Look up in the sky

[AirHoss]

these things cannot be true.

Truth has nothing to do with paranoid fantasy. Unfortunately, you can rarely prove a negative. The nutbars will take cold comfort in that. Something is only "true" if it backs up their claims, even if it is realistically or scientifically unviable. They don't want facts or evidence. Much like religion, they only want the continuation of the fantasy. Anything to the contrary is portrayed as misinformation or misdirection.

[50-ish]

Truth has nothing to do with paranoid fantasy. Unfortunately, you can rarely prove a negative. The nutbars will take cold comfort in that. Something is only "true" if it backs up their claims, even if it is realistically or scientifically unviable. They don't want facts or evidence. Much like religion, they only want the continuation of the fantasy. Anything to the contrary is portrayed as misinformation or misdirection.

your words are not a reflection of those you seek to belittle, only of your own prejudices.

According To Government Document Tropospheric Aerosol Program Plan (2001) Concerns About The Health Effects HIGH
Back in the early days of 2001 when the DOE (U.S. Department Of Energy) began polluting the planet directly over U.S. soil, and then eventually on a global scale via the IAGC, they had a government funded program called TAPP – Tropospheric Aerosol Program Plan. TAPP was morphed into the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program in 2005 and then further assimilated into the above mentioned IAGC.
Find the TAPP gov domain home page at: http://www.asp.bnl.gov/tap.html

Once there you can click the image of the TAPP coverpage and download the actual program plan ala .pdf. Or for the less motivated click this link for the direct download.

PAGE 4: Table 1.1. Illustration of Institutional Priorities for Strategic Elements Addressing the Health Effects Associated with Airborne fine Particles. This table illustrates that the TAPP program contribution of pollution to the planet using Symbols H, M, and L denote high, medium, and low, respectively. The metric for this test is health effects associated with airborne fine particles. Compared to the other “natural, or unexplained” columns, the TAPP column was ALL H’s and M’s. In other words they admit to the HIGH HEALTH HAZARD their ‘research model’ will pose on one’s health.
That’s about all I could bear to read, but if you skim to the beginning of Appendix B Instrumentation and Characterization Techniques Available for Use in TAP you can follow the legend down the column in the table titled “Airborne Platform” (i.e. chemplane). You’ll see that they spent about $5 million on an SIMS (Secondary Ionization Mass Spectrometer) for selected organics, HNO3, PAN and a Mobility aerosol analyzer for aerosol size distribution 0.01 to 1 μm. Considering the above mentioned pumps and manifolds, it’s quite clear that TAPP is designed to pollute America and measure the effectiveness.
Science needs a test model which can be reasonably reproduced. This means the researchers must create their model in order to study it.

CS: I had trouble downloading it from the government website. It has also been posted at this link: http://www.monkeypuppet.net/truth/usgovernment/TAPPgPln.pdf

[50-ish]

i copied this from somewhere long ago. but can't remember where at the moment:

"Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]
Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)
However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population, and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep 2009.[12])

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:
“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”
In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]
Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:
“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material ….”
The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”
Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.
Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since much can be earned on the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)
Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset the deleterious effects of industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.
Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:
“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”
ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”
Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18] This year, National Geographic and Yes! Magazine dedicated entire issues to water.

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”
Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:
2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;
2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;
2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;
2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.
Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 Weather Modification Assn. published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21]
In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its position statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, WMO asserts it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.
Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.
At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:
“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.
“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.
They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.
The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:
‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”

Recommendations
“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs.
Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.
Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.
Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:
The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.
Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.
Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 95-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct, it seems, in asserting that such programs are legal, if reprehensible, in the U.S.

Conclusion
For centuries, military leaders have recognized that it rains after a heavy battle. But harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. (See Brief History, below.) The historical record has many such stories: misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. Eventually, though, science met the challenge.
If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the modern environmental modification program is 67 years old. We saw its military use in Vietnam in the 1960s. China openly used it in 2008 to clear the skies for the Olympics.
In 1978, world leaders addressed the moral and ecological issues of using such technologies as a weapon of war by banning their use. Almost thirty years later, in 2007, the World Meteorological Organization complained that EnMod funds were moving from research into operations. Three years later, in May of this year, the United Nations proposed the ban of EnMod operations, calling for further research.
Even with a couple obvious holes in research, the Case Orange report is essentially correct: officials are spraying the skies, and they’re not fully disclosing these activities. Corporate media is colluding with officials in keeping these operations secret from the public.
But, the public has a right to know and governments have a duty to fully disclose all environmental modification operations. The impacts on our health and environment need to be fully understood, and informed consent from the populace needs to be a part of any EnMod operation.


A Brief History of Cloud Seeding
Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.

1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]
Charles Hatfield’s rain washes out dam 1915, San Diego. Dozens died.

1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when [the British Royal Air Force subjected Hamburg] to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]

1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]

1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]

1949 Project Cirrus: From a desert near Albuquerque, Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico. [31]

1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit with the toxic fallout. [36]

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.

Notes:
[1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010 proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test
[2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/
[3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d. (Translated from Dutch to English by Google): http://snipurl.com/10oirj
[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
[5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010. PDF without appendices: http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf
[6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html
[7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.
[8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic ‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912
[9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html
[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm
[11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf] http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT__4september2010_.pdf
[12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’,” New Scientist, 1 Sep 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html
[13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent 3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144
[14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102
[15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft Company. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186
[16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science Insider, 26 Jan 2010.http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html.
[17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance: Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb 2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073
[18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right/
[19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August 1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
[20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org/
[21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009. http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf
[22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature 418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences:http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf
[24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,” Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010.http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf
[25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf
[27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml
[28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545
[29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.
[30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University: [url]http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html[/url]
Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml
[31] Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950. http://snipurl.com/10oir8
[32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52. http://snipurl.com/10oirc
[33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’: Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html
Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm
[34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.http://snipurl.com/10oiqw
[35] ibid. pp. 54-60.
[36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr 2007. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html
[37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese ‘Weather Manipulation Missile’ Olympics,” Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics/
[38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009. reposted at[url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U
[/url]

[50-ish]

and of course the real reason we are not supposed to be talking about this, right?:

http://www.coalitionoftheobvious.com/3436120-UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty.pdf

[goatboy]

PAGE 4: Table 1.1. Illustration of Institutional Priorities for Strategic Elements Addressing the Health Effects Associated with Airborne fine Particles. This table illustrates that the TAPP program contribution of pollution to the planet using Symbols H, M, and L denote high, medium, and low, respectively. The metric for this test is health effects associated with airborne fine particles. Compared to the other “natural, or unexplained” columns, the TAPP column was ALL H’s and M’s. In other words they admit to the HIGH HEALTH HAZARD their ‘research model’ will pose on one’s health.

If you read the report (and a lot of it was way over my head) I see the table completely differently. The report states:
'Table 1 lists critical elements of scientific
knowledge that are needed to understand the
links between emissions and exposure. Also
included is an assessment, based on current
knowledge, of the relative importance of these
elements to human health concerns"

and

"The field experiments envisioned in the TAP
design will incorporate a major airborne
sampling component. Thus important “targets
of opportunity” will present themselves to
conduct cooperative projects with atmospheric
radiation research projects to determine the
fine particle optical effects that bear on
visibility and radiative transfer over urban and
rural areas of the U.S."

I read this as saying that H,M and L on the table is the priority that the TAP program puts on observing the effects of each of these types of particles, not what TAP was going to spray into the atmosphere. I also could not find anywhere that it said they would be spraying chemicals into the atmosphere either, just taking samples of existing particles. If you can point out where I'm wrong, I would be open to that.

Here is a link to the DOE website that contains the report:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=780683

[goatboy]

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

I believe this is true. However, what I do also find interesting is that it took 1,100 "missiles" to alter the weather over one single city for a one day event. Now multiply that out over changing the weather for years over half the globe and consider whether that is even possible........

[Fancy]

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=26277
Cloud seeding is well known.

[goldpot501]

I wonder how will the emtrails debunkers feel once it the poisonous aerial attack finally affects them, their children or the ones yet to be born into this toxic soup.. I see them daily, yes every day, its like clock work. The criss crossing starts between 3.00 and 4.00 am, with out fail. At those hours one can actually see how the dark straight streaks begin to cover the stars in its paths. Usually the show begins north west of Kelowna and the current carries those emtrails in ever spreading fashion eastward. So by the time head into the city to work there is no star in sight anywhere.
Which seems to block the sunrise and the planes keep that up till late at night, each and every day.
Just because one does not see them because of already existing clouds does not mean they are not at it. The spraying goes on because once one is outside the city noises the planes are quite audible. In many instances lately they fly rather low and the air becomes saturated and quite unpleasant to breathe. On saturday 16, feb , at 2pm there was an unmistakeable fish smell in the air, lasting for about hour and a half.
The results are, I can speak from personal experience, headache, unexplained night sweating, upper chest pain to the left side of upper lungs. No there is no need to say I need to see a physician, because I did. Also there is no need to say all this can be explained by winter wood smoke, Anyone saying this are NORMAL, harmless aircraft planes, does need to though.
There is NO amount of money being deposited in my bank account that would persuade me to betray the human kind. I know we are under aerial attack, daily! And maybe, just maybe if more people can tear themself's from the idiot box that are so good in convincing so many people that all is well in sky's above, we might see a massive awakening of population. Followed by real changes!
I know, this posting will be responded to in all to familliar fashion: where do you get that info, if it is not confirmend by Ottawa selected weather man, bonafide scientist approved by powers to be, then it has no merit. But I no longer believe the former, rather I think they are lying trough their teeth. In fact, anyone telling people that those are just *normal* ontrails from aircrafts, is!

[Nebula]

goldpot, you are entitled to your opinion, as are those who do not agree with you. I'll base my opinion on science and fact. You can base yours on whatever you wish.

[goldpot501]

I couldnt possibly add much to Your comment. I agree with You, thank You!!!!!!! Your info comes from weatherman and enviromental agencies, bread and butter and mine from merely taking a real good look and smell, no, not roses.

[Nebula]

I couldnt possibly add much to Your comment. I agree with You, thank You!!!!!!! Your info comes from weatherman and enviromental agencies, bread and butter and mine from merely taking a real good look and smell, no, not roses.

My info does not come from weathermen and environmental agencies.

I look real good too. I also smell. No chemtrails.

[zzontar]

My info does not come from weathermen and environmental agencies.

I look real good too. I also smell. No chemtrails.

True, but just because there are no chemtrails doesn't mean the effects can't be deadly. Example:

I believe I had a bran muffin and chilli induced flatulence episode at about 7:30 p.m. Given the distance between Penticton and I, and the speed of sound, the smell ought to be getting there right about.... now....

[goldpot501]

With all due respect ,Nebula, You have me confused now. Reading Your past posts You do consider Ministry of Enviroment which employs, ahem, gouverment approved meterologist", scientists, a credibile source for Your previous comments. Therefore I reckon, no need for anyone to look up and judge for themself's if the spewed filth is normal or not.
I read also that weather modification is been with us for long time and is admitted by other countries and not just in its country of origin, south from us.
So I am not the only one of the opinion that the weather modification is alive and well? Now therein lies the problem, it can not be done without *chemicals* for instance creating rain clouds. Silver Cholide is necesseary component. We can say goodby to our Thyroid gland's, from that attack alone!
And that just by *harmless weather* modification alone!
Thank you all for following my logic so far. I therefore maintain that since the *chemicals/metals ARE proven, involved in the seeding clouds, poisoning of our air, those trails behind the seeding aircraft are without the doubt ,properly named *hemtrails! So they exist regardless who pay you, for noble effort of debunking. My I humbly suggest that by denying the existence of the above mentioned ongoing phenomenom You are not, being helpful in assuring full and healthy life, for population of Okanagan and world at large, Yours included! And I do apologize for gramar indiscretions, I could never be a debunker, just not slick and polished enough....

[Fancy]

This thread isn't about weather modification or cloud seeding. It's about people believing all the planes 'trails that stay for long periods of time contain chemicals that are deliberately being sprayed for some nefarious purpose. That simply isn't true.

[goatboy]

W
So I am not the only one of the opinion that the weather modification is alive and well?

Weather modification exists, not just on a global, conspiracy scale.