Try this for another one of Pleiades' freaky links. Microbiologists have been getting themselves whacked over the last few years. The list is pretty extensive dating between late 2002 and first half of 2003. None of the deaths listed are what you would call natural deaths, which therefore leads to claims of a conspiracy. Well, who knows? Here's the Guerney list though:
Dr. Benito Que - found comatose outside his lab. Thought to be a victim of a mugging.
Dr. Don C. Wiley - declared missing a week later. Later found dead in Memphis.
Dr. Vladmiri Pasechnik - Found slain
Robert M. Schwarz - Stabbed to death by satanist youths.
Set Van Nguyen - died of a virulent straing of anthrax.
Kathy Van Nguyen - missing
Dr. Ian Langdord - Died of some cause verifiable by autopsy. He was 40.
Dr. Tanya Holzmayer - shot dead by 'former colleague'.
Dr. Steven Mostow - Plane crash.
Dr. David Wyn-Williams - struck by vehicle while jogging.
Doctors Avishai Berkman, Amiramp Eldor and Yaacov Matzner - Plane crash.
For a more comprehensive list, try this link.
Yesterday I was informed that one of the people who passed away on the plane crash up north was Dr. David Banks, the Australian biosecurity boss who also was a Microbiologist.
Fuel For Paranoia II - Chemtrails
This is more insidious.
Some people have shown that mysterious planes are flying around spreading Barium and Magnesium in the atmosphere to deliberately create Global Dimming in order to hide the effects of global warming. The contention is also that it has been going on for a good decade. Just ignore the stuff about scalar weaponry for a moment as that's another freak out area.
Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any quantity of CO 2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use.
Once a decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle.
Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust (or possibly soot) in the stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of as much CO 2 equivalent per year as we care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO 2 equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would begin immediately.
Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere.
Such dust would have a visible effect, particularly on sunsets and sunrises, and would heat the stratosphere at the altitude of the dust. The heating would have an effect on the chemistry of the stratospheric ozone layer, and this possibility must be considered before major use of such a mitigation system. The amount of dust to be added is within the range of that added from time to time by volcanic eruption, so the effects on climate would not be expected to go beyond those experienced naturally.
However, either the natural or the artificial effects on the chemistry might be very serious under conditions of increased CFC chlorine in the stratosphere, and the result of having these effects continuously must be considered, so the option might not be usable. Better specification of dust characteristics and size for best effect and better data on the fallout rate of dust from various altitudes as well as on chlorine chemistry are needed. It will be important to observe the effects on stratospheric chemistry of any volcanic eruptions that occur, with special attention to separating the effects of dust, aerosol, and hydrochloric acid.
Of these systems to alter the planetary albedo, the increase of low-level marine clouds by increasing CCN and the delivery of dust to the stratosphere by using large rifles seem the most promising. The rifle system appears to be inexpensive, to be relatively easily managed, and to require few launch sites. However, the possible effect of the additional stratospheric dust on ozone chemistry may be a serious problem, and the noise of the rifles would have to be managed. Balloons also appear to be a good possibility, but the return of the balloons to ground level would require
management.Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available if wanted.
Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented. If, however, further analyses support the preliminary conclusions, it will bear further inquiry to decide if they can produce the targeted responses without unacceptable additional effects. The level at which we are currently able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of engineering the global mean radiation balance leaves great uncertainty in both technical feasibility and environmental consequences. This analysis does suggest that further inquiry is appropriate.
It gets a little worse than simply implementing this plan covertly. A writer writes in:
Scott: I caught one of your radio talk shows and have visited your website. It is
one of the best exposé's I've seen on the subject. I've been following this issue since first reports of spider web gunk being dropped from the skies in 1994, along with people getting seriously sick from it. At that point these were merely interesting observations happening 'somewhere else.' That changed as I relaxed on my deck on the first Sunday in June 1998 right before taking off for a week-long seminar. I noticed billowing clouds coming out from behind a jet passing overhead, and it just didn't look like a normal contrail. Within days I broke out with severe hives all over my body (large purple blotches that covered about 30% of my torso), along with pressure pain on my feet and hands, and very achy muscles when doing only about 40% of my normal workouts. After bumping around in the poor excuse we call managed health care in this country, an old-school dermatologist with a 3 pill combo knocked this out over the following 8-12 months. However, milder symptoms are still showing up and I suspect my immune system is merely dealing with it better. My point here is that yes, bodies do have allergic reactions to this stuff they are dumping on us. I also remember the winter of '99 when they showered this area with very heavy chemtrails and in the next 48 hours nearly everyone came down with a hacking cough from which it took many months to recover (I'm still not sure I am totally over it.) Absentee rates at work were around 30%, and although it acted like the flu, and it met the criteria for an 'epidemic', the CDC stated that it was not the flu.On the more technical side, I work as an engineer for a large company, supporting the mechanical systems for integrated chip fabrication plants. I am a degreed mechanical engineer, with professional engineering registration in 3 branches of engineering. By late 1999, it occurred to me that perhaps the best way of gathering data on this was analyzing new and used air filters. One thing that every fab does is move a LOT of outside air through their makeup air handlers, typically hundreds of thousands of cubic feet per minute for a large fab. These particular make up air handlers (MAHs) have 3 levels of filtration: prefilters that are rated at 30% efficiency, intermediate filters at 95%, and final filters that are HEPA filters. HEPAs filter out 99.99+% of the particles larger than .3 microns. Also of interest was the opportunity to analyze a filter from an air handler that ran outside air through it continuously from 1989 to January 1996 when it was taken out of service, prior to the chemtrail program going into 'production' mode locally. I had the samples cut out of each filter, weighed, and dissolved in nitric acid, then analyzed for Ba, Al, and Mg.
(Expensive analysis, and some of the peaks were masked by Ti.) I took the results and normalized them for the known face velocities of the air through the filters and the number of hours each filter was in service. I also had a new, identical HEPA filter analyzed as a control. The results were interesting, to say the least. There is a level of Ba and Al in the new filter media, but Mg was not detected. On the filter that was only in service prior to 1996, the Ba levels were about 30% higher than the new filters, but that isn't much Ba collection in 7 years of operation. It is a good indication of the amount of ambient Ba in the air prior to 1996. Cifford Carnicom (who should be considered a public hero for his efforts on this topic) had researched Ba in the
atmosphere, and said references indicated there really shouldn't be any, and prior to 1996 my data supports that. When I looked at the pick up rate of the other HEPA filters that were in service in 1999, the normalized rate of Ba increase was 255:1 in one case and 601:1 in the other filter. So, my conclusion is that by 1999 there were 2.5 orders of magnitude more Ba in the air than earlier that decade. The ratio on the intermediate filters was 39:1. Doing best guess estimates of probable size based on published filter efficiencies vs. particle size led to a average particle size estimate of 0.18 microns. Due to the limited data set this could be off a bit, but it gives something to work with. Aluminum is prevalent in dust and dirt, so it's presence would not by
itself be alarming. But the normalized amounts should be comparable over time.The results were somewhat unexpected. The pre-1996 filters showed no Al, which
is surprising to me. Probably most of this must have been filtered out as larger
particles in the pre-filters, which I didn't analyze because I knew I was looking for smaller particles. Because no Al (or Mg) was found in the pre-1996 filters, the above normalized ratios can't be used (can't divide by zero), but there was a significant amount of Al, and a moderate amount of Mg showed up. More testing would be interesting to quantify what is going on, but I personally don't need any more 'convincing'. The jury is in. It is happening. I just don't know all of the reasons why. Another place to poke around would be with x-ray technicians and radiologists (I don't know any). All those patients filtering Ba (opaque to x-rays) through their lungs should have required some adjustments in the sensitivity of x-ray equipment or exposure time, however small and gradual over the past several years. I'm sure that astronomers have a lot of data they have stumbled upon since they have to look through this fine particulate haze, but since many of them are federally funded or use funded facilities, they likely can't or won't talk.
So where does that leave you and me when we look up to the sky in Chatswood and see this stuff going on?
- Art Neuro
No comments:
Post a Comment