Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Factual Information

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Debate and Debunking

Author Thread
BEE





Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23
Factual Information PostMon Dec 18, 2000 3:32 pm  Reply with quote  

For those of you who are actually interested in the facts regarding contrails, the EPA, NASA, and NOAA have developed a fact-sheet as a result of all the misinformation on "chemtrails" and the concerns it has produced. The fact sheet is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/aviation/contrails.pdf In addition, the AF has also prepared an information paper regarding aircraft emissions and contrails. It is available at http://www.safmi.hq.af.mil/saf-miq/MIQ%20Contrail%20Webpage.doc

Happy reading!
 View user's profile Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 3:24 pm  Reply with quote  

They haven't listened to this information for years, Bee. I doubt they will listen now. They cannot change their course now, they are way too far up the river. This will be dismissed as dis-information, just like it has been when presented earlier by others.
You will be called a dis-information agent, not to mention a dunderhead, for not being able to tell the "difference" between a chemtrail and a contrail.

Have you posted anything on caramelcorn's board? If so, what was the reaction?
www.carnicom.com

 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BEE





Joined: 13 Dec 2000
Posts: 23
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 5:00 pm  Reply with quote  

No, I haven't been able to get access to that site for quite a while. I'm not sure why I'm blocked, since I never made any posts. I realize that the conspiracy theorists will never believe anything that is put out which refutes their position. But, hopefully those folks who are concerned but open to reason will appreciate the information. It just amazes me that anyone actually believes "chemtrails" exist. I particularly like the photo in the EPA fact-sheet which shows all the persistant contrails which was taken in 94 or 95.
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 5:11 pm  Reply with quote  

It's not dis-information, except for the Chemtrail Hoax part, but of course I don't blame them that mis-statement.

Question for anybody who takes the AF on it's word that "they don't do Chemtrails":

Can we really expect that the people who prepare these "information papers" will be briefed on any and all secret projects currently being undertaken by any part of their branch of the military and that, when asked, they will instantly and completely release all information they might have on a given project, even if it compromises national security?
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Sceptic





Joined: 19 Dec 2000
Posts: 46
Location: Ireland
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 5:43 pm  Reply with quote  

This is excellent information, but I'm afraid that it will be completely ignored and discredited by the chemmies.

I'm barred from the carnicom site as well. Seems that I had the temerity to ask a question too many. To wit:

If the NWO, PTB etc are intent on spraying civilians with dangerous chemicals, why would they do it with sprays that are visible? Its easy to diffuse a solution to the extent that its invisible. Why aren't they doing it this way? Or are they????

------------------
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 5:57 pm  Reply with quote  

Sceptic, even pure water is visible.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 7:54 pm  Reply with quote  

Thermit,

When they spray us with malathion, the spray is invisible. Of course it's not intentionally invisible, since they announce that the spraying will be going on, but it's invisible anyway. You can't feel it or taste it, either.

If the spraying were top secret, you wouldn't know about it. It is just as ridiculous to say EPA would be told about it as it is to say "they" would let anyone see them do it. They could "low-dose inoculate" you at night just fine. Better, in fact, because the thermals created by the sun are absent.

What do you suppose happened to all those agent orange spray equipped aircraft anyway?

 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 8:04 pm  Reply with quote  

Also, Thermit, you are neglecting to mention that lots of people have been saying the same thing who have no connections to the government at all. This info has been given to you and all other believers by many people who just wanted to provide the facts. Most of those people were ridiculed and/or banned from chemtrail sites. These papers are only backing up what other individuals have been saying for years.

So, what or who would persuade you? Who would you trust to give you the correct information? No one, I guess. I do not think you can back out of this at all.

But, hope springs eternal!
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 9:00 pm  Reply with quote  

LTC, you obviously spend a lot of time on this issue. Did you ever consider doing your own research with Flight Explorer and atmospheric soundings, like I am, to see what you would find? As this issue seems very important to you, maybe you should consider making your own opinion based on your own studies, or is your alignment with the establishment opinion enough evidence for you?
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostTue Dec 19, 2000 11:16 pm  Reply with quote  

Been there, done that, ad nauseum Thermit.

It just happens to be part of my job to use a computer a lot, so I'm on the internet more than a lot of folks. The issue has never been important to me. If it were, I'd have a web page regarding it. When people deliberately leave things on their websites that they and I both know are false or misleading, I know the deck is stacked and I don't bother with them. What's the point? Those who are open minded will learn where the truth is and those who aren't will never give up anyway, right?

For instance, people who put a company's name under the heading HINTS on a chemtrail website,with the admonition to draw your own conclusions, when they have no evidence of even a HINT of anything illegal about the company. Then they claim there is nothing wrong with that. It's clear what conclusion is supposed to be drawn.

Clifford has a picture of an ordinary tree frog's foam nest on a tree branch on his website, claiming it came from aircraft. I proved to him it was identical to tree frog foam nests I have been fascinated by for years. This was a long, long time ago. Do you think the picture is still there? I'll bet it is, because Cliff is never wrong.
His barium garbage is a shining example. He has got to know it's ridiculous, but he will never take it down.

Will Thomas still has his EDB claims up.

Radar rings are still wildly hollered about at CTTUSA, even though they are a well documented ordinary phenomenon.

When I see something I haven't been seeing all of my life, I may look into it again, but I doubt it. I have yet to see a picture of anything unusual to me in quite a while on any chemtrail website. I won't mention that you don't answer many of my points because I don't care whether you do or not. I know that the chemtrails hoax will die a natural death sooner or later. That's what I believe it always was, a deliberate hoax that people fell for. I can't blame people too much for falling for it.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nodebbunker





Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 5:13 am  Reply with quote  

>"Can we really expect that the people who prepare these "information papers" will be briefed on any and all secret projects currently being undertaken by any part of their branch of the military and that, when asked, they will instantly and completely release all information they might have on a given project, even if it compromises national security."<

Thermit, a few questions that have been haunting me regarding secret projects:

1. How many people such as yourself, do you think are really seeing these projects and experiments being conducted and

2. Where do you think the projects are conducted?

------------------
just a housewife from Indiana
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 6:10 am  Reply with quote  

quote:

when they have no evidence of even a HINT of anything illegal about the company



Who said anything about illegal?
Maybe I need to be more clear about my point, which is not "Hey this is Chemtrails!", but rather that "The military is spending big bucks on anti-biowar. Not only that it happens to be an air-based vaccine." Didn't think I needed to spell that out. Maybe I do.

Okay, why isn't it invisible? Assuming it's real, then because it freezes just like a contrail, but more moist, so it lasts much longer. But the heart of your argument really goes to why isn't it low-level spraying, which we discussed before. Too bad it isn't, that might have made things easier.

If this is a hoax then what do you consider me, a hoaxer or a victim?

I am neither. A hoaxer wouldn't believe what they were pushing and would do so for profit, but I don't write anything I don't believe and this is costing me. And a victim would be hurt by believing in a trick, but I haven't been hurt, in fact I've learned a lot and haven't been able to find the "trick" yet in my research.

Ta.

 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 6:13 am  Reply with quote  

Deb, I'm using "secret projects" as a general all-inclusive term, so I don't know how to answer your question.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
elvis lives





Joined: 30 Sep 2000
Posts: 143
Location: Pismo Beach, California
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 7:46 am  Reply with quote  

Thermit....I hate repetition but you totally ignored this when I posted it approximately ten days ago.

Thermit....Check out this web site. http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/MedRef/OnlineRef/FieldManuals/medman/Cover.htm

Click all the known biological warfare agents on the left and check out the vaccines available. Then check out how they need to be dispensed, and at what amounts... to be effective.

Can you imagine the COMBINED side affects , if you mixed these vaccines together to produce millions and millions of gallons for use in aerial spray applications. One whiff of that baby and you would hit the floor before you had a chance to exhale.

Itís time to put this theory to bed Thermit. What else you got?

Vaccine: (Smallpox) Smallpox vaccine (vaccinia virus) is most often administered by intradermal inoculation with a bifurcated needle, a process that became known as scarification because of the permanent scar that resulted. Vaccination after exposure to weaponized smallpox or a case of smallpox is effective in preventing disease if given within 7 days after exposure. A vesicle typically appears at the vaccination site 5-7 days post-inoculation, with surrounding erythema and induration. The lesion forms a scab and gradually heals over the next 1-2 weeks.

Vaccine: (Anthrax) A licensed vaccine is derived from sterile culture fluid supernatant taken from an attenuated strain. The vaccination series consists of six 0.5 ml doses SC at 0, 2, and 4 weeks, then 6, 12 and 18 months, followed by yearly boosters. Limited human data suggest that the vaccine protects against cutaneous anthrax. There is insufficient data to know its efficacy against inhalational anthrax in humans, although studies in rhesus monkeys indicate that good protection can be afforded after only two doses (15 days apart) for up to 2 years. However, it should be emphasized that the vaccine series should be completed according to the routine 6 dose primary series. As with all vaccines, the degree of protection depends upon the magnitude of the challenge dose; vaccine-induced protection could presumably be overwhelmed by extremely high spore challenge.

Vaccine: (Brucellosis) Live animal vaccines are used widely. Consumption of unpasteurized milk and cheese should be avoided. No approved human brucella vaccine is available. An experimental human brucellosis vaccine has been tested on 271 subjects with a 25% rate of unpleasant acute side effects, but no long term adverse side effects.

Vaccine: (Cholera) A licensed, killed vaccine is available for use in those considered to be at risk of exposure, however, it provides only about 50 percent protection that lasts for no more than 6 months. The vaccination schedule is an initial dose followed by a second dose 4 weeks later, with booster doses every 6 months. An inactivated oral vaccine (WC/rBS), which is licensed in Europe, is safe and provides rapid short-term protection. Licensure in the US is anticipated. WC/rBS requires 2 doses and has approximately 85% efficacy lasting 2-3 years for both El Tor and classical biotypes. Live attenuated oral vaccines show much promise, and one, CVD 103-HgR (classical biotype), will probably be available by 1999. There are no O139 serogroup vaccines close to licensure, and none of the above mentioned vaccines provide cross-protection against O139. Primary infection with V. cholerae O1 serogroup also provides no immunity against O139.

Vaccine: (Glanders) There is no vaccine available for human use.


Vaccine: (Plague) A licensed, killed whole cell vaccine is available for use in those considered to be at risk of exposure. The primary series consists of three doses. The initial dose of 1.0 ml IM followed by 0.2 ml IM at 1 and 6 months. Three booster doses of 0.2 ml IM are given at 6 month intervals following the third dose of the primary series and then every 1-2 years thereafter. The current vaccine offers protection against bubonic plague, but is probably not effective against aerosolized Y. pestis. Presently, 8-10 percent of inoculations result in local reactions which include erythema, induration, tenderness and edema at the site of injection. These typically resolve within 48 hours. Approximately 7-10 percent of inoculations will result in systemic symptoms including malaise, lymphadenopathy, fever and very rarely anaphylaxis, tachycardia, urticaria, or hypotension.

Vaccine: (Tularemia) A live, attenuated tularemia vaccine is available as an investigational new drug (IND). It is given by scarification. This vaccine has been administered to more than 5,000 persons without significant adverse reactions. It is of proven effectiveness in preventing laboratory acquired tularemia as well as in experimentally exposed human volunteers. As with all vaccines, the degree of protection depends upon the magnitude of the challenge dose; vaccine-induced protection could be overwhelmed by extremely high doses.

Vaccine: (Q fever) A formalin-inactivated whole cell vaccine is available for immunization of at-risk personnel on an investigational basis, although a Q fever vaccine is licensed in Australia. Vaccination with a single dose of this killed suspension of C. burnetii provides complete protection against naturally occurring Q fever, and greater than 95 percent protection against aerosol exposure. Protection lasts for at least 5 years. The vaccine is generally safe in nonsensitized individuals. However, administration of this vaccine in immune individuals may cause severe local reactions including large areas of induration, sterile abscess formation, and even necrosis at the inoculation site. Newer vaccines are under development for use in sensitized persons.

Vaccine: (Venezuelan equine encephalitis) An investigational vaccine, designated TC-83, is a live, attenuated cell-culture-propagated vaccine which has been used in several thousand persons to prevent laboratory infections. The vaccine is given as a single 0.5 ml subcutaneous dose. Febrile reactions occur in up to 18 percent of persons vaccinated, and may be moderate to severe in 5 percent, with fever, myalgias, headache, and prostration. Approximately 18 percent of vaccinees fail to develop detectable neutralizing antibodies, but it is unknown whether they are susceptible to clinical infection if challenged. Contraindications for use include an intercurrent viral infection or pregnancy. TC-83 is a licensed vaccine for Equidae.
A second investigational product that has been tested in humans is the C-84 vaccine, prepared by formalin-inactivation of the TC-83 strain. The vaccine is not used for primary immunization, but is currently used to boost nonresponders to TC-83 (0.5 ml subcutaneously at 2-4 week intervals for up to 3 inoculations or until an antibody response is measured), and probably affords complete protection against aerosol infection from homologous strains in these individuals. As with all vaccines, the degree of protection depends upon the magnitude of the challenge dose; vaccine-induced protection could be overwhelmed by extremely high doses.

Vaccine: (Ebolia) The only established and licensed virus-specific vaccine available for any of the hemorrhagic fever viruses is Yellow Fever vaccine, which is mandatory for travelers to endemic areas of Africa and South America. Argentine hemorrhagic fever (AHF) vaccine is a live, attenuated, investigational vaccine developed at USAMRIID, which has proved efficacious both in an animal model and in a field trial in South America, and seems to protect against Bolivian hemorrhagic fever (BHF) as well. Both inactivated and live-attenuated Rift Valley fever vaccines are currently under investigation. There is no currently available vaccine for either the filoviruses or for dengue.

Vaccine: (Staphylococcal enterotoxin B) Although there is currently no human vaccine for immunization against SEB intoxication, several vaccine candidates are in development. Preliminary animal studies have been encouraging and a vaccine candidate is nearing transition to advanced development and safety and immunogenicity testing in man. Experimentally, passive immunotherapy can reduce mortality, but only when given within 4-8 hours after inhaling SEB.

Vaccine: (Botulinum toxins ) A pentavalent toxoid of Clostridium botulinum toxin types A, B, C, D, and E is available under an IND status. This product has been administered to several thousand volunteers and occupationally at-risk workers, and induces serum antitoxin levels that correspond to protective levels in experimental animal systems. The currently recommended primary series of 0, 2, and 12 weeks, then a 1 year booster induces protective antibody levels in greater than 90 percent of vaccinees after one year. Adequate antibody levels are transiently induced after three injections, but decline prior to the one year booster.
Contraindications to the vaccine include sensitivities to alum, formaldehyde, and thimerosal, or hypersensitivity to a previous dose. Reactogenicity is mild, with two to four percent of vaccinees reporting erythema, edema, or induration at the local site of injection which peaks at 24 to 48 hours, then dissipates. The frequency of such local reactions increases with each subsequent inoculation; after the second and third doses, seven to ten percent will have local reactions, with higher incidence (up to twenty percent or so) after boosters. Severe local reactions are rare, consisting of more extensive edema or induration. Systemic reactions are reported in up to three percent, consisting of fever, malaise, headache, and myalgia. Incapacitating reactions (local or systemic) are uncommon. The vaccine should be stored at refrigerator temperatures (not frozen).

Vaccines: (Ricin) The protective mask is effective in preventing aerosol exposure. Although a vaccine is not currently available, candidate vaccines are under development which are immunogenic and confer protection against lethal aerosol exposures in animals. Prophylaxis with such a vaccine is the most promising defense against a biological warfare attack with ricin.

Vaccines: (Trichothecene mycotoxins ) Physical protection of the skin and airway are the only proven effective methods of protection during an attack. Immunological (vaccines) and chemoprotective pretreatments are being studied in animal models, but are not available for field use by the warfighter.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
LTC8K6





Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State
PostWed Dec 20, 2000 1:33 pm  Reply with quote  

You are clearly hinting that Maxygen is involved in your chemtrail inoculation beliefs, which would be illegal if true. You must be aware of that, so I can only believe you are being obtuse intentionally.

How about willing participant, then?

Which is it, high level that stays up and obscures the sky, or low level that reaches the ground? The former doesn't fit your inoculation theory, and the latter is easily made invisible.

BTW, high level is easily made invisible as well, plenty of anti-freeze carriers are available. But for the sake of this discussion, I'll say it's not invisible at high altitude.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page
1, 2  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:12 pm


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base