April 5, 2001
Media Compilation #5: 1. Bush is Creating a Market for Star Wars + 2. China under threat of U.S. agression + 3. Britain and America's pilots are blowing the cover on our so-called "humanitarian" no-fly zone + 4. Is Fluoride Adversely Affecting Minority Children? + 5. Chemical Formed In Irradiated Food Damages DNA + 6. Military Conducting Massive Weather Modification in Secret + Chem-trails confirmed by Traffic Control Manager on Art Bell
Dear media person
Here is for you another compilation of seldom-heard perspectives and information on topics of relevance to most people.
Hoping you'll care to report on the following issues, especially the one about the 3-year-old secret military operation spreading millions of tons of heat-reflective aluminum "chemtrails" in the skies of 14 countries in an attempt to allegedly counter run-away global warming, and the mounting global protests against this highly polluting global experiment making millions of people sick (see at the end)
Regards,
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
1.
From: http://commondreams.org/views01/0330-06.htm
Published Friday, March 30, 2001 in the Toronto Star
Bush is Creating a Market for Star Wars
by Gordon Barthos
George Bush can't claim a mandate to rock the geopolitical boat, much less capsize it.
He barely got elected last fall. He lost the popular vote.
And after 10 weeks his approval rating is sliding fast.
Yet Bush has startled friends and foes alike with the sheer abrasiveness of his attitudes toward Russia, China and North Korea, and his indifference to world opinion on issues like global warming.
The Ugly American President George W. Bush is seen during a press conference in the White House Briefing Room on March 29, 2001. Bush has decided to walk away from the Kyoto agreement on pollution because it isn't in America's "economic interest." (Win McNamee/Reuters)
Last week Bush discovered that the Russians have spies, and gave 50 of them the heave-ho. He's been cool to meeting Vladimir Putin to talk arms control. His officials call the Russians "a nation of proliferators;" they complain about Moscow selling Iran weapons; they meet Chechen separatists.
Eyeing China, they talk about the need to "fight and win a nuclear war," with Asia as the likeliest battleground. They see China as a "competitor," not a strategic partner, and lambaste it for selling Iraq technology. They talk of selling Taiwan powerful anti-missile defences.
Meanwhile, Bush has undercut South Korea's bid to get North Korea to shelve its missile program, as it has its nuclear program, in exchange for trade and aid.
The Bush White House calls this "clarity, realism, decisiveness." Critics call it folly.
As the wreckage piles up, Republican think tanks crank out alarmist studies to demonstrate that the continental United States is open to attack and intimidation.
Has the world suddenly gone on a war footing? Hardly. But the Cold War era people around Bush Ñ Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Don Rumsfeld, to name two Ñ are truly ambitious patriots.
They know that the U.S. is undefeatable, and has been for a decade or more. They dream of making it invulnerable as well. They don't want even to be threatened by pipsqueak powers.
They are convinced that Ballistic Missile Defence can deliver that invulnerability. Ronald Reagan dreamed up Star Wars in 1983 as a hedge against Soviet attack. When the Soviets went away, Iraq became the new threat. Once Iraq was humbled, North Korea stood in as the villain.
There's no prize for spotting a trend here. If the Bush administration doesn't play its cards carefully, North Korea will go cuddly and there won't be a half-credible enemy left to shield against.
Most Americans support the idea of a Fortress North America. But as the U.S. economy slows and Bush has to trim his $1.6 trillion tax cut or slash federal health, education and social services, people may think twice about sinking $100 billion into a missile shield, absent a clear and present danger.
However, if Washington can make a persuasive case that the U.S. is surrounded by hostile countries, Star Wars would be an easier sell. This has implications for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's government, indeed for all U.S. allies.
We've been lobbied by Washington to keep an "open mind" about missile defence, at least until Bush rolls out his plans later this year.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials are working overtime to persuade us that (1) missile defence can work; (2) that its deployment is both necessary and inevitable; and (3) that allies must sign on, or kiss off defence co-operation.
Flawed though these premises are, the Chrétien government is choosing not to question them. It should.
The Bush administration seems bent on creating sufficient friction to make the world a truly interesting place. Not one in which Canadians can feel safer.
That's a stiff price to pay for Republican daydreams.
Realistically, do the Americans face a potential threat? Yes. A small one. Though a regime would be crazy to lob a missile their way. But working with players like the Russians and Chinese, the U.S. could easily contain bad actors.
However Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends would have to settle for America being the unbeatable nation, and not the invulnerable one.
The question for Chrétien is this: Why should Canada be stampeded into supporting a go-alone U.S. program driven by a new global alarmism, and which will leave the world more dangerous than before? Rather than be cowed by Republican demagoguery, the Chrétien government should try to remember what the world looked like before all this began.
Russia was a weak, struggling democracy, tilting West and trying to salvage a shred of dignity as a faded power. China just wanted to turn a buck. North Korea was a starving beggar, seeking to come in from the cold. Iran was struggling with its own internal demons.
Iraq was a broken reed. Who, exactly, are we worried about?
-- Gordon Barthos writes The Star's editorials on foreign affairs.
© Copyrighted 1997-2001 Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org
Please support http://www.antiwar.com and http://www.space4peace.org.
2.
From: iacenter@iacenter.org
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001
Subject: China under threat of U.S. agression
CHINA UNDER THE THREAT OF U.S. AGGRESSION
The International Action Center denounces U.S. spy- plane flights in and near Chinese air space and U.S. threats since the plane landed in China as acts of aggression and blatant attacks on Chinese sovereignty.
The IAC, as a leading organization in the U.S. anti-war movement, calls on that movement to be on the alert for further dangerous U.S. moves against China and be prepared to raise its voice in protest against them.
Instead of offering an immediate apology for spying in Chinese coastal waters and most likely causing the death of a Chinese pilot and the loss of a Chinese jet, the U.S. government has gone on the offensive. The Bush administration has demanded the unconditional release of the spies and the equipment.
This plane was flying 7,000 miles off the coast of the continental United States when it collided with a Chinese jet. What would be the response to a Chinese spy plane conducting electronic surveillance and reconnaissance off the coast of Long Island or Virginia?
Washington allows no country to conduct such flights off the U.S. coast. But the Pentagon regularly conducts such spy missions against other countries.
The Peoples Republic of China has every right to protect its borders under those circumstances.
The U.S. government says the Chinese cannot board the spy plane, which it considers U.S. territory. Yet when a Cuban defector flew an advanced MiG plane to Florida, even though it was not engaged in spying, U.S. specialists disassembled the plane.
This latest incident is no isolated event, but is part of a chain of growing U.S. open hostility toward China. It must be viewed in light of U.S. threats to arm the Taiwan regime with a new generation of high-tech weapons, in violation of past agreements with China.
Another link in this chain was the attempt to make a scapegoat of the Chinese-American scientist, Wen Ho Lee, for alleged spying on behalf of Peoples China. Another was the calculated U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Another is the constant maneuvers of the U.S. 7th Fleet of aircraft carriers, jet bombers and destroyers in the Straits of Taiwan.
All these aggressive acts feed into the Pentagon campaign to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a so-called Missile Defense Shield. Most governments recognize the MDS as being not a defensive weapon at all.
They oppose it as a highly threatening military escalation. It is an enormously expensive program built to allow a nuclear first-strike, which will only benefit the corporate merchants of death.
Since the victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949 U.S. governments have varied their strategy with regard to China.
Sometimes they used open military hostility, but for the past period they focused on economic contacts. But these strategies were all aimed at trying to penetrate the Chinese economy and gain control of it.
Now this policy may be shifting back to military hostility in order to insure the super profits of the giant military contractors who benefit from the Missile Defense Shield and the new weapons for Taiwan.
A sign of possible change in this direction is the new U.S. ambassador to China, retired Admiral Joseph Prueher, a former U.S. commander in the Pacific. For the past 100 years the Navy has always been the U.S.'s "Big Stick" in the Pacific, imposing U.S. power up and down the coast of Asia.
The IAC calls on the anti-war movement in the U.S. to mobilize to demand that the Pentagon end its spy flights in the Pacific, that Washington apologize for the death of the Chinese pilot and send no new weapons to Taiwan.
International Action Center 39 West 14th Street, Room 206 New York, NY 10011 email: iacenter@iacenter.org web: http://www.iacenter.org CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org phone: 212 633-6646 fax: 212 633-2889
*To make a tax-deductible donation, go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org
3.
From: "Mark Graffis" <mgraffis@islands.vi>
Subject: Britain and America's pilots are blowing the cover on our so-called "humanitarian" no-fly zone
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001
New Statesman (U.K.) 19 March 2001
John Pilger - Britain and America's pilots are blowing the cover on our so-called "humanitarian" no-fly zone
Royal Air Force pilots have protested for the first time about their role in the bombing of Iraq. Pilots patrolling the so-called no-fly zone in the north of the country have spoken angrily about how they have been ordered to return to their base in Turkey in order to allow the Turkish air force to bomb the Kurds in Iraq - the very people the British are meant to be "protecting".
The pilots say that, whenever the Turkish air force wants to launch attacks on the Kurds, the Turks are recalled to base and their radar is switched so that the targets will not be visible. One British pilot reported seeing the devastation caused by the attacks when he resumed his patrol.
The pilots agreed to speak, on a non-attributable basis, to Dr Eric Herring, the Iraq sanctions specialist at Bristol University. "They were all very unhappy about what they had been ordered to do, and what they had seen," he said, "especially as there had been no official explanation."
While British government ministers have repeatedly described the no-fly-zones as "humanitarian cover" for the Kurds, the pilots' unease has become an open secret in the United States. Last October, the Washington Post reported: "On more than one occasion [US pilots who fly in tandem with the British] have received a radio message that 'there is a TSM inbound' - that is, a 'Turkish Special Mission' heading into Iraq. Following standard orders, the Americans turned their planes around and flew back to Turkey. 'You'd see Turkish F-14s and F-16s inbound, loaded to the gills with munitions,' [pilot Mike Horn] said. 'Then they'd come out half an hour later with their munitions expended.' When the Americans flew back into Iraqi air space, he recalled, they would see 'burning villages, lots of smoke and fire'."
Last December, more than 10,000 Turkish troops invaded northern Iraq, killing untold numbers of civilians and fighters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the PKK. British and American aircraft "protecting" the Kurds did nothing to prevent the invasion; indeed, most patrols were suspended to allow the Turks to get on with the killing. Inside Turkey, the Ankara regime has destroyed 3,000 Kurdish villages, displaced more than three million people and killed tens of thousands. Racist laws prevent Turkish Kurds from speaking their language; parliamentarians and journalists who speak out end up in prison, or assassinated.
The Blair government has said nothing about this, because Turkey is a member of Nato. Almost all Kurds applying for asylum in Britain - from Turkey and Iraq - have been refused. Jack Straw's new Terrorism Act bans the PKK, which has no history of violence in this country. This means that Kurdish activists resident in Britain are now at risk of being sent back to Turkey: to prison, or worse. In the past few weeks more than 1,000 political prisoners on hunger strike in Turkish jails have been attacked by the authorities, leaving 33 people dead. Again, Whitehall's response has been silence.
RAF pilots are gradually becoming aware of the dishonest power game of which they are a part, and that the no-fly zones have no basis in international law and provide no "humanitarian cover" for the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Concern for these people was always a sham. In 1991, when President Bush Sr called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, he was really inviting Saddam's generals to stage a military coup and install a more malleable dictator. The last thing he wanted was the ensuing popular uprising by the Shi'a in March of that year - which Saddam crushed with helicopter gunships that the US allowed him to fly, and while American commanders denied weapons and equipment to the rebels. An estimated 30,000 people were slaughtered. "We clearly would have preferred a coup. There's no question about that," said Bush's national security adviser Brent Scowcroft in 1997. The British commander in the Gulf war, General Sir Peter de la Billiere, said, apparently with a straight face "The Iraqis were responsible for establishing law and order."
Eric Herring wrote to me: "Perhaps the most repulsive thing about the whole policy is that US and British decision-makers have exploited popular humanitarian sentiment for the most cynical Realpolitik reasons. They have no desire for the Shi'ite majority to take control or for the Kurds to gain independence. Their policy is to keep them strong enough to cause trouble for Saddam Hussein while ensuring that Saddam Hussein is strong enough to keep repressing them. This is a direct descendant of British imperial policy from the First World War onwards [and is about the control] of Iraqi oil . . . Divide and rule was and is the policy."
Recently, Richard Norton-Taylor disclosed in the Guardian that Britain's military establishment was concerned about the proposed new international criminal court. The generals complained that rules made in Brussels might "prevent British peacekeepers from carrying out their tasks effectively". Their real concern, and that of western politicians, was put by Michael Caplan, the former lawyer to General Pinochet, who questioned how Tony Blair would be able to defend himself were he charged with bombing targets in Kosovo knowing that civilians would be killed.
When he was the Foreign Office minister responsible for Iraq, Peter Hain wrote to the New Statesman, describing as preposterous the very suggestion that he, and other British ministers directly complicit in the atrocious embargo against Iraq, might be summoned to appear before the new court.
We shall see.
*
4.
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: Fluoride Action Network <media@fluoridealert.org>
Subject: [BRC-ANN] Is Fluoride Adversely Affecting Minority Children?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 23, 2001
Is Fluoride Adversely Affecting Minority Children's Intelligence and Behavior? Dartmouth Researcher Finds Increased Uptake of Lead CANTON, NEW YORK --
The chemicals currently used to fluoridate much of the water in the US may be causing increased blood lead levels in children, results of a new study show.
Dr. Roger Masters of Dartmouth College and colleagues looked at data consisting of over 150,000 children's blood lead tests, and found levels significantly elevated in areas where chemicals known as silicofluorides (SiF), used in over 90% of the fluoridated water in the US, are used. Controlling for other factors associated with high blood lead, the odds of children having venous blood lead over the standard cut-off of 10ug/dL were significantly higher where SiFs were in use, with the odds often doubled or tripled for minorities.
"Our findings suggest that water fluoridation -- often justified by supposed benefits to minorities -- actually has extremely NEGATIVE effects. Given the link between high blood lead and hyperactivity, learning disabilities, drug use, and aggressive behavior, many of the stereotypical racially biased beliefs about Blacks and Hispanics have apparently been reinforced by the unsuspected effects of toxic chemicals intentionally added to the water supply" asserts Masters. The study, published in the journal "Neurotoxicology", reinforces the findings of two previous studies by the same researchers. Other data, now in press, show that controlling for other factors, SiF usage also contributes to significant increases in rates of violent crime, says Masters.
"Dumbing Down" and Behavioral Effects
"Apart from other dangerous effects, the tendency of SiF to enhance absorption of lead is of incalculable importance, because among the well-known consequences are its effects on intelligence and cognitive ability, which can be permanent and severe," according to Masters. Even at levels below 10ug/dL, researchers have found subtle but dangerous deficits in learning and behavior. A recent study conducted at Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati found slight, but detectable, impairment at levels as low as 5ug/dL, half the current standard used for determining elevated lead levels. In addition, each increase of 1ug/dL was found to cause a 1% decrease in children's reading scores.
Along with causing learning problems, lead can have other adverse health effects as well, such as increases in ADD/ADHD symptoms, violent behavior, and drug use, studies have shown. (See http://fluoridealert.org/lead.htm for additional information) Are the Alleged Benefits of Fluoridation Worth the Risk?
"Even if fluoridation does provide some modest benefit in regard to tooth decay, society really needs to take a good hard look at its priorities here," says Paul Connett, Ph.D., of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), an international coalition of organizations helping to raise awareness of fluoride's health and environmental hazards. "With rates of ADD/ADHD at record levels and still rising, is a minute benefit to teeth worth the risk of higher lead levels?" asks Connett. "In fact, several recent studies have shown that rates of tooth decay do NOT rise after water fluoridation is stopped, but may actually decrease. If people want to take the gamble with fluoride (a known enzyme poison) it makes more sense to do as the Europeans do, and use topical fluoride instead," he maintains.
Untested Chemical
"Most people would be shocked to learn that there have been no adequate studies of long-term low-level exposure to silicofluorides," states Masters. "Even the EPA admits it has no data on the health and behavioral effects of SiFs."
"Shouldn't we stop intentionally exposing 140 million Americans to an untested chemical until the risks are extensively and objectively evaluated by independent researchers?" asks Dr. Masters. For additional information on the latest study, as well as other related information, go to http://fluoridealert.org/lead.htm Source: Neurotoxicology 2000; 21: 1091-1100
Contact:
Roger Masters, PhD, Foundation for Neuroscience and Society, Dartmouth College, phone: 603-646-2153, email: Roger.D.Masters@Dartmouth.edu (Questions related to fluoride - -- lead association)
Paul Connett, PhD, Fluoride Action Network, St. Lawrence University, Phone: 315-379-9200, Fax: 315-379-0448, Email: pcon@fluoridealert.org or media@fluoridealert.org, URL: http://www.fluoridealert.org (Questions related to fluoride or water fluoridation)
5.
From: http://www.sightings.com/general9/chemicalformed.htm
Chemical Formed In Irradiated Food Damages DNA
In a rare opportunity to speak publicly about food irradiation before a captive audience of government officials and food industry executives, Public Citizen this week released the world's first English translation of a recent German study revealing that a chemical formed in irradiated food can damage DNA.
The study confirmed what safe-food advocates and many pioneering researchers have known for more than 30 years: Exposing food to ionizing radiation can lead to the formation of bizarre new chemicals called "unique radiolytic products" that can cause serious health problems. One such chemical, known as 2-DCB, caused "significant DNA damage" in the colons of rats that ate the substance. The chemical which, ironically, is a well known "marker" for determining whether food has been irradiated has never been found naturally in any food on Earth.
The study was conducted in 1998 under the auspices of two prominent pro-irradiation organizations. It was performed at one of the most prestigious food irradiation labs in the world, the Federal Research Center for Nutrition in Karlsruhe, Germany. And it was co-funded by the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, a United Nations-sponsored organization that promotes food irradiation worldwide.
Public Citizen released an English translation of the study at a Feb. 13 meeting at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in Washington, D.C. The meeting was held to preview an upcoming meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which sets food safety standards for most nations of the world. Codex officials, meeting March 12-16 in The Hague, will consider a proposal to completely remove the maximum dose of radiation to which food can be exposed. The current maximum dose is 10 kiloGray, the equivalent of 330 million chest x-rays and enough radiation to kill a person 2,000 times over.
At this week's FDA meeting, Public Citizen told government officials and food industry executives that health authorities have used a variety of excuses to dismiss dozens of studies conducted since the 1950s that suggest irradiated food may not be safe for human consumption. In these studies, lab animals have suffered premature death, a rare form of cancer, fatal internal bleeding, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, chromosomal aberrations, liver damage, nutritional deficiencies and low weight gain. The excuses most commonly given are that the studies are old, inconclusive or poorly designed.
None of these excuses apply to the German study, however, which was conducted three years ago, yielded conclusive results, and was performed under the guidance of cutting edge scientific protocols. Despite the study's clear findings and high quality, it was distorted and dismissed by the World Health Organization, which has endorsed the irradiation of any food at any dose, no matter how high. And, because it had never been translated into English, FDA officials never reviewed it.
Now, FDA and WHO officials have no excuse. Now they know that irradiated food holds the true potential to harm people who eat it. Now they know that if they continue to approve the food industry's requests to irradiate food, such as the pending request to irradiate ready to eat foods such as deli meat and pre cut salads, they will be defying the truth. Now they should know better. The question is: Will they?
Mote at: http://www.citizen.org
--
NOTE: The 2 items above come from an Earth Rainbow Network compilation posted at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/FoodSafetyFiles9.htm
To be added on the Earth Rainbow Network e-list, simply ask it from globalvisionary@cybernaute.com
6.
THIS STORY HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG WHILE WITH ALL KINDS OF THEORIES OFFERED.
FOR PREVIOUS POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE CHEMTRAILS ISSUE, CHECK:
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/ChemtrailFile.htm
The Chemtrail File (07/31/2000)
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/MiscelSubjects45.htm
New Chemtrails theory just might make you sick (11/27/2000)
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/Biowarfare.htm.
BIOWARFARE: The "Chemtrails" over America, Canada, England and Australia
From: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=388
Possible Chemtrails Explanation
20-Mar-2001
A group of former military officers have flown in a private jet into a
chemtrail that was being emitted from a military cargo aircraft. They
obtained samples of the aerosol and had them tested in a laboratory.
The trail contained barium (non-radioactive) and tiny particles of
aluminum. A mixture like this would increase the reflectivity of the
atmosphere and reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface.
It is to be noted that the winter of 2000-2001 has been the coldest in
fifty years in Siberia, and that temperatures have been significantly lower
across the United States.
In January of 2001, Dr. Edward Teller, who was one of the developers of the
atomic bomb, proposed this as a possible way of reducing global warming.
"The simplest plan is to put into the high atmosphere small particles that
scatter away one or two percent of the sunlight," Teller said.
Dr. Teller's colleague at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Dr. Ken Caldeira
had expected to prove Teller wrong, but found, to his surprise that
geoengineering of the atmosphere would probably return the climate to a
cooler state.
While the climate has cooled noticeably in the northern hemisphere over the
past six months, there is no evidence that this has happened in the
southern hemisphere, even though the spraying has been so extensive over
Australia that it has, at times, drawn incredulous crowds.
When Teller was asked when the spraying of particles should start, he said,
"the sooner the better."
There would be a number of motives for keeping such a project secret. One
is that the spraying would violate the airspace of numerous countries, and
gaining permission to carry it out over some of them might be difficult.
Another is that changes in the weather and the atmosphere might cause
damage and possibly illness, and there would be enormous liability problems
associated with a public program. In addition, action by environmental
groups or public outcry might limit the program in many areas, rendering it
ineffective.
Such a program, if it is being secretly carried out, will mask the effects
of global warming, rendering the planet vulnerable to rapid and
catastrophic heating if the program should ever be cancelled, or if, for
some reason, it should cease to work.
For Unknowncountry's story on Dr. Teller's comments, go at:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=242
To learn more about the chemtrail phenomenon, go at:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/store/?fid=12
We regret that we are unable to provide complete sources for this story.
Related Stories: 22-Mar-2001:
09-Feb-2001: Chemtrails Mystery Over Northern California
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=309BR>
12-Jan-2001: Another European Chemtrail Witness-And He's Sick
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=235
10-Jan-2001: Chemtrails Now Being Seen in Europe
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=223
08-Jan-2001: Strange Material Falls From Sky in Syracuse, NY
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=219
19-Dec-2000: Chemtrail Wave Reported Over Texas
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=183
22-Mar-2001: Tape Seems to Confirm Chemtrails A Military Operation
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=392
7.
Chem-trails confirmed by Traffic Control Manager on Art Bell (4-4-2001)
Summary:"Deep Sky", Traffic Control Manager for Northeast Airport Confirmed on Art Bell Radio show 4-4-2001 Military behind "Chem-trails" applying "Atmospheric Bandaid" - 10 million tons of aluminum to reflect 1% of sunlight to coverup massive run away Global Warming. Clinton & George Bush's No longer Secret Solution to Global Warming. Protest immediately & Everywhere!
Article:
Military Conducting Massive Weather Modification in Secret
April 5, 2001
"Deep Sky", an air Traffic Control Manager, at a major Northeast Airport interview by a reported from New Hampshire & broadcast on the Art Bell Radio Show broadcast to five hundred affiliates & around the world on the internet confirmed tonight that a massive ìWeather Modification Programî is being carried out in secret by our military. A program apparently to spread 10 million tons of aluminum in order to reflect one percent of sunlight & cover-up run away global warming amounts to "Crimes Against Humanity". Class action suits are gathering steam as you read this as so many have been sickened. There are implications of this massive pollution I donít even want to contemplate
The skies of the United States along with fourteen NATO countries have & are experiencing chemical spraying from high altitude, now confirmed, to modify the weather. Creating "Atmospheric Band-Aids" in secrecy (but not out of sight) for the past three years. This Violates several aspects of several laws & treaties. Spraying huge Xs of "chem-trails" laced with aluminum & possibly other metals across the sky until a cloud cover forms and the weather changes must be illegal & is criminal as thousands have gotten sick. Hundreds of thousands many never recover as aluminum at the size cited in the Hughes patent is thought to coat neurotransmitters & maybe a primary co-factor in the epidemic of short term memory loss & early onset Alzheimers among other things.
Major Ed Dames, an ex-government employed remote viewer, on Art Bell, said he could not say as a remote viewer what the chem-trails were as he could go to jail for breaking his secrecy agreement on that topic. William Thomas has investigated, researched & written a book & produced a documentary on chem-trails that are being witnessed in fourteen countries. http://www.3.bc.sympatico.ca/willthomas please check this out & e-mail willthomas@telus.net to confirm.
Please check this out as the Air Force did when questioned by multiple individuals, myself included, spending ten plus hours looking at www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm last week. Please read the current issue of Time magazine & then give this issue immediate attention. Note that the editors of Time magazine covered up the word time with a frying pan - a message I took to mean there is no more time. The challenges of Global Warming are complicated, will take time to explore & every day that we go forward on this path the worse it will get.
For the military to do this in secret puts the world's best minds out of solving a problem that is obviously out of control & threatens the very existence of humanity. What or why this is happening has more questions unanswered than answered. Who specifically has the oversight on technology that could be a catalyst for a mass extinction event? How is HAARP, pumping a billion megawatts into the earthís sky adding to the severity of weather and the problem?
The chemically sensitive on Whidbey Island, Washington were suddenly sickened last month, the hospital filled with non-flu sickness emergencies & I witnessed multiple Xs in the sky. Also over Eugene & Wyoming I looked through Polaroid sunglasses to see oil slick rainbowed colored looking multiple Xs crossing the sky. Friends of mine are sick from chem-trails that have been laid across the skies of Arizona for weeks at a time. Hundreds of thousands have witnessed these chem as opposed to con-trails, myself included, & been sickened immediately along with the majority of the neighborhood & animals.
Who is responsible for attempting to put a huge Atmospheric Band-Aid to apparently cover-up the truth about Global Warming? If this is not what hundreds of thousands in fourteen countries have witnessed then what is it & what specifically can we do about it?
