|
|
| What to do with CT Science Forum? |
| 86 it, and just have one CT forum |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
| Clean it out of non CT research threads |
|
82% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
 Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:30 pm
|
 |
|
Geez... ya wouldn't think you'd have to BEG for corrections from someone who's obviously itching to prove you an idiot You come in here stirring up a bunch of complete $#@#! calling people idiots and making out like you know something.You show 60 year old photos ,from the air force,of course,and these are your comparisons to the current spraying.Rural Illinois is the place you belong you cornfed moron. Don't come here and strut your Military'govt $#@#! .. |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:37 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by increase 1776
You come in here stirring up a bunch of complete $#@#!
If that's what you call bringing in some facts, well, ok then. Do the research I suggested instead of wasting your time insulting me. Ya might learn something.
quote:
Originally posted by increase 1776
calling people idiots and making out like you know something.
Actually, that was you, my friend. And I do know something, lots of somethings in fact, some of which pertain to your theories here. But I've never asked you to believe me... I've only asked you to do your own research on what I'm saying.
quote:
Originally posted by increase 1776
You show 60 year old photos ,from the air force,of course,and these are your comparisons to the current spraying.
Yes, because they are the same. As someone pointed out earlier, no, of course they aren't from jets... they're from B17's and P-51's. Did you actually use the term "piston gap" in a discussion about jet engines??  More research needed, I'm afraid, as jet engines don't even have pistons. I see your point, though, but what you gotta realize is that you aren't looking at pollution; you aren't looking at the dark streak of exhaust left by, say, an F4 or 707. What's in those pictures is the same white streaks you see today - clouds formed on small particles of exhaust, and the extra moisture that's in that exhaust. I posted the pics because they show that contrails certainly can and do persist and spread out... I doubt anyone wants to suggest that we were chemtrailing over Europe 60+ years ago?
quote:
Originally posted by increase 1776
Rural Illinois is the place you belong you cornfed moron. Don't come here and strut your Military'govt $#@#! ..
Actually, don't look now, but I'm coming your way in about 6 months.  As for military/govt BS, nope sorry, I'm civilian all the way. The fact that I have many good friends who took the military route just gives me a little better glimpse into their operations.
The pictures of the boeing not forming contrails but leaving two vapor trails from under the wings are pictures of fuel dumping. Airiners can do it too, but only in an emergency when they need to land and are too heavy to safely do so. The military, of course, can do it anytime they like, and that's what those pics show. It's a Navy derivative of the 707. Explanation Here:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/1/chemtrails3.htm
The C130 spraying herbicide is, uh, doing just that. It's probably a drug interdiction aircraft, they spray coca fields in south america. The cia runs the op, they do it in 130's, OV-10's, and A-10's for the hot spots.
The articles about ATC being concerned about chemtrailing are a joke and a half. I don't know who William Thomas is, but he lost all credibility in my mind when he used un-named sources, and made generalizations like this:
"Every controller, without exception, is being told to divert traffic due to “military exercises”, and to bring in traffic lower because of experiments that may degrade their radars. The controllers at Cleveland’s airport were surprised by the extent of obscuration on their radars. "
Silliness. I fly for continental airlines, I'm based out of CLE. I know all the CLE TRACON and Center controllers. I've emailed them this and gotten some fantastic responses back; these guys think it's the most hilarious thing ever. They've NEVER been told to vector anyone around "spraying", and they've never seen their radars obscured by "spraying". As one of my buddies pointed out, the center controllers equipment is so old that they can barely see thunderstorms, let alone regular clouds.
CD, I get the point that you have lots of pictures of spread-out vapor trails. My question is, WHAT EXACTLY about them looks like it couldn't be from natural contrails? (an oxymoron, but you get my meaning). I mean, don't just post more and tell me they aren't natural; I understand that's your position. What I'm really curious about is WHY you think that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that so far I don't see it. Show me, explain it to me. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:59 pm
|
|
|
Cutlass, I was the one who mentioned piston gap into relation to non-jet engines. If you correctly read my post, nowhere did I mention anything about jets having pistons, so please don't go blaming Increase for a misreading on your part in two counts...Who said it, and the actual quote.
Last edited by Swamp Gas on Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Sun Oct 03, 2004 11:51 pm
|
|
|
UMM no mention of the science book teaching kids about chems??All aside the scope of the whole situation leads me an everyone here to believe that they are keeping it under wraps until it becomes the norm.Until there is no question as to why its happening.
You on the other hand need total proof of the obvious to believe otherwise.Simply believing what you are lead to believe,We call that brainwashed in these parts.
I also think you are here to lead the slightly unconvinced that stumble upon this place to believe that we are all qwacks,totally uncapable of giving any proof that this is happening,where agian you have no proof it isnt happening.
You are relying on scientific evidence that supports what you believe,As i told you before,I saw with my own 2 eyes a silver ball come out of the clouds chase a plane turn around go back to its exit point and travel up and down several times in and out of a cloud.This thing was traveling at mach speeds and turned around on a dime.Where is the scientific evidence that supports what i saw????.... there is none but you or no one else is going to tell me i didnt really see it.
As i see it there is way more evidence that spraying can happen and is going on then there is for the silver sphere i saw in the sky.Gravitational forces alone would tear apart any man made devices we know of today traveling at mach speeds turning around instantaneiously.
Oh and you sent this info to a few buddies of yours??How many air traffic controllers are there out there??? How foolish are you to think a few covers an entire sector.....Just shows how gullible and brainwashed you and your buddies really are.
I'll even bet you all discuss the latest sports scores,what was on survivor last night,Oh and did you guys see Leno last night?? gee he's a funny guy.
One day you'll all wake up,Likely to late but s!@# happens and you'll be thinkin back, wow maybe if i had seen what they saw i wouldnt be being forced into annihalation.As i see it you and your few buddies can sit back and laugh all you want.We will have the last laugh. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:11 am
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:59 am
|
|
|
One thing i know will end this debate once and for all.Which,if any conspiracy theories do you think may be happening.You said you believe the government is doing bad things, so what bad things?Oh and if there is any conspiracy theory you believe in,I want to see proof of what lead you to believe in that.Hard evidence that leads you to your belief not, just hearsay.
If you can give us direct evidence in support of your belief then it is not a conspiracy.
The story the government wants the masses to believe about 911 is in fact a conspiracy.There is no hard evivence that any islamic fundimentalists entered any of the said planes that day.Oh sure they couldv'e used fake ID, but why?If they had this plan to do this they certainly would have used real names and made it as easy as possible to link such a big event to their name and cause
If you dont believe in them then my only conclusion is... you are a debunker here to make lite of others beliefs.As said before,you are blind to the fact that things can happen without substantial proof,right where the agenda needs you.Your buddies and you will fall right into line as told.
Sad that people are so close minded that they have to see it in writing or see it on their TV to believe it. |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
quote:
Originally posted by Cutlass80R2
And what do you find different about them? Remember you're looking at stills taken 60 years ago.
The specifications on piston gap from today and from 60 years ago would be a curiosity. As with autos, planes simply had less efficient means of keeping unburned fuel from escaping into the piston chamber...
This was what caused the confusion, Swamp. Seems you're comparing the contrailing planes of 60 years ago (props) to the contrailing planes of today (jets). Also, I did not attribute your remarks to Increase; I attributed them to "someone" which turned out to be you. I was in a hurry and probably could have written it better. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
CD, a few things:
First, no, no comment on the schoolbook, mostly because the source (this william thomas guy) is pretty unreliable. I mean, here's a guy that writes his "articles" and then publishes them where? On his own website, probably because no reputable journal will touch them. I don't know the guy so if I'm wrong I apologize... but wouldn't these things be a little more credible if they were showing up in "Newsweek", "Weatherwise", atmospheric science journals etc.? Any of us here can write anything we like and publish it on our own sites, and that doesn't make it true. Also, his generalization of ATC agreeing "without exception" is, yes, crap. Because obviously there IS an exception... all the controllers I know. No genuine journalist would DARE to make a statement like "without exception." There's ALWAYS an exception. Only someone desperate to prove their point, and unable to do it with hard evidence, throws in unnecessary bon mots like that. On the flipside, even if what this guy wrote is true, I hardly think the uneducated opinion of one textbook author is evidence of anything.
No, I don't need total proof, what I need is SOME evidence. If someone walked up to you on the street with a story about the moon about to crash into the earth, but had NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to back it up, would you believe them? Now, I know you guys believe you have a large body of evidence backing you up, but you seem unwilling to admit that so far, I've found perfectly logical, perfectly normal, and not even very rare, explanations for all of it. Now, can I PROVE I'm right? No. But, you guys are a long way from PROVING you're right too. You admit that, and I applaud it. So, we have what seems to be a tie, except for this: when you have a large collection of events that could very well just be normal atmospheric science, events that it's proven fact DO often occur just as normal atmospheric science, then what makes more sense: A. to take all the events as just normal atmospheric science, or B. to attribute SOME of the events to normal atmospheric science and SOME of the events to some mass government conspiracy? Committing mountains of factual errors on everything from the aviation system to radio wave propagation in the process, to validate your position? I gotta say option A makes more sense to me - I'm not brainwashed, I'm not being TOLD to believe anything. But to believe what you're saying, I'd need to be seeing things with my own eyes that I can't explain, or that I'd have to really stretch logic in order to explain. I'm not. I'm seeing the same phenomena you guys are, from an even better perspective, and I'm understanding all of it.
As for your silver orb story, I believe you completely. I've seen things like that; hell, every pilot alive has seen things like that. The ones that don't admit it are lying. There are plenty of places where I wouldn't admit it either, but I guess if anywhere's safe, it's the internet. Specifically, I've seen two things I have no explanation at all for - one from a dark cockpit over NM at night, and one from the dark bank of the Illinois river, fishing with a friend. I won't even speculate what either of them were, but... pretty sure neither of 'em had a darn thing to do with aerial spraying.
Am I here to lead the unconvinced away from your theory? No. I'm not here to lead anyone anywhere. This is a "discussion forum", and so I'm discussing. I DO think it's important that other folks like me, that come here out of curiosity, see both sides to the issue, and understand that there ARE perfectly normal explanations for what you show. They can choose for themselves what to believe, but I think getting all the facts out is important, as well as correcting the mistakes.
As for this:
"Oh and you sent this info to a few buddies of yours??How many air traffic controllers are there out there??? How foolish are you to think a few covers an entire sector.....Just shows how gullible and brainwashed you and your buddies really are.
I'll even bet you all discuss the latest sports scores,what was on survivor last night,Oh and did you guys see Leno last night?? gee he's a funny guy. "
There are thousands of air traffic controllers out there. There are hundreds of high sector center controllers. There are maybe a couple dozen CLE center high sector controllers, and a handful of CLE TRACON guys. Do I know them ALL? Guess not, but I'm good friends with a few high sector guys, and through them I'm at least acquainted with most of the others. They all work in the same building after all; they all know each other, and so through my close friends I've gotten to know most of the others. What's unusual about that? Haven't you gotten to know some of the people your friends work with, through your friends? And sure, we talk sports, tv etc. sometimes. Not often 'cause most of us aren't that interested in tv, but sure, sometimes. Why not? What do you talk about with your friends? And what difference could it possibly make?
Now, I'm going to make you all very happy... and say goodbye for a while. Vacation's over, and I'm going straight into a training cycle tomorrow that'll probably last for a couple months, by the time all is said and done. We've finally got some forward movement at work, and I'm tranferring to a different airplane. I don't guess I'll have much time to hang out on the internet for a while. If you all want to pat yourselves on the back and say that you've "run me off" or something, more power to you. I'll lurk every once and a while, and when my schedule settles down I'll be back to see if anything new has developed. If the entire site, and not just the chemtrail forum, is sufferring censorship by then, let me say now that it's been interesting talking with you guys. I guess a few of you are pissed at me for correcting some mistakes, and... oh well. I hope most of you have gotten at least something useful out of the discussion though; I can say I have. I'm paying more attention to the sky than ever before, lately, and while I'm still not seeing anything I don't understand, I can say that if they do start monkeying around up there (in a more obvious way than they are now, if you like) I'll notice it.
I'll close for now by summarizing the reasons I currently feel it's really unlikely, if not impossible, that widespread aerial spraying is taking place. I'll explain why I don't think your evidence is conclusive, and I'll give some of my own. Some of it I don't have evidence for, like my ATC friends, so you can take that or leave it as you like. MOST of it, though, is verifiable to you all if you care to do some research:
1. Contrail appearance and duration - I know you guys are convinced that the contrails that persist, spread out, precipitate etc. are chemtrails. But contrails have ALWAYS done that, and it's perfectly understandable if you know the science behind it. Like I've said before, y'all would benefit from learning some atmospheric science before you start attributing it to your theories. If you want evidence that contrails have always looked the same, just do some research online. There are plenty more photos from WWII onward showing persistent, spread-out, precipitating contrails.
2. The TAP program has long been cited as the government admitting to spraying. The confusion comes from the word "aersol" in the name, and, well, we've covered this. Read the report, you'll see TAP has nothing at all to do with spraying ANYTHING.
3. The positions and increasing frequency of "chemtrails".... has anyone bothered to corellate that with the increase in air traffic over the last couple decades? A graph would be interesting, and would probably expain it neatly. As for the locations of contrails, the way they cross at certain points... it all makes complete sense to anyone familiar with the aviation system. Research will show this.
4. Residues, health effects etc. - not evidence of anything. If you ARE finding weird residues, you have NO IDEA where they're coming from. I, for instance, had a weird orange mold on my grass a little while back. Had it analyzed. Just mold, not harmful except that it turned my shoes kind of orange. NATURAL, though, is my point, and probably the sort of thing that someone else would erroneously attribute to chemtrails. Same thing about health effects - a local spike in health issues is very possibly due to some kind of pollution, god knows we have enough of it... but there's no tie at all to chemtrails.
Ok, those are the reasons that I think your evidence is inconclusive, and easily explainable. Sorry if I missed anything, but every time I've asked for evidence, those are the same things I keep hearing about. Here's MY evidence, that no one has bothered to offer explanations for:
1. The biggest is that there's simply no room in the sky for what you suggest. The ATC system is damn near at capacity as it is, which is why the FAA is exploring things like RVSM and other programs that allow reduced separation between aircraft. A spraying operation of the scope you suggest would practically be the size of the civilian airline system, and there's NO ROOM for that. Don't take my word for it; research the current state of the national airspace system.
2. PEOPLE WOULD KNOW. Not just a few people, but LOTS of people. There would be literally THOUSANDS of people working on this project, from crewmembers to ground handlers to dispatchers to crew schedulers to chemists to fuelers to.... you get the idea. There is NO WAY the govt could cover up a program of this scope; they've been wildly unsuccessful in covering up projects that were a fraction of this size. Where would they hide all these airplanes, all this equipment, all these people? You're telling me that a good number of people wouldn't come forward to talk about this after their discharge? God's sake, the people that worked at dreamland are SUING the place! Yet, NO ONE in a credible position of knowledge has come forward. Huh... And then, there's the rest of us that share the skies. How is it possible that not ONE civilian pilot, air traffic controller, or for that matter, meteorologist, has raised a flag? How is it possible that NONE of these people would know? It's much more likely that ALL of them would know! And yet, I haven't seen one meteorologist, technician, pilot, controller, dispatcher etc. getting behind the chemtrail theory.
So, in the end, I think the simplest explanation has to prevail, and that's a concept everyone from Sherlock Holmes to Hacum can get behind. The simplest explanation for now seems to be that the increasing contrails are just an unfortunate byproduct of the increasing air traffic levels. With the increase in total contrails comes the increase in unusual looking ones, and hence the increase in pictures of unusual looking contrails. Unusual, of course, in the sense that meteorological conditions are only correct to produce those particular contrails on particular days, instead of every day. This condition is being misinterpreted by folks with a misunderstanding of climatology and aviation. Sure, I could be wrong... but I'd have to see some actual evidence.
Anyway, I'm keeping an open mind... and I'll talk to ya all later. |
| |
|
|
Cutlass80R2
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:26 am
|
|
|
Ok, said I was going, but I just happened to catch this, and it takes the cake:
quote:
Originally posted by CDsNuTz
The story the government wants the masses to believe about 911 is in fact a conspiracy.There is no hard evivence that any islamic fundimentalists entered any of the said planes that day.Oh sure they couldv'e used fake ID, but why?If they had this plan to do this they certainly would have used real names and made it as easy as possible to link such a big event to their name and cause
Are you really NUTZ? I thought that was just a posting name...
Dude, we have videos of these a**holes passing through security, and ENTERING THE PLANES!
Ok, see y'all later... |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:30 am
|
|
|
[quote="Cutlass80R2]The articles about ATC being concerned about chemtrailing are a joke and a half. I don't know who William Thomas is, but he lost all credibility in my mind when he used un-named sources,[/quote]
Id say this man has far more credibilaty then you on your best day.
http://www.willthomas.net/About_Thomas/index.htm
About William Thomas
William Thomas is an award-winning Canadian journalist specializing in health and environment. During and immediately after the Gulf War, he served five months in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a member of a three-man environmental emergency response team.
The author of All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion, Alt. Health, Scorched Earth, Bringing The War Home and Chemtrails Confirmed is the winner of four Canadian feature-writing awards.
Thomas’ 30-minute video documentary Eco War won the 1991 US Environmental Festival award for “Best Documentary Short”. Excerpts from this “front-lines” chronicle of a three-man environmental emergency response team in Kuwait aired extensively on an eight-part CBC Gulf War miniseries, and have been shown on CNN and NBC television.
Thomas’ writing and photography have appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries, including translations into French, Dutch and Japanese. His editorial commentaries have appeared in The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Vancouver Sun and Times-Colonist newspapers - as well as Monday, Earth Island Journal and Ecodecision magazines.
A frequent radio talk-show guest, William Thomas has also appeared on the CBC and New Zealand’s national television. He currently lives and works among the Gulf Islands of British Columbia.
West coast journalist William Thomas broke the chemtrails story in Jan. 1999 for the Environment News Service. His book, Chemtrails Confirmed 2004 is fully revised and up to date. His half-hour video – “Chemtrails: Mystery Lines In The Sky” - produced with artist Paul Grignon – remains the definitive documentary on this subject.
William Thomas has recently released his latest book dealing with events surrounding Sept.11. All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion also looks at media manipulation. The Final Crusade is an illustrated comic book drawn from AFD.
Stand Down is a double-CD audio book sequel describing and documenting NORAD’s admitted stand down of US air defenses on 911.
A former member of the US Navy Reserves who resigned his commission over the Vietnam War, William Thomas now lives and works in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia on Canada’s west coast.
William Thomas's awards include;
· 1989 Western Canada Magazine Feature Awards
· 1990 Canadian Weekly Periodicals "Best Feature" award
· 1997 BC and Yukon Community Newspaper Award
· 1998 BC Outdoors Award.
· "Eco War" won the 1991 US Environmental Film Festival Award for "Best Documentary Short". Segments have aired extensively on Canada's CBC, as well as appearing on CNN and NBC television.
Yea that about sums it up for me,You obviously didnt do any research before you made your ignorant comment about Will Thomas.Lets me know exactly where you stand,Telling us to research when failing to do so yourself.May be you should have looked a little more closely at that article as i did see several names in there segment,Only one person "Deep Sky" chose to be ananomous,WOW that blows a hole in a story doesnt it. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:59 am
|
|
|
Did anyone else see these so called videos??I remember seeing something about the 2 arabs passing through some gates of some sort but still no conclusive evidence that they really entered said planes.
It Certainly doent make me NuTz to not believe that what they showed on TV as hijackers entering the airport not being the real hijackers.I mean are you NuTz??Half the so called named hijackers have been found alive and well.And if youve seen the videos that they entered said plane tell them to let the general public see it.As im sure i havent seen that video and id like to. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:16 am
|
|
|
HR 2977 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.
SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.
Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.
SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.
The President shall--
(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and
(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.
SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.
The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.
SEC. 5. REPORT.
The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--
(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and
(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.
SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.
Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--
(1) space exploration;
(2) space research and development;
(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or
(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:
(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--
(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or
(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--
(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);
(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or
(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:18 am
|
|
|
Heres the watered down version of what actually made it through congress.
Space Preservation Act of 2002 (H.R. 3616) A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by prohibiting the basing of weapons in space and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit, and for other purposes, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Congress of America in Congress assembled,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1 • SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as the “Space Preservation Act of 2002.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2 • REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in Section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C.2451(a)), stating that it “is the policy of the Unites States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 3 • BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE AND THE USE OF WEAPONS AGAINST OBJECTS IN SPACE IN ORBIT
The President shall:
(1) implement a ban on space-based weapons of the United States and the use of weapons of the United States to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit; and
(2) immediately order the termination of research and development, testing, manufacture, production and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States. -----------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 4 •
INTERNATIONAL TREATY BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS AND THE USE OF WEAPONS AGAINST OBJECTS IN SPACE IN ORBIT
The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting and implementing an international treaty banning space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 5 • REPORT
The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, a report on:
(1) the implementation of the ban on space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit required by Section 3; and
(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting and implementing the treaty described inSection 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 6 • SPACE-BASED NON-WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.
Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for:
(1) space exploration;
(2) space research and development;
(3) testing, manufacturing or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or
(4) civil, commercial or defense activities (including communications, navigation,
surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 7 • DEFINITIONS
In this Act:
(1) The term “space” means all space extending upward from the altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
(2) The terms “space-based weapon” and “space-based system” mean a device capable of damaging or destroying an object or person (whether in outer space, in atmosphere or on earth) by:
(A) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object or person;\
(B) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object or person;
(C) directing a source of energy against that object or person; or (D) any other undeveloped means. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:17 am
|
|
|
http://www.skyhighway.com/%7Echemtrail/Weather%20Underground%20Santa%20Cruz,.htm
Nowcast as of 4:41 PM PDT on April 16, 2004
Now
The long streamers of high reflectivity apparent on Doppler radar across the Bay area are being caused by chaff...small particles released during a military exercise. Please disregard these radar returns. Isolated rain showers will continue across the area through this evening...though not as heavy as what the radar would currently indicate.
Forecast for Santa Cruz County |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 1:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
