|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
The future of Chemtrail Disinformation
 Sat Apr 07, 2001 6:44 pm
|
 |
|
The future of Chemtrail Disinformation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lately, it has been stated somewhat obliquely, that what with all this going on with new revelations regarding chemtrails, ala, the FAA sky person, and all that. When the stuff came out recently from Brendt and Thomas (all good, I feel), many of us felt this wasn't just a coincidence. Many so stated here and on other boards. Our BS meters were going off.
Still, I believe we all feel that any admission is better than the usual plate of denials from the gang of seven, so it goes, but is an admission an admission if it is loaded up with a pile of lies? I am not inferring any kind of mis-proprietry on Thomas and Brendt (sp), just what was leaked to them had an odor to it. An odor many of us know all to well, don't we?
I've given this some thought as have others in regards to this new phenomenom, and woke up today with some really strong intuitions, feelings, and because I am mental (many nodding their heads yes now) I've decided to let loose. This long and over-bearing preamble is/was necessary, because I realize that most of what I say is subject to outright derision and skepticism, but think it through for a moment.
Here we go:
Over the last two years we've seen a number of LHs (limited hangouts, spy-talk for admitting partially to a covert operation, but mixing 5% truth, with yet another 95% pile of lies) and these LHs have ranged from
sunscreen
radar shield
innoculation
the Tellar lie
The Rocky reports
and all that. They surface, are given airtime, and then we destroy them with facts. Because the facts are out there and this piece has nothing to do with verifying them, many well-written threads and articles have done that for me.
We all knew the day would sooner or later come, when an LH would be deployed against us and the world. I am of the opinion that we are VERY near that day. Very near. Sadly, it looks like they are going to do the WEATHER MODIFCATION number on us. Basically admitting to the op, but completely lying in our faces about its true purpose. The previous releases of this LH were to test the waters. Now it comes through in the last week with a tad more weight to it. I believe we will, by summer or summer's end, see an admission from on high, and it will be the WEATHER MOD lie.
As any researcher into CTs knows, this just don't hold water. It doesn't. It doesn't explain bioligcals, barium, or aluminum. It simply won't fly...TO US...who are hyper-aware of the FACTS. But, for the many just tuning in at that future time, they will listen to the government explanation and go back to sleep, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF A LIMITED HANGOUT.
Your thoughts?
|
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 7:42 pm
|
|
|
The drum beat mantra in every "newspaper" is "gLoBal WaRminG"
haven't you had that beaten into your head yet?
"tell a lie often enough, and people will think its the truth"
i agree |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:07 pm
|
|
|
I agree mark. Ask someone about the weather or the skies and most will say "global warming".
Most people will not go to the trouble to research, even on a limited scale, into any issue. Most "research" the local newspaper believe all they read.
Statements like,"Well, I read it in the paper" are the norm.
We need an information blitz. Protests, marches, signs, the whole works. Bring this to the attention of the sleeping masses.
Maybe we can slam chemtrails into their heads the way global warming has been done.
nsasucks is right about the LH. It is going to happen and most will go right along with it. You know, the government knows best. They must protect us from ourselves crap.
Lets try to counter that before it happens. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:45 pm
|
|
|
nsasucks,
I was curious as to why you felt innoculation was disinformation. I know that you lean towards more sinister purposes, but if Chemtrails contain biologicals that are intended to interact with humans, why isn't innoculation just as much a viable theory? |
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:52 pm
|
|
|
Thermit: Okay, but to answer I need to ask a question, innuculate you from what? (this will make sense in a minute)
Global warming was the putup, see below:
Look, back, in time...in your mind...it's the early sixties...you know what you have to do in thirty years...how it has to be spun...how you have to get the world thinking along certain lines...you know what needs to be done.
1:
So, you warn about the environment. Real enough, thanks to these pigs who ruined it. But then you take that natural and real heart-felt concern and build your temple of evil on it...NOW ENVIRONEMNT IS CALLED GLOBAL WARMING. That's the setup I've been trying to wake people up on. That's also their plausible denial/defense, because, hey, who isn't for saving the environment?
2: You've taken a real problem (environment) and built your evil capstone called global warming. Now you have a plausible reason to do some "help" because, "hey! It's the environment, stupid!" Who could argue with that?
3. Now you are able to back up your covert action when it comes down over the years, because all those scientists from all those heavily funded Rockefeller think-tanks like Rand have been pushing down our throats.
4. You execute the op, which has NOT A THING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT - JUST THE OPPOSITE - IT'S KILLING IT. It's killing the people, fruit is smaller, spring never comes, people are dying, listless, mentally dim, and are walking around in a daze, sucking down their ritalin and prozac.
5. Exposure comes and "hey, it's the environment, stupid!"
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 8:55 pm
|
|
|
My reasons for guessing that it's not inoculation:
1. There have got to be cheaper ways to inoculate a population, even if you're going to do it clandestinely.
2. Biological agents don't usually handle exposure to air very well.
3. Why would they have to do it over and over and over and over and over? |
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Sat Apr 07, 2001 9:01 pm
|
|
|
3T3, you are exactly right, but there's much more. I'll wait until all the thoughts come in, then let's look at it together, all of us, and see what shakes. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 12:42 am
|
|
|
I figure they would take the most virulent and easy to produce bioagents, and utilize DNA fragments from each which isolate the basic aspects, to account for bioengineered variations, so that they can attempt to provide desensitization and immunity to these by low-level repeated exposure via the air, which is common to everyone, unlike city water sources, etc.
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 1:53 am
|
|
|
The problem is, your immune system responds to proteins, not to DNA. You'd have to (1) get the bioengineered DNA into everyone's body, (2) get it to transcribe RNA, and (3) get the RNA to be translated into protein. Your body has all sorts of protection mechanisms to keep all three of those things from happening.
Presuming the RNA codons were translated properly (being off by one or by two nucleotides causes entirely different proteins to be synthesized), it would also be necessary to have the bioengineered protein fold properly in three dimensions and be glycosylated appropriately in order to provide the proper antigenic sites.
Do I have you confused yet? |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:08 am
|
|
|
Hmmm, maybe they could do somthing similar at the protein level...? |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:53 am
|
|
|
Probably not. The three dimensional folding of proteins is very exact, and only occurs properly in the appropriate cellular environment. Change the pH, the salt concentration, the lipid content, and the associated proteins, and the configuration of the folding changes. If you aerosolize a protein and allow it to interact with oxygen, it will almost always "denature," that is, change its three dimensional structure, usually irreversibly.
There are proteins like RNases and prions which are very difficult to denature, but most proteins denature rather easily. That is why immunizations are given as injections or are taken orally. These delivery routes keep the antigenic material from denaturing before it enters the body. |
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 3:33 am
|
|
|
If I am not mistaken, 3T3 is talking about vectors, which jives with my intel. This is good, keep going.
Like in comedy and religion, delivery is EVERYTHING. And is also the answer to the 64 cent question. |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 7:49 am
|
|
|
Well actually I wasn't talking about vectors yet. The problem with vectors is that you have to put your DNA of choice into a viral delivery system. As I understand it (and I'm no microbiologist), the virus will deliver the DNA to the host organism. As with all viruses, the host will do the work of transcribing RNA from the DNA and then translating it into the appropriate proteins.
If you are trying to replace a bad gene with a good gene, all sorts of things can go wrong. Here are just two examples: The body will recognize viruses as foreign and will eliminate them as quickly as it can. That would include any good DNA which might come along with the virus. Alternatively, the virus might insert itself into a regulatory region of the host's chromosomal DNA and cause runaway cellular proliferation (cancer). Eventually we will be able to use genetic engineering to cure genetic diseases, but right now we have a huge number of technical hurdles to overcome.
However, if you want to insert a lethal gene into someone, that's much easier. If it accidentally gets inserted into a regulatory region of the DNA, the guy just dies of cancer instead of the disease you wanted to give him. If the guy is hypersensitive to the virus you used, he dies of a flu-like illness instead of the disease he was going to die of. And if you've done a reasonable job of engineering the virus, most people will die of the lethal gene, sooner for the weaker ones and later for the healthier ones.
As far as engineering protection against the lethal gene, theoretically it could be done. The tricky thing about biology, though, is that things always turn out to be much more complicated than you originally thought they were. Murphy's Law and biology go hand in hand, which is why we have to use animals and not computers to test new drugs. It's also why we must have several human trials before a new drug goes on the market.
So, nsasucks, if you think there is a binary bioweapon out there someplace, you need to look for a group of people on whom it has been tested and found to work. You also need to find a group on which the bioweapon plus an antidote was tested and found to work. No matter how elite I was, if I didn't have ironclad data from a doubleblind human study that (1) the death gene worked and (2) I had a reliable antidote to it, I personally would not bet my life on using such a weapon.
|
| |
|
|
nsasucks
Joined: 02 Jan 2001
Posts: 526
Location: Earth |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 10:45 am
|
|
|
3T3: I agree with all your assertions, as such. And maybe you can help explain some things to me, on this.
How hard would it be to deliver a dormant virus, a pathogen, that cannot be erased by the immune system of the host? A virus that can cross the blood-brain barrier and sit inside the tissue of the cerebral cortex?
A virus with the specific frequency of 7.43 gigherz, in which should such a microwave burst of that frequency be sent through the body of the host, would then activate the seqeuncing of the virus and making it do it's viral replicative thing.
See where I am going?
If AL helps it cross the blood-brain, and the virus is imbedded into the desiccated red blood cell (which reconstitutes once it is vectored into, say, the aolia tissue of the lungs, and then into the blood stream, how difficult would sucha technology be?
I agree with double blinds. I am sure there are plenty of dead Africans who were tested on, buried in mass graves in Ethiopia...and the other test site for MIL bio-weapons...Guyana: does that site ring a bell to anyone?
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sun Apr 08, 2001 3:23 pm
|
|
|
Just a few foggy thoughts before I head off to church. (I hope they drop the river and revival and revenue theme we had last week.)
I'm not a microbiologist, so don't take my pronouncements as "truth." Take them more as "guess." I don't know of any virus which can be activated by an electromagnetic pulse. Do you have any scientific literature references? It's possible that this has been developed without any reporting in the scientific literature, but not likely. Scientists rely on other scientists to see the holes in their logic and to think of aspects of a problem which they hadn't considered. At least some aspects of this putative project are probably published somewhere. (Enough p's for you?)
The desiccated red blood cells aren't necessary for transmission of a virus. Clifford wouldn't listen, but desiccated red blood cells don't look like those in his pictures. Because of the strength of their cytoskeleton, when the cells denydrate, they look more like spiky balls. And if you've ever dealt with dried blood, you know that they don't reconstitute. The cellular proteins denature and, like Humpty Dumpty, can't be put together again.
However, many viruses do fine in the open air. Some don't, like the HIV virus, but many do, like the foot and mouth virus. So if I were constructing a viral vector, I'd pick one which did fine in the open air for long periods, and one which could enter the body through inhalation. Since animals breathe, too, I'd need to engineer the virus so that animals would not be affected.
As far as crossing the blood-brain barrier, I think viruses can do that already without the help of a substance like aluminum. Drugs often have difficulty crossing the blood brain barrier, but they can be designed so that they will cross it, too.
As I said, I'm in unfamiliar territory here. If you have any scientific references you can cite, I would be most grateful. Thanks. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 12:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
