If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A few hundred people? Really? Do you have any idea of the number of people required to keep a single 747 flying?

As to your references to the other projects...130,000 people on the Manhattan project. Did you read the whole reference? How many of them do you think had any idea of what the factory or housing or offices they were building were for? Look at just the cost of the project...miniscule compared to most Gov projects.

As for the F-117...the numbers may look big (since you highlighted them)...but thats 10 flights over a period of 24 hrs carrying an average of 74 people per flight. That's probably less than an hours worth of flights from Las Vegas McCarran. You are also talking about the same company that had done the SR71 and the U2 prior. Those employees knew how to keep their mouths shut.

Both of the above had specific defined goals. People weren't just told...go fly this plane and spray this stuff all over the world.

Your 2 dozen 747's has already been shot down elsewhere. Maybe someone else can direct you to the appropriate place.
I disagree with all your points . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
George, how do you reconcile that fact that the vast majority of aircraft filmed issuing "chemtrails" are commercial jets with no room on board for the equipment seen in these pages?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
TW, I don't think George is saying these are chemtrail planes. He was commenting on how they are perceived by believers.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, how do you reconcile that fact that the vast majority of aircraft filmed issuing "chemtrails" are commercial jets with no room on board for the equipment seen in these pages?
I never said the commercial aircraft did . . . I have stated that contrails (both persistent and non persistent) have climatic consequences however . . . and have presented a hypothetical program using dedicated aircraft to inject sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You might want to review George's theory before embarking down that road, and perhaps follow up there.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/66...-Covert-Atmospheric-Aerosol-Injection-Program

George basically thinks it's likely there's something going on, but it's going on in such a way that's there's no evidence it's going on. So no video.

The lack of evidence is a testimony to the abilities of those possibly engaged in such a program . . . LoL!!! Seems very logical to me . . . is that not the definition of a covert program . . . they are just very good at what they do . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
That lack of evidence should be taken as evidence of the capability of a massive operation at hiding itself is a standard CT meme - bizarre IMO, but quite common.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That lack of evidence should be taken as evidence of the capability of a massive operation at hiding itself is a standard CT meme - bizarre IMO, but quite common.
I don't think the lack of evidence is necessarily evidence of something . . . it is just simply there is no evidence that is clearly attributable to preemptive geoengineering. I don't think that is so unusual . . . F117a was designed, built and even flew in combat before it was finally revealed . . . I was in the AF during the entire time and had no clue it existed . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
You weren't paying attention then. There were rumours about the existence of the F117A many years before it was revealed. There were photos of triangular shaped aircraft taken. The press and conspiracy theorists had a field day when one crashed in 1986 near Bakersfield. It is incredibly difficult to keep a new aircraft secret in an open society. To openly fly them whilst dumping chemicals means they would be spotted. Guaranteed.

I remember buying this circa 1989... when no-one knew the designation.

[video=youtube_share;mErEdWCSZtY]http://youtu.be/mErEdWCSZtY[/video]
 

MikeC

Closed Account
But there was still evidence for it from before it was built - there were articles in magazines, snippets of information - a summary is available here.

And the existence of the programme was officially announced on August 22, 1980, Defense Secretary Harold Brown held a press conference - excerpts of the text are at page 42 of this 7mb pdf, and include this:

Dr. Brown: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I am announcing today a major technological advance of great military significance.

This so-called "stealth" technology enables the United States to build manned and unmanned aircraft that cannot be successfully intercepted with existing air defense systems. We have demonstrated to our
satisfaction that the technology works... For three years, we have successfully maintained the security of this program. This is because of the conscientious efforts of the relatively few people in the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch who were briefed on the activity and of the contractors working on it.

However, in the last few months, the circle of people knowledgeable about the program has widened, partly because of the increased size of the effort, and partly because of the debate under way in the
Congress on new bomber proposals. Regrettably, there have been several leaks about the stealth program in the last few days in the press and television news coverage...
Content from External Source
The F-117 was "fully" revealed to the public in photographs in 1988, and its first combat mission was actually Panama in 1989 - so you are incorrect about it having flown in combat befoer being revealed.

Evidence does nto have to be all encompassing to be credible - but it does have to exist, and to use the lack of evidence as evidence of existence is, I repeat, IMO bizarre.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You weren't paying attention then. There were rumours about the existence of the F117A many years before it was revealed. There were photos of triangular shaped aircraft taken. The press and conspiracy theorists had a field day when one crashed in 1986 near Bakersfield. It is incredibly difficult to keep a new aircraft secret in an open society. To openly fly them whilst dumping chemicals means they would be spotted. Guaranteed.

I remember buying this circa 1989... when no-one knew the designation.

[video=youtube_share;mErEdWCSZtY]http://youtu.be/mErEdWCSZtY[/video]
And are there not pictures of what people think are chemtrails all over the place ??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But there was still evidence for it from before it was built - there were articles in magazines, snippets of information - a summary is available here.

And the existence of the programme was officially announced on August 22, 1980, Defense Secretary Harold Brown held a press conference - excerpts of the text are at page 42 of this 7mb pdf, and include this:

Dr. Brown: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I am announcing today a major technological advance of great military significance.

This so-called "stealth" technology enables the United States to build manned and unmanned aircraft that cannot be successfully intercepted with existing air defense systems. We have demonstrated to our
satisfaction that the technology works... For three years, we have successfully maintained the security of this program. This is because of the conscientious efforts of the relatively few people in the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch who were briefed on the activity and of the contractors working on it.

However, in the last few months, the circle of people knowledgeable about the program has widened, partly because of the increased size of the effort, and partly because of the debate under way in the
Congress on new bomber proposals. Regrettably, there have been several leaks about the stealth program in the last few days in the press and television news coverage...
Content from External Source
The F-117 was "fully" revealed to the public in photographs in 1988, and its first combat mission was actually Panama in 1989 - so you are incorrect about it having flown in combat befoer being revealed.

Evidence does nto have to be all encompassing to be credible - but it does have to exist, and to use the lack of evidence as evidence of existence is, I repeat, IMO bizarre.
The existence of a stealth program and an operational aircraft hid from public disclosure is possibly not a bad analogy . . . is that like the open discussion about the study, cost analysis, and computer modeling of geoengineering which could predate the revealing of the existence of ongoing geoengineering??
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Not really. Stealth "studies" or theories had been around since the 1960's - the revelations from the late 1970's were about the existence of actual programmes, aircraft and spending.

So a pretty poor analogy.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To openly fly them whilst dumping chemicals means they would be spotted. Guaranteed.

Why would someone conducting a covert program fly in a way to reveal what they are doing . . . ? Flights at night, above heavy cloud cover, over polar routes, over large expanses of desert or water . . . and if the injections are invisible as sulfur compounds may well be . . . there may be no significant reason to hide anything once at altitude . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Not really. Stealth "studies" or theories had been around since the 1960's - the revelations from the late 1970's were about the existence of actual programmes, aircraft and spending.

So a pretty poor analogy.
I don't get your point . . ?? Are you saying there was a long history of discussion predating the flight and reveal of the aircraft and that is not true of geoengineering??

History of statospheric injection proposals . .

-- 1974: Mikhail Budyko proposed injecting sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere to cool the earth (like volcanoes)
-- Early 1990s: Edward Teller and collaborators proposed putting designer (nanotech) particles into the stratosphere to deflect sunlight
-- Teller was father of the H-bomb, principal architect of “Star Wars” Defense Initiative, and inspiration for Dr. Strangelove

-- 1992: The National Academy of Sciences issues a detailed study on geoengineering options, including a cost-benefit analysis for each option
-- 2006: Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize winner for ozone hole) says we should consider it
-- The scope and speed of climate changes due to increasing CO2 -- coupled with the lack of any progress on mitigation
– requires sulfate aerosol geoengineering solution be seriously considered

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dargan/111/111_21.pdf

Stratospheric Sulfur Injections
• Designed to imitate volcano eruptions
• Inject a sulfate aerosol precursor (such as sulfur dioxide SO2) into the stratosphere that then forms sulfuric acid solutions & eventually small particles.
• These aerosols increase earth’s albedo by reflecting solar radiation back to space.
• When injected really high up & if the particles remain small, they take a long time to fall out (months).
• Cheap compared to some estimates of mitigation costs, 10-20 billion $US/year
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Do you really not see that leaks about the actual existence of an actual programme and aircraft and spending are not an analogy to "leaks" regarding studies??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Do you really not see that leaks about the actual existence of an actual programme and aircraft and spending are not an analogy to "leaks" regarding studies??
1) The studies are not leaks . . . they are real studies about the costs, technology, and modeling of geoengineering . . . real money has been spent on satellites, aerosol studies, computer modeling . . .
2) Your information released about stealth technology is basically the same thing
3) The only difference between the two . . . one has been announced as an operational aircraft and the other is stilled denied for plausible reasons . . .
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
"Could be..." is not an argument for "is"
This right here... identifies the problem we are having with the debate vs debunking issue.

Debunked, means there is no "could be". He is not arguing that it "is", he is simply making the case that the issue has not been debunked as there are no facts showing how it would be impossible. Sure you can debunk aluminum, because we have tested for it... but you can't debunk spraying itself, because there are infinite tests for infinite possibilities of infinite materials that "could be" sprayed.

You guys are using "debunked" on way to broad of a scope. You need to debunk details, not the subject itself. I hope this clears things up. We are not trying to be argumentative, we are trying to be factually accurate.

Saying something is debunked, is a positive statement. We are merely challenging this statement, not the possibilities nor lack of possibilities for any given subject.

Debate and debunk can go hand in hand and work together just fine, just as long as you make sure that you do not debunk the debate itself, and instead stick to debunking facts.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
Hey George... Assuming your ICAAIP was in operation, how much would you estimate that it would change the climate? Say, give or take, 10%? (I bet you can see where I am heading with this)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
1/ Yes real money has ben spent on studies - but ther is no knformation regarding "real money" being spent on an actual programme - again if yuo do not understand hte difference there is little I can do.
2/ No it is not. the information o the stealth programme was information about anactual programme thatactually existed and actual aircraft built for it. Not studies about how it might work Again, if you do not see hte difference I am at a loss.
3/ If that is the only difference you choose to see then I am sorry for your cognitive dissonance.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1/ Yes real money has ben spent on studies - but ther is no knformation regarding "real money" being spent on an actual programme - again if yuo do not understand hte difference there is little I can do.
2/ No it is not. the information o the stealth programme was information about anactual programme thatactually existed and actual aircraft built for it. Not studies about how it might work Again, if you do not see hte difference I am at a loss.
3/ If that is the only difference you choose to see then I am sorry for your cognitive dissonance.
1) There are Billions of dollars spent each year on Black projects . . . that is a known fact . . . don't you think a covert program (if it existed) would be funded in that way . . . black budgets do not reveal the projects the money is spent on . . .
2) How did you know it was an actual program?? Because an aircraft was eventually constructed and flew . . . I am sure several concepts also never got off the drawing board like the Aurora Aircraft. . . you are assuming geoengineering is not an actual program . . .
3) I have no cognitive dissonance . . . you have me mistaken for someone else . . . I am fully comfortable and in sync with my positions . . . you may want to psychoanalyze yourself . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hey George... Assuming your ICAAIP was in operation, how much would you estimate that it would change the climate? Say, give or take, 10%? (I bet you can see where I am heading with this)
Answer: IMO The percentage would be engineered to nudge the climate in the desired direction without risking catastrophic side effects, would be reversible if need be, and be as close as possible to background noise to avoid detection . . . IMO would be equivalent to around 1-2 Tg of Sulfur Compounds Injected into the stratosphere within one year . . . I don't know if it can be expressed in percentage of change . . . but would be low . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
1/ Irrelevant - the difference betwene the 2 expenditurres is obvious - the information as leaked about stealth, it was for an actual project. the expenditure on studies for geo-engineering is not in the black budget, and as yuohavebeen pointed out yourself is not "leaked" - so there are 2 major points of difference that make the comparison a poor one.
2/ there is no actual information identifying any actual geoengineering programme - I do not have to assume that.
3/ no - I have not mistaken you for someone else. People with cognitive dissonance aer comfortable with their positions - the CD is what enables tem to be comfortable. You clearly have information showing your position is untenable, but you ignore it, obsfucaet around it and raise irrelevant points to allow yourself to ignore it. Hence you are able to know that you are wrong, and ignore that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
Debunked, means there is no "could be".

No it does not.

It means that ""could be" is not "is", that "I believe..." is not "is", that "because I says so" is not "is", and that incorrect evidence is not "is".

As i have said in another post - your opinion or belief is not actually open to being debunked. Nor is speculation that remains speculation - but when you start introducing evidence, claiming somethign as fact, stating that thsi is how speculation could be achieved, etc then you are saying that somethign is true - and such statements can be debunked........when they are bunk.

He is not arguing that it "is", he is simply making the case that the issue has not been debunked as there are no facts showing how it would be impossible. Sure you can debunk aluminum, because we have tested for it... but you can't debunk spraying itself, because there are infinite tests for infinite possibilities of infinite materials that "could be" sprayed.

that is trivial and pointless. there might also be a starship enterprise orbitting earth right now.....so what?

He has suggested how a programme could be achieved in the real world - as such his assumptions and measurements are able to be examined and debunked if htey have bunk.

There has never been any doubt that technically "stuff" can be sprayed from aircraft - there is ample evidence that it is done right here on metabunk.

You guys are using "debunked" on way to broad of a scope. You need to debunk details, not the subject itself.
go back and read what has actualy been "debunked" - it is how many a/c it would take, how much load they can carry, etc.
I hope this clears things up. We are not trying to be argumentative, we are trying to be factually accurate.[/quoet]

It clears it up for me - you have no idea at all what debunking is.

I will restrain myself from commenting on your claim to be trying to be factually accurate!

Saying something is debunked, is a positive statement. We are merely challenging this statement, not the possibilities nor lack of possibilities for any given subject.

by all means challenge it - show that what has been said to be bunk is not bunk at all.

Debate and debunk can go hand in hand and work together just fine, just as long as you make sure that you do not debunk the debate itself, and instead stick to debunking facts.

Yes - try that some time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So what? I agree. As long as nobody says that a starship orbiting the earth right now is debunked then there obviously is no problem.

They don't though, do they. They simply say there's no evidence of a starship orbiting the earth.

Of course it could be cloaked. Like George's covert chemtrail program could be undetectable. But speculating that something exists and is undetectable is rather pointless.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1/ Irrelevant - the difference betwene the 2 expenditurres is obvious - the information as leaked about stealth, it was for an actual project. the expenditure on studies for geo-engineering is not in the black budget, and as yuohavebeen pointed out yourself is not "leaked" - so there are 2 major points of difference that make the comparison a poor one.
2/ there is no actual information identifying any actual geoengineering programme - I do not have to assume that.
3/ no - I have not mistaken you for someone else. People with cognitive dissonance aer comfortable with their positions - the CD is what enables tem to be comfortable. You clearly have information showing your position is untenable, but you ignore it, obsfucaet around it and raise irrelevant points to allow yourself to ignore it. Hence you are able to know that you are wrong, and ignore that.
You feel I do not have evidence which makes my position tenable . . . that is your opinion of my position . . . I have very sound reasons for my position . . . becasue I cannot convince you in no way invalidates my position . . . sorry . . . I am not avoiding any conflicting feelings . . . I have studied the possibility of preemptive geoengineering for three years and I see no evidence which proves my position is untenable . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) One cannot deny stratospheric geoengineering has been researched, modeled, and cost analyzed . . .
2) One cannot deny there are heavy lift aircraft capable of flight in the lower stratosphere . . .
3) One cannot deny there is sufficient sources of substances which could be injected into the stratosphere . . .
4) One cannot deny there have been calls from responsible people to mitigate global warming. . .
5) One cannot deny there are organizations capable of covert operations
6) One cannot deny there is adequate budget to initiate some level of geoengineering

The biggest single evidence pointed to by debunkers is it cannot have happened because you couldn't have hidden all those activities without someone finding out about it . . . I believe it could have and can still be ongoing . . .
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Why would someone conducting a covert program fly in a way to reveal what they are doing . . . ? Flights at night, above heavy cloud cover, over polar routes, over large expanses of desert or water . . .
and if the injections are invisible as sulfur compounds may well be . . .

That all contradicts this

And are there not pictures of what people think are chemtrails all over the place ??

Apparently none of the pictures of what people think are chemtrails are from your hypothetical covert program.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That all contradicts this



Apparently none of the pictures of what people think are chemtrails are from your hypothetical covert program.
It is not a contradiction at all . . . my hypothetical ICAAIP scenario requires relatively few aircraft not flown 365 days/24/7 at all . . . would represent only a tiny fraction of air traffic . . . with no requirement to leave a persistent contrail at all . . .

I never took the position geoengineering requires visible contrails . . . in fact why call attention to yourself ???
 

Latest posts

Top