|PRISON PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2003 Alex Jones All rights reserved.|
Nasa Tries to Confuse Contrails With Chemtrails
The latest “research” out of NASA states that CONTRAILS---condensations formed by water exhaust from jets---branch out into pervasive cirrus clouds that blanket the Earth and contribute greatly to global warming.
Hmm. I have read a number of accounts of contrails that claim these resultant formations do not last long at all. Only minutes.
Whereas, CHEMTRAILS, those sky patterns formed by the intentional release of various chemicals and, apparently, biological materials, do last a long time and do form cloud patterns that persist.
I have written about these latter formations before, and there are numerous photos all over the Internet that display them. Here in San Diego, I have seen such chemtrails, and I have seen them last for hours.
Is NASA taking a new tack in an effort to cover up chemtrails with bogus info about contrails?
And what ABOUT global warming? Is it a true phenomenon at all?
Michael Theroux is the head of an outfit called Borderland Sciences. Theroux is a better than good researcher. He called the false Y2K crisis on the nose months and months ahead of time. He has also written some compelling and valid rejections of the portrait of AIDS presented to us by the med research establishment.
Theroux also writes about global warming. Very simply, he lays out the two methods for measuring temperature used by the scientists. Yes, there are two methods.
The first "is to average out temperatures around the world as measured in white louvered boxes called Stevenson Screens, usually mounted one metre above ground...tens of thousands of thermometers world-wide."
"By far," Theroux writes, "the majority [of the Stevenson Screens] are located mostly in cities, and on land." This means that ocean temperatures are ignored, and cities give higher temps as time passes because of the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Towns and cities grow larger as the years pass and produce more heat.
The second method for measuring potential global warming involves the use of satellites to sweep Earth's lower atmosphere above both ocean and land.
Method one says the Earth is warming, and method two says no.
Method one, Theroux says, is an antiquated system.
The two methods of measuring warming are, mysteriously, never discussed or compared in the press.
But this we know. People with causes--even legit causes--will tend to latch on to data poorly collected and use them to bolster their position.
If global warming is really a sham, then all allied research, including NASA’s new study on contrails, is very suspect on that count alone.
For the moment, vis-à-vis the NASA study, I believe the most important point to be settled is this: do CONTRAILS, in fact, produce clouds that persist in the atmosphere for a long time? Everything I’ve read so far says no.
Whereas, numerous observers state that formations produced by CHEMTRAILS do last for a considerable period.
If you want to pursue the subject of chemtrails further, I recommend anything written by William Thomas, a Canadian journalist. Google his name. You’ll find numerous pages.
Thomas states that one of the chemical aerial programs was suggested by Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb. Teller advocated use of widespread seeding, in the atmosphere, with particles of aluminum compounds. They would reflect back the sun’s rays away from Earth and restrain the ongoing (supposed) global warming phenomenon.
Of course, down here on Earth, aluminum is a toxic substance when it enters the body.
It’s clear to
me that the whole subject of chemtrails has been suppressed, to a remarkable
degree, in the mainstream press. Even UFOs get far more coverage than chemtrails.
|FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.|