Spiritual Forum

Replies

• 

  einstein January 25, 2011 at 6:57pm

  http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/mkts.html

   

  Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF 
  Written by Joan Biakov
  
  Friday, 14 January 2011 12:40
  
  Evergreen Aviation, one of the worlds largest private aviation companies admits to weather modification service.
  
  On their own website in the Markets section for their New Super Tanker they state Weather Modification among other interesting service markets.
  
  Content copied directly from Evergreen Aviation website:
  
  ...The Evergreen Supertanker is not just limited to fighting fire . It will be a true utilitarian aircraft with the capability to configure to different applications on short notice. This multimission aircraft can support sensitive security and environmental missions. The aircraft’s exceptional drop capabilities, loiter time and size make it an ideal tool to perform challenging homeland security missions, able to neutralize chemical attacks on military installments or major population centers, and help control large, environmentally disastrous oil spills.

  In addition, the upper deck of the Boeing 747 provides over 200 square feet of space that could be assigned as a command and control center. EIA possesses an FAA exemption number 1870C that permits the carriage of up to five individuals that are not crew members in the upper deck. This area is capable of providing space for command and control components that would assist in sophisticated mapping, incident monitoring and video/communications downlink relay that might require additional personnel over and above the required crew.
  
  
  MARKETS:
  
  • Firefighting
  • Oil Spill Containment
  • Weather Modification
  • Biochemical Decontamination
  
  What airports will Evergreen operate the Supertanker out of?
  
  Evergreen will operate the aircraft from any major airport with sufficient ramp space to load the aircraft. These include civilian bases, joint use civilian/military bases and accessible military bases. Generally, the runway requirements for the Evergreen Supertanker are 8000 feet.
  
  
  Can the Supertanker fight fires at night, while they are most vulnerable?
  
  The Supertanker utilizes advanced avionics and flies at higher, safer altitudes, which will enable fire agencies the option of fighting fires at night, while they are dormant.
  
  Are there any other markets for the Evergreen Supertanker? Can it operate globally?
  
  Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.
  If you want to read up for yourself on this, just go to gibiru.Com, do a search on “Weather Control”, and then start clicking through the links that come up. You might find it as surprising as I did. Here is the bottom line:
  
  Is weather control real?
  
  
  Yes.
  
  Do we have the technology to create a hurricane, or tornado, or earthquakes?
  
  Yes.
  
  Who has this technology?
  
  The US and Russia. But Russia has been offering the technology for sale.
  
  What specific technologies/techniques can be used to alter the weather and create storms?
  
  
  Several.
  
  High-energy lasers can be directed into the atmosphere which creates free oxygen (O2), this combined with hydrogen to create H2O – water. Space based lasers are even more effective, and can also create O3 (Ozone) in the process of creating water in the atmosphere. Water is the most essential element in weather. The amount of it at a given point in time at a given location can create wind shifts, rain, (obviously), snow, but a clever use of it can create a tornado, or, over water, a hurricane. Over warm ocean water, it creates a very powerful hurricane, and if created in the right position at the right time, prevailing winds will carry it where you want it to go.
  
  But far more effective than that technology is the HAARP project in Alaska. This uses VLF (Very low frequency) energy pulses bounced off the ionosphere to create extreme weather conditions anywhere in the world they wish to direct it. The Earth has a fundamental resonant frequency of 7.83 Hz. Anything that operates at that frequency risks disturbing all aspects of the earth. Weather, earthquakes, etc. It depends upon the amount of power produced. HAARP produces 1.7 gigawatts.
  Here are a couple of interesting quotes about it I found on one of the websites I visited:
  
  ~~~
  
  "The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere -- the electrically charged layer above Earth's atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope -- just transmitting instead of receiving. It will 'boil the upper atmosphere'. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans." ["Angels Don't Play This HAARP", page 8]
  
  
  Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. "... this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ...." [Page 28]
  "... the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund's invention into practice." [Page 29] Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired.
  
  In NEWS1198, "U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real", we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia's cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies.
  
  Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can be driven on the ocean much like we drive our cars on roadways. Therefore, one has to ask why American scientists have allowed unprecedented hurricanes, like Andrew, to ever come on shore. Why are American scientists allowing extensive damage and lives lost to recent unprecedented storms, since they have the capability to keep these storms away from us?
  
  HAARP can create nuclear-sized explosions without radiation! [Page 38, 62]. This process is protected by patent 4,873,928.
  The greatest concern of New Age scientist Nick Begich, in his book, "Angels Don't Play This HAARP", is that scientists and the military are so very arrogant in their ignorant, reckless use of focused energy into the ionosphere. Military scientists talk about "kicking this thing in high gear to see what would happen"! This attitude is complete arrogance. What if they set off an unintended reaction in the atmosphere that cannot be controlled or stopped?”
• 

  Jason January 24, 2011 at 10:25pm

  YOU SEE I DON'T JUST MOUTH OFF EVERY TIME I HAVE A WHIM I TRY TO THE VERY BEST, GET EVIDENTIAL FACTS. SO I AM JUST WONDERING WHY I NEVER GET NOTED FOR SEARCHING HIGH AND LOW FOR FACTS, I AM NOT JUST SOUNDING OFF. I TRY TO BACK IT WITH FACTS. NOT JUST AIREY FAIRY SPIRITUAL TALKS. I M A WARRIOR TRUTH FINDER
  
• 

  Jason January 24, 2011 at 10:21pm

  HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE OF WHAT WE THINK POLLUTION IS.
  
  
  FACT:
  
  How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?
  Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.
  Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
  Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
  Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
  Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
  Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
  Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
  I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.
  The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.
  On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.
  
  2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
  Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.
  The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
  Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
  Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
  Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.
  Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
  Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
  The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.
  Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
  Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.
  The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.
  We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!
  Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.
  Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
  Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
  The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
  Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
  The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.
  Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
  Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
  The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
  • It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
  
  • Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
  
  The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.
  1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
  2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
  3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
  4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.
  • Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.
  • The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.
  
  Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page.
  3 4
  The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.
  The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate
  It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.
  For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update
  and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton...
  The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.
  Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.
  Polls on Climate Change
  Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!
  Popular beliefs are not fact
  The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
  A Carbon Tax
  Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
  Gregg D Thompson
  
  
  Climate Researcher
  Astronomer
  Environmentalist
  Author of two science books
  Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
  Author of science magazine articles
  Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
  Nature photographer
  Has a great interest in most sciences
  Loves creating innovation in art
• 

  Jason January 24, 2011 at 6:12pm

  This is that movie

  if you want to do something about it. Then you must get in your congressman's face, rally people and understand what you are teaching to them, raise awareness, silently pass this on to as many people as you can, get into peoples faces, because the more you ignore this the more your grand childrens, children, will suffer for it. meaning that when you are reincarnated, you might blame your ancestors for it as to why something did not get done sooner, note before you pass on, remember that you could have done something to better your sitaution in this now rather than do nothing now and suffer in your next incarnation and blame god for everything. I noticed in peoples dialect they seem to balme and external factor rather than concentrate on an inwardly solution to the problem at hand. It is always an ancient mistake to blame the past. Note this is the term of carrying the sins of your fore fathers.

  http://vimeo.com/16219493

  
  
• 

  katrine January 24, 2011 at 5:45pm

  What can we do?? and how do I know it the water I drink is clean?...

  damn governments. I get so pissed off when I see them getting away with this