Dialogue with Rosalind Peterson

[halva]

Dialogue with Rosalind Peterson now online.

[altitudelou]

From www.enouranois.gr/english/reportazenglish/rosalin_peterson.htm,....

Dialogue on Persistent Jet Contrails & Experimental Weather Modification

Wayne Hall: As another person involved in "chemtrails" activism firstly let me say that I have been impressed by your achievement so far.
Rosalind Peterson: Thank you very much! Please note that the word "chemtrails" is not part of my vocabulary any longer and I seldom use the word. Our elected officials are all being told by the United States Air Force, NOAA and NASA (just to name a few entities-also include most universities), have declared that "chemtrails" are part of a conspiracy theory and the United States Air Force (document on my website – www.californiaskywatch.com - or you can go the United States Air Force website and read the document), has investigated this word and declared that it is a hoax. If you go to the NOAA or NASA websites they list this word in a document written at taxpayer expense under a whole section of 12+ pages on conspiracy theories. Senator Feinstein of California likes to have letters from the Air Force sent to constituents letting them know about this hoax.
Therefore, those that use this word with their elected representatives get these letters and since our elected officials can't be connected with conspiracy theories and Internet Hoax theories our voice has not been heard. The only way to be heard is to use the NASA vocabulary on this subject - see NASA October 2005 Newsletter. I think you will find this helpful.
_________________________________________________________________

Well, I see in that long winded dialog with Rosalind Peterson she is cowering to the opinion of NASA and the Air Force PR boy's and Reynold's types who claim that the term "Chemtrail's" is a hoax, does Rosalind Peterson think for one minute that trying to appease these liars with verbiage will somehow win the day?

Here is something that I wrote sometime back on the origin of the term Chemtrail.

**********


It's an interesting fact that the term "Chemtrail" that was first heard back in the late 90s did not originate with the public as many believe that it did.

I think it was back in 1997 that Will Thomas is credited with coining the term "chemtrails". Well, not to take anything away from Will Thomas, but it appears that the brass at the United States Air Force Academy beat him to it by more than a few years.

There were courses, starting in Spring of 1990, presented by the USAF Department of Chemistry, with the intriguing title of "Chemtrails". The image below is from the title page of the "Fall 1991 course policies and laboratory manual" and was found in the Library of Kent State University.

The USAF Department of Chemistry logo for "Chemtrail's" course study 1990-91 may be viewed at,...

www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html scroll down to topic #3.

It appears that this course was related solely to the chemistry of traditional condensation trail's / contrail's and that this use of "Chemtrails" was simply a "catchy" USAF coined term used in the title of the course, When, from who and how the term "Chemtrail's" came to be used by the public with regard to the spraying issue is a mystery, perhaps it was Will Thomas that unknowingly used the term that was originally coined by the Air Force in the early 90's, the only thing for sure that we know about the term "Chemtrail's" is that it was used by the USAF as far back as 1990 and it was used at least 6 to 7 years prior to all of those long lasting persistent trail's like the ones we see today showing up in our sky's.

Since the Air Force has officially declared that "Chemtrail's" are a "HOAX" in a response letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California who questioned the Air Force on the subject early in 2001 there seems to be a real contradiction on the part of the Air Force in stating that "Chemtrail's" are a "HOAX".

Letter in part from, Walter M. Washabaugh, Colonel, USAF. to Senator Deinne Feinstein of California.

Entire Letter may be found at,.... www.carnicom.com/af3.htm

______________________________________________________________________

4/20/01

Dear Senator Feinstein,

This responds to your inquiry for Mr. Rick Moors concerning
"chemtrails."
The term "chemtrail" is a hoax that began circulating approximately
three years ago which asserts the government is involved in a joint
federal program of covert spraying of the public. The "chemtrails" are
most often described as "unusual contrail or contrail patterns" seen
coming from military and civilian aircraft. The "chemtrail" hoax has
been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited
universities, scientific organizations and major media publications.
_______________________________________________________________________

As far as the Air Force is concerned the term "Chemtrail's" is a "HOAX" according to Colonel W.M. Washabaughs 2001 letter to Senator Feinstein.

Neither Colonel W.M. Washabaugh or the Air Force will concede that the term "Chemtrail's" originated with the United States Air Force Academy, Department of Chemistry, the only response from the Air Force on the subject is that the term "Chemtrail's" is a HOAX. Perhaps their thinking is that if they avoid admitting their own use of the term "Chemtrail's" back in the early 90's, no one will notice there hypocrisy.

Obviously back in 1990-91, "CHEMTRAILS" were no "HOAX" to the Air Force but an active course of study at the United States Air Force Academy, Department of Chemistry.

How embarrassing for Colonel Walter M. Washabaugh and the Air Force not to have known about the 1990-91-on Air Force Academy, Department of Chemistry "Chemtrail's" course study program, or did they ?

Just a coincidence or blatant cover-up, you have to wonder about that, now don't you, in any event "Chemtrail's" are not a HOAX as proclaimed by representatives like Colonel Walter M. Washabaugh of the United States Air Force since it was they that coined the term long before it began to circulate in any public form.

[halva]

It seems that "chemtrails" was in fact once an OK word for those in the business. Rosalind Peterson has gained kudos from her KNBC appearance, though, where I think almost everybody would agree that she came over as effective. She wouldn't have been more effective if she had used the word "chemtrails".

By the way, I'm not saying this to start an argument. It is just in the nature of a response to your posting. Is it better to respond, or just to be silent? Perhaps there are a number of us who are talking too much.

[greenman]

Good interview. I've noticed when I bring up this topic with people , I'll mention the word 'chemtrails' and immediately their eyes gloss over & ears slam shut. So instead i call it "persistant aircraft emissions" & notice people are less resistant to the subject matter. I think calling it' emissions has more accuracy & less confusing to people. 'chemtrails' is a kind of a vague description & has a stigma attached to it, thanks to misleading media attn & gov't psy-ops. Rosalind Peterson has done alot of research & work trying to get the message out to people , perhaps she finds when dealing with gov't & scientific community theres no choice but to use terms other than 'chemtrails', due to the fact the gov't has officially supressed the use of the term as a hoax.

[altitudelou]

greenman wrote,

"due to the fact the gov't has officially supressed the use of the term as a hoax."
_________________________________________________

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the government has SUCSUFULLY SUPRESSED the use of the term "CHEMTRAIL'S" as a hoax, used by conspiracy nut's."

Personally I don't like the term chemtrail's but whether or not one likes the term, we should not just abandon it's use just because the Air Force has decided it's use by us is a hoax when in fact it was they who originally authored the term, was it a Hoax when the Air Force used it ? ( Why do they avoid comment on this?)

I think at the very least, when someone says that there is no such thing as "Chemtrail's" and it's all a hoax, we should quickly point out that chemtrail's were not a hoax when the Air Force used the term back in the early 90's because there is proof of that.

Certainly Rosalind Peterson has done much to advance the case for aerosols and other substances being sprayed into the atmosphere by our government via secret operations and help raise awareness of same, that is commendable on her part but I really do not like the politically correct tactics that she is advancing when addressing the subject to officials, military, etc, if that is what she wants to do personally, then I have no problem with that but when she expects others to fall in line with her "softer approach" methods that's where I draw the line as many of us think the hard, in your face approach is the way to address the spraying.

If we are relegated to the rules set by our opposition with regard to the use of wordage, are we not conceding that it is they who control the situation?

I do not accept playing by their rules when they make those rules up as they go along !

[socrates]

altitudelou said:

...If we are relegated to the rules set by our opposition with regard to the use of wordage, are we not conceding that it is they who control the situation?

I do not accept playing by their rules when they make those rules up as they go along !

I agree with you. "They" are the ones who invented the damn word. Now "they" are the ones playing internet games with reality. Perhaps it comes down to one needs to know who their audience is. If it's used amongst people like ourselves, the word doesn't get in the way of understanding a post.

At that fake forum I posted at, where they think global warming and chemtrails are hoaxes, I did notice that I didn't pose as quite a threat to them when talking about "chemtrails". Yet, when I started talking about aerosol mitigation or geo-engineering, they seemed to be way out of their disinformation elements and were forced into making ad hominen attacks on myself.

Maybe next time Rosalind can bring up the fact that there was a 1991 Air Force course on "chemtrails". Unfortunately, it feels like there isn't going to be a next time. Hopefully I am wrong.

[halva]

altitudelou said:

Certainly Rosalind Peterson has done much to advance the case for aerosols and other substances being sprayed into the atmosphere by our government via secret operations and help raise awareness of same, that is commendable on her part but I really do not like the politically correct tactics that she is advancing when addressing the subject to officials, military, etc, if that is what she wants to do personally, then I have no problem with that but when she expects others to fall in line with her "softer approach" methods that's where I draw the line as many of us think the hard, in your face approach is the way to address the spraying.

The place to use the hard in-your-face tactics is with opponents like Reynolds. Aloof campaigners like Rosalind don't even try to descend to Reynolds' level, leaving a whole layer of campaigners and activists unprotected.

The result of our infighting here has been a resurgence of Reynolds at Debate Both Sides. Personally I don't like the idea of ceding that ground to him.

[altitudelou]

Wayne, you need to read my last post in "How to cool a planet", Reynold's as far as I am concerned has no value in any form of debate with pro-chemtrail activist, Reynolds is a non issue for me but obviously you enjoy his company at "Debate Both Sides" so why don't you stay over there with that BS, I don't think anyone wants to see it here anymore than Chem11 did at Megasprayer, didn't you get trounced enough over there?

Once again socrates, we seem to be on the same page.

[halva]

altitudelou said:

Wayne, you need to read my last post in "How to cool a planet", Reynold's as far as I am concerned has no value in any form of debate with pro-chemtrail activist, Reynolds is a non issue for me but obviously you enjoy his company at "Debate Both Sides" so why don't you stay over there with that BS, I don't think anyone wants to see it here anymore than Chem11 did at Megasprayer, didn't you get trounced enough over there?

Once again socrates, we seem to be on the same page.

You are fortunate that it is possible for Reynolds to be a non-issue for you. That is not the case with me because he has invaded territory to which I staked a claim. It is unfriendly of you to say that I enjoy his company. If I desist from trying to involve you in my problem with Reynolds, you can surely be impartial enough to spare me from the accusation that I enjoy his company. After all, although nobody but me is obliged to keep fighting him at Debate both Sides, the problem he represents is a problem that confronts all of us. Reynolds is the way that the scenario devised by Teller et al plays itself out at the grass-roots level. We can protect ourselves by coming together in properly moderated forums like this one, but outside cyberspace, in the world of the controlled media and the real world (of which the shitty Debate both Sides forum is a part), the Teller scenario is in force.

Interestingly, at Debate both Sides , it looks as if there may be an intervention by the liberal Zionist Dingo. Dingo mostly operates at Debate Both Sides as a Reynolds-type debunker, focusing on real and imagined anti-Semites. He also debunks chemtrails, more or less out of habit, without knowing much about them. However, on the subject of climate change, he is on the side of humanity and the planet.

[altitudelou]

You know Wayne, that's all well and good but I really don't care what's going on over at "Debate Both Sides", I have for reasons of keeping good mental health withdrawn from following the threads there between the usual players such as yourself, BC, Footsolder, Reynolds, etc, which pretty much makes up the bulk of those who are either discussing issues like CT's, climate and geo-engineering or engaged in hostile bickering and taking ego shots at each other, I have had enough of that sophomoric Bullshit finding no value in what's being posted there, you can keep on, keeping on with Reynolds or whoever at "Debate Both Sides", it matters little to me.

If you have something of value to post here I'll be more than glad to read it but if you continue to stir up trouble like you did at Megasprayer with Chem11 you can well expect that I will completely ignore you and anything that you have to say, I do not have the time or will to put up with anyone's nonsense, yours, Reynolds, anyone's !

On that note, have a pleasant day.

[socrates]

altitudelou said:

You know Wayne, that's all well and good but I really don't care what's going on over at "Debate Both Sides", I have for reasons of keeping good mental health withdrawn from following the threads there between the usual players such as yourself, BC, Footsolder, Reynolds, etc, which pretty much makes up the bulk of those who are either discussing issues like CT's, climate and geo-engineering or engaged in hostile bickering and taking ego shots at each other, I have had enough of that sophomoric Bullshit finding no value in what's being posted there, you can keep on, keeping on with Reynolds or whoever at "Debate Both Sides", it matters little to me.

If you have something of value to post here I'll be more than glad to read it but if you continue to stir up trouble like you did at Megasprayer with Chem11 you can well expect that I will completely ignore you and anything that you have to say, I do not have the time or will to put up with anyone's nonsense, yours, Reynolds, anyone's !

On that note, have a pleasant day.

With respect to Swampgas and all here, I have signed up at Megasprayer where I will be able to post more directly about this crap in the fight club. I will only say that this episode highlights that there is more to the discrediting of "chemtrail" theories than the obvious ones we are bombarded with such as fake pilot stories at CTC and ramblings about UFOs at Carnicom's. The rabbit hole comes in many forms. It is very discouraging that Halva has not tried to fix the nonsense going on. Why doesn't he see that he has made this situation much worse than it had to be?

All he had to do was address why he supports Crutzen and disses those who advocate clean skies. All he had to do was explain why he talks about other posters behind their backs. Instead, he has retreated into this fake image of himself as the crusader against Reynolds.

Lou is 100% right. People like himself have witnessed this crap over the years and need no explanation. People like me with a late interest in "chemtrail" message boards had to check archives, do engine searches to see what this was all about. I made the mistake of assuming that Halva could present emotionally detached feedback to speed up this process and help other new people cut to the chase.

I think these message boards work best when we stick to reality. The "how to cool a planet" thread was to me an example of how we can get good things across to the general public. Then unfortunately someone had to mix apples and oranges, and instead of sticking to topics they descended into discussing the personalities of those who write at such places. Someone has decided to attack messengers rather than their messages.

I like Gastronamus and am not bailing out to megasprayer. I think the two places complement each other. This one tends to enable dialogue a bit better, while that place seems to facilitate scientific data better.

So this will be my last post here on Halva. I will try to get back to the kind of dialogue we were having that was positive, such as when we were hashing out the ideas of Lovelock and Crutzen.

I will repeat that it is near impossible to prove someone is a paid disinformation agent. Yet, it is easy to theorize that someone is such an entity. Halva's last post at Debate Both Sides has a link to J. Reynolds' mother's obituary. That was disgusting for him to do. Just because forces out there want us to be sadistic, outrageous pigs, it does not serve the purposes of peace and justice to fall into that Arianna bullshit mode.

I don't like Reynolds at all. When I see his name I hit the troll scroll button.
Remember how they made Dean out to be loony left because of the "scream". Well now Halva has done the same type of thing, but this time, he did one of the most vile, cruel things one can do to someone. His postings have gotten so outrageous that I don't know if I even want to read anymore of his stuff.

But I will spare gastronamus anymore of my take on this. I went back over the other thread, and this whole thing started because I questioned why Halva was attacking chem11. It forced me to investigate the writings over at megasprayer. I do like this place though and again I think the two places are both unique approaches to presenting the "chemtrail" topic to the public.

post #1098: Halva Posts Reynolds' Mom's Obituary

I personally don't want to waste much more time on this rabbit hole. That is why I have signed up to Megasprayer where the fight club is set up. Halva ought to feel ashamed. He has trashed the chemtrail awareness movement in many ways. He has either lost a few marbles or is on some payroll. He should take Lou's advice and take a vacation, maybe consider a different subject to be politically involved in. He is definitely hurting the "cause". This is a most unfortunate development whether deliberate or not.

[halva]

I don't think it is a very good idea for you to get involved in fights at Megasprayer, or to give up talking about Halva here only to start talking about Halva there.

I have been trying to move the discussion at Megasprayer onto the topic of the thread on which Deborah is posting. Chem is not taking up the problematic, and perhaps even if he did it would just end up further spoiling mutual relations, not generating anything constructive.

Introducing more ad hominem elements into all this is not the right way to go.

As far as Debate Both Sides is concerned, I don't care if nobody here reads it.

Megasprayer until recently was mainly just Big Bunny doing his cuts and pastes, and that is a preferable situation to having the tensions there being made even worse and differences of opinion escalating into vendettas.

[altitudelou]

socrates,

I whole heartedly support everything that you just said in your last post < Re: Dialogue with Rosalind Peterson
« Reply #10 on Today at 3:00pm » >.

Also with respect to Swampgas and the Gastro board in general I will no longer respond to Halva / Wayne Hall's post here as I do not want to promote an atmosphere of negativity among our good friends here, as I see it the way to end this bickering and ill will of late is to cut out the source of the problem, by not responding to Halva / Wayne Hall, perhaps we can get back to a more stable, friendly atmosphere.

That's it for me, I'm out of this thread, permanently !

[socrates]

New IndyMedia page, those are always fun, featuring Rosalind Peterson, yeehaw. Also, again, there seems to be a most interesting look at barium versus sulphur over at Megasprayer. Many of us there wish Rosalind could pop in for some dialogue, but she only seems to have had the time to drop in for one cut and paste post of one of her articles. She had the time to sign up to the forum, but no time to dialogue even a little with Chem11 and crew. It seems that efforts to elevate the aerosol mitigation discussion are being stymied by astroturfing. I'm not saying she is blatant disinfo, but that she is someone to keep an eye on and scrutinize, if she is going to be a leading "chemtrail" activist.
"Chemtrail" Educational Forum Coming to Portland Nov. 4

[halva]

Sorry for the detour via DBS but I can't get the direct link to work.
www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=659474&postcount=7775

[halva]

Some comments from Jim Phelps on Rosalind Peterson:

"The "El Nino" effects will control the general temperature over the US this
year, and this is a pure ocean's heating temp effect and this added water vapor over
the US is dominating the atmospheric heating. The rise of water vapor in the
atmosphere, not CO2 is the dominate global warming gas issue. Likewise, the loss
of huge amounts of water vapor nucleation effects from the oceans, DMS/DMSO, is
a dominate issue for ocean currents and polar ice melts. This year's rise in El Nino activity also upset the Atlantic Hurricane trends of last year.

Peterson appears to notice the rise of UV-b and this is a big issue for ocean's sulfur cycle "Gaia" type effects on its temp regulation. She fails to take note that some sulfur compounds help the environment, in fact that the whole Earth highly depends on Sulfur Cycle effects to control both CO2 levels and atmospheric and ocean temps."

[socrates]

Is there a link for the Phelps comments?

As for sulphur, I think there is a big difference between there being a natural amount of it in the atmosphere and having aircraft play Frankenstein and dispense it into the skies to either "cool" the planet or shield the sun. The problem with the mad scientist geoengineers is that they are trying to market sulphur in such a grotesque way. Thankfully, they have taken a thrashing from the great majority of scientists not beholden to corporate interests. Crutzen came out with the nonsense, and folks like Monbiot and Gavin Schmidt took care of such nonsense. The problem is with the status quo. We cannot allow the status quo forces to continue with their pollution schemes and bogus solutions driven by greed.

[halva]

They were part of a private communication. I report them just for the record. I don't know what I think about them. As you probably know, Jim Phelps is not against all forms of geoengineering. He even claims to be the inventor of some of them. He is just against the secrecy that surrounds them Rather like "Deep Shield". And like the late "Deep Shield" he has eccentric opinions that do not help him in his campaign against that secrecy.

[halva]

You are quite wrong, by the way, to be so trusting of George Monbiot, and I do urge you to read his latest book "Heat".

[halva]

Here is something Rosalind Peterson wrote recently which I think is worth posting:

"Climate change has been taking place extremely rapidly since 1987. This is when a myriad of atomspheric heating and testing programs went into full operation, when military space programs began to receive unlimited funding, when public money was given to universities and private corporations for study and implementation to avoid treaty obligations. This is when air quality began to be severely reduced, when persistent jet contrails began to become abundant and persist, when HAARP was started to be implemented, when atmospheric heating and testing programs began to be implemented, and electromagnetic weapons and other weapons systems began to be used during the first Gulf War and since 2003 in Iraq. We are not examining the impact of all of these programs and the ones mentioned above as changing our climate/warming dramatically since that time. Air quality, white haze, asthma, rickets and a variety of other human health problems have also escalated since 1987...along with the jet fuel change from JP-4 to JP-8 with additives

This is not a simple subject. And the reason that these programs are not discussed, for the most part, by Al Gore or those that are ringing the "global warming crisis bell" is because they know that some of these programs are changing our climate and impacting air quality and human health...and that if the public knew about them and the true implications of these programs they would be stopped. The jet contrails are just one part of the program. Whether they are just caused by burning different or richer fuels, the jets running richer to leave contrails, (we do know they will test positive for jet fuel emissions which have a tremendous impact on human health and depletion of the beneificial ozone layer), or if there are other chemical additives or particulates (we do know that the military releases Chaff world-wide - aluminum coated fiberglass), is hard to prove without the government documents."

[kola]

I think Rosalind makes some excellent points.

Thanks for the post Halva.

Kola

[halva]

Jailbush, any ideas on what Rosalind Peterson's next moves might be?

[jailbush]

haven't heard from rosalind except for the following half of a forward she send me of some interesting environmental occurences. she is sometimes silent or less communicative due to her incredibly busy schedule. my original post was too large so i cut it in half. this is the piece that includes the strange and as yet unexplained death of 80% of a specific bee population.

EDUCATIONAL FORUM AND PANEL DISCUSSION

Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:00 P.M.




”CLIMATE CHANGE & YOUR HEALTH”



LOCATION: FIRST SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH
1008 LIVE OAK (EAST HWY 60)
MIAMI, ARIZONA 85539

STARTING AT 4 PM

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH

AND THE HEALTH OF YOUR FAMILY



*STATE, COUNTY & REGIONAL EVENT ~ "GET EDUCATED!"

*WEATHER MODIFICATION OPERATIONS TODAY

*MATERIALS BEING SPRAYED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE

* U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS 2006

*SLIDE SHOW AND DVD FILMS

*HEALTH EFFECTS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION

*WHAT IS IN OUR SURFACE WATER?

*THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE, WHO IS CHANGING THE CLIMATE



*THE NEED OF PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

*PANEL DISCUSSION

*WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS & IDEAS

*ATTEND THIS FORUM AND GET THE DVDS AND INFORMATION PACKETS BECAUSE THE FUTURE

OF YOUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES ARE DEPENDING ON YOU.





CALL SHARON ANDERSON 928-473-8059

OR BRIDGET CONROY 602-404-0847 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

USE MAPQUEST FOR DIRECTIONS OR CALL US.









For Information on our Educational Forums Please Contact:

Bridget Conroy

Agriculture Defense Coalition

P.O. Box 54297

Phoenix Arizona 85078

[phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail]





Recommended Book: The Dying of the Trees, by Charles Little 1995



Associated Reference Articles:



www.terradaily.com/reports/NJIT_Solar_Physicists_Report_Paradox_Less_Sunlight_But_Temps_Rise.html Newark NJ (SPX) Jan 24, 2006 Less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has not translated into cooler temperatures, according to a team of solar physicists at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT).



www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060124_earth_albedo.html

Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor posted: 24 January 2006 10:47 am ET



www.asp.bnl.gov/ The United States Department of Energy



www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=36105#



www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/01/22/news/wyoming/e961e201cde647d08725726a00268371.txt Wyoming’s Cloud Seeding Gamble – Experimental Weather Modification



www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-12-19-wyoming-cloud-seeding_x.htm


www.popsci.com/popsci/science/c955700641f87010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p1.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p2.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p3.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p4.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p6.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p7.pdf NASA



asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/Count/Oct2005/ConEdNews_p8.pdf NASA



**Futuristic Fleet of 'Cloudseeders'
Could thickening the clouds to reflect the sun's rays be an answer to global warming? news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm





"Authorities in Costa Rica said Tuesday they are investigating the mysterious deaths of about 500 brown pelicans along the country's Pacific coast over the last five days but do not suspect bird flu was the cause."

www.todaysth v.com/news/ news.aspx? storyid=41591



TELEVISION NEWS ALERT EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION

(INCLUDES A SEGMENT ON MENDOCINO COUNTY, CA)



www.nbc4.tv/news/9155725/detail.html





Watch: “Toxic Sky?”



NBC4 TV – Los Angeles, California News Program – Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:00 P.M.



There is a WEB report on NBC4.tv at 9:00 A.M. on May 24, 2006.







SUBSONIC JET EMISSIONS REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PA420-R-99-013 - Final Report "Evaluation of Air Pollutant Emissions from Subsonic Commercial Jet Aircraft", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency April 1999. Excerpts from this report are reprinted below:

"Public Health and Aircraft Emissions":

"Ultimately, EPA's principal concern in evaluating and controlling (jet fuel) emissions is the preservation of human health and, secondarily, the protection of public welfare (including protection against damage to crops, vegetation, animals, and buildings)...In particular, they have significant concerns regarding the effect of NOx on local and regional environments. Tropospheric NOx has multiple environmental quality impacts…contributing to ground-level O3 and PM, but also air toxic concentrations, excess nitrogen loads to sensitive water bodies, and acidification of sensitive ecosystems (EPA 1997a)." (PM = Particulate Matter)

"Table 1.1 Representative health effects of air pollutants.” Jet Emission Pollutants:

‘Ozone - Lung function impairment, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation, lung structure damage. (Examples of these effects are chronic inflammation and structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function.)”

“Carbon Monoxide - Cardiovascular effects, especially in those persons with heart conditions…Similar health effects on animals as on humans.”

“Nitrogen Oxides - Lung irrigation and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms…” (Asthmatics are especially sensitive.)

“Volatile Organic Compounds - Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, and memory impairment.”

“Table 1.2 Representative Environmental Effects:

Ozone - Crop damage, damage to trees and decreased resistance to disease for both crops and other plants. (Ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food so that growth, reproduction and overall plant health are compromised. By weakening trees and other plants, ozone can make plants more susceptible to disease, insect attacks, and harsh weather ...Ground level ozone can also kill or damage leaves so that they fall off the plants too soon or become spotted and brown...")

“Nitrogen Oxides - Acid rain, visibility degradation, particle formation, contribution towards ozone formation. NO2 is an important precursor to both ozone and acidic precipitation, which harms both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems...NOx also plays a role in the formation of acid rain. Acid rain causes surface water acidification and damages trees...NOx contributes to the formation of particles in the atmosphere, with the resulting health and visibility effects...)”

“Particulate Matter - Visibility degradation and…safety effects for aircraft from reduced visibility. (PM is the generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete particles...over a wide range of sizes...PM may either be emitted directly or formed in the atmosphere by the transformations of gaseous emissions of compounds including NOx, VOCs, and sulfur oxides SOx...In addition to the evidence found for health effects associated with aggravation of asthma and increased respiratory illness, and that they may be chronic health effects associated with long-term exposure to high concentrations of coarse particles (FR, July 18, 1997)..."

"...the nature of the effects that have been reported to be associated with ambient PM, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease…change in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms; and sensitive sub-populations that appear to be at greater risk to such effects, specifically individuals with respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and the elderly...children, asthmatic children and adults..."

“Volatile Organic Compounds - Contribution towards ozone formation, odors, and some direct effect on buildings and plants." (...They can arise from evaporation or incomplete fuel combustion. As a class, VOCs react with NOx in the atmosphere to form ozone, but individual VOCs may have additional health effects. Some VOCs have little or no known direct health effect, while other VOCs, such as benzene, are carcinogens...Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, and memory impairment are among the immediate symptoms that some people have experienced soon after exposure to some organics...At high levels, VOCs can have a damaging effect on plants...VOCs that contain chlorine can also contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion.)..."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC Special Report - Aviation and the Global Atmosphere - Summary for Policymakers – 1999:

"2. How Do Aircraft Affect Climate and Ozone? Aircraft emit gases and particles directly into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where they have an impact on atmospheric composition. These gases and particles…trigger formation of condensation trails (contrails)…”

"4.6 Cirrus Clouds. Extensive cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the formation of persistent contrails. Increases in cirrus cloud cover (beyond those identified as line-shaped contrails) are found to be positively correlated with aircraft emissions..."

*Note: The full report is available online at: www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/r99013.pdf or on the EPA Website.



ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. If JP-4 or JP-8 Jet Fuel consists of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, including poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), naphthalene and benzene (a known carcinogen), how will increasing jet fuel emissions impact public health?

2. When will our elected officials direct our local air pollution districts to start testing our air for barium (salts), aluminum (oxides), perchlorate, cadmium, manganese, magnesium, lead, iron, tungsten, and carcinogenic poly aromatic hydrocarbons like naphthalene and benzene?

3. Are fine particles of aluminum oxide and other highly refractive metals being released by jets over our state along with aluminum coated fiberglass (Chaff)?



"A mysterious illness is killing tens of thousands of honeybee colonies across the country, threatening the livelihood of commercial beekeepers and sending researchers scrambling to find answers.

The ailment, called Colony Collapse Disorder, could affect domestic honey production in the United States and, perhaps even more importantly, put a strain on fruit growers and other farmers who rely on bees to pollinate their crops.

Reports of unusual colony deaths have come from at least 22 states...

In lab specimens of dissected bees, Cox-Foster said she found an alarmingly high number of foreign fungi, bacteria and other organisms and weakened immune systems.

The country's bee population had already been taking a hit in recent years because of the parasitic varroa mite, which had destroyed more than half of some beekeepers' hives and devastated most wild honeybees."

www.phillybu rbs.com/pb- dyn/news/ 103-02112007- 1297632.html


New Mystery Ailment Devastates Honeybee Industry, Already Hurt by Mite Infestation

By GENARO C. ARMAS

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. Feb 12, 2007 (AP)— A mysterious illness is killing tens of thousands of honeybee colonies across the country, threatening honey production, the livelihood of beekeepers and possibly crops that need bees for pollination.

Researchers are scrambling to find the cause of the ailment, called Colony Collapse Disorder.

Reports of unusual colony deaths have come from at least 22 states. Some affected commercial beekeepers who often keep thousands of colonies have reported losing more than 50 percent of their bees. A colony can have roughly 20,000 bees in the winter, and up to 60,000 in the summer.

"We have seen a lot of things happen in 40 years, but this is the epitome of it all," Dave Hackenberg, of Lewisburg-based Hackenberg Apiaries, said by phone from Fort Meade, Fla., where he was working with his bees.

The country's bee population had already been shocked in recent years by a tiny, parasitic bug called the varroa mite, which has destroyed more than half of some beekeepers' hives and devastated most wild honeybee populations.

Along with being producers of honey, commercial bee colonies are important to agriculture as pollinators, along with some birds, bats and other insects. A recent report by the National Research Council noted that in order to bear fruit, three-quarters of all flowering plants including most food crops and some that provide fiber, drugs and fuel rely on pollinators for fertilization.

Hackenberg, 58, was first to report Colony Collapse Disorder to bee researchers at Penn State University. He notified them in November when he was down to about 1,000 colonies after having started the fall with 2,900.

"We are going to take bees we got and make more bees … but it's costly," he said. "We are talking about major bucks. You can only take so many blows so many times."

One beekeeper who traveled with two truckloads of bees to California to help pollinate almond trees found nearly all of his bees dead upon arrival, said Dennis vanEnglesdorp, acting state apiarist for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

"I would characterize it as serious," said Daniel Weaver, president of the American Beekeeping Federation. "Whether it threatens the apiculture industry in the United States or not, that's up in the air."

Scientists at Penn State, the University of Montana and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are among the quickly growing group of researchers and industry officials trying to solve the mystery.

Among the clues being assembled by researchers:

Although the bodies of dead bees often are littered around a hive, sometimes carried out of the hive by worker bees, no bee remains are typically found around colonies struck by the mystery ailment. Scientists assume these bees have flown away from the hive before dying.

From the outside, a stricken colony may appear normal, with bees leaving and entering. But when beekeepers look inside the hive box, they find few mature bees taking care of the younger, developing bees.

Normally, a weakened bee colony would be immediately overrun by bees from other colonies or by pests going after the hive's honey. That's not the case with the stricken colonies, which might not be touched for at least two weeks, said Diana Cox-Foster, a Penn State entomology professor investigating the problem.

"That is a real abnormality," Hackenberg said.

Cox-Foster said an analysis of dissected bees turned up an alarmingly high number of foreign fungi, bacteria and other organisms and weakened immune systems.

Researchers are also looking into the effect pesticides might be having on bees.

In the meantime, beekeepers are wondering if bee deaths over the last couple of years that had been blamed on mites or poor management might actually have resulted from the mystery ailment.

"Now people think that they may have had this three or four years," vanEnglesdorp said.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 2/20/2007 1:44 PM

[jailbush]

a quick thought on the term chemtrail. i fully agree with rosalind. if there has been a concerted effort and to a large degree successful effort to debunk "chemtrails" and all that surrounds the word, then why bother using it. use their terminology and let them debunk themselves. why squabble over who is leading who around. this is not a macho issue, it should be about the quickest way between two points and rosalind has been working with a myriad of groups from all different interests and has first hand experience regarding the symantics of this issue. i have somewhat adopted her policy and don't use the word chemtrail unless i am among the choir and if someone asks me if i am talking about chemtrails when i say "persistent contrails" or ? then the discussion takes on a broader context to include the debunking efforts and that there is enough material from the government and reputable researchers that the term has become a liability. something to consider.

[Swamp Gas]

jailbush, Just want to welcome you to Gastronamus Cafe.

[halva]

Jailbush was a fellow-participant in the telephone conference with 12-14 people including Rosalind Peterson and Jerry Smith that we had a month or two back, and which you unfortunately didn't get to, Swamp, due to last minute changes.

I thought the telephone conference was successful, suitably focused and although there has been no move as far as I know for a sequel, I think it is a good idea having them. For me they are useful as a focus to which I can invite people, including people who are not internet-oriented, and including people of some influence, such as the head of international relations of one of Greece's parliamentary political parties. Rosalind Peterson participating is of course a plus, but even if she is not a participant in the next conference, when and if there is a next one, I would like to see the telephone conferences continuing, perhaps supplemented by written liaison here at Gastronamus for all participants who want to, and can, come here.

[halva]

Between September 5-7, 2007, Rosalind Peterson has been invited to address the Sixtieth Annual Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI). The Conference, entitled "Climate change: How It
Impacts Us All", is being held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The DPI/NGO Conference is the main NGO event of the year at the United Nations, attracting 2,500 NGO representatives from some 90 countries. This historic Conference will focus on the growing
concern associated with climate change and its profound and decisive impact on human well-being.

Rosalind will be speaking on climate change associated with persistent jet contrails and the man-made clouds they produce, how jet contrails exacerbate global warming and change our climate. She will address atmospheric heating and testing programs and experimental weather modification and how they impact agriculture and climate.

Rosalind will also address global dimming produced by persistent jet contrails and how a reduction in sunlight reduces photosynthesis thereby lowering crop production and plant health. In addition, geoengineering issues will be raised and their implication when used
on our oceans and agriculture. Solutions to these problems, human health impacts on water, soil, and agriculture will also be addressed during question and answer sessions with attendees.

[halva]

www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind3.htm