• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemtrails again

I must have missed something. Who accused you of faking a photo? That photo? What?

The contrail document is invaluable. Thanks. I was just talking about something it contains information on, very cool.
 
MRC_Hans said:
However, that is mainly because they tend to form at 30,000 ft, at temperatures below -50 deg C. You don't want to try to breathe there at all.

Hans
Click to expand...

Try is about all the average person could do...
Although Everest (29012 feet) has been climbed 1 time without suplimental O2 by a crazy dude.
 
rwguinn said:
Try is about all the average person could do...
Although Everest (29012 feet) has been climbed 1 time without suplimental O2 by a crazy dude.
Click to expand...
Messner and Habeler reached the summit in 1978 without supplemental oxygen. Messner also did it again in 1980 in a solo attempt. I think several other climbers have also reached the summit without supplemental oxygen since then.

They are all definitely crazy though, and no doubt suffer (some) brain damage breathing at those altitudes, with such low oxygen levels, for prolonged periods. I know there was a recent BBC Horizon documentary about some British doctors who climbed Everest (with supplemental oxygen) to do various tests, the blood taken from the doctors that made the summit was actually blue!
 
Last edited:
Spins said:
I know there was a recent BBC Horizon documentary about some British doctors who climbed Everest (with supplemental oxygen) to do various tests, the blood taken from the doctors that made the summit was actually blue!
Click to expand...

Unlikely, since deoxygenated blood is still red. Unless they were lobsters of course.
 
I have, what I am sure is a moronic question. I have been trying to track down this reference

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.
Click to expand...
I have tried to track down the original "law" and I cannot find it - I can find the self references to this quote all over the place but I have not succeeded in finding the actual law.

Anyone actually seen it?
 
Last edited:
Deus Ex Machina said:
I have, what I am sure is a moronic question. I have been trying to track down this reference

I have tried to track down the original "law" and I cannot find it - I can find the self references to this quote all over the place but I have not succeeded in finding the actual law.

Anyone actually seen it?
Click to expand...

I found this:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520----000-.html

It lists as "repealed".

I'm no lawyer, so it's sort of a struggle to look legal stuff up, but I do know this: Laws are normally cited/listed/referenced in the manner this page lays out:

http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/lawsandrules.htm

So you need to look up the "Title" (Title 50 in this case), then the "section" (1520 in this case) to get anywhere.

I'll see what else I can dig up, but that's what I've gotten so far.
 
Oh, great, half the links in Google for that Title and Section are chemtrail woo sites. Yeah, I'll get accurate, unbiased info there. :rolleyes:

I think anything regarding this law would have to be in the hands of a real legal expert, not a chemtrail fantasist. My legal skills pretty much stop dead at looking stuff up.
 
Wow. It's amazing how CT True Believers will accept almost anything as long as it comes in a CT wrapper. In an ongoing and rather tense 9/11 exchange over on another board, one of two die-hard troofers there writes the following in response to the question, "What are you doing about it??":

So no. I am not actively challenging this in any traditional way. But I live in awareness and try to help others do the same so the shock is lessened when things become apparent. I certainly don't live a life of paranoia as has been suggested more than once, and I've never owned a tinfoil hat... have you looked up to see the chemtrails recently? They're not going away! Just look up and ask "what are those & why are they there" (hint -- they're not con-trails... those go away...)​

Thats the style I'm subjected to regularly. No links, no evidence, just assertions that once questioned, invite the inevitable "connect the dots", "I guess you refuse to open your eyes" responses. Man, he even used the "Im just asking questions" line - why do they all have to say their lines from the same damned script?? The funny thing is that the names Steven Jones, Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin were all news to him: he hadn't even done research on sympathetic accounts of his CD theories!

So I've baited him with a new thread where I post as "PROOF!!" of chemtrails the shots of the airline cockpits here at the start of this thread @ JREF with the "Population Control" buttons...;)

Can't wait to slip him some logic I'll borrow from here once he comes back and asserts the fantastic...;)
 
Last edited:
The relevant US Code for this section is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/32/toc.html

You'll find there is no such item as you list.

Section 1520a references Restrictions On Use Of Human Subjects For Testing Of Chemical Or Biological Agents.

The only location I find your specific list of this alleged portion of US Code is on Chemtrail CT sites.

I don't believe it requires a genius IQ to determine why it can't be found elsewhere.
 
Hmmm... in reference to 50 USC § 1520, I wonder if this is another case of selective evidence citation:

105-85 USC § 1078 said:
SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS <<NOTE: 50 USC 1520a.>> ON THE USE OF HUMAN
SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) Prohibited Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may not conduct
(directly or by contract)--
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical
agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological
agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions.--Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the
prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment
carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical,
therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or
research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection
against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose
related to riot control.

(c) Informed Consent Required.--The Secretary of Defense may conduct
a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed
consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance
of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior Notice to <<NOTE: Reports.>> Congress.--Not later than 30
days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense
of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department
of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of
human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological
agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of
those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only
after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is
received by those committees.
Click to expand...

Source.

I think this is where I would totally need a lawyer or legal expert to help me parse all this out. This law I'm quoting here (105-85 USC § 1078) seems to be the one superceding the one Deus was asking about (50 USC § 1520), but again, I'm no expert in this. I'm only making quick judgements based on what I'm digging up. I'm so devoid of context surrounding the two laws in question that it's ridiculous.

Anyone know the history of these codes, their applicability in real life, and the interpretations imposed on them vis-a-vis the various conspiracy myths?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Anyone know the history of these codes, their applicability in real life, and the interpretations imposed on them vis-a-vis the various conspiracy myths?
Click to expand...

The US Code is the list of Federal Statutes or Federal Law.

Since when does anything have to make sense to be a conspiracy myth? I thought the fact that they don't make sense was one of the requirement for them to exist! :)
 
Blaaah, Reheat posted while I was composing.

Yes, we all have to note that only the woo sites seem to be making a big deal out of 50 USC § 1520. So right there, I already suspect that context is being stripped, such an act being a hallmark of conspiracy peddling. Again, one place I looked that code up said, very clearly, "Repealed", and another that dealt rationality in response to chemtrail CT referenced 105-85 USC § 1078, which if you all will read it, puts some serious restrictions on the ability to conduct experiments: There must be prior notice, there must be informed consent, the experiments can only be for reasons allowed in the statute, etc.

At any rate, there's still much context missing from these two statutes, but I think it says much that 50 USC § 1520 is cited on those sites, but they make no mention of the fact that it's repealed, nor do they reference 105-85 USC § 1078.
 
Reheat said:
The US Code is the list of Federal Statutes or Federal Law.

Since when does anything have to make sense to be a conspiracy myth? I thought the fact that they don't make sense was one of the requirement for them to exist! :)
Click to expand...

Blaaah, Reheat posted again while I was composing (what'cha doin' to me, man?! :D)!

Yes, I know what the US Code stands for. That much is made obvious when you look things up.

Heheh... And yeah, you're right, CTs don't make sense once everyone discovers the truth behind them. The fact that they defy logic and rationality seems to be a basic requirement for their existence; when I forget this, all I have to do is look up iAmerican or Terral for reassurance that woo still follows basic principles in assembly. :D

Problem is (now I'm speaking to lurkers and newbies, as usual, since Reheat knows this basic tenant even better than I do, and I don't need to state such kindergarten-level obvious stuff to him) to "capture" believers, the woo does indeed make some sort of sense... in the context-free environment the information is being presented in. That's why people need to stretch their minds and try to discover context as well as out-and-out errors when investigating conspiracy fantasy. In this case, I had wondered if anyone had any knowledge of the history of those two codes; I wanted more context, if such happened to be available, to evaluate what people were claiming about the law. You see, too many fantasists are pushing the first law as proof that the US does chemical experimentation on the US population. The woo-meter spikes at that argument, and I begin to wonder if the reality behind those laws is something very different from what the conspiracy peddlers are making it out to be. Because if the intent was really insidious, why the heck make it a law to begin with? To cover people's butts? That excuse starts to show on the baloney scale when I hear it. When you pass a law about something like this, you might as well put up a skylight and hire a carnival barker, because you're starting to draw attention to the experimentation. How many people does it take to pass a law? And to do the mundane tasks, such as actually physically (or electronically) enter it into the "books".

Anyway, when someone tries to tell me there's a "law" about something that seems unsavory (no, I'm not saying Deus was saying that; rather, that's what those woo sites are trying to tell me), I immediately think I'm missing vital info, or am the victim of out-and-out misrepresentation, because making the law highlights the activity. How many truly secret government projects had such obvious US statutes behind them? That's all I'm saying. It's odd to do something so supposedly "insidious", yet leave such obvious proof (not that that's ever stopped a conspiracy peddler from glomming onto it...). So, yeah, CTs don't make sense... once you discover the real truth behind them.

</pendanticism> :pedant
 
Alferd_Packer said:
I'm surprized no one has mentioned Dennis Kuchinich and HR2977 yet.
Click to expand...

Heheh... yeah, I found that here:

http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

Contrail Science said:
In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:
  1. Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
  2. Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
  3. Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.
Click to expand...

And:

When he was made aware of the nature of the “exotic weapons” language in the bill, it was re-written, and when questioned about it, he said
“I’m not into that. Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, ‘Look, I’m not interested in going there.’”...​
... Yet HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of. The reality is that they were simply given a passing mention in bill written by new-age UFO conspiracy theorists and sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”.
Click to expand...

I'm finding out more about "chemtrails" than I ever knew before because of this thread.
 
Last edited:
I thought about this topic last weekend. Conditions were perfect for contrails, and the International airport had hundreds of them around and over it. Curved ones, descending ones, a huge mass of overlapping ones, and a general overcast forming.

You could really see how much cloud cover jets can generate.
 
Update

lol.

So I post that picture of the airplane cockpit from the front of this thread with the title: "Chemtrails: Exhibit A" and no other text. I wait patiently and soon my patience was rewarded:

Would you now like to attempt and disrprove the many times the US and other government militaries have knowingly engaged in chemical and other experiments on unsuspecting populations, their own populations- or would you rather make a joke of serious issues.​

I'm just waiting for him to bust out that law you guys were looking for..;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom