posted 05-27-2002 09:13 PM            

The US Government admitted two years ago to 113 tests of chemical and Biological weapons, tests performed on civilians and military.

It took 2 years before they released the first 6 (least damaging?) reports, the NY Times broke the story of the 6 tests on 05/23/02.

On 05/24/02 the AP broke the story that in one report the US Government slipped up and released a file mentioning the fact that the Government performed a test of Biological weapons by spraying San Francisco, the story was immediately pulled from all sources (within 30 minutes) and now can only be found in the AP archive by searching for "SHAD" which stands for Shipboard Hazard and Defense, which was the project name for the 113 tests.

posted 05-27-2002 11:38 PM            

One of our senior members found the story a few days ago and posted it here, but thanks for reminding me to give it a bump up before it gets lost.

US Government Admits Toxic Spraying http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200.html

posted 05-28-2002 04:12 AM            

Such an incredible correlation!!! Who would have ever thought to connect the dots on those two??? Sounds to me like you are suffering from a bit of “time compression” (hey... it sounded good when it rolled off the lips of an official US Air Force spokesman, a few years back).

Then again, with Asscroft in office, you may not be that far off...

posted 05-28-2002 12:12 PM            

Any bets that the remaining 107 tests that have been admitted to but have not been released run through the 70's , 80's or even 90's ???

Also, as a person with immediate family who were exposed to these tests in the 60's, I find your comparisons of secret tests on civilians to substances that were latter found to be dangerous ludicrous.

There seems to me to be just a slight difference between the learning curve on asbestos and secret biological tests performed on civilians without their knowledge.

Admittedly it appears the US Government was testing the dispersal system and not the substance they sprayed, otherwise the death toll would have been much higher. But they still needed a substance that would make people sick enough to be able to track the results, that much is crystal clear.

Maybe you would like to volunteer your family to be unwitting guinea pigs on some more tests, then we can reverse roles and continue this pointless discussion.

posted 05-28-2002 12:50 PM            

The reason for this is that the bacteria readily transfers by contact and can easily and cheaply be detected (see the experiment above). It is my understanding that the test was designed to track the initial dispersal of the bacteria, and the subsequent spread of the agent through casual human contact.

Unfortunately, what the Army did not realize (I am not sure if it was only marginally understood at the time, or that they simply did not do thier homework) that aerosols of this bacteria can be dangerous when inhaled, especially to anyone with an already impaired immune system.

I don’t believe that there was any intent to make people sick and track the illnesses, the agent used was not chosen for that. That is not to say I condone the tests, I don’t. I think that they were ill conceived, and conducted under an attitude of arrogance that is almost unbelievable in its scope. Does such an attitude still exist today? Probably, but not to the extent that it once did, and that is my reason to hope that we have learned a little in the past few years.

What can we do to prevent this in the future? Just what we are doing here. Talk about it; explore the reasons why things happened the way that they did. No discussion is pointless. It’s probably a lot better than trading insults. ( http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000330.html )

(General edits)

posted 05-31-2002 10:45 AM            

This, again, is a grand example of the chemtrail believers grabbing a story and stretching it to fit their agenda.

"There seems to me to be just a slight difference between the learning curve on asbestos and secret biological tests performed on civilians without their knowledge. "

Go back and re-read that story that you posted. There WAS NO TESTS DONE ON CIVILIANS. The tests were focused on how the shipboard systems dealt with an attack and how they Navy could decontaminate it. VX and biological pathogens were not sprayed on people unknowingly. If it was, there would be a lot of dead people.

"Admittedly it appears the US Government was testing the dispersal system and not the substance they sprayed"

I hate to get rude, but did you not read any of that article? They weren't testing a "dispersal system". What kind of sense does it make to spray VX and bios from a ship? Only to have the seabreeze blow it back over you? That's why in the US, nerve gas and biologicals were always in the form of artillery shells or bombs, not spray nozzles from ships.

"But they still needed a substance that would make people sick enough to be able to track the results, that much is crystal clear"

Crystal clear huh? Quote me the sentence in that article that states they were tracking the "results". They had a log, which denoted alot of things including health effects. Apparently you're looking at this from a chemtrail angle. Let me break it down for you:

This is what the test was REALLY for:

Navy has ships. Enemies have nerve gas, etc. Navy knows that people can be safe if they wear protective gear. Navy DOESN'T know how well the ship's systems will fare, or what they need to do to decontaminate the ship. Navy comes up with idea to spray ships down with actual VX and biologicals. People on ship will wear protective gear, and a log is kept to note the events. Unfortunately for Navy, some of the biologicals don't just stay on the ship.

I THINK this is what you are seeing:

Navy wants to test biological and chemical delivery system. They attach it to a ship. The ship delivery system blows it all over the area. The Navy keeps a log to see who gets sick and who doesn't, to determine how successful the delivery was.

posted 05-31-2002 10:49 AM            

Do you honestly think the Navy would unknowingly spray sarin on people? Answer that question. But first, think cause and effect.

posted 05-31-2002 05:37 PM            

quote:

---

This, again, is a grand example of the chemtrail believers grabbing a story and stretching it to fit their agenda.

---

What agenda would that be Pacer?

posted 05-31-2002 07:41 PM            

It is my understanding that the Army tests were done to determine how a bio agent spreads and propagates (like the high school test that I linked to above, but on a city wide scale).
http://www.chej.org/SF/biowar.html

Again, I don't think there was any kind of deliberate attempt to harm anyone, after all it is probable that even the army officers and men involved in the tests had relatives in the test areas. I think they were just too arrogant in thinking that they understood all of the health risks involved.

As a comparison, consider the following examples from the civilian world: There are two major health and safety issues involved with the making of the movie "The Wizard of Oz." The first involved the aluminum makeup used on actor Buddy Ebson. The make up made him so sick that he was unable to to play the role of the "tin man." Do you remember the snow storm scene in the movie? Well that wasn’t snow it was asbestos!

posted 06-01-2002 10:50 AM            

Somebody take a look at the OBVIOUS CHEMTRAILS laid down above the Gulf War Theatre on January 1991 http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemndis.htm

posted 06-01-2002 08:55 PM            

So, o' wise one, tell me how tankers ~actually~ fly to refuel other aircraft, if they don't set up in an orbit? Tell me how long the distances are from the ARIP to the ARCP? And how would the recon planes, such as an RC-135, fly to gather intel, if not in a racetrack pattern? Just curious. Please educate me.

"Debunkers are bought and paid for otherwise they wouldn't be here."

Really. So you think that the REAL pilots have no business commenting on chemtrails, considering that they are in the aviation industry and all. You honestly believe that, among the thousands of pilots out there, that none are avid internet fans who happen to be online?

posted 06-01-2002 09:00 PM            

quote:

---

So you think that the REAL pilots have no business commenting on chemtrails

---

posted 06-01-2002 09:44 PM            

Then I think some are just general anti-government types. Chemtrails is a great vehicle to piggyback on to present a stronger case at how the government is out to get them.

There are a few out there who fill in the pranksters, and just those who like to make stuff up. Certainly not the majority, but they do exist. I remember on an aviation message board, this guy was running around saying he was an F-15E pilot, and was basically creating alot of flames on the board. One of the REAL pilots was a REAL F-15E pilot and made some phone calls, and discovered that the fake guy never existed.

All in all, what I meant by that post was people will take information and usually bend it to fit their goals or views. I've honestly tried to be as open-minded as I could on the topic. But most of the evidence winds up being a half-truth taken out of context, or simply made up. Take the ethylene dibromide debacle. Do a web search. The only place you can find any mention of EDB in jet fuel is on chemtrail sites. There is absolutely no source to document where this information came from.

Another example, and this really doesn't have much to do with chemtrails, but it's something I've been discussing for some time now, is the AA587 crash. Some people are so untrusting of the government that they believe the NTSB is "hiding" evidence that it was a terrorist attack. They are taking every bit of half-truth they can find and fit it to their theory. It's on Carnicom's message board if you want to read it.

The point is, I see alot of people doing reverse-science. They come up with a theory, and then go find evidence to support it. Actually, you're supposed to have evidence, and then the theory changes and evolves to fit the evidence.

What am I saying is if you start at point A believing in chemtrails, and go snooping down the trail, when you arrive at point B, everything you've looked at will be gathered with the assumption that chemtrails are real. People researching chemtrails need to realize that there is a possibility that they do not exist. They need to realize that there are many sources of pollutants that can put things like barium in rainwater, not just "chemtrails".

Until you can rule out every other source of pollution, you can't simply take a rainwater analysis and proclaim that it has barium in it and chemtrails are the culprits. That is a huge no-no in the scientific world.

posted 06-01-2002 10:18 PM            

quote:

---

Everyone has an agenda.

---

What is your agenda Pacer?

quote:

---

All in all, what I meant by that post was people will take information and usually bend it to fit their goals or views.

---

I understand the reasoning behind this statement Pacer, but I would like to say that when I first saw what I know believe to be a chemtrail, I had no idea what a contrail or chemtrail was. I experienced a physically overwhelming feeling while looking at this huge, low-hanging freakish site of a trail. I went looking on the Internet for any clue as to what the hell that trail could be, but had no preconceived notions of what I would find, only my gut instinct guiding me.

quote:

---

The point is, I see alot of people doing reverse-science. They come up with a theory, and then go find evidence to support it.

---

I had NO theory when I went loking for answers Pacer, just a real sick feeling.

quote:

---

Actually, you're supposed to have evidence, and then the theory changes and evolves to fit the evidence.

---

OK, fair enough, then where, may I ask, is the evidence which PROVES that chemtrails are a HOAX? Have you had any samples analyzed? Being a pilot and all, I figure you could pull this off. Please Pacer, prove to me that chemtrails aren't real, that would really make my day!

quote:

---

What am I saying is if you start at point A believing in chemtrails, and go snooping down the trail, when you arrive at point B, everything you've looked at will be gathered with the assumption that chemtrails are real

---

My point A, as stated, was the gut-wrenching awakening. That was/is real. The word "chemtrail" didn't enter the mix for several months after the awakening. The fact that Thermit's board was overrun with debunkers was the one of the deciding factors that there really is something going on. In fact it was ElvisLives (Tick Boy) who inspired me to make my first post. Thanks Elvis

quote:

---

People researching chemtrails need to realize that there is a possibility that they do not exist.

---

Indeed Pacer, this though does cross my mind on those rare blue-sky days. But this thought is quickly replaced when the cirrus aviaticus rolls in, like today, hazy lingering bands filling the sky, cutting the sun's output by half, decimating the blue.

I have an agenda Pacer. I'm looking for the Truth. Is that too much to ask?

quote:

---

Until you can rule out every other source of pollution, you can't simply take a rainwater analysis and proclaim that it has barium in it and chemtrails are the culprits.

---

You are right Pacer, and I agree, we need good science. Know any good scientists? Better yet, know any good pilots who can do an in situ?

posted 06-01-2002 10:28 PM            

My agenda? To explain to people that alot of what they think is happening can't be, unless the spray planes manage to avoid all the other traffic up there, which is pretty impossible if you have 200-300 mile long contrails. Not to mention that I'm a military pilot, and I know alot of other military pilots, many of whom are tanker pilots. Tanker pilots are often spoken of unkindly on these boards, and to be honest with you, I'd bet money that most of the "military tanker" sightings weren't really tankers at all. One pic in the photo archives states "KC-10" when it's clearly not a KC-10.

posted 06-01-2002 11:45 PM            

You asked about scientists. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that not a single, accredited scientist will touch this issue with a ten foot pole? (By accredited I mean, at a minimum, a post graduate degree in the relevant field) Now some of the more delusional paranoids on this board will tell you that this is because they are either in on it, or are afraid to speak up or some other such nonsense. That of course is bull. The reason you don’t see to many people with advanced degrees in science hanging around on this board is because: a) They don’t believe in chemtrails, and b) when they state this they are vilified and hounded by some of the more radical elements that hang out here.

You asked about evidence to prove chemtrails are a hoax. Unfortunately, the chemtrails theory as presented by the true believers is not falsifiable. Being falsifiable is a trait that is shared by every great scientific theory (Einstein’s theory of Relativity, Maxwell’s theories, quantum mechanics etc). By being falsifiable we mean that there is some way to experimentally test the validity of the theory. If the experimental results do not match the results predicted by the theory, then the theory has been falsified, or proven wrong.

What you have here is a version of Sagan’s invisible dragon ( http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm ) because what you are asking the debunkers to do is to prove the negative. No matter what evidence is presented, what samples are taken or analyzed, there is no incontrovertible proof that we could ever offer you that you would accept. My sample results don’t show anything? Well it’s obvious you weren’t sampling on the day they were spraying, or how about Well "they" knew you were coming so they stopped for the day, or what about this one from Carnicoms site:

" i wouldn't trust any lab or scientist unless i knew them personally and i don't know any. they've all been goverment assimilated aka the borg. the goverment has many weapons to make you play the game. remember resistance is futile. i think that cliff has already found this out. breeze71 (sic)"

Lets face it, there is no way to argue with a mentality like that.

It is up to you, the believers, to furnish the proof, and allow that proof to be critically examined for flaws.

BTW, collecting samples is incredibly easy. I know because that is what I do for a living. I am an environmental consultant. I have studied and sampled every type of environmental pollutant from asbestos and Lead based paint, to explosive manufacturing residue in ground water, mercury in houses, mold, particulate. Etc.

Industrial hygiene sampling equipment is easily rented, sample media and analytical tests are relatively inexpensive. Hell you could even imitate Carnicom and tape a filter over a box fan, just make sure that it is a quartz glass (low extractable) filter. You could calculate the volume of air though the filter using an air flow meter commonly used by HVAC contractors (rentable for a week for $50). Laboratory analysis would cost between $40 to $80. The biggest expense would be the filters since they cost about $6.00 each for a 8"x10" filter and generally come in boxes of 25.

And finally, for what it is worth, I live about 10 miles from O’Hare airport, one of the worlds busiest. Yet I don’t often see any persistent contrails (or chemtrails if you insist). In fact today was a beautiful summer day with nothing but a few cumulus nimbi drifting by. I attribute this to the fact that almost all of the air traffic I see is basically in either a landing or a takeoff pattern and not at sufficient altitude to form a contrail.

(hey Pacer, ever flown out of Palwaukee?)