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:
Long himself is puzzled how certain areas around the country like one in Oklahoma have significant sky whitening yet don’t get as much known air traffic.
Content from External Source
However, that is not what the original article said. What it said is this:
Long admits that his study creates far more questions than it answers. So far he has good data for only one spot in Oklahoma, and there could be less sky whitening in places that don’t get as much air traffic.
Content from External Source
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:
I’m not Shakespeare, but something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.
Content from External Source
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


Abstract
The feasibility of using aerosol vaccines to achieve mass and rapid immunization, especially in developing countries and disaster areas, is being assessed on the basis of current available information. The aerosol mode of vaccine introduction, which best follows the natural route of many infections, may first lead to development of immunity at the portal of entry, and may also induce a more generalized defense. The recommended optimal way of introducing an aerosol vaccine is nasal breathing, which is more suitable for geriatric and pediatric populations, permits use of greater antigen volumes, and allows easier monitoring of results. Technical requirements for ideal aerosol vaccines and delivery systems, possible adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness are other issues addressed. Several thousand human subjects have been aerosol-vaccinated over a period of many years in Russia with live-attenuated strains against many diseases. Extensive field trials in South America with aerosolized live-attenuated measles vaccine have also been successful, and excellent results have been reported with pilot projects employing inactivated or live-attenuated aerosol influenza A vaccine. We conclude that aerosol immunization seems a promising method of vaccination. Although some basic information is still lacking, this method has already been used successfully in large populations and has therefore passed the phase of initial feasibility evaluation.
Content from External Source
The South American field trials it mentions appear to be these: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80(10)806.pdf

Objective To compare antibody responses and side-effects of aerosolized and injected measles vaccines after revaccination of children enrolling in elementary schools.
Methods Vaccines for measles (Edmonston–Zagreb) or measles–rubella (Edmonston–Zagreb with RA27/3) were given by aerosol or injection to four groups of children. An additional group received Schwarz measles vaccine by injection. These five groups received vaccines in usual standard titre doses. A sixth group received only 1000 plaque-forming units of Edmonston–Zagreb vaccine by aerosol. The groups were randomized by school. Concentrations of neutralizing antibodies were determined in blood specimens taken at baseline and four months after vaccination from randomized subgroups (n = 28–31) of children in each group.
Findings After baseline antibody titres were controlled for, the frequencies of fourfold or greater increases in neutralizing antibodies did not differ significantly between the three groups that received vaccine by aerosol (range 52%–64%), but they were significantly higher than those for the three groups that received injected vaccine (range 4%–23%). Mean increases in titres and post-vaccination geometric mean titres paralleled these findings. Fewer side-effects were noted after aerosol than injection administration of vaccine.
Content from External Source
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:
To read or learn more immediately, I highly recommend the work and website of Dane Wigington. GeoEngineeringWatch.org is loaded with great research on the many facets of geo-engineering. In addition, we encourage support of the Legal Alliance of pro-bono lawyers now amassed as a unified front to fight the geo-engineering government cover-up in court.
Content from External Source
Of course the "Legal Alliance" is no longer pro-bono, and is now asking for $100,000
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08...eoengineering-chemtrails-lawsuit-update.html?

Even though much of the work so far was done pro bono by the lawyers, the lawsuit cannot proceed further on a pro bono basis, as there are many legal and court costs involved that need to be met, so the public’s support is needed badly.

It’s estimated that depositions alone will cost tens of thousands of dollars. That legal process allows the plaintiffs to ‘dig’ for information from the 36 defendants plus get legal access to emails, letters, and all sorts of information the lawyers may want to find regarding weather geoengineering, formulations, etc.

It is estimated that $100,000.00 will be needed to proceed with the lawsuit and the next 60 days are crucial, so if you can help out with a financial donation in any amount, it would be greatly appreciated, and very well spent.
Content from External Source
 

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...
 

Latest posts

Top