of those who believe in chemtrails.

(Q) Is there valid evidence that indicates that the so-called “chemtrails� are anything other than normal contrails?

(A) No. After over 5 years, those who believe in chemtrails have yet to produce one valid, piece of physical evidence in any shape or form. That is:

No laboratory data collected and analyzed in a scientifically viable manner, with proper quality control procedures to identify and eliminate all possible sources of cross contamination has ever been presented that shows “chemtrails� to be anything other than normal contrails. Nope, nothing.

No evidence of any spray equipment mounted on an airplane. Not even a bad Photoshop fake.

No evidence of any “chemtrail� manufacturing facility producing any of the materials that they claim are being sprayed over head, all over the world, 365 days a year. That is “a big global nothing.�

Not one of the thousands of professional airline pilots, who would be the one group of civilians best qualified to directly observe spraying operations, has come out in support of the chemtrail theory. Nada, none, nix, nil.

Not one of the thousands of meteorologists, in the U.S. has ever supported the chemtrail theory. Zero, zilch, zip.

Not one of the thousands of pilots, aircrew, mechanics, administration personnel, ground support, base personnel that would be either directly or indirectly involved in such an operation if it were run on the scale claimed by Halva and friends has ever stood up and said “duh, I’m spraying my family and friends too, maybe this is wrong.� No-one, nobody, nary a soul.




Face it guys and gals, they don’t exist.



Answer:

The same applies to you. Get access thru Top Secret status and you will know as well. But you will be prohibited to disclose what evidence you see.
Of course you can be a patriot and go to jail for Treason and National Security violations!

[Bonehead9]

I am still requesting quantifiable data and detailed photos of planes and their specialized spraying equipment.

There just seems to be so many side issues and people are talking about everything but evidence and data.

I am still hoping someone can provide the kind of data or evidence, things that one could include in a lab report. Or photographs of an aircraft, with type and equipment visible.

Answer:

I know where you can get the info you need. You will of course have to have a Top Secret status. And you will not be able to post the results but at least you will know!


In other words gaicon (AKA Lance Haubrick) is full of crap.


http://www.quicktopic.com/20/H/fi475NKes8J3s http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/7799.html http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-164-forum-17-start-45.html http://www.talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@72.oRfUcpcRs9Y.0@.3ba75bf4/42 http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=Government&t=av&d=1 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@198.9PcYcQjJFBt.0@.4a912e05

[whitemajikman]

However, if anyone has serious issues they wish to discuss, including climate change with or without the chemtrail/geoengineering aspect, and would like to do so unmolested by Reynolds or those who have followed him to this site, one place which has so far managed to remain fairly free from debunker infestation is Megasprayer:

Once again Halva you old con artist, you
feel that you must run and hide from the TRUTH and go back
to your insulated environment where no one questions your
authority,or motives........You see Halva you will never be able to take this hoax to the next level....you run from scrutiny and rationality far to much for anyone to take you seriously......If you were really onto a legitimate conspiracy the thought of running would not even have crossed your mind.

I'm looking forward to your comments on the sites you frequent and what type of "mock"victory you will come up with this time.
If I were you I would start some damage control.......for the debunkers have won this battle and do you want to why.......you embicile......because J.R and the rest of us have a few things on our side that you do not possess .......and that is Rationality and TRUTH.

To bad your to blind to see this strategy.....because it is a simple one......

[gaiacomm]

I am still requesting quantifiable data and detailed photos of planes and their specialized spraying equipment.

There just seems to be so many side issues and people are talking about everything but evidence and data.

I am still hoping someone can provide the kind of data or evidence, things that one could include in a lab report. Or photographs of an aircraft, with type and equipment visible.

Answer:

I know where you can get the info you need. You will of course have to have a Top Secret status. And you will not be able to post the results but at least you will know!


In other words gaicon (AKA Lance Haubrick) is full of crap.


http://www.quicktopic.com/20/H/fi475NKes8J3s http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/7799.html http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-164-forum-17-start-45.html http://www.talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@72.oRfUcpcRs9Y.0@.3ba75bf4/42 http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=Government&t=av&d=1 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@198.9PcYcQjJFBt.0@.4a912e05



Answer:

Now that you have a sample of Dr. Judah Ben-Hur's political views which do not seem to pose a threat to National Security and it is the right of freedom of speech in america at least the last time I checked. Now what about Dr. Judah Ben-Hur's scientific information...why not post that as well!
I forgot you like to attempt to sway the results.

After reading the essays and comments,I find no fault. At least someone is not afraid to speak out. So someone has a strong opinion about america and democracy.

[gaiacomm]

I wonder why these posters do not have info in their profile?

Seems to me if you have nothing to hide at least give some data....oh I forgot your employer does not know you do this during work hours...and you are ashamed to disclose where you work....in fear of reprisal and termination....but yet you are so sure of yourself here posting chatter....

You make statements about everyone but yourself...your so perfect...and have no opinions that have substance.

You hide in cyberspace to protect your fears.... make sure you pay your isp or your life will be boring again!

[gaiacomm]

http://www.attac-hellas.org

[gaiacomm]

All about Inhale2theChief

Registered User Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Total posts: 133
[0.29% of total / 1.58 posts per day]
Find all posts by Inhale2theChief
Location: Hermosa Beach ,California
Website: http://www.llnl.gov
Occupation:
Interests: Politics,Science,Computers,Technology

[whitemajikman]

I wonder why these posters do not have info in their profile?

Seems to me if you have nothing to hide at least give some data....oh I forgot your employer does not know you do this during work hours...and you are ashamed to disclose where you work....in fear of reprisal and termination....but yet you are so sure of yourself here posting chatter....

You make statements about everyone but yourself...your so perfect...and have no opinions that have substance.

You hide in cyberspace to protect your fears.... make sure you pay your isp or your life will be boring again!

I was wondering when the Chemmie tactic of questioning the Identity of the debunker would rear its ugly head......you people are so damn predictable no wonder Jay has so much fun with your stupidity.....

WELL .....I will save you from making an ass of yourself......Im an ex CIA,OSS .....shadow government Agent .....Specializing in Dis-information ....I am one of 15,000 Echelon Tech's world-wide.....and we know everything about you.....I take my vacations on Planet x where the Annunaki make a very potent sour-mash......and they can be real slave-driver's if left to their own devices......My sub-warp vehicle is an older model that is still powered by a single drop of mercury which used to make me very nervous because of its cancer causing properties but the greys assure me that all is well due to the fact I am on a diffrent plane of existence......

I had the pleasure of having coffee with Alex Jones the last time he visited X ......and with all the problems in the world ,all he could talk about, was KOOL-AID and warm tropical third world countries......Jeff Rense on the other Hand is actually quite quiet when he isnt sedated,and is always talking about his fixation regarding orwell and the "war of the worlds" broadcast which he has been trying to re-create for quite awhile now and has had little success.

well as you have guessed ......the above statements have no basis in reality...................JUST LIKE CHEMTRAILS.

P.S. If you do not possess the knowledge or skills to investigate who I am or who other people that dont buy into the chemtrail hoax are......tough shit.........I remain Anonymous by choice .......end of story.

[cricket]

I posted personal information in another forum....came around to bite me in the ass.

[whitemajikman]

As it usually does,.......sorry to hear that you have had to learn the hard way......my sympathies....

[gaiacomm]

Readers:

Its expected the type answer from ones that are ingnorant of their own ignorance!

[Enviroman]

I am still requesting quantifiable data and detailed photos of planes and their specialized spraying equipment.

There just seems to be so many side issues and people are talking about everything but evidence and data.

I am still hoping someone can provide the kind of data or evidence, things that one could include in a lab report. Or photographs of an aircraft, with type and equipment visible.

Answer:

I know where you can get the info you need. You will of course have to have a Top Secret status. And you will not be able to post the results but at least you will know!

I admit to being somewhat confused by this. I am sure that someone must have some data and photos , it seems there are a lot of believers of it. If you are saying there is evidence, but it is all classified, then that also means there is not any evidence in public hands, which poses a big problem.

Has not someone seen a plane and its spraying gear at least somewhere? I get the impression there are a lot of people who are very active in chemtrails websites, and it seems like with so many people, there is the potential for lots of people to watch airports for planes with unusual equipment attached. Planes have to take off and land somewhere. Could someone get a job at an airport to help watch for planes?