|
|
Post by kola on Dec 13, 2006 1:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 13, 2006 4:42:56 GMT -5
Great!
|
|
|
|
Post by kola on Dec 15, 2006 12:21:58 GMT -5
What is everyones thoughts on her?
Is she a good guy or bad guy?
I have some doubts about her.
kola
|
|
|
|
Post by BigJoe on Dec 15, 2006 16:01:01 GMT -5
Blue Fly Productions the Freeman Perspective w/ Rosalind Peterson 59 min 54 sec - Dec 8, 2006 Freeman conducts another suburb interview, this time with a former government employee who worked in the agricultural department, who knows her subject, and isn't afraid to talk about what she knows. A few technical problems during the first 10 minutes of this program are far outweighed by the content and quality of this very interesting discussion. Rosalind Peterson pretty much touches on everything we now know about weather modification and the "persistent contrails" and how they are affecting our environment..., including us. She goes into why so many trees are dying in North America due to the massive chemical spraying at high altitude, why so many people are getting sick because of this, large numbers of dead birds now falling out of the skies for no "apparent reason", droughts, crop failures, the chemicals being used, the weather modification bills to soon be passed, why the weathermen won't go near this topic, she goes into some detail as to why an increasing number of people are now having respiratory problems shortly after their areas have been blitzed by the unmarked jets, including skyrocketing cases of asthma, she talks a little about the silver, unmarked jets that are doing all of this damage, much detail talking about "different kinds of "persistent contrails", the increasing numbers of huge forest fires in the west, and how they are now burning much hotter than normal forest fires due to the nature of the chemicals being sprayed on them.., as well as a LOT of other issues concerning the chemtrails. This interview makes you realize all the more that nothing less than a bunch of suicidal, lunatic and psychopathic scientists are in charge of, and running these programs. Her website is... www.californiaskywatch.comLOTS of information here..., everything & more, that she covered in the interview with Freeman. Yet another great interview from Freeman, and highly recommended for anyone who wants to know more about the chemtrail problem. Thanks for bringing Freeman's latest interview to our attention, Kola.  |
|
|
|
Post by halva on Dec 15, 2006 23:25:55 GMT -5
What are your doubts about her, Kola?
|
|
|
|
Post by kola on Dec 16, 2006 23:00:28 GMT -5
I do not like the phrase "persistant contrails" and Rosalind seems to use it exclusivley. She has done some great work but IMO "persitant contrails" it is a soft, easy-to-digest non-threatening term. While I commend her for her efforts, I hope she drops the phrase. By using the term "persistant contrail" it leads the "average Joe" to believe it is something normal but just that that this "persistant contrail" hangs up in the sky a bit longer and is no real threat to anything.
I think we all have seen enough pictures to agree aerosol sprayings are far from an actual condensation trail. Maybe she should call it "persistant aerosol spraying".
Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Dec 16, 2006 23:08:22 GMT -5
Rosalind Peterson's continued references to persistent contrails are a cop out. The brutal reality is that these signs in the sky are aircraft pollution of the worst sort. Maybe if Ms Peterson wasn't a government employee she might be a little braver.
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 16, 2006 23:45:09 GMT -5
I don't believe it's a deliberate cop-out on her part but rather that she finds it a necessary means by which to communicate with her peers who will not accept the terminology of "Chemtrail's" because of the stigma associated with it.
Rosalind knows the score and she also knows that to make any headway with her peers or politicians on the issue of the spraying she must conform to using methods and terminology that they approve of.
You can fight city hall and get nowhere or play the game by their rules and eventually get somewhere, I see far to many intelligent people acting like dumb ass rednecks and trying to shout their way into making the system bend to their will, that's an approach that is not gong to work, never has, never will and as long as you keep doing it the other side wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigJoe on Dec 16, 2006 23:47:28 GMT -5
Freeman talks Chemtrails Blue Fly Productions 1 hr 1 min 35 sec - Sep 5, 2006 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7638953701854506265&q=blue Another Freeman program that deals mainly with the chemtrails. Freeman takes phone calls and adds some of his own insights into this global problem. Some interesting callers with good questions and comments, and Freeman, who has done a lot of research into this problem, offers some unique insights and observations. This program shows that more and more people are waking up to the global atmospheric spraying operations. Well worth a listen!!! Feeling under the weather? Are your joints and head aching? Do you feel lethargic and depressed? Look up and know why. Chemtrails plague the world. Learn of their contents. Know what these do and seek out a cure. Barium, aluminum, pathogens, polymer fibers, what is it good for? Certainly, not breathing! |
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 0:07:08 GMT -5
And another thing while I'm at it, like it or not, the term "Persistent Contrail's" is what the other side calls all of the crap that we see being sprayed into our atmosphere, whether or not it's spraying, they are going to call it "Persistent Contrail's" until we prove them wrong, PROVE THEM WRONG, not just say they are wrong.
If you want to prove that the Chemtrail Spraying is real and that the spraying produces something that looks like persistent contrail's then start doing it and stop bitching about how unfair our system is and start using the system to your advantage.
Proof 101,...http://watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm
and,...http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
|
|
|
|
Post by BigJoe on Dec 17, 2006 0:12:28 GMT -5
Hey Lou... those links that you just posted above are dead...  |
|
|
|
Post by kola on Dec 17, 2006 0:54:56 GMT -5
Lou, As always, you made some good and valid points.
Maybe she could call them "Strange Contrails"?.. Odd Contrails?? Abnormal, unusual contrails? ..
Anyway, I agree with you, she is trying to be bring about awareness by playing "their" game and in no way do I mean to disrespect her. Her and I were interviewed on Pacifico KPFK radio regarding chemtrails but it never aired. Her and I talked briefly (before the interview) and she asked me not to mention the term "chemtrail" and instead use "persistant contrail". I honored her request and understand her reason for using the term but still do not embrace it.
I hope I am not stirring up too much commotion, if so, I apologize. I am just expressing my opinions.
Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by lophofo on Dec 17, 2006 0:57:11 GMT -5
"Peterson: All valid arguments for public debate. However, HAARP, experimental weather modification programs, atmospheric heating and testing programs are not theories but real and being carried on with increasing funding. And what of the adverse impacts of using toxic chemicals in geoengineering schemes in our atmosphere...where is the public debate? My belief is that we are going to be told that climate change is a crisis and that the only solution is implementing geoengineering and money market cap and trade schemes are the only answers. "Thus this leaves our politicians off the hook...no new taxes...no public sacrifices...and business as usual. All of us will pay the price eventually in costs to our food and water supplies, worsening air pollution, loss of natural resources and crop production, and human health. We and our future are expendable in the name of corporate greed and profits. The theory is that technological fixes like geoengineering will solve our problems and we can continue at the current pace of pollution...we mix in experimental weather modification and we can control other countries and a star wars weaponsization of space and we are invincible and can dictate to everyone. If we have some air pollution problems we can protect a few from the consequences and let the rest of mankind suffer the consequences of our actions. And of course, we are led to believe that Americans would be protected...while we strangle in increasing air pollution, polluted water supplies, reduced human health and other costs." www.enouranois.gr/english/reportazenglish/rosalin_peterson.htm |
|
|
|
Post by kola on Dec 17, 2006 12:58:49 GMT -5
lophofo,
A great link that your posted. I am very impressed with Rosalind, her knowledge and her political savvy. Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 17, 2006 17:15:13 GMT -5
Dialogue with Rosalind Petersonposted by Chem11: "Aluminum 'RF Chaff' fibrils are being released in large enough quantities to screw-up NWS weather radar, but they are not hygroscopic and would not create the visual phenomena associated with persistant contrails/ artificial clouds. Sulfate aerosols would, can and do. Barium wouldn't create the phenomena observed, either. Sulfate aerosols and their role in artificial cloud formation have been studied and documented extensively for decades (though public access and interest in this information has only occured in the last few years). Ignoring these facts, for the moment, how would one introduce barium and aluminum in to the exhaust stream (and for what reason, when you could simply run cheap high sulfate fuel to create artifical cloud cover and save a boatload of money in the process)?" also posted by Chem11: "My previous posting on Barium and Aluminum went un-remarked, so I'll frame the question directly: If we succesfully legislated a ban on the relase of all aluminum and barium into the atmosphere, would we still witness persitant, fulminating super contrails that turn into artificial cloud cover?" Contrails and the Dark Sideposted by Big Bunny: "...The study relied upon in this article is dated 1993, well before the aerial phenomena became obvious. Again sulfates raise their ugly collective head. However when you look at current reviews the study of the importance of sulfur is almost universally ignored. Funny that. However the above article does explain the appearance of CTs over built up areas. In these locations they are much more difficult to quantify and study. The most obvious conclusion is that by using cirrus clouds as a vehicle of deliberate choice you can increase reflectivity (Global Brightening) but maintain if not worsen the impact of Global Warming caused by human activity alone. The question I have though is this: If you create a zone where there increased reflectivity what will be the effect on that part of the atmosphere which receives a double dose of sunlight? There is another pertinent issue which arises as well. In some areas of the Globe there appears to be fallout from CTs. For example increases in Aluminium Oxide, Barium and Titanium Oxide have been recorded at various locations in the USA. Are these particular compounds arising because of there inclusion in CTs or are they arising as a result of catalytic processes caused substantially by the CTs. In the alternative is the appearance of these compounds due to the fact that they are already present in the immediate atmosphere and are being forced to the immediate surface area because of displacement by heavier compounds? Something to ponder before you go to sleep tonight." As for the use of the word "chemtrails", there is proof that the USAF is the earliest known user of the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 18:21:30 GMT -5
Big Joe wrote,
Hey Lou...
"those links that you just posted above are dead..."
____________________________________________
Big Joe,
Yeah, I know, I'm having a bitch of a time getting links into Gastro for some reason, you will have to copy, cut and paste them if you want to open them.
Sorry about that but there seems to be nothing that I can do about it on this end, I've tried everything to get them to go in but no luck thus far.
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 18:49:49 GMT -5
Kola wrote,
"Lou, As always, you made some good and valid points.
Maybe she could call them "Strange Contrails"?.. Odd Contrails?? Abnormal, unusual contrails? ..
Anyway, I agree with you, she is trying to be bring about awareness by playing "their" game and in no way do I mean to disrespect her. Her and I were interviewed on Pacifico KPFK radio regarding chemtrails but it never aired. Her and I talked briefly (before the interview) and she asked me not to mention the term "chemtrail" and instead use "persistant contrail". I honored her request and understand her reason for using the term but still do not embrace it.
I hope I am not stirring up too much commotion, if so, I apologize. I am just expressing my opinions."
_______________________________________________________________________________
"I hope I am not stirring up too much commotion, if so, I apologize. I am just expressing my opinions."
Kola,
It's not you opinion that I was objecting to because this discussion board is here for the very reason of expressing ones opinion on issues, what I disagreed with was the way in which you seemed to attack Rosalind for not conforming to using a term that you believe is the correct term, neither you or I am in her shoes and dealing with the types of people that she is so I trust in her judgment when she states that she does not like to use the term "Chemtrail" because of the company she keeps.
Whether she calls them Chemtrail's, persistent contrail's or contrail cirrus, I don't really care, she is a professional that is on our side of the spraying issue and I for one really appreciate having her with us in this fight, we need all of the credibility that we can muster and she definitely adds credibly to our cause.
I apologize to you if I came off a bit hot and hostile on this subject but it strikes close to home as I am involved with some other people at this time with regard to work that Rosalind has done, she and I are in indirect contact with the same people, so, I'm a bit touchy when people start talking about her.
I have had my own questions about some of her actions but I addressed them to her directly and they where resolved to my satisfaction, I see no need in continuing this business about her not liking or using the term "Chemtrail's" as she has addressed it in a public forum, if people don't understand her reasoning by now then they never will_End of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 19:06:04 GMT -5
Socrates,
Something that "Patrick Minnis" mentioned in one of his contrail study papers ( Can't recall which right now ) was the use of "Cryogenic" fuels in commercial airliners, cryogel / cryogenic fuels can contain large amounts of Aluminum and or Magnesium and they are mostly associated with use in rockets not civilian jetliners.
This strange statement out of Minnis's mouth has me wondering what's really going on with airline aviation fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 19:13:55 GMT -5
Big Bunny wrote,
"Rosalind Peterson's continued references to persistent contrails are a cop out. The brutal reality is that these signs in the sky are aircraft pollution of the worst sort. Maybe if Ms Peterson wasn't a government employee she might be a little braver. "
_______________________________________________________
Hey, you bleeding big kangaroo, ( joking )
Your an attorney, do you believe that your coping out when you use your legalese in a courtroom in front of a judge when arguing a case, or do you consider that a necessary to accomplish your goal?
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 19:15:51 GMT -5
Should have read, "or do you consider that it necessary to accomplish your goal?"
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 17, 2006 19:17:20 GMT -5
Should have read, "or do you consider that it's necessary to accomplish your goal?"
I think it's right this time. (Sigh )
|
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Dec 17, 2006 22:21:59 GMT -5
Lou, it is my professional view and practice that the use of legalese should be restricted to legal argument per se. Even then the best legal argument is one that significantly limits the use of legalese and therefore the argument can be easily understood by the casual observer without reference to voluminous legal texts.
However sometimes the use of legalese belies the use of specific legal concepts in argument. Whereas the abuse of legalese is often designed to render the practice of law a mystery to all but the practitioners. Arguably the clowns who practice this abuse do so to protect their "bottom line".
Having answered your question, Lou, may I ask what is your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Dec 18, 2006 0:38:37 GMT -5
Big Bunny wrote,
"Having answered your question, Lou, may I ask what is your point? "
______________________________________________________
Big Bunny,
I should think my point was obvious, I believe that Rosalind Peterson is in a position where she must conform to using language which enables her to discuss the aerosol spraying / Chemtrail's among her peers, much the same as you use a specific language within your own professional circle that enables you to better communicate with them.
In Rosalinds circumstances she has decided not to use one term ( Chemtrail's ) within or outside of her associations so as to better enable her to define her position within the scientific community and with those politicians that she is talking to with regard to the spraying, her world is a politically correct one where words must be "correct" if they are to be accepted.
The point, is that we all act differently according to the circumstances that we are dealing with in any given situation, much depends on the who we are with and where we are at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Jan 6, 2007 10:06:38 GMT -5
I thought that about a month ago or so something was posted here that showed R.peterson and she told why she was calling them persistant contrails
it was something like the word Chemtrail is associated with conspiracy theory crazies and that is why she chose the words persistant contrails otherwise she was afraid that they would not listen to her or take what she had to say with any validity.
I might be wrong but I am pretty sure that this was an interview posted not too very long ago on here somewhere where she explains that.
I have to say that I agree though that I think that this what all of us so called crazies have called them and spent countless hours trying to find out more about this illegal onslaught and wether associated with being conspiracy theorist or not she should have sttod behind this teminology and KEPT using it.
cheers all,
chicky
|
|
