climateview.com, Is this new?

[Jay Reynolds]

Excellent on the pakalert link, Jim. I can see you are truly interested in getting the bunk off your site. See, if you had left that, you would have been lending it a part of your credibility, and since it was bunk it would have lowered your own credibility. That's actuallyhow the chemtrails hoax got started, and there are still ghost/legacy websites out there repeating the hoax that jet fuel contains ethylene dibromide, just like the WITWATS film is still falsely claiming that there are abnormal amounts of aluminum being found in rainwater.

And for the record, Arecibo is an ionospheric heater (upper atmospheric radar)

Jim, from what I've seen, you heven't provided any actual evidence that Arecibo was designed, is capable of, or has ever heated the ionosphere.
Could you provide any factual basis for your claim that Arecibo "is an ionospheric heater"? The links you provided are very technical sounding and mysterious to the layman. I have a degree in engineering and some of what they said may not be understandable even to me. If you have a good reason to say I'm wrong and you are correct, just a quick explanation would clear it up. I'm not trolling you here, and maybe we can find some common ground.

A couple of other claims you make have already been looked at, when you get the time:
Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
- Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997

Debunked:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/15...ngaging-even-in-an-eco-type-of-terrorism-quot

I also see you cite "Dr." Nick Begich as a source.
Its one thing to make a false claim about something which you can just pass off as being "mistaken", but when a man tries to boost his personal credibility by making false claims about himself, thatcrosses the line into being a deliberate fabrication for which there is no excuse.

Do you really want to associate yourself with a man who holds himself up to being a PhD. when he bought it from a diploma mill?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/237-Debunked-Nick-Begich

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It's fascinating stuff that you link but I don't see the weaponification as a reality or even as an expiramental goal of the linked material.

This is pretty standard in the CT realm. First they tell you to do your own research, then they guide you through an insinuated chain of "connections" designed to lead you to their conclusion which breaks down if scrutinized past the scientific mumbo-jumbo.

 

[solrey]

No Jim, you're the one who is mistaken. Incoherent scatter radar does not heat the ionosphere. It works the same as any radar except the return signal is reflected by electrons and ions instead of solid targets. Ionospheric heaters work because the frequencies used are absorbed by free electrons thus there is no return signal. Incoherent scatter radars would not work at those frequencies because they're absorbed, not reflected. One of the primary goals of ISR is to measure the naturally fluctuating temperature of electrons in the ionosphere so if they were heating them artificially that would pretty much defeat the purpose of ISR now wouldn't it?

ISR operates in the UHF range transmitting at around 430 MHz, ionospheric heaters operate in the HF range transmitting at 2 - 10 MHz.

Arecibo also uses radar to study near earth asteroids.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Dammit, sunking, sometimes people learn more, and we learn more about them, if we ask them to explain why they say what they do.
Nevertheless, I find that what yo say is true.

 

[solrey]

Excellent point, Jay. I actually would like Jim to explain why he thinks Incoherent Scatter Radar heats the ionosphere. Jim?

That reminds me, Jim. I'd still like to know where you fetch the data for the Chemtrail tracker.

 

[JFDee]

Jim, from what I've seen, you heven't provided any actual evidence that Arecibo was designed, is capable of, or has ever heated the ionosphere.

Well, in the PDF that Jim linked there is in fact a paragraph about a heating facility at the Arecibo site, just obviously not in the main antenna itself:

[ex=http://landau.geo.cornell.edu/papers/UAFreport.pdf]This relatively quiet environment provides excellent conditions for studying the ionosphere as an unbounded plasma physics laboratory where ionospheric heating experiments can be conducted using the ISR as a powerful diagnostic tool.

The first HF heating facility at Arecibo was constructed at the site of the main antenna, but was later moved to a nearby location. This heating facility was dismantled in 1998 after Hurricane Georges did extensive damage to the antenna field. A new facility is currently under construction at the Arecibo site and is projected to be completed by the fall of 2009.[/ex]

 

[JFDee]

I have been wrong with "not in the main antenna itself". I imagined a field of antennas, but they will actually integrate the HF antennas in the main dish system ...

http://www.ee.psu.edu/Newsletters/January.pdf

 

[Spongebob]

The problem is that the 95% is stuff you've cut and paste from other places. The 5% (probably less) bunk seems mostly to be your own theories and speculation that you've layered on top.

If he had spent a few hours looking over this site he need never have bothered setting up his own website in the first place...

 

[rezn8d]

[/LIST]


None of these justifies a conclusion that DARPA is manipulating weather/lightning with HAARP. Ever notice the static on the AM and VHF radios that results from lightning? That is essentially what the fifth bullet is studying. The third bullet in that list is trying to figure out how lightning affects the ionosphere and radio transmissions though it. The second bullet is an attempt to direct transmissions (So there's your bullshit about submarine communications). Ducts form naturally and there is an attempt to create them in a controlled way. Bullet 4 looks like an extension of types of research that have been going on for awhile.

Sure would be great to use lightning in a controlled way for whatever reason (e.g. make it strike away from you and your operations and/or make it strike in your enemies camp...). But there nothing suggesting that storms are being created. Lightning is not being manipulated by HAARP or HAARP like facilities. When it has been created it has been triggered in "ripe" clouds using ground based systems and so far is being triggered in an attempt to be able to do more controlled expiriments on what happens around lighning (radio emissions and such) or in an attempt to directly lightning away from a sensitive installation. It's fascinating stuff that you link but I don't see the weaponification as a reality or even as an expiramental goal of the linked material.

all the evidence has not been presented... all in due time

but it's real baby

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have been wrong with "not in the main antenna itself". I imagined a field of antennas, but they will actually integrate the HF antennas in the main dish system ...

http://www.ee.psu.edu/Newsletters/January.pdf

I see that the HF heater near Arecibo hasn't been operative since it was destroyed in 1998.
Labowsky's Masters Thesis has a well-explained description of the heater being designed. It seems that electromagnetic health concerns wouldn't be a problem for someone walking in the Arecibo dish with the heater working, only the walkway above the dish would pose any health risk. Visitors will be able to visit and see the "Death Ray" in operation.
Interesting. Doesn't seem to be any mystery, secrecy, or much danger, it affects "sub kilometer" regions of the ionosphere.
see Labowsky:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...h4HICQ&usg=AFQjCNGW9H88NTZc4bIQYRVNuOmhoMw3jg

The Arecibo site does mention the heater in its construction phase andshows the building housing the surplus transmitters.
Looks very suspicious, with a large DANGER sign!
see page 16:
http://www.naic.edu/public/about/newslett/NAIC Newslet 46-Dec2009.pdf

 

[Jay Reynolds]

OK, according to the contractor, the heater should be installed by December:
http://66.39.154.121/cms/index.php/news-archive/116-arecibo-system-shipped
So,Jim, you were wrong, but will eventually be right, there will be a heater at Arecibo.

Just not a "Death Ray" like HAARP..

 

[MikeC]

all the evidence has not been presented... all in due time

but it's real baby

Why would you not put forward all the available evidence??

IMO so far the only conspiracy revealed here is that you are not telling everything you know - why are you hiding it?

 

[solrey]

OK, according to the contractor, the heater should be installed by December:
http://66.39.154.121/cms/index.php/n...system-shipped
So,Jim, you were wrong, but will eventually be right, there will be a heater at Arecibo.

Just not a "Death Ray" like HAARP..

I didn't think the new HF heater was operational yet, thanks for the update confirming that.

rezn8d said:
And for the record, Arecibo is an ionospheric heater (upper atmospheric radar)

So, Jim... Are you going to explain for us why you think that's true?

I agree with MikeC, why you holdin' out on us? I hope your "evidence" waiting in the wings is better than confusing Incoherent Scatter Radar with ionospheric heaters.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I didn't think the new HF heater was operational yet, thanks for the update confirming that.



So, Jim... Are you going to explain for us why you think that's true?

I agree with MikeC, why you holdin' out on us? I hope your "evidence" waiting in the wings is better than confusing Incoherent Scatter Radar with ionospheric heaters.

In the 14 years of this situation, many claims have been made. Much has been left undocumented and unverified and thus unconfirmable. Some appear to be hoaxes, some mistakes, some just rumor or heresay, some could actually have been true but remain in the realm of unknown mysteries because you cannot get to the root and judge anything because the claimant withholds information.

Here are some examples:
1997 Richard L. Finke claims to have a lab analysis of JP-8 military fuel showing it contains ethylene dibromide.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/263-Founder-of-the-Chemtrails-Hoax-Richard-Finke-dead-at-58
No such analysis as ever been presented, yet the claim continues to circulate:
http://www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com/Ethylene_Dibromide.php

1999- William Thomas claims to have lab tests yet 13 years later continues to refuse to release them.
http://contrailscience.com//files/1999 Santa Fe New Mexican E2.pdf
http://www.plowedclouds.com/2011/03/wright-patterson-air-traffic.html

2000-- Clifford Carnicom claims to have communication from two "insiders", yet 12 years later, nothing confirmable has been presented:
http://www.carnicom.com/mgr1.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/mech1.htm

2000-- A. C. Griffith makes claims that he has collaborated wih NSA and CIA scientists to release a report showing barium is in chemtrails, yet 11 years later has never shown anything confirmable:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

2002- Bob Fitrakis claims a Whright Patterson Air Force base scientist told him barium was being sprayed, yet ten years later, no confirmable evidence was ever presented:
http://www.plowedclouds.com/2011/03/wright-patterson-air-traffic.html

2002- William Thomas claims that he has tape recorded conversations with an air traffic controller who admits that chemtrails are obscuring ATC radar, yet 10 years later, never releases the tapes:
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Concerned_over_Chemtrails.htm

2003- Brian Holmes claims to have communication from an "insider", yet 8 years later, nothng confirmable has been presented:
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html


1999 & 2005 - Clifford Carnicom claims to have multiple lab tests of water and a fibrous substance, yet 6-13 years later has never shown them.
http://www.carnicom.com/labstop.htm
http://www.carnicom.com/labtest.htm

I could go on, yet these examples clearly show a lack of progress to say the least, and in fact represent obfuscation. If the claimants had been forthright and either documented their claims, all would have been better off, and progress could have been made.

I propose a remedy to his situation. My idea would be modeled after the US Freedom of Information Act, which requires all US agencies to respond within 30 days to citizen's requests for specific information.

Read the complete document requesting a Chemtrails Freedom Of Information Act Agreement which could have cleared up all these claims. I got no results when I made a polite request from the Coalition Against Geoengineering, headed by G. Edward Griffin, Chairman and Michael J. Murphy, President:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot

Jim, the listing above is of other people who have failed to support their claims. I suppose we could add qute a few from the WITWATS gang and now Dave Dahl.
I thought you were able to get past this making claims and not showing the claimed evidence. Please don't be like those others.....

 

[solrey]

Jim, I have a few questions about your article 'HAARP: Resonations from the Moon' listed on your "HAARP University" page. The first paragraph alone is quite revealing.

Radars use resonance and computers to scan returning signals to produce images on dem radar screens. The FAA and US Air Force use the Joint Surveillance System doppler radars to bounce high frequency (inaudible) radio waves off the ionosphere scanning for aircraft, ufo’s, and terrorists on pink elephants. By nature, these high frequency transmissions are short lived (their wavelength means they decay fast) and do not penetrate solid objects, such as stone buildings.

So here are my questions:

1) How does radar use "resonance" and what is resonance in this context?

2) How do you account for the development and use of radar long before the development of the transistor much less the computer?

3) You said "...high frequency (inaudible) radio waves...". If the frequency of an audio wave is 10kHz and the frequency of a radio wave is 10kHz, what is the wavelength?

4) Why are high frequency transmissions short lived and what makes them decay fast?

5) How do you explain our ability to detect gamma rays emitted from the Vela Pulsar?

6) Why do high frequency transmissions not penetrate solid objects such as stone buildings?

7) What's your definition of "High Frequency"... i.e., what's the frequency range?

Thanks.

One more question unrelated to the Moon article above.

Why do you identify the SuperDARN radar systems as ionospheric heaters?

 

[scombrid]

high frequency (inaudible) radio waves

?

 

[TWCobra]

I love watching you guys work....

 

[scombrid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=psIW0P-0zgo

This was linked by Dutchsinse. It claims that contrails showing on a visible satellite imate are all chemtrails with id and confirmation provided by the "chemtrail tracker" on climateview.com. All are commercial flights. Example is that at the 1:36 mark in the video Jim identifies a Southwest Airlines 737 in route from Austin to LA that he claims is spraying chemicals. He then goes on to identify numerous other commercial flights and makes of planes.

Tell us Jim. Why can't a plane at the altitude of those in this video not produce persistent contrails without spraying chemicals when they are flying through sufficiently cold ice-supersaturated air? Furthermore, where is your evidence that they are doing so aside from the presence of contrails that look as contrails have looked for decades?

He goes into ship trails around 3:25 mark. Tell us Jim, why if those trails are more than fog made thicker by ship exhaust, why do they only appear in the cold foggy super stable marine layer?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/65...ng-quot-Chemtrails-quot?highlight=ship+trails


At around the 5:00 mark he goes back the the images of daily airline traffic and insists that ALL of the routes are chemtrails. There is no evidence for this. The distribution of trails on the visible satellite is more correlated with the weather than with the planes since the planes are nearly everywhere and the contrails are not.

 

[scombrid]

More youtube from Jim and "climateviewer".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2hfZgOUqc&feature=channel&list=UL

Jim claims that a rocket testing facility is a cloud making facility and that it could be dangerous in "nefarious hands". He links to a clip nicked from Top Gear to show the "rain making machine" in action. The clouds that form over a rocket's exhaust when test fired on the ground on a humid day result from the fact that the rocket is burning hydrogen so its exhaust is pure water. In almost any other place that water would simply evaporate but the test in which Jeremy gets rained on was done on hot sultry day when the airmass was already saturated. The heat and extra water from the rocket generated a tiny little pocket of convection. Hardly a "weather control" machine. Clouds form over and downwind of the huge power plant in Palatka in similar conditions. I don't see how this is nefarious or potentially nefarious.

He does give a good description of NEXRAD, TDWR, FAA long range RADAR... round about the 7:00 mark.

7:38 Mark: Identifies monitoring stations from the Integrated Ocean Observing System and states that they are doppler radars that track the ocean temperatures and currents off the coast and that the "sound" from those must be driving dolphins crazy.

Those are high frequency radars. They use radio waves to measure ocean currents. Radio waves are not sounds. I think he is conflating SONAR with RADAR. The electromagnetic "chirps and pulses" as he calls them are not adding much to the background noise already out there from all of out EM communications.
http://www.ioos.gov/hfradar/welcome.html

 

[HappyMonday]

More youtube from Jim and "climateviewer".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2hfZgOUqc&feature=channel&list=UL

*Head desk*

8 minutes of my life I won't be seeing again.

 

[rezn8d]

you guys really enjoy what you do.

I called the IOOS sound because I was trying to KISS.

 

[Belfrey]

you guys really enjoy what you do.

I called the IOOS sound because I was trying to KISS.

But it's not simpler, it's simply incorrect. And then you made an inference based on that incorrect information (that radar waves would affect dolphin sonar).

 

[solrey]

you guys really enjoy what you do.

I called the IOOS sound because I was trying to KISS.

KISS is quite the opposite of using incorrect information to draw incorrect conclusions. There are numerous examples of you using radio and sound waves interchangeably, not in an attempt to provide a simple explanation but as if you think they're the same thing. It only confuses the uninformed and gullible but to the knowledgeable it just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about.

The radar used by IOOS operates in the HF band which is 3 MHz to 30 MHz. The IOOS HF radar transmits at as low as 5 MHz, afaik. Dolphin hearing range only goes up to 150 kHz, that's 0.15 MHz, so even sound waves at a frequency of 3 MHz are well beyond the hearing range of dolphins making you incorrect on that point also.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/bottlenose/sensesdol.html

Since you didn't respond to my question I posted on this thread about where you get the data for the "chemtrail viewer", I thought I'd copy your answer you posted on a youtube vid because to me it says a lot about you.

see my feed and find your answer, it's called Aqua MODIS, if you can see it on satellite, is that a big enough chemtrail for ya?

First; Don't play me like I'm stupid. Being a smart-ass does not make you smart.

Second; Telling somebody to "see my feed and find your answer" is not an answer. Google Earth is not supported by my older OS for example.

Third; MODIS Aqua images are not in real time. The best you can get is near real time images (about a 3 hour latency) along the current orbit path but it takes more than one orbit to cover the CONUS and one to two days to cover the whole Earth.

There are many data products available from the MODIS instrument on the Aqua satellite. Which are you using and why are you being evasive? All you have to do is provide the link to the data product you're downloading. Are you telling us that you've written a program, that displays flights currently leaving "chemtrails", using real time data from a flight tracking site and around 3 hour old data, at least, from some unspecified MODIS source? In order to interpret the MODIS data the program would also have to identify "chemtrails" within that data. Does this magical program "see" "chemtrails" in MODIS images?

http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/nrt-data/rapid-response/about-rapid-response-imagery
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=orbitmap2.global.2012275.gif

 

[rezn8d]

​

Debunk away, good luck.

 

[Mick West]

​

Debunk away, good luck.

Why don't you at least note what the new evidence is in this video? I'm not going to watch 55 minutes just to winkle out a bit of bunk.

 

[SR1419]

Any chance you could sum it up in a nice, concise statement?

Perhaps succinctly lay out the actual evidence that Sandy was "steered" or otherwise manipulated?

I got about 20 minutes through and all I got was that they have studied possible hurricane mitigation techniques and "Owning the Weather" was published- therefore Sandy was manipulated.

 

[solrey]

Debunk away, good luck.

peh...That's easy.

You use anomalies/artifacts in images from the Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery at the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies as evidence. There's a little disclaimer at the bottom of the main MIMIC page:

The individual images that are used as input into this product sometimes contain bad data in the form of missing scanlines or anamalously high or low values that often stretch in an arc across the image. When these areas are incorporated into the MIMIC product they form artifacts that fade in and out, and appear to move with the storm center. However, they have no physical meaning and hopefully they will not obstruct your interpretation of the imagery.

You also use an image of a sundog as evidence. Seriously? Cirrostratus clouds are commonly found in the moisture laden high altitude outflow of hurricanes and cirrostratus can produce sundogs. Sundogs prior to the arrival of a hurricane is not at all unusual, in fact they're rather common.

That's just for starters...want I should embarrass you further?

 

[Chew]

Any chance you could sum it up in a nice, concise statement?

Perhaps succinctly lay out the actual evidence that Sandy was "steered" or otherwise manipulated?

I got about 20 minutes through and all I got was that they have studied possible hurricane mitigation techniques and "Owning the Weather" was published- therefore Sandy was manipulated.

But don't you get it??? Connect the dots!

A = B
C = D
Therefore, A = D!

Just ignore the inconvenient fact that B does not equal C.

 

[rezn8d]

peh...That's easy.

You use anomalies/artifacts in images from the Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery at the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies as evidence. There's a little disclaimer at the bottom of the main MIMIC page:



You also use an image of a sundog as evidence. Seriously? Cirrostratus clouds are commonly found in the moisture laden high altitude outflow of hurricanes and cirrostratus can produce sundogs. Sundogs prior to the arrival of a hurricane is not at all unusual, in fact they're rather common.

That's just for starters...want I should embarrass you further?

With enough coincidental evidence you can convict a man of murder and fry his butt.

Two years in a row, two MIMIC anomalies in roughly same spot, two NEXRAD flashes in exactly the same spot, the DHS is funding hurricane mitigation studies, the AMA recognizes persistent contrails as weather modification, and HAARP is mentioned in the DHS hurricane mitigation studies.

The sundogs were produced by some of the craziest contrails I have ever seen, and I have been taking pictures for two years. I believe due to the amount of contrails preset, that a concerted effort was made to either divert commercial flights to build a layer of CCN particles, or parties intentionally sprayed that day.

​

​

​

Then we have to consider the possibility that other methods may have been employed, such as HAARP, MIRAGE, or SPS:

​

For the record, you guys do not know what the military ACTUALLY has in space... so you cannot debunk the possibility that they might.

 

[SR1419]

Its interesting to note that NOAA actually opposes efforts to modify hurricanes

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf

NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes

Content from External Source

 

[scombrid]

If you think that the cirrus outflow or the contrails around the storm were unusual you have not been paying much attention to cyclones over the years. Your NEXRAD flashes are one station being brought online after being down. It operated in clear air mode for a single scan so precip appears brighter in the display because the sensitivity was turned up.

 

[MikeC]

With enough coincidental evidence you can convict a man of murder and fry his butt.

I believe the word is actually "circumstantial" - it has to be a lot more solid than "coincidence" - indeed if it can bve shown to be coincidence then AFAIK that will pretty much guarantee a "not guilty" finding!

Two years in a row, two MIMIC anomalies in roughly same spot, two NEXRAD flashes in exactly the same spot,

that would make me look for a geographical cause - reflections or shadows from buildings or other elevations for example. Eg there's a famous video somewhere of a bunch of radars all "shooting" rays off in the same direction all at once that, IIRC, was actually them getting confused by sunsets.

the DHS is funding hurricane mitigation studies, the AMA recognizes persistent contrails as weather modification, and HAARP is mentioned in the DHS hurricane mitigation studies.

got any actual evidence for these - preferably not just the gish gallop on your own site??

For the record, you guys do not know what the military ACTUALLY has in space... so you cannot debunk the possibility that they might.

for the record, "we" don't have to know what is up there to debunk at least some claims.

We can point out that no-one else knows either, so if someone says they DO have something particular up there it is sufficient to point that ignorance out in order to debunk that claim.

 

[SR1419]

the DHS is funding hurricane mitigation studies,

Here is a nice summary (as of 8/10) of the DHS's involvement with hurricane modification studies:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/it-time-invest-entrepreneurial-geoengineering?page=0,0,1

DHS has pulled back from its plans to investigate new technologies and field tests for weather modification. One reason, says William Laska, program manager at DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate, may be that the terms “geo*engin*eer*ing” and “weather modification” are still distasteful to both scientists and members of other government agencies. When DHS began approaching these different groups about the possibility of investigating and funding technologies for hurricane modification, “waving the modification/mitigation flag, we got a lot of doors slammed in our face,” Laska says

Content from External Source

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Two years in a row, two MIMIC anomalies in roughly same spot, two NEXRAD flashes in exactly the same spot, the DHS is funding hurricane mitigation studies, the AMA recognizes persistent contrails as weather modification, and HAARP is mentioned in the DHS hurricane mitigation studies.

I agree with Mike, the same spot sounds like something happening on the ground, not in the air. You should ask the people that run MIMIC and see what they say.

The sundogs were produced by some of the craziest contrails I have ever seen, and I have been taking pictures for two years. I believe due to the amount of contrails preset, that a concerted effort was made to either divert commercial flights to build a layer of CCN particles, or parties intentionally sprayed that day.

So you haven't even tried to track these planes or photograph them as I suggested? Maybe you prefer to not know huh?
How do yu define "crazy" contrails?
Lots of contrails generally means lots of ice. Lots of ice means lots of chances for sundogs.
Did you know that ice crystals cause sundogs?

So, you "believe" that commercial flights were diverted? Did you check for that? Did you know that you can order the whole day's FAA flight tracks and find out if indeed your supposition is true?

Promise me you will do that and I will tell you how to get that data. Your chemtrail leader should have already told you that you can do that for any day over the past ten years. But he didn't. I will. Do you dare to find out? Or woud you rather that remain a mystery?


​

I watched this video. Do you know what the marine stratocumulus clouds are, where they form, how thick they are(hint-he told you) and why the scientists are doing what they are doing?
Isn't it pretty clear they ae just starting to learn about clouds, that they don't understand what is going on, and tat they are using some very small planes to do some very small studies? Did you see their salt dispersal technique? It really is how they fill fed sacks at the feed mill in my town.

If you want to learn about ship tracks you won't get that from the chemtrail disinfo sites.
But you will from us:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/65...cific-are-Geoengineering-quot-Chemtrails-quot

 

[jvnk08]

You have to give him credit for admitting where he's provably wrong and correcting his site.

I'm curious though, why noone is bringing up the more bizzare stuff on the site, such as:

http://rezn8d.net/2012/04/12/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/

The many Names of ‘The Destroyer’

• “The Destroyer” in the Old Testament of the Bible
• “The Destroyer” in ancient writings of the Egyptians
• “Wormwood” in the book of revelation
• “Nibiru” in the writings of the Sumerians and Babylonians (“NĒBERU”)
• “Marduk” in the Babylonian religion
• “Phateon” in the Greek literature, Rides a chariot of fire through our solar system, came too close to Earth and burned it.
• “Nemesis” in the Greek mythology (spirit of retribution against the Godless)
• “Abaddon” (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן‎, ‘Ǎḇaddōn), an intensive form of the word “destruction”, appears as a place of destruction in the Hebrew Bible.
• “Apollyon” in Babylonian mythology (Angel of the bottomless pit, devil)
• “Apollo” in Greek mythology
• “G1.9” as a working title by NASA
• “Eris”, the name given by NASA to the newly discovered 10th planet
• “Planet X” by various astronomers and authors
• “Nemesis” NASA theory, also Issac Asimov book
• “Tyche” NASA theory
• “The Planet of the Crossing” The pictograph sign for the 12th planet the “Planet of the Crossing”, was a cross.
• “Brown Dwarf” is the term that classifies the object in its astrophysical nature
• “Long Tail Heavenly Climbing Star” Ojibwa Tribe
• “Hercolobus and the Seven Races” Gnostic
• “Red Kachina” Hopi Indians

So, you're telling me all of these civilizations, many of which were entirely unaware of each other's existence and often existed thousands of years apart, all somehow knew there was a ghost star orbiting with our sun? And yet all of modern science has found no evidence of this?

When will Nibiru return?

The paper assumes Z broke up then disolved. Throwing that out, when should the next near pass occur?

Ezekiel [6],1:1-18)
“1.1 Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth
month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens
were opened and I saw visions of God.
1.2 On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile,”
​

This quote describes the date Nibiru passed Earth as 594 BC.

(Herodotus [5], Vol. 1,Book 2, 142)
“These events occur rarely, in this report once in 2,800 years.”
Herodotus puts the orbit for great cataclysm’s at 2,800 years.
​

594 BC + 2,800 years = 2206 AD should be the next MAJOR pole shift. Woot, we are all safe! No more Nibiru worries, move along people, nothing to see here.

Seems like some legit sources you've got there. I don't know why scientists don't turn to scripture more often.

Some other things:

This video is laughably fake:
​

As is this one:
​

I'm sure there are other fake videos that I didn't feel like watching.




Your list of mass animal deaths in 2012 is at first glance quite lengthy, to a person unaware that this happens all the time it may seem cause for alarm. What's interesting to me is that the vast majority of it seems to be marine life - which is the most vulnerable to human activities and pollution.

At worst, the elites are planning on killing billions with weather modifying devices, blaming it all on an insterstellar scapegoat, while they hide in the D.U.M.B.s, only to re-emerge into a more tame world with fewer mouths to feed and plentiful job vacancies.

This is a logical fallacy I've as of yet been unable to wrap my head around. The claim that "they" are planning on killing most of the worlds population is absolutely silly and just shows how small of a view of the world the people who make such claims have. Please explain how the "elites" would retain their elite status in a world without the very people who give them that status. Please explain how they would not only survive but retain their standard of living in a world without global supply chains. Lest I neglect the most glaring hole in this claim, anyways - "plentiful job vacancies" right, to be filled by all the people they just killed.

 

[Mick West]

You have to give him credit for admitting where he's provably wrong and correcting his site.

I'm curious though, why noone is bringing up the more bizzare stuff on the site, such as:

To some degree it's an ad-hom attack. Just because someone believes in something strange, it does not always follow that all the claims they make are suspect. Many scientist are also Christians, or Muslims, and have very strange (to me) beliefs about angels and life after death and suchlike, yet can still discuss the weather on a purely scientific basis.

It's a bit of a tough call though - sometimes a person is obviously a little unhinged, and pointing that out can be useful information.

Most people can recognize when someone is being crazy or bizarre. So I generally prefer to not address crazy claims, just let them speak for themselves.

 

[jvnk08]

To some degree it's an ad-hom attack. Just because someone believes in something strange, it does not always follow that all the claims they make are suspect. Many scientist are also Christians, or Muslims, and have very strange (to me) beliefs about angels and life after death and suchlike, yet can still discuss the weather on a purely scientific basis.

It's a bit of a tough call though - sometimes a person is obviously a little unhinged, and pointing that out can be useful information.

Most people can recognize when someone is being crazy or bizarre. So I generally prefer to not address crazy claims, just let them speak for themselves.

Well said Mick. I suppose I am picking at the wrong things here. It should be pretty apparent those things are unhinged at best

 

[rezn8d]

To some degree it's an ad-hom attack. Just because someone believes in something strange, it does not always follow that all the claims they make are suspect. Many scientist are also Christians, or Muslims, and have very strange (to me) beliefs about angels and life after death and suchlike, yet can still discuss the weather on a purely scientific basis.

It's a bit of a tough call though - sometimes a person is obviously a little unhinged, and pointing that out can be useful information.

Most people can recognize when someone is being crazy or bizarre. So I generally prefer to not address crazy claims, just let them speak for themselves.

That article is the summation of all the useless information i scanned over whilst in a Nibiru fueled rampage. Though im sure most of those videos are fake, they have something in common and i found that interesting. Unfortunately the "End of the World" article is mostly for fun, and for speculation. I do fully believe that all the religions of the world point to the same cataclysmic event recurring, as presented in the cornell paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5078

would love to hear your thoughts on that..

 

[Pete Tar]

.... I do fully believe that all the religions of the world point to the same cataclysmic event recurring, as presented in the cornell paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5078

would love to hear your thoughts on that..

In my uneducated non-specialist opinion it's just part of the required formula of any religion - to speak of the ideal state of existence that once was, to explain the current 'degraded' state that is, and to give vague promises and signs of the time to come when it will all be 'fixed' again.
It's just a formula that any religion needs to be successful in the market of capturing human imagination.
To make a case that each religion had some actual, real, esoterically delivered knowledge of the future... that'll take a lot of work.

(well actually people are pretty easily convinced of anything these days, it's really just all in how you collect and present the various unrelated facts. Editing. Add a soundtrack. )

Edit..Oh sorry, you mean they point collectively at a historical event? That's maybe of more substance. But what's the reason for supposing it to be cyclical?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

To make a case that each religion had some actual, real, esoterically delivered knowledge of the future... that'll take a lot of work.
Edit..Oh sorry, you mean they point collectively at a historical event? That's maybe of more substance. But what's the reason for supposing it to be cyclical?