Chuck Norris on chemtrails

skephu

Senior Member
Chuck Norris argues for the chemtrail theory again in his latest article: Sky Criminals

First he cites the research of NOAA research scientist Charles Long, who said at a meeting last year that airplane contrails may be creating accidental geoengineering. Norris suggests that it may not be accidental but intentional. He tries to back up that suggestion with the following points:

First:
However, that is not what the original article said. What it said is this:
Second, Norris cites the abstract of a 2003 study about aerosol vaccines and suggests that if this was published in 2003 then surely an aerosol vaccination program must have been implemented in the US since then. However, why would vaccines be sprayed 6 miles above people's heads, and why would they leave long persistent trails? Not very practical.

Thirdly, he cites J. Marvin Herndon's long debunked and retracted paper. This has been thoroughly debunked here in another thread.

In the end, Norris admits he has no evidence and has no idea what is going on, but he has a gut feeling something is not right:
As expected, Dane Wigington has republished Chuck Norris' article (no need to link it).
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
It would be great if Norris would come to understand how he has been fooled into buying in to chemtrails.
Plenty of people might be helped if a high profile person blew the lid like that.
 

skephu

Senior Member
Also, while aerosols are a known way of vaccine delivery, this is not to be meant for aerial spraying.
The 2003 study cited by Chuck Norris provides a list of requirements for the delivery system:
upload_2016-4-26_1-35-33.png


Obviously, aerial spraying would not meet these requirements.
Instead, the study discusses two ways of aerosol vaccine delivery. This one for developed countries:
upload_2016-4-26_1-36-45.png


and this one is for application in disaster scenarios or underdeveloped areas:
upload_2016-4-26_1-38-55.png


The people would walk into the tent and spend a predefined amount of time there, breathing in the aerosol vaccine.

Delivery by aerial spraying has never been suggested, it would clearly be an extremely impractical, wasteful and uncontrollable way of delivery. In particular, spraying vaccines from high altitude would totally defeat the purpose as the vaccine would dilute out so much that it would not work at all.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Second, Norris cites the abstract of a 2003 study about aerosol vaccines and suggests that if this was published in 2003 then surely an aerosol vaccination program must have been implemented in the US since then. However, why would vaccines be sprayed 6 miles above people's heads, and why would they leave long persistent trails? Not very practical.
I have only been able to get hold of the abstract of the study in question, but I'm far from convinced that it is talking about aerosol delivery of vaccines in the sense of mass release. Lots of drugs are given as aerosol inhalations.

This is the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12656420

The South American field trials it mentions appear to be these: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80(10)806.pdf

The aerosolised vaccine was given via a paper cone held over the patient's nose and mouth:

upload_2016-4-26_0-42-22.png


upload_2016-4-26_0-42-38.png



When the Pubmed abstract is talking about aerosolised vaccines being rapid, that is presumably because each nebuliser can vaccinate 45 children with only a new disposable paper cone needed for each one, rather than having to prepare a fresh injection for each subject.

Edit: I see @skephu has beaten me to the same conclusion, with information from the study itself!
 

skephu

Senior Member
Chuck Norris attacks again. Recently, he has published two articles on chemtrails/geoengineering, claiming that the CIA director has admitted to geoengineering, and that the US Senate pushes albedo modification. (Both claims are of course false.) He also heavily advertises Dane Wigington's web site. Apparently he is another victim of Dane's propaganda.
His first article from August 7:
CIA director confesses stratospheric aerosol injection
His second article from August 14:
A government cover-up of epic proportions
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Norris's articles are just parroting chemtrail mythology. I would not be entirely surprised if he was writing these articles in conjunction with Dane. His article finishes with:
Of course the "Legal Alliance" is no longer pro-bono, and is now asking for $100,000
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08/legal-alliance-stop-weather-geoengineering-chemtrails-lawsuit-update.html?
 

NoParty

Senior Member
Fortunately $100,000 should be a pretty easy check for Chuck to write, given his wealth... :p
surely he'll put his money where his mouth is, rather than ask the little people to fund his new hobby...
 
Top