|
Post by halva on Nov 18, 2006 23:09:20 GMT -5
Vicky Chrysou was born in Germany and lives in a small village near Thessaloniki in Northern Greece.
She has translated the two main articles on chemtrails by Gabriel Stetter from German into Greek.
She conducts a discussion on chemtrails in Greek at the Esoterica forum.
Last Thursday she met with the ecological group of her village and among other things they asked her these questions:
1) What can one do to protect oneself from possible harmful consequences of aerosol spraying?
2) If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?
Unedited, real-life feedback from the grassroots.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 18, 2006 23:42:36 GMT -5
"2) If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?"
You've got to be kidding. This is the kind of comment that leads one to think there is a subtle marketing of pollution going on at chemtrail forums.
As Chem11 has pointed out, no one is going to buy any marketing of pollution, none of it. There is nothing good about the air pollution, nothing. Screw soot, sulfur, aluminum, barium, screw all of this bullshit. There is no good pollution. We have to find ways to adapt to the global warming while draconian cuts of the ghg emissions are enacted. Hey halva, can you not see how this is the kind of thing that divides people on chemtrail forums, or are you just thinking out loud again?
Hey Swampgas, this is not an attack on Halva. I am not looking to have CTC type bickering here. It's just that when comments like this get slipped in, it feels like a psy-op. It is this type of post that led Chem11 to write Wayne Hall and the Marketing of Pollution over at Megasprayer.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 19, 2006 0:38:19 GMT -5
I am doing nothing more than reporting reality and asking for someone with the requisite scientific knowledge to tell these people what they want to know. I have asked our Greek scientist colleague also.
Since we do not have responsible authorities we have to BECOME the responsible authorities.
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Nov 19, 2006 10:02:30 GMT -5
And what were the other questions that were asked PLUS the answers that were given?
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 19, 2006 10:36:18 GMT -5
Yes, who was the scientific authority at this ecological group meeting that has the answers to these questions, I would love to hear the opinion from him / her with regard to,....
1) What can one do to protect oneself from possible harmful consequences of aerosol spraying?
2) If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?
How fortunate that this little Hellenic group has the benefit of such knowledge, think you could share it with the rest of us Wayne, the answers that is, or do you need more time to think something up ?
With regard to " If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?". how can anyone answer that question with any certainty, no one that I am aware of knows what the spraying is actually for or exactly what kind of materials are being sprayed, i.e. how harmful they are, short term, long term effects, etc,etc...so your question Wayne becomes something of an oxymoron, now doesn't it ?
Wayne Hall wrote,
"I am doing nothing more than reporting reality and asking for someone with the requisite scientific knowledge to tell these people what they want to know. I have asked our Greek scientist colleague also."
"Since we do not have responsible authorities we have to BECOME the responsible authorities." _________________________________________________________________________________
Wayne, we call that "GUESSING" over on this side of the pond !
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 19, 2006 11:47:31 GMT -5
Yes, who was the scientific authority at this ecological group meeting that has the answers to these questions, I would love to hear the opinion from him / her with regard to,.... There was no authority. Just Vicky and the local people in the ecological group. They want answers. They don't have answers to give us. I haven't been told of any other questions.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 19, 2006 11:57:35 GMT -5
Right Wayne, your just GUESSING, ASSUMING, SPECULATING and posting you opinion with no new facts from anyone whatsoever to add to the issue, way to go, that's really going to help solve this spraying crime !
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 19, 2006 12:29:43 GMT -5
I don't see that I am erecting any obstacles to anything you want to say or propose, Lou.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 19, 2006 16:49:54 GMT -5
Wayne, as I see it your just GUESSING, ASSUMING, SPECULATING as I posted before, what has your little Hellenic group accomplished, if nothing, then why even bring the subject up here at Gastro, are you bored over at DBS, is that why your here, are you lonely at DBS, where have all of those great debaters gone at DBS, are they sick of the BS there?
The point is,.......What are you doing here Wayne if you have nothing to add but vague post on your ecological group meeting that obviously did not amount to anything?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 19, 2006 22:08:18 GMT -5
What I have to add is a certain strategic viewpoint.
I posted the item here about the ecological group in Greece because they had asked some questions and I want to see if anyone here can add any anything to what I have already told, and sent, them.
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Nov 19, 2006 22:28:24 GMT -5
Precisely what have you told them and sent them AND in response to which questions.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 19, 2006 23:16:01 GMT -5
Wayne,
Let me get this straight, with all that you know, your asking "Us" to somehow verify a secret spraying program for your ecological group in Greece ?
Oh, why didn't you just say so to start with,Ok, EVERY ONE THAT IS ENVOLVED WITH THE CRIMINAL ARESOL SPRAYING OF OUR SKY'S COME FORWARD AND EXPLAINE IT TO WAYNE AND HIS FRIENDS, they need your assistance in understanding what's going on and why.
My God, give me a break, we are all in the same boat, everyone would like to have some answers to the what and why's of the spraying but the people responsible for it do not confide in us, that's why so many people guess, speculate and assume based on the limited amount of real information and evidence that we have.
The photographic evidence that has been accumulating over the years is the best source that anyone can point to and say, there, look at this, this is not normal contrail's, it is spraying, In recent years abnormally high levels of Barium and Aluminum derivatives have been showing up in ground water and soil samples, you don't have to be Mr. Science to figure out how it's getting there, common sense dictates that it must be coming from above, falling from the atmosphere, effects from the spraying unless Barium and Aluminum materials somehow from naturally in the atmosphere, really, I'm surprised that they have not tried to pass that off as a fact with the rest of the debunking garbage they use to describe and cover up the spraying of our sky's.
So Wayne, do you really believe that there are people among us common folk that are withholding vital information with regard to the spraying ?
There may be at that, as I know someone who could really add some meat to the subject but they want to remain anonymous for the time being, to close to retirement to chuck it all away in revealing the truth at this time, and no, this person does not post on any forums that I know of, that would be a very dangerous thing to do given the persons occupation but a time is coming when the truth can be told.
How's that for a "strategic viewpoint" Wayne ?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 0:06:54 GMT -5
Precisely what have you told them and sent them AND in response to which questions. Both these questions are answered in reply 5, Big Bunny.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 0:16:16 GMT -5
The first question, regarding ways of self-protection, is something that doesn't require any specialised insiders' knowledge. Merely medical knowledge.
The second question is more problematical. To answer it with authority would require a degree of insiders' knowledge. But there are obviously different viewpoints among "them" as to what approach they should adopt vis a vis the public.
As with Reynolds, a cool and analytical approach is what is needed to use these differences to our advantage.
I think I would prefer it if you devoted less attention to me, Lou.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 20, 2006 0:28:41 GMT -5
Wayne,
As long as you keep posting here at Gastro I'm going to be responding to your post, if you do not like that go back to DBS and play with your buddies Reynolds and Smell !
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Nov 20, 2006 0:31:43 GMT -5
Reply 5 doesn't answer my questions. Again please answer my questions.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 3:24:33 GMT -5
I posted a copy of a book by a Mormon former town councillor in Utah, Al Snow, who a few years back wrote a book on chemtrails with a lot of medical advice in it. I also sent the text of a chemtrails calendar published in 2004, likewise containing medical advice among much else. (The calendar was by Mark Metcalf. If you want more information about these guys, Google Al Snow and Mark Metcalf.)
I have told them nothing. They live hundreds of kilometres away from me.
1) What can one do to protect oneself from possible harmful consequences of aerosol spraying?
2) If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?
I can't answer the second question. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 20, 2006 9:56:25 GMT -5
Posted by Halva: "....2) If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences? I can't answer the second question. Can you?" Halva, when are you going to stop promoting the use of chemtrails? Those who live in caramel houses shouldn't throw fudge. While it is worthy to deny insincere debunkers a platform to spread their misinformation, how are we to proceed with "believers" in chemtrails who continually promote their use? This is how I see it. Messing with the atmosphere in these ways does nothing to fix the situation. The only way out of this mess is to ride it out until the atmosphere fixes itself. We need draconian cuts with the co2. We need clean energy sources. We will need to stay inside more and take supplements to compensate for the loss of sunshine intake resulting from not being outside in the sun so much until the ozone hole recovers. Word is that the geoengineering is messing with the ozone layer. We will also need governments to take care of we the people when hurt by natural disasters. The US government's criminal response to Katrina must not be allowed to occur again when nature attacks. What part of Frankenstein don't you understand? Your support of the mythology of Deep Shield becomes clearer by the post. From Wayne Hall and the Marketing of Air Pollution by Chem11: "Against my better judgement, I decided to unearth commentary by Wayne Hall on another forum that was referenced in Strategies Against Climate Change. linkI'm prepared for just about anything when it comes to Halva (his latest suggestion that "Air Pollution is Good!" should be a rallying cry for anti-aerosol seeding activists being the latest head-scratcher), but the following caught even me by surprise: Sept 7, 2006, 12:04am, halva wrote: Chem 11 at Megasprayer hides a totally confused stance behind rhetoric about corrupt corporations, etc. He then encourages us to join the fan club of the Governator. linkThe only one who appears to be confused with regards to my position seems to be you, Wayne. Rather Than championing the cause of polluters hiding behind "Air Pollution is Good Geoengineering", I have made it abundantly clear that I intend to support every piece of legislation aimed at fiscally punishing the corporations who are profiting directly from the destruction of our atmosphere. What's confusing is why someone who claims to be 'on our side' is trying to subvert this attempt to hit these clowns where it well and truly hurts... What's confusing is why someone who claims to want to stop this program actually wants to convince people that the 'air pollution' we want to stop is actually 'good'... What's confusing is why you would refer to the documentation of what exactly is causing these super contrails (and exactly whom is getting rich causing them) as 'rhetoric'. If I had witnessed this behavior from anyone else, I would be forced to come to the conclusion that the person posting this nonsense was a transparent shill making a desperate attempt to pull a last minute coup for his corporate sponsors. Let me be even more forthcoming. You look like you're getting whored out. Big time. And I find it extremely interesting that you pick this exact moment in history to start flashing your stuff at passing cars. You've been a disruptive force as long as I can remember, but this latest scheme of yours is so blatant, so in-your-face, and so desperate in it's lewdness that I find it hard to chalk it up to mere co-incidence. California's Global Warming Iniative is now the law of the land in the World's 8th largest economy. Prop 87 is going to pass and all the 'Air Pollution is Good' viral marketing in the world isn't going to stop it. So you can save yourself the humiliation of peddling yourself like some sort of crossdressed anti-CT/pro-pollution sleaze on the Informatiom Super Highway. It's over. Now.. do I sound the least bit 'confused' to you? Am I hiding behind something? Is all this 'anti-corporate rhetoric' getting your panties bunched up again? Honestly, I could care less whether you've got a personal problem with me. But I'm telling you right now. I'm telling you, so you better listen and understand, that if I ever see you attack anyone that's trying to stop the people running this 'Air Pollution is Good' CT scam, if I ever hear those words out of your ruby-red lips again, If I ever hear you attack someone here on the grounds of their physical ailments, I will run you so far into the ground that your friends at Exxon will wind up putting you into a barrel.. along with the other dinosaur muck. Now, if you can take a few minutes away from plying your wares, why don't you cowboy yourself up and tell me, mano a mano, about how confused I am. Do not buy what they sell you simply because it is packaged as something other than a consumer item./welcometofightclub" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looks like you got it wrong again, Jimbo! Sulfur content 'has been increasing'! - J. Reynolds Obviously there is now an opening for us rank and file both to defend the environmental benefits of air pollution.. what about some comment on whether the "air pollution is good" line is utilisable, perhaps in rallies - Wayne Hall __________________________________ halva News Anchor Warning Level - 100% Temporary Ban member is offline Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 662 __________________________________ posted by Halva: "I'm not going to fight you in your fight club. You seem to have lost the plot altogether. Pardon me for going over your head. Obviously I have to think aloud elsewhere."
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Nov 20, 2006 10:25:38 GMT -5
If spraying was stopped, pollution, UV-B radiation, oxone depletion, and Global Warming would slow down at least. I do not think pollution is helping anything, and it really does sound like Exxon propaganda, which is completely different than the "You chemmies are idiots" approach of Jay Reynolds. The only answer to them all is clean energy.
Halva, you are not taking the "If you can't fight them, join them" approach are you?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 14:57:29 GMT -5
No I'm not. I'm trying to get journalists and scientists to stop fudging. It is the people who are doing this geoengineering who should be answering the questions of these Greek villagers. Not you or me.
Crutzen is "too busy" to dialogue with Rosalind Peterson. Is he also "too busy" to appoint someone who agrees with him and who is less busy to speak on his behalf? Are his scientific friends here in Athens also "too busy" to have more than a hasty and incoherent exchange about these matters?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 15:03:38 GMT -5
You don't pin a climate scientist down by getting him to DISAGREE with Crutzen. You pin him down by getting him to AGREE with Crutzen. If, of course, you can get Crutzen to agree with himself.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Nov 20, 2006 16:01:39 GMT -5
If there was even a shred of truth in there being "good pollution", there wouldn't be any secrecy involved. There is no need to "pin down" any climate scientists into agreeing with Crutzen. They don't.
When the geoengineering proposals came out this year, they took a thrashing from common sense AND from the vast majority of climate scientists.
You need to stop promoting chemtrails Halva. It's not cool. You need to stop thinking out loud so much if you can't handle any backlash from your words. You are the only chemtrail poster I see who is marketing pollution.
Posted by Swampgas: "If spraying was stopped, pollution, UV-B radiation, ozone depletion, and Global Warming would slow down at least. I do not think pollution is helping anything, and it really does sound like Exxon propaganda, which is completely different than the "You chemmies are idiots" approach of Jay Reynolds. The only answer to them all is clean energy..."
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 16:33:01 GMT -5
The discussion of all this is starting up at the Greek forum also. It may be erring in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 16:38:28 GMT -5
If there were "no need" to pin down climate scientists there would be no need for this forum to exist. The scientists would all be out there publicly denouncing Crutzen et al and geoengineering, and not only as propositions. They would be frank about the fact that the programmes are not just ideas, but very well-entrenched reality.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 20, 2006 18:26:35 GMT -5
Halva / Wayne hall wrote,
"I'm trying to get journalists and scientists to stop fudging. It is the people who are doing this geoengineering who should be answering the questions of these Greek villagers. Not you or me." _____________________________________________
We all know that has not happened as yet and is not likely to in the near future, so why even ask us a question like "If the spraying were stopped, would this have more harmful than beneficial consequences?"
Gee, I'm sorry Wayne, as much as you would like me to ignore you , I just can't do that because your coming here to Gastro and making some very ignorant post lately, first with the Reynolds by proxy DBS crap, now your heading back down the "Pollution is good" trail, WTF is your malfunction ?
I really do not understand how anyone in their right mind could possibly believe that any form of pollution could have a lasting beneficial effect on this living planet, only a right- wing- neo-con-artist-anal-prick would embrace thinking such as this, to them pollution means more money to be made from oil, coal, natural gas, on and on, all they see is the $$$$$$$$$$$$ and whatever it takes to keep it coming in.
Swampgas is 100% right in saying that we need clean energy, not more of the same old dirty crap that generated millions of tons of pollution annually.
Anyway Wayne, if we,as in us, can not answer your "Greek Villigers" questions, why bring it up at all unless your just instigating again and trying to cause an unnecessary ruckus here at Gastro, it seems that every time you show up here you start some kind of a conflict, why is that Wayne ?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 22:02:40 GMT -5
Lou, did you ever read Jay Michaelson's "Climate Change Manhattan Project" www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.htmlIf so (or when you do) which side is he on, "ours" or "theirs"?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 22:23:28 GMT -5
Halva / Wayne hall wrote, I really do not understand how anyone in their right mind could possibly believe that any form of pollution could have a lasting beneficial effect on this living planet, only a right- wing- neo-con-artist-anal-prick would embrace thinking such as this, to them pollution means more money to be made from oil, coal, natural gas, on and on, all they see is the $$$$$$$$$$$$ and whatever it takes to keep it coming in. Is/was Michaelson "in his right mind"? Is he a "right- wing- neo-con-artist-anal-prick"? What are the limitations of tolerance at this forum? Would David Stewart be welcome here? "Deep Shield" more or less convinced him. That did not make Stewart into an "enthusiastic" advocate of "geoengineering" but it heightened his concern about climate change. And it means he would not make a statement like the above statement of Lou's. He did understand how people in their right mind could believe such things. It is not a virtue "not to understand". Jim Phelps is another example of a person who would not subscribe to the "no-one in their right mind" viewpoint. Of course it is debatable whether he himself is in his right mind, but that is for reasons that are tangential to the point we are discussing here. The present situation of denial is the most unacceptable aspect of present reality. It is more unacceptable than the geoengineering itself. Those who are engaged in this activity must account publicly for what they doing. Then the public is in a position to decide whether it should be stopped. The Lou attitude should not be censored, but neither should the Michaelson attitude. In any case the Lou attitude CANNOT be censored. I have people with the Lou attitude among my closest real-life collaborators. But real life imposes a discipline that is absent on the internet. We should measure our punches on-line because the discipline of real life is absent..
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 22:26:21 GMT -5
My understanding of Rosalind Peterson's viewpoint is that it would more or less coincide with the view I put forward above. Lou concedes that she is "one of us".
I also believe that it is the Michaelson viewpoint rather than the Lou viewpoint that equips one to deconstruct fudging debunkers like Reynolds and pin down politically fudging scientists.
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Nov 20, 2006 23:04:04 GMT -5
Wayne,
Stop changing the subject to suit your unwillingness to answer the questions that your being asked, fridge Jay Michaelson, Jim Phelps, Tom Bearden and David Stewart are not at issue here, they are not being asked just what there problem is in coming here and causing people to bristle from your seemingly agenda of agitation that only disrupt and insights conflict here, you are, so why the HELL don't you just answer the question honestly without all of your deep philosophical Bullshit, just answer the DAMMED question !
Since you can address my attitude, one that you brought about with your "Reynolds by proxy / Pollution" post here, maybe you could address your own attitude in coming here with that crap to begin with, I for one am not impressed in any way other than to be irritated by your vague and at times irrational ramblings, this is not DBS and we are not Reynolds types here, your poisoning the atmosphere here at Gastro so why don't you do something about it ?
|
|
|
Post by halva on Nov 20, 2006 23:05:02 GMT -5
Hello everyone.
There have been several news releases in the past several months which report that leading scientists are proposing the concept of global dimming via geoengineering to create a sunscreen in the atmosphere to slow down global warming.
We believe that certain aspects of this concept are and have already been in practice for years now. As can be seen on our website, Chemtrails911.com, most of the supporting evidence behind "chemtrails" points to the global dimming concept, which is a very dangerous and misguided method.
Are these news stories now being released to test the public's reaction to these outrageous concepts?
Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests inserting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to shade the planet (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14840178/). "The most sensible way to get sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere would be to send numerous planes - more than the world's current commercial airline fleet - to take it there."
Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul J. Crutzen also suggests dispersing sulfur particles into the stratosphere to create a sunscreen in order to slow down global warming (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i32/8432cooling.html).
This past weekend, "NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosted a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other 'geoengineering' ideas for fending off climate change." The latest news article starts out: "If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade. The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061116/ap_on_sc/saved_by_haze). And the reaction to all of this? Well, Paul J. Crutzen states, "The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought". What?! This is ridiculous!
As we have stated on our website, this concept is not new and is not limited to a scientist or two. This concept is exactly what well-known scientist Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb, called for in 1997 while at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. In a government sponsored report called Global Warming and Ice Ages, he suggested the scattering of 1 million tons of materials into the atmosphere in order to reflect 1% of incoming sunlight. He states that it would be cheaper to slow global warming through "stratospheric deployment of oxide particulates" than to actually slow down greenhouse gases connected with fossil-fired energy production.
The sunscreen concept is also called for in a major congressional study titled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, which was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This huge study was reported in 1992 and is the textbook on greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigations. In this study, they talk about using aircraft to spray the atmosphere with stratospheric dust or soot to simulate clouds in order to mitigate global warming. The study also suggested dumping iron into the ocean to stimulate plankton that could potentially eat carbon dioxide. By looking at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories' recent dumping of iron in the ocean to do just that, you can see that these are not just theories. They are theories in actual use. But the iron theory backfired when a large amount of fish died.
Our children are now even being taught this aerial obscuration concept in our schools. In the level one science book, "Essential Interactions" by Centre Point Learning, Inc., a photo of a jet is titled "Particle Air" and has the caption "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen". This is in the section titled "Solutions for Global Warming". In the same section they also show a picture of a helicopter dumping iron into the ocean as a way to mitigate global warming, as we mentioned earlier. Again, CNN actually reported the iron theory being carried out. These are not just theories.
There are even patents for devices to carry out this insane concept. One important patent is the 1994 Welsbach patent issued to the Hughes Aircraft Co. It is for atmospheric spraying with aluminum oxide to reduce global warming by seeding and reflecting 1% of incoming sunrays. Another patent worth mentioning is the 1975 US Navy patent which is for a contrail generation apparatus for producing powder contrails. In the summary section it clearly states the term 'contrail' was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail". It appears they are still using the word contrail for convenience. The people carrying out these types of operations will never use the word chemtrails. They use terms such as aerial obscuration, persistent contrails, sky soot, or sun shield/screen.
We ask that you please be aware of what is occurring in our skies and inform others of these dangerous operations. Share this information with your friends, family, and co-workers. People sometimes love to dismiss this topic as some wing-nut conspiracy theory, but it can be hard for some people to easily dismiss what is occurring when so many leading scientists and government sponsored studies provide evidence for what we have been saying all along.
Please remember, by the Air Force's own definition a decade or so ago, a normal contrail will last no longer than 30 minutes... and then only under the best supporting weather conditions. So, the sky is available for all to watch. Please do so. Look up, wake up, and speak out!
Please note that Paul Moyer made a follow-up to his first chemtrail report, "Toxic Sky", which aired on May 23, 2006. His second report, Toxic Sky (part 2), aired on November 16, 2006 (NBC4, Los Angeles). Please let him know that we appreciate his efforts to bring attention to this important issue (Paul.Moyer@nbcuni.com).
Thank you.
Chemtrails911.com
|
|