|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
After Several Years of Observing Chemtrail applications...
 Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:53 pm
|
 |
|
and many many more decades spent watching the sky...
I have come to several conclusions based upon these observations, at least as regards to what is happening here in central Missouri, and appears also to be happening in the same patterns almost worldwide.
I am becoming more and more convinced of 'global warming/instability' not so much from all the data I keep reading (though it is impressive those saying warming is a huge threat) but equally as much by personal experience here. It IS warming here in central Missouri our winters have many more days now that stay in the 40's and 50's. Animals like the roadrunner and armidillo are moving much futher north in Missouri as the temperature zones seem to be shifting upward. Mid-Mo seems much more like it has shifted to a zone 6 rather than zone 5.
So as our temperatures have been warming so it appears I am observing a repeated pattern, being performed over Missouri skies, that seems designed with one main thing in mind and that is to affect the weather. Over and over I observe the following pattern here:
1- Cloudless skies produce warming conditions that lead to 'unseasonably warm' temperatures
2-Military tanker planes move into the area in an 'assualt' where dozens work to cover the clear blue sky with their x's and o's forming huge speading white trails that eventually spread in to a often times solid haze
3-Many many winter (and summer) days now are spent beneath this artificially created haze that blocks out the sun sometimes for weaks.
4-As a result of this loss of sun the local/regional/ etc. temperatures do
get much cooler. This affects temperature recordings and tends to artificially affect averages supressing any warming trend. As a result true global warming averages may be being much downplayed.
5-Eventual rain (we've had very little snow this winter) will come and wash the 'sky shield' down and once again blue skies will come and it will start to warm back up until it hit's what seems to be 'unseasonable' temps again. (such as 60 deg. in the middle of Mo. winter).
6-The tanker planes will come again and the whole process will repeat.
It is this repeated pattern that makes me conclude these operations at least as far as what I appear to be witessing here are definately linked with trying to block the sun and it *appears* that the attempts are to keep temps artifically lowered (if nothing else simply to affect data averages).
While there may indeed be other programs running concurrently with or hidden within these programs, such as actual weather manipulation (storm creation modification , etc.) or even other bio-weapons reserach, I am still convinced the/one main purpose here is to affect 'weather'.
Thoughts?
SmT |
| |
|
|
Cornelia
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 38
Location: EU (Zoorope) |
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:17 pm
|
|
|
Totally agree with you, orwellknew. The main purpose is climate.
But I'd like to add something more. I don't know if Missouri is a warm or cold area, but for sure Italy is warm. The main point is that I witness spraying in winter and summer, in hot and cold days... true, last month we had very cold weather, and there was very little spraying over here. But what I think is that they are not trying to lower temperatures, but to stabilize them.
Effect of global warming is not only... "warming", but it also creates big ups and downs, and big unseasonal cold or hot climate when it's not expected.
I think they use chemtrails to stabilize the climate, to avoid cold in summer or heat in winter, or to avoid *excessive* cold in winter or excessive hot in summer.
I observe sky too, through maybe I'm not so skilled  ... my sensation (just a sensation) is that they try to stop clouds too. This is really strange: what's the purpose of blocking clouds, carrying rain and naturally screening sun? What's the purpose to allow artificial screen and blocking the natural one?
When you see a cloud front coming, you can bet money the planes arrive soon. And the front gets blocked.
These are my observations:
-Spraying in hot and cold climate
-Spraying often over water areas, like lakes or the seafront
-Spraying when a cloud front is coming
-Spraying, believe it or not, on Fridays
- After spraying, clouds or not, you never get any heavy or mild rain. Just some drops and stop.
Something I'd like to know:
-Did someone observe the pressure lows/highs when they spray?
-Did anyone notice if they spray over the clouds?
Last thought: can you imagine how many meteorologists should be involved to analyze weather forecasts over any given area of the earth to estabilish if it needs spraying or not? How is it possible no one of them ever spoke out about chemtrails????
_________________
*****No english mothertongue***** |
| |
|
|
m3th0d
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 188
Location: Rijeka, Croatia |
|
Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:04 pm
|
|
|
quote:
When you see a cloud front coming, you can bet money the planes arrive soon. And the front gets blocked.
This is often true.
quote:
-Did anyone notice if they spray over the clouds
I don't know if they spray OVER the clouds as in ABOVE them. I've seen them spray THROUGH and around the rain cloud front many, many times.
The clouds simply 'melt' then.
I've seen it being done quite often during summer - which I can't understand cause the last few summers here were unbearably dry.
If it's for our good weather or our own good thenwhy is this happening?
_________________
*~Peace&Ganja~* |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| Climate Change From Spraying
Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:38 am
|
|
|
My observations are that climate change occured as a result of spraying
and is not the other way around. I remember the first really strange event
in the fall of 1998, a great fast moving wall (300' high) of "fog" came from the wrong direction (not from the coast) and washed over the landscape at 30 miles per hour, changing the temperature remarkably. I had not yet recognized chemtrails. Two weeks ago I stopped by a friends house, he had photos DATE STAMPED 1994 with chemtrails very prominant in them
taken in Washington state on the coast. I suppose you could call me paranoid, and just write me off, but I have read quite a bit about what the
"powers that be" had planned for human populations and the planet long ago. I see them as implementing climate change simultaniousely with the media conditioning the population to believe in climate change. I see that millions in scientific study grants have gone into justifying climate change,
and those that did not agree, simply did not recieve any more money. Also some large reports have had sections deleted to make the "evidence" more convincing.
I have watched them from a 39,500 altitude spray just above a continouse
cloud cover that stretched from Toronto to San Francisco
I have collected the webs and fibrils, and read about the genetic enginering,
and the desicated human blood cells found comeing down from the skys
i suppose these things are just there to stop climate change
But back to the premice that spraying is to mitigate rather than to cause climate change
My observations have been that rapid climate change BEGAN at the same time as spraying really got heavy, and has gotten more severe since.
We had pretty normal weather here prior to 1997, we have not since
I think that the climate change senario is a "win-win" for the spray program
People are less likely to worry about climate change than say genocide
I the program does not work, they can always say "well it would have been worse, if we had not done anything"
But I guess you really have to trust in the benevolence of the sprayers
and i don't... |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| Kyoto China India
Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:53 am
|
|
|
I am currently reading the 2004 book called "CHINA INC"
China is of course immune to the Kyoto Treaty
I have nothing against China, but now that we are told that great dust and smoke clouds are coming over the Pacific and hazeing up our skys, well perhaps they should practice polution control
As of 2003 China imported 33% of the world Coal, 40% of the worlds Cement, 7% of the world oil, 25% of the worlds Aluminum, Steel, and Irion Ore. The book I just finished reading "House of Bush~ House of Saud" had quite a bit to say about oil production and consumption, and near the end talked about Chinas exclusive new oil fields in Iran...
Thing are not always as they tell us...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200502/NAT20050216b.html
Why would the Senate have opposed this treaty in 1997?
Senate Resolution on Greenhouse Gas Treaties
By Senate of the United States
CNSNews.com Information Services
February 16, 2005
(Editor's note: What follows is the text of the resolution sponsored by Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) outlining the conditions that should apply if the U.S. were to sign onto any Kyoto-like treaties on greenhouse gas emissions.
The resolution passed the Senate in July 1997 by a vote of 95-0.)
S. RES. 98
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 25, 1997
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;
Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';
Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's `Conference of the Parties' adopted the so-called `Berlin Mandate';
Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' calls for the adoption, as soon as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legal instrument that strengthens commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process called the `Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate';
Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;
Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for `legally binding' emission limitation targets and timetables for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;
Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015;
Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is critical for the Parties to the Convention to include Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global action and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of additional steps to include limitations on Developing Country Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997;
Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed;
Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and
Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that --
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would --
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President. |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| Kyoto w/o US support
Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:57 am
|
|
|
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom26.htm
THE NEW RELIGION IS GLOBAL WARMING
By Tom DeWeese
February 20, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
The UN finally got what it wanted. The Kyoto Climate Change treaty becomes
international law this month on Wednesday. The treaty went into full effect
with the approval by the Russian Federation, even without the support of the
United States. Time will tell if and when the treaty will begin to affect
the U.S. economy. What is certain is that truth and reason had no part in
the process.
Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question
whether it is a fact. I did in the December 2004 issue of The DeWeese Report
("There is no man-made global warming," Volume 10, Issue 12). For my trouble
I was labeled a "moron," a "liar;" one who wants to "blow up the world," and
just plain "evil" to name a few from a mass of mail I received.
In particular, my article stated that there is no scientific evidence to
support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is
division among scientists and that there is no "consensus" among them.
I also reported that there are scientists who promote political agendas over
truth to keep the grants coming in. And I said that the UN's 1996 report
issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was edited at
the last minute to remove two very important paragraphs that specifically
said science showed no clear evidence of man-made climate change. Those were
all facts.
Apparently I'm a moron for reporting them because as one letter said,
"Everyone knows global warming is real."
In response to these Luddites, I simply present this: A federal hurricane
research scientist named Chris Landsea has resigned from the UN-sponsored
climate assessment team because his group's leader had politicized the
process. Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's
assertion in October that global warming was responsible for the strong
hurricanes experienced this past year and that "the North Atlantic hurricane
Season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."
Said Landsea in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues
would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity had been due to global warming. My view is that when people
identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make
pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will
harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term
diminish our role in public policy."
Landsea closed his resignation letter by saying, "I personally cannot in
good faith contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by
pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
There you have it. Two kinds of scientists. One standing for true science
based on the facts. The other pushing a political agenda that says science
be damned, our global religion is at stake.
Global Warming has become a religion that the faithful have vowed to follow
no matter what the true facts may show. Global Warming is a theory, nothing
more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to
question its validity. There is no consensus of support.
The fact is the Kyoto Protocol will have absolutely no effect on climate
change, but the faithful demand that it be implemented anyway, because "we
have to do something." In 1990, Timothy Wirth, who later became Bill
Clinton's Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs said, "We've got to
ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong
we will be doing the right thing?"
Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth
from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to
allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free
markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent
sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in
the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try
to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same
lies have something to do with protecting the environment.
The truth is there is no man-made global warming. There's only the scam of
an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the
feeble minded into worldwide human misery. I rest my case. Amen.
© 2005 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of
the American Policy Center, an activist, grassroots think tank headquartered
in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains an Internet site at
www.americanpolicy.org.
Tom DeWeese American Policy Center 50-A South Third St. (Suite #1)
Warrenton, VA 20186
(540) 342-8911
* * * * * * *
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men,
undergo the fatigues of supporting it." --Thomas Paine |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
|
Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am
|
|
|
Other quotes that might be of interest in the big picture:
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition."
Peter Singer, the "Father of Animal Rights"
Global Sustainability requires: "the delibera
te quest of poverty .. reduced resource consumption ... and set levels of mortality control."
Professor Maurice King
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
John Davis, editor of Earth First Journal
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects ... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
David Foreman, Earth First!
"... The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."
Last edited by mark sky on Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| R U confusilated yet ?
Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:48 am
|
|
|
just wait, a nude wirlded is a comeing... |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| a thought hick up
Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:23 am
|
|
|
once upon a tyme
human became but now naught
danceing upon the global change network
simple simon said
nouthing will change my way
global change sprayed overhead
environmentalists denighed that
world trade ex change had
the global change go ahead |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| or craig venter had patented it
Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:37 am
|
|
|
thou the deep seas were plumeted
and DNA were drug aboard
from the unknown sea creatures
now patened by the privates
hidden amounge
the majors of DNA pirates
we walk alonge aside them
hidden in the broard day light
assembly
saultatying and saluting
nothing aliaen nation my sky
engage giggleplex |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| 4 Human LaUGhteR
Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:45 am
|
|
|
we walk apon the thin ice
built bellow, mined above, crusching waves
delivered upon souls everywhere
mark my words |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
| so many wander in credit swamps
Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:46 am
|
|
|
groweing debts the size of mushroom cloulds
catrosftosfokik they will wish you to see
and if you don't...
life shall shimmer once again
and sparkle like it never has
before you are choses
make it good |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 3:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
