Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://www.facebook.com/rezn8d/posts/312243078903118


Other than the addition of the graphics for "Monsanto", 1977, and the rezn8d web site, this image is entirely accurate. It's pages 1 and 3 of the following report:
View attachment a067898.pdf
And it was conducted by the Monsanto Research Corporation, and the USAF, in 1977.

What is grossly inaccurate is to describe this as a "chemtrail study". It's a study of the constituents of jet engine exhaust. It's not the study of adding anything to that exhaust, or adding anything to the fuel, or spraying anything from the back of the plane. In short it's the study of normal engine exhaust, which is the exact opposite of what chemtrail theorists claim chemtrails are.

Now you might argue that it's a study of the chemicals in the exhaust trail, and hence its a chem-trail study. But that's disingenuous, misleading by semantics. The creator of this image, Jim Lee, knows full well that the chemtrail community will take this as evidence that Monsanto is somehow involved in a plot to spray people with something (because Monsanto is generally considered to be an evil party in conspiracies by that same community). This is the same Jim Lee who states: 'The chemtrail conspiracy sites are wrong when they state: “commercial flight trails are geoengineering SRM“'.

Jim, if you want to be considered legitimate by anyone outside of the chemtrail community, then I urge you to stop creating such obviously inflammatory and misleading graphics. While you claim to reject "fear-porn", it seems like you are quite deliberately using it here. While it might drive traffic to your site, it does not help your case at all, and serves only to marginalize your voice.
 
Last edited:
U

unregistered

Guest
Monsanto is evil. I can plant a garden full of organic corn, Monsanto can sample my crop and tell me that I am infringing on their patent (because their toxin has now drifted into my garden) and force me to buy their poison. The evidence is that their products are damaging. This is a fact. This is why Europe and now India are throwing them out of their Countries and requiring labels. Many Countries are banning our corn because the animals that eat it are increasingly sick and diseased.

Monsanto and the USAF filing a report together is a fact. Monsanto is very clever with their lobbying efforts. They cozy up to whoever is the power structure, then strong arm their disasterous technology. Current GMO's are destructive in a myriad of ways, this should be known to far more people.

So what is in Spec aid and stadis 450, what are the proprietary ingredients? Can proprietary ingrdients be added downstream. It would seem that this would be the forum to examine this.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The 'evidence' that GM feed makes animals sick is slim and not well done.

Most US livestock eat GM feed and while droughts have damaged the industry, I have not heard any problems from the feed.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Monsanto is evil. I can plant a garden full of organic corn, Monsanto can sample my crop and tell me that I am infringing on their patent (because their toxin has now drifted into my garden) and force me to buy their poison.
That doesn't happen. Monsanto might sue if you try and steal their licensed technology by violating a production contract, but they don't run around forcing people to give up a crop not planted with non-licensed seed. Anybody told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Any variety corn pollen can drift with the wind and contaminate any other corn crop, heirloom, hybrid, open-pollinated or GMO. If you want to grow a specific variety of corn and produce a pure strain of seed, you will have to detassle and bag the seed. This is done every year on millions of acres of land to produce quality seed worldwide.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
That doesn't happen. Monsanto might sue if you try and steal their licensed technology by violating a production contract, but they don't run around forcing people to give up a crop not planted with non-licensed seed. Anybody told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Any variety corn pollen can drift with the wind and contaminate any other corn crop, heirloom, hybrid, open-pollinated or GMO. If you want to grow a specific variety of corn and produce a pure strain of seed, you will have to detassle and bag the seed. This is done every year on millions of acres of land to produce quality seed worldwide.
I remember reading you planted GMO Jay. While I appreciate the possibilities with food crops I was o e of the first to be stomping crops in the UK that gave rise to a ban. We are only just starting our second trial crop. I have read a few papers but I would be interested about your experience.
 

electrojet

New Member
Why is the USAF and Monsanto doing a joint study ? Can that be deboinked?

Monsanto has retained their right to go after organic farmers for patent infringement. See http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-4.htm

Monsanto absolutely has threatened farmers regarding this issue. These cases are well known and the agents that show up have utilized intimidation tactics.

http://m.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
There are several dozen of other farmers who have been treated to threats from Monsanto.

Every study regarding the safety of GM foods that I have seen is done by or through funding from the biotech industry. University Ag studies are biased. A study done by Stanford on Organics with a conclusion that they really aren't worth the extra money is Biotech funded propaganda. nutrient composition of my tomato vs. a store bought tomato is a no brainer despite what the (lol) "studies" say.

A burger from a grass grazing cow that is not vaccinated and grown like a tumor cell vs. the diseased cow that is electroprodded in order to take steps forward is also a no brainer. The grass burger tastes far better.

Super weed developments, intestinal flora changes, huge increases in auto immune issues, increasing use of roundup, false claims of increased productivity, bt cotton issues, on and on bad news.
Being a supporter of current GM tech really baffles me.

Cairenn, research this further. i will cook you up a gm burger and the one where I know the guy who raises his cows and You will taste a world of difference. If you eat them at the same time you will seriously consider never having another bioburger again.

Bryan
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
Why is the USAF and Monsanto doing a joint study ? Can that be deboinked?

Monsanto has retained their right to go after organic farmers for patent infringement. See http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-4.htm

Monsanto absolutely has threatened farmers regarding this issue. These cases are well known and the agents that show up have utilized intimidation tactics.

http://m.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
There are several dozen of other farmers who have been treated to threats from Monsanto.

Every study regarding the safety of GM foods that I have seen is done by or through funding from the biotech industry. University Ag studies are biased. A study done by Stanford on Organics with a conclusion that they really aren't worth the extra money is Biotech funded propaganda. nutrient composition of my tomato vs. a store bought tomato is a no brainer despite what the (lol) "studies" say.

A burger from a grass grazing cow that is not vaccinated and grown like a tumor cell vs. the diseased cow that is electroprodded in order to take steps forward is also a no brainer. The grass burger tastes far better.

Super weed developments, intestinal flora changes, huge increases in auto immune issues, increasing use of roundup, false claims of increased productivity, bt cotton issues, on and on bad news.
Being a supporter of current GM tech really baffles me.

Cairenn, research this further. i will cook you up a gm burger and the one where I know the guy who raises his cows and You will taste a world of difference. If you eat them at the same time you will seriously consider never having another bioburger again.

Bryan
Could you link me a few of your claims mate???
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
Mis- cat. accidentally linked a 17 year old article about blossoming field of weather modification that belongs elstwhere.

This is the article that shows that Monsanto still retains their right to bully farmers with the threat of infringement.

http://althealthworks.com/162/organic-farming-head-on-landmark-gmo-lawsuit/
I was asking about your claims on the physical aspects of GM crops as well as the link to vaccinated cows? What vaccination? I would just like a description of what you mean. Can we start with the vaccinated cows issue?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
And who funded the studies that showed GM to be a problem? You see, if you discount one set of studies, because of who funded it, then you should apply the SAME conditions to the other side.

Personally I think grass fed meat tastes better, but we were discussing the dangers of GM crops.

And companies are often assfedoras on protecting things, like Micky Ds suing a restaurant in Scotland that was named McDonalds . It had been in business for many years and didn't even serve hamburgers. Or Claude Montana suing a hand weaver in Montana for a tag that said, 'Montana grown and woven'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unless you are talking about the Bible, please don't include Bible quote. The Bible is not a topic in this thread. Including Bible quotes is just distracting from the topic.

Any more Bible quotes will result in the entire post that includes them being deleted.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I can see that there might be difference in the intestinal flora between a corn fed cow and a grass fed one. It wouldn't matter if the corn was organic corn. I would expect that a vegetarian, an Ova-lacto vegetarian, a Piscarian a pure carnivore and someone eating a common mixed diet would vary also.

But I see a bunch of things listed that I can't see how they would influence things
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This is the article that shows that Monsanto still retains their right to bully farmers with the threat of infringement.

http://althealthworks.com/162/organic-farming-head-on-landmark-gmo-lawsuit/
That article actually notes exactly the opposite:

Now the guy being interviewed goes on to express his doubts about the usefulness of this statement by monsanto, and lists other problems with their product (contamination of organic crops mainly) that have nothign to do with prosecution - but basically you just screwed your argument!
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Biggerdave,

I'm not at my home computer. This link has some basic info on hormones and antibiotic issues. http://www.m.webmd.com/diet/features/safer-food-healthier-you
and this
http://www.drheise.com/beef.htm

Hopefully there isn't still an issue with utilizing euthanized dogs and cats and other strange sources of remnants for feeding of live stock.

Any way to get an Animal really big real fast is good for profits. I may be able to post better later if I can find the links again. The GM crops I definitely have links about farmers reverting to natural foods and improvements in flock health. Much of it is anecdotal, so I have a compilation of links from Europe, The mideast (India primarily) and the U.S.


Cairenn,

I agree that neutrality is a rare component. If I read a published study about gene transference (bio tech assured everyone this would not happen) then it requires individual discernment and hopefully more studies to confirm or deny it.
As for Leviticus and all scripture it is always best to let scripture interpret scripture which is easier said than done.


Bryan
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Mile,

The guy that is interviewed addresses a few specific concerns. The Monsanto statement on their website is not a signed statement and re; the language regarding the definition of trace amounts. If farmer Joe has a field that has been largely contaminated by Monsanto's gene inserted pesticide crop they can pursue action. Also my disagreement with Jay is regarding his claim that Monsanto doesn't utilize force. In the past they HAVE tried to intimidate and threaten many farmers. Doesn't matter if they planned to pursue action, they have often sent pairs of authoritative speaking Men wearing suits and badges. The evil moniker is not hard to understand when You examine their tactics and history.

“I'm not trying to counsel any of you to do anything really special except dare to think. And to dare to go with the truth. And to dare to really love completely.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Do you have any evidence of euthanized dogs and cats going to rendering plants?

You say that the animal's health improved, did they do other things like reduce the herd of flock size, allow for more outside air? I could continue.

Do you have real evidence of the Monsanto' men's intimidation?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Hi Mile,

The guy that is interviewed addresses a few specific concerns. The Monsanto statement on their website is not a signed statement
I don't think this is relevant - as an official website acknowledged by the company any content can be pointed to as company policy.

and re; the language regarding the definition of trace amounts.
Indeed - it might seem quite strange Monsanto would leave this up to the courts - but in fact they have no option - they could put up an amount but hte courts would still decide whether those amounts weer fair and reasonable anyway - it is not actually up to Monsanto to set legal limits for these definitions!

but again it is actually evidence that Monsanto do not intend to prosecute everyone come what may.

Sorry about that.
 

lotek

Active Member
they get turned into fuel/lipstick, not food.

heres a local AC's sheet on the subject

http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_031226.pdf

this again comes down to the consumer... if youd pay more for product the producers would be more than happy to not do all this crap... industry is catching up with it'self on many fronts, you cannot expect it to be omnipotent.

as a chef i refuse to sell fried cheese... you are welcome. but people still want it and buy it elsewhere.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
If we could reduce the kill rate, then the shelters would not have to let a rendering plant pick them up. All cities do not, in some areas I believe that there are laws to prevent it. Often that is a city by city thing.
 

lotek

Active Member
Not worth the money to keep them alive... keep people from breeding/buying at petshops/not fixing their pets, render away, and that will fix the problem.

might as well lower methane/CO production from rot/cremation and get a cash return from recycling. after all rendering is the most green kind of recycling we do, people just dont like thinking about it.

i see no issue with rendering. why is it okay for every animal but pets? why does it matter what happens to them its dead organic material. i get concerns about drug contamination, but id rather we first deal with the much larger problem of human excreted drugs/metabolites entering the water supply via the sewer system.
 
Top