Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:57 pm Post Subject: The Sunscreen theory and other Info
[Split and moved by Administrator]
from what im reading here the whole subject of predicting contrails is so far from reliable that it seems pointless to do it.. it just doesnt work reliably enough to be an indicator of whats actually going to happen on any particular day...
Also worth noting is the low altitude of these flights leaving trails...
i was under the impression that contrails only formed at high altitude?
Incidentally heres a link to the american school textbook that mentions using additives to jetfuel so reduce global warming, in fact the number of sources im finding such info from now is quite telling...
Hector .. accept it as a reality !!! that contrails have now been utilized and changed
for the purposes of creating artificial sunscreens, or at least that cover story is whats been used in the media, and it certainly does do that...
come on Hector, wake up and smell the barium man!
The manipulation of jetfuel and additives and/or the addition of other spraying technology is been tested, utilised and effectively reducing UV indexes all over the world... check out this link...
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 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!
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:04 pm Post Subject: for Hector
Just in case you havnt rea this info before hector he it be!
Brian Holmes of holmestead.ca has apparently made contact with an anonymous chemtrail insider, whom he has given the pesudenym 'Deep Shield.' This shadowy insider has detailed and intimate knowledge of this mysterious aerial program known as the 'Operation Cloverleaf'. During this extensive correspondence, Brian had opportunities to ask specific questions relating to the aerial spraying. The answers are revealing and startling. In these emails Deep Shield' explains that this massive covert chemtrails operation is actually an internationally coordinated program aimed at correcting severe damage to the atmosphere inflicted by humanities excesses.
After carefully scrutinizing this correspondence, I have concluded that it is most likely genuine, and does answer many of the questions that we have been asking for years. There are further reasons that I believe that this information is genuine and accurate.
Several years ago a report leaked from very high levels of the U.S. government indicated that Earth's multiple and intertwined ecosystems were in a state of accelerating collapse. I read this report. It stated that all life on our home planet would be extinct within 20-30 years unless drastic measures were taken. This information has been intentionally withheld from the citizens of Earth, as widespread panic would occur if the truth was known. This was a problem that our greatest minds and governmental bodies have wrestled with.
Edward Teller (the father of the H-Bomb) provided the theoretical solution to the degraded ozone shield - a global atmospheric modification program on a scale that staggered the imagination. He proposed using planes and rockets to float reflective metallic 'chaff' into the upper atmosphere to reflect harmful ultraviolet, infrared and cosmic radiation back out into space. This would temporarily patch the thinning ozone shield, giving us time to replace the ozone with other methods. Hughes Aircraft developed hardware designs based upon spray plane designs in use since the 1960's. A abstract of this patented process is available here. The methods involved spraying chemical polymers, barium salts, oxides, and colloidal aluminum into the upper atmosphere, using specially equipped tanker planes. Combinations of compounds were created that were both reflective and created large amounts of ozone. The compounds and metals are being injected into our atmosphere day and night over every country on earth. If you want to see this process in action 'Just Look Up.'
Nearly every nation participates by supplying materials, equipment, planes and pilots according to 'Deep Shield'. The planes are unmarked, white, light gray or sky blue. These do not show up on air traffic control radar systems. Planes of this description are known to be used in Special Ops - shadow operations.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:24 pm Post Subject: also for Hector
Also Hector it may be of value to also look at
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases where the conclusion by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research is that the most effective global warming method of mitigation (corrective) is the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft!
Page 433 - use arrows to move through further pages
28
Geoengineering
In this chapter a number of "geoengineering" options are considered. These are options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry. Most of these options have to do with the possibility of compensating for a rise in global temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, by reflecting or scattering back a fraction of the incoming sunlight. Other geoengineering possibilities include reforesting the United States to increase the storage of carbon in vegetation, stimulating an increase in oceanic biomass as a means of increasing the storage and natural sequestering of carbon in the ocean, decreasing CO2 by direct absorption, and decreasing atmospheric halocarbons by direct destruction. It is important to recognize that we are at present involved in a large project of inadvertent "geoengineering" by altering atmospheric chemistry, and it does not seem inappropriate to inquire if there are countermeasures that might be implemented to address the adverse impacts.
Our current inadvertent project in "geoengineering" involves great uncertainty and great risk. Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks. Some do have the merit of being within the range of current short-term experience, and others could be "turned off" if unintended effects occur.
from what im reading here the whole subject of predicting contrails is so far from reliable that it seems pointless to do it.. it just doesnt work reliably enough to be an indicator of whats actually going to happen on any particular day...
Melody said something along these lines in a post about another matter and in another topic
https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=753
I have to contradict both of you and say that the method is not 'unreliable' and there very much is a point in doing it. The method has limitations which I have described and have to be taken into consideration. The main lack of good information is the altitude of the plane of interest.
If you don't even attempt some kind of atmospheric conditions investigation, how are you going to get any indication of whether what you are looking at is or is not likely to be genuine jet engine exhaust condensation?
Quote:
Also worth noting is the low altitude of these flights leaving trails...
i was under the impression that contrails only formed at high altitude?
I am not aware of any photos or any other evidence suggesting low altitude 'trails'. Your impression is correct... contrails only form high in the troposphere where the temperature is cold enough. "Cold enough" is determined by pressure and RH. See the tables I put up in another post some months ago which were lifted out of the Schrader paper.
elevate! You mentioned the "american school textbook" stuff in your tirade the other day, and I have already addressed that, and even quoted the same drivel you did to show you what shallow, rabble-rousing rubbish it is!
See https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=761 the first post.
I've already commented on the Edward Teller thing in the same post.
You will note that Melody is fairly dismissive of that William Thomas. I don't know what his agenda is, but that particular contribution to the 'chemtrails' controversy is worthless, and likely aimed at those without the gumption to see through it. The book has a suggestion for a discussion exercise at school, and Will Thomas reads far too much into it.
I think I will order that book as a memento; when this hobgoblin has gone away it will be a valuable collector's item. Watch for it on E-bay in a decade or so.
I will check out "Brian Holmes of holmestead.ca" and see what he has to say, and the veracity of it.
I'll check out what NCAR were on about, too, and what their position is now. Most of that passage you posted (I suppose it is a copy/paste quote) is about various ways of reducing carbon(dioxide) in the atmosphere, which is a pretty good idea, really. It also talks about 'the current inadvertent project in "geoengineering"', and warns about the consequences of 'engineered countermeasures' which is fair comment. I agree with it.
Don't you read what you post, elevate? That NCAR material doesn't support your position at all. It supports mine if anything. I would expect nothing but good stuff from the folk at NCAR. And before you jump to another conclusion, IF these 'engineered countermeasures' were already under way in 1992, you can be sure that NCAR would be couching their warning in VERY MUCH STRONGER language than that.
Look, there is nothing wrong with discussing these types of solutions (blocking incoming solar radiation) in various fora; Dr Edward Teller, that academic economist, NCAR, and the school book. That does not mean that these things are actually now taking place. Yeh, 'eyes to see' and blah blah blah... get a grip man, and learn to sort the grain from the chaff in anything you read on the Internet. And there is a truly awesome amount of chaff out there... shortest route between any two unrelated points, and all that.
Here's a tip: when you do your research with Internet indexing engines like Google, try adding "-chemtrail" and similar qualifiers to your phrase. If those hardline conspiracy theorist sites keep turning up in the results, keep adding variations until they don't. Save your self a lot of time and effort.
And learn to recognise what you see in the sky; you will need to do a bit of atmospheric conditions analysis to do that with any confidence.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:16 pm Post Subject:
Hector wrote:
Melody said something along these lines in a post about another matter and in another topic
https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=753
I have to contradict both of you and say that the method is not 'unreliable' and there very much is a point in doing it.
You are deftly sidestepping the point of my comment in the post you refer to. We were discussing the black beam phenomenon, not the nature of the contrails that were seen.
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: Wellington NZ
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:21 am Post Subject:
Even though Hector is misguided on whats going on in our skies, I definately feel that mysteriousnz has gained value from having a "resident sceptic".
Firstly it is fun and educational to argue, sometimes the darndest things come from confrontation and argument. And also Hectors efforts here have encouraged myself to work on becoming far more rigorous with my documenting and reporting of events in our skies (Hetcors field) from my observation post.
And also I feel his efforts in the area of contrail analysis have been very usefull.
I look forward to thrashing these things out further.
PS I have just uprgraded my camera to a high resolution power zoom model.
The camera I have been using for the last 3 1/2 years just wasnt up to the job. What I have now(equipment wise) will make my contributions much more detailed.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:18 pm Post Subject:
Are you psychic or something smash? :-s
Thanks for your comments and your enthusiasm - I'm sure Hector will be pleased to know that his contributions are stimulating better reporting and documenting :thumbsup
P.S. Great to hear you have a new camera - there is nothing like trying to document these things to make you realise how inadequate your equipment can be - we have a quite a lot of professional gear for our work, but it can still seem like a bottomless pit at times... :)
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:31 pm Post Subject: hector said
hector said:
Quote:
If you don't even attempt some kind of atmospheric conditions investigation, how are you going to get any indication of whether what you are looking at is or is not likely to be genuine jet engine exhaust condensation?
Well.. IF the fuel has been altered in some way (made richer as suggested by the science textbook) or had additives put in it then ALL the rules have changed !!
See my point here Hector, why use old data for fuel mixes that for all we know havnt been used for a decade or more.
One thing I have learned about contrails is that contrails form when ice forms crystals around a particle, there must be some kind of impurity or particle (which all fuels have) for the ice to form around it to make a contrail...
now if we purposely increase the amount of particles and the type of particles to facilitate a contrail (now called a chemtrail) that is persistent and will create some form of cloud cover or reflective screen as described in above links and quotes then we are no longer talking about the conditions that create normal contrails are we?
Do you understand what im getting at here? The conditions have been deliberately changed to allow for trails to form in a much wider range of temperatures and altitudes and pressures etc... so these models you hector are trying to fit this phenomenom into simply dont apply any more because these are not the same fuel mixtures for example, not forgetting the other technologies for spraying these reflective particles that dont even come close to been predictable via normal contail science.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:11 pm Post Subject: hector hector hector
hector hector hector
Quote:
Don't you read what you post, elevate? That NCAR material doesn't support your position at all. It supports mine if anything. I would expect nothing but good stuff from the folk at NCAR. And before you jump to another conclusion, IF these 'engineered countermeasures' were already under way in 1992, you can be sure that NCAR would be couching their warning in VERY MUCH STRONGER language than that.
Why can we be sure of that Hector?
Why do you have such institutional blindness that you assume that all government and envirmonmental institutions are entirely transparent and telling us everything they are doing?
Do you really think thats the way the world works? are you that naive?
I just dont know what to say to you any more hector, i cant see any point in debating this topic with you...
the links i showed you are relevant, they are pieces in a bigger picture that is unfolding, and obviously you can not see this...
im not even going to try and prove it to you any more in any way (but hey i might add my two cents in here and there if i see something of interest)
BUT its clear from your whole approach and way of thinking that you have already made your mind up about this...
What will happen in the near future if the bush administration starts seriously talking about using these sunscreen ideas (that have actually been tested and trialed over a decade ago) and pretend that they havnt tested it already, and they actually start using it...
will you just go along with it Hector and jump on the bandwagon and start parroting on about oh well maybey this is what we need to do now..
and hey it just might work etc, and but hey they wouldnt have dared use it previously without consulting the public first would they?!
you claim that i am not reading my posts clearly Hector, yet you completely ignore really important points like the fact that its been suggested that if the situation was much worse than the public knew and it was decided it was best to not tell the public (because of widespread panic) until various testing could be done with sunscreen technologies for example over a 10 year period (the last ten years perhap?) then once suitable particulate seeding technologies had been developed then perhaps they would start to drip feed the info into the public arena like they are now, and like on tv3 the other night...
Do you UNDERSTAND what im saying Hector?
You seem to assume that:
Quote:
IF these 'engineered countermeasures' were already under way in 1992, you can be sure that NCAR would be couching their warning in VERY MUCH STRONGER language than that.
What if some governmental body said NO public exposure of this until we know better what were dealing with here and weve had time to quietly test some possible countermeasures.
After all... why cause widespread panic if its all for nothing. Dont you think Hector they would have the foresight to keep it under wraps until they were dead sure the situation was as bad as it might be?
What if they discovered we had only 20-30 years leaft of good climatic conditions? You seem to think they would just tell everyone... of course they wouldnt !
There would be economic meltdown, rioting and chaos the world over... cant you see this Hector? these guys are not that stupid, and they always put economic stability before the welfare of peoples anyway in my experience.
You need to look at this from a less simplistic way...
That paper in 1992 fits the timing just right for them to start testing all kinds of countermeasures over a 10 year period and up until the present...
So now perhaps they are ready to slowly inform the public in a careful and controlled manner without causing massive panic now that they have some effective UV blocking technologies...
I would bet that even now if they thought we only had 20-30 years leaft it would not be in their interests to ever let the public know that.
Are you aware of the policy in the USA that if a large meteor is discovered that may cause global catastrophy that they already have a policy of not informing the public about it? can you UNDERSTAND why that might be?
If you had cancer Hector and the doctor said you maybey only have 3 years to live, would you tell you young child all the details, that would fill him with dread and heartache? or would you tell him only what you felt he could handle at the time?
See my point here hector, you have far too much trust in these people in power. they are not perfect, they dont really know what they are doing, and whats worse is that a certain group of them have a string desire to control us for their own selfish interests, but thats a long story...
Quote:
If you don't even attempt some kind of atmospheric conditions investigation, how are you going to get any indication of whether what you are looking at is or is not likely to be genuine jet engine exhaust condensation?
im not interested in that anymore hector, maybey 5 years ago.. i did look at all that science, i needed some kind of confirmation and proof that this stuff could be going on...
I dont need that now hector, i dont need to prove it to myself, thats done and dusted for me, and i dont need to prove it to you either as ive stated before, its something you need to prove to yourself, your new to all this chemtrail stuff, and like ive said before i probably cant prove anything to you, especially as youve demonstrated how you see the world as been quite different,
you seem to be very trusting of people in positions of authority, you obviously have no knowledge of the new world order or the adgenda for a global version of nazi germany, you dont get the big picture here, how institutions of governemnt and others are involved in this.
Good luck to you...
ps: Do you see now hector that you and I have such a different way of looking at the world that its kinda pointless us trying to debate this topic, or any topic that involves politics for that matter...
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:33 pm Post Subject: geez
Quote:
Here's a tip: when you do your research with Internet indexing engines like Google, try adding "-chemtrail" and similar qualifiers to your phrase. If those hardline conspiracy theorist sites keep turning up in the results, keep adding variations until they don't. Save your self a lot of time and effort.
And learn to recognise what you see in the sky; you will need to do a bit of atmospheric conditions analysis to do that with any confidence.
why would i want to do that hector?
i dont limit myself to certain sites based on some kind of institutional blindness..
So what you are telling us is that if you see 'chemtrails' on a website that you will immediately switch off and look elsewhere?
When you see the word "conspiracy' is that enough in itself to make you switch off your brain or go somewhere else. Are the only sites you trust the ones with .govt. on the end?
I mean what is it your getting at here, your really making yourself look silly by such a strange admission?
Do you REALLY keep changing your search words until the results shown satisfy your narrow version of possibility and reality?
Do you understand how much you are limiting yourself by the method?
this website is called MYSTERIOUSNZ, this site discusses things of a mysterious or annomolous nature.. things that can not always be easily explained by conventional means or conventional thinking... it requires an OPEN MIND, and a willingness to go where others fear to tread...
Its obvious that you fear to tread anywhere that doesnt fit into your narrow bandwidth of possibility.
And you think you can come on here and flash some mediocre credentials of skeptical analysis, and at the same time you use very poor methods of judgement ..like the time you said that we could tick black lines off our list of mysteries as well because you thought you had solved the unmarked plane mystery..which incidentally you didnt, you did identify a plane as a military plane that is all...
I rest my case !!! sorry for the capital letters and slight harshness of my tone but I have really had enough of your misguided attacks and simplistic attitude to the subjects and interests of this website and its people...
maybey you are helping in some small way to get some info debated on here or maybey you are just wasting a lot of our time...
we can all decide for ourselves on that one... yawn....
ps: great tip
Quote:
conspiracy theorist sites keep turning up in the results, keep adding variations until they don't. Save your self a lot of time and effort.
cheers hector, absolutely priceless,
where do you think you are ... cheese monkey!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:43 pm Post Subject: She said... he said... she said...
Melody said on Wednesday (above, way above!),
"Hector wrote:
Quote:
Melody said something along these lines in a post about another matter and in another topic
https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=753
I have to contradict both of you and say that the method is not 'unreliable' and there very much is a point in doing it.
You are deftly sidestepping the point of my comment in the post you refer to. We were discussing the black beam phenomenon, not the nature of the contrails that were seen."
(Quoted quotes with the tags don't work very well.)
The previous evening in the topic referred to (About those black beams...)
Melody said (in part):
Quote:
In the same manner... - now you say that the forecasts can't be relied on because...
It is that paragraph that I was referring to with the phrase "along these lines" when I took up a defence of contrail analyses.
I said in my post immediately before that (on Tuesday):
Quote:
I'm just about ready to drop it...
and, since you refused my beg for indulgence, I did drop it, then and there... especially after smashdracs chimed in with his contribution. It would be churlish and an abuse of hospitality to continue.
Perhaps I could have made a definitive announcement, but I had already re-announced a "drop" due to the sensed irritation so I saw no need to.
elevate said a lot of things (see above); and sort of demonstrated why, sometimes, one would want to narrow the search a bit.
I have already dealt with the school book thing. Enough about it, already! The case study topic, and the William Thomas piece on it, simply don't have the gravitas to be evidence of what is being suggested.
I intend to comment on the videos on YouTube that elevate cited, as well as examine the other 'evidence' he mentioned.
I will do that on the "Let's have a look at some of the 'evidence' then" topic at https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=761
Then I intend return and work through 3 of his posts that are here. It's going to be pretty hard going because there are no direct references, but a lot of it may have already fallen away as the 'evidence' examination progresses.
I won't be researching or commenting on the 'fluoride in the water' issue. Anyway, it belongs in a completely different category [Moved to General Medical and Health Issues in New Zealand under the popular topic Fluoride - Administrator].
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:23 am Post Subject: hi
Quote:
Then I intend return and work through 3 of his posts that are here. It's going to be pretty hard going because there are no direct references, but a lot of it may have already fallen away as the 'evidence' examination progresses.
fair enough Hector
im not writing a science textbook here, im just giving my point of view and backing up some points if and when i can with references, but basically im not interested as ive said before in trying to prove these conclusions or thoughts I have to Hector in particular...
I can see thats patently not possible anyway, as i mentioned we have a completely different mindset and in my experience this situation will generate endless debate that ultimately goes nowhere.. perhaps along the way it will provide useful or thought provoking info for others to read ..but often will just create ill feeling and disharmonious thought forms. I use a lot of intuition and lateral thinking and tangents and my thoughts on a subject may not be easily verifable... anyway do as u wish with my info Hector, its unlikely i will continute to rebuke your replies as ive already pointed out I think this is fruitless, but if some good fruits do appear to ripen on our tree of knowledge then I will comment, otherwise its just not helpfull... cheers all
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:31 am Post Subject: yup
Quote:
but a lot of it may have already fallen away as the 'evidence' examination progresses.
for you perhaps it has 'fallen away'..?
Quote:
evidence examination progresses
...
your certainly a laugh hector, is this a court of law or something? one you decide there isnt sufficient evidence to back up someones claim or thought are we expected to just disregard it and move on, give you a pat on the back etc...?
thats not what im here for on this forum, im here to share info and work things out, but that doesnt mean debate with skeptics about stuff, and if it cant be proven by your standards of proof then it doenst make any difference, it doesnt mean something gets 'dropped' or 'ticked off a list' ... ya know wot i mean?
