G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Submit ALERTS or ACTION ITEMS on what we can do to support Freedom. (i.e. action regarding a bill or other important issue)
Post Reply
User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

2011 May26 from G. Edward Griffin

INVESTIGATORS WANTED

Can Chemtrails be proved?

It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always seem to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.

SKI SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow in merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from some toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by claiming that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.

Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain away the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and align themselves with the prevailing view.

DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.

We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But that will take a little time to pull the facts together.

Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, I think our critics will run out of plausible-denial theories.

PLANE FINDER
One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this Ap on an iPhone is about $4, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs actually are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and private aircraft. Military aircraft and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.

I'm sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing a trail from horizon-to-horizon will all be identified as merely commercial craft and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system ... well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.

To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable. Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a plane that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters. One blogger who is not happy with the technology claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of some interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.) In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.

In spite of the debunkers, there is an opportunity here to collect data that will be very compelling, even if there are areas not serviced by the technology and even if a small percentage of commercial planes are, in fact, without transmitters. If we can demonstrate that most flights with long trails are missing from the system, I think we will have put the final nail into the coffin of chemtrail denial.

TWO-EDGED SWORD
This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from the same scheduled planes that carry passengers? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who are convinced that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.

Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: http://planefinder.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you should be able to go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has very long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight including the time.

For those with iPhones or other smart phones that can handle the Plane Finder Ap, purchase it and install it. Then, every time you see a plane, aim the camera lens of the phone at the plane and record its identification, including the time.

That's it. If 50 or 100 people will do this, and if they are able to collect data on flights over a one-month period, we will have a data base of immense value. When complete, please prepare a summary, including the locations where observations were made and a brief summary of your experience, and send it to me at gedward.griffin@verizon.net.

Are we going to have fun or what?

Ed Griffin

P.S. If you have not yet obtained a copy of What in the World Are They Spraying, there is no better time than now. It can be ordered here.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

2011 May 27 from G. Edward Griffin

Important update!

INVESTIGATORS WANTED

Can Chemtrails be proved?

This is an updated version of the notice I sent to you yesterday. I awoke this morning with the realization that I had omitted several important aspects of the project. They involve the need for photographic documentation and a uniform template for recording observations of aircraft. I also fine-tuned the rest of the text, so please bear with me and go through the whole thing again. This could be one of the best opportunities we ever have had to expose the Evil Empire.

*******

It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always manage to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in our snow and rain water as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.

SKI-SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow is merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from a toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by saying that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.

Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and refrain from challenging the prevailing view.

DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.

We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But it will take a little time to pull the facts together.

Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples around the world is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, our critics will become hard pressed for new theories.

PLANE FINDER
One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this application on an iPhone is $2.99, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and large private aircraft. Small planes, military aircraft, and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.

I'm sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing trails from horizon-to-horizon all will be identified as commercial craft, and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system ... well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.

To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable. Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a flight that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters. One blogger who is unhappy with the Plane Finder claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.) In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.

In spite of these arguments, I think there is an opportunity here to collect data that will be compelling, even if there are areas not serviced by the technology and even if a small percentage of commercial planes are, in fact, without transmitters. If we can demonstrate that flights with horizon-to-horizon trails are missing from the system, we will have put one more nail into the coffin of chemtrail denial.

TWO-EDGED SWORD
This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from scheduled planes carrying passengers or freight? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who believe that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.

Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: http://planefinder.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you can go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Vice versa, when you see an aircraft overhead, you should be able to go to your computer and watch it moving across a map on your screen if it is in the system. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight, including the time. Be aware that the time is given in what they call Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). This is the same time everywhere in the world, so it probably will not be the same as your local time. To convert to local time, you will need a conversion chart, found at http://www.maar.us/utc_time_converter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. A simpler way to obtain the local time is to read the hours from your watch or clock and record the minutes from the program readout.

PHOTO AND VIDEO DOCUMENTATION
Although not essential, it would be a great help to photographically document each plane that is recorded, especially any that don't show up in the system. The simplest method is to take a still photo and make sure the photo ID number is recorded along with the flight data. That will make it harder for the debunkers to claim that there is no way to substantiate that our subjective interpretation of a contrail vs. a chemtrail means anything. Let the photos speak for themselves. If you are a video buff, it would be a nice additional touch to have a second party take videos of the whole verification process, everything from seeing the plane in the sky to photographing it and getting its identification (or finding that it has no identification). If we produce a follow up to What in the World Are They Spraying, this might make an interesting segment. But don't let the added requirement of photographs and video get in the way of doing the basic observations. That is what really matters in the long run.

DATA RECORD TEMPLATE
To generate a statistical summary, we will need all data in a uniform format, so we have created a data-record template that you can download here: http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityz ... mplate.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Please use this to enter your observations. When complete, the sheets can be scanned and emailed to me as a digital file to the email address shown below or faxed to 1-805-497-0685 or mailed to P.O. Box 4646, Westlake Village, CA 91359.

That's it. If 50 or 100 people will do this, and if they are able to collect data on flights over a one-month period, we will have a record of immense value. Please send it to me at gedward.griffin@verizon.net.

Are we going to have fun or what?

Ed Griffin

P.S. If you have not yet obtained a copy of What in the World Are They Spraying, there is no better time than now. It can be ordered here.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

FIRST TRY SHOWS THAT CHEMTRAIL PLANE IS NOT A COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
2011 May 26 from Alan & Virginia Craig
My husband and I volunteer to spot and track chemplanes. I’ve already been keeping a calendar on chemdays but quit taking pictures many months ago. Here in Chesapeake, VA, we are heavily sprayed. The Hampton Roads area, home to the Fleet Forces Command Navy Base in Norfolk, VA, is known as the “little Pentagon,” and Chesapeake is right in the center of it. We have been trying hard to determine who is doing the spraying – is it commercial or military?

I got the PlaneFinder program working, went out and, sure enough – we already had an X-trail in the sky, and there was the plane making another pass. According to PlaneFinder there were zero planes currently in our area, which means the plane laying down a chemtrail was not a commercial aircraft.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

ONE-WOMAN DYNAMO AWAKENS OTHERS TO CHEMTRAILS IN RENO
2011 May 20 from Patty Vinikow, blueskynevada@clearwire.net.
Inspired by your DVD "What in the World Are They Spraying," I was able to secure a booth with my own funds for our Reno, Nevada, EarthDay on May 1st. I had informative flyers with photo and mounted a picture board with local chemtrail patterns plus before and
after photos of the Earth's atmosphere and spray planes. The response was quite positive, and a local ecology group wants to feature the DVD for a June showing for their film series. I'm just one person but soon we will have a Reno/Tahoe group to help educate on this critical topic.

I would be happy to share my informative, one-page flyer for others to use. It represents countless hours of research distilled on an 8/1/2
x 11" paper, with an incredible chemtrail photo. I am so glad to
receive your email newsletter, and yes, one person CAN make a
difference!

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

CHEMTRAIL UPDATE #3

Narrowing the Observations


Project Plane Tracker is well underway, and we have learned a great deal in the first few weeks. One of those lessons is that some of the data we have been collecting still will not close the case for many skeptics. It is tempting to just dismiss them as incurably brainwashed and not even try to answer their questions, but I feel that the better path is to dig deeper and try harder. I was once a skeptic, myself, and the fact that they are not yet in agreement with us is, I think, more of a reflection on us than them. In all honesty, we can do better – and we shall.

One of the issues omitted from the documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, was an explanation of the difference between contrails and chemtrails. Because of that, many people think we don't know that contrails are real or that, under certain atmospheric conditions, they actually can look like chemtrails; so we are constantly bombarded with emails referring us to books and web sites that say what we think are chemtrails really are just old-fashioned contrails, and we are ignorant fools for thinking otherwise.

We cannot ignore those charges, especially since we have learned a great deal about contrails and now are assembling data through Project Plane Tracker that we hope will demonstrate once and for all that most of the trails we are watching in the sky are not persistent contrails because they occur where the temperature and relative humidity are inadequate to cause their formation. This is not opinion or speculation. It is science.

A CLOSER LOOK AT CONTRAILS
Contrails can form at any temperature below freezing. That's because the water-vapor component of jet-engine exhaust comes in contact with cold air and turns into ice crystals. The important question is not if they form but how long they persist.

Below freezing at low relative humidity (RH), they are readily absorbed into the dry atmosphere around them and disappear in a few seconds. As RH rises, it takes longer for them to be absorbed, and their length increases. At the far end of the scale, humidity is 100%, which means the atmosphere at any given temperature cannot absorb more moisture. At that point, the ice crystals remain visible until they eventually come in contact with atmosphere with less than 100% RH, at which point they will be absorbed and disappear. In the meantime, as long as contrails remain at the extreme end of the scale where the atmosphere is totally saturated with moisture (a condition called saturation over ice), they can persist from horizon to horizon, spread out, and be mixed by high altitude winds to form a haze over large portions of the sky. In some cases, they may take on the appearance of natural cirrus (feathery, high altitude) clouds. These high altitude contrails are mostly just ice, have no toxic chemicals added, and are pretty harmless. So, what's the big fuss?

THE COOKIE-JAR THEORY
Before jumping to conclusions, we need to ask an important question: Just because contrails theoretically can produce these effects at specific conditions of temperature and humidity, does it necessarily follow that most of the trails we have been observing (or any of them) are contrails? Just because a thief could have come through the kitchen back door and taken the cookies out of the cookie jar, does it necessarily follow that this is what actually happened to the cookies?

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate that 85% to 95% of the trails seen completely covering the sky are forming in air space that does not even come close to the atmospheric conditions needed for a contrail. In other words, if the kitchen door is locked (and the window, too), the cookie thief will have to be found elsewhere, probably in the household.

If not contrails, then what?

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS
The core of the present problem is that we started by asking field investigators to track aircraft in their areas regardless of the length of their trails, and we used terminology such as "short trail" and "long trail." This has turned out to be useless information for the following reasons.

As we have seen, contrails can be short, medium, long, or very long depending on atmospheric conditions. In other words, we are dealing, not with an absolute, but a continuum. However, at the end of that continuum, there is an absolute (ice over saturation). Therefore, we should forget the continuum and work solely with the absolute.

For this reason, using the saturation-over-ice test is of value only for horizon-to-horizon trails, because anything less could be explained as a contrail in the continuum. It would be impossible to quantify the atmospheric conditions that could produce a short, medium, or long trail – or even a so-called persistent trail – because those are subjective evaluations. A horizon-to-horizon test, accompanied by ample photo or video documentation, is far more difficult to challenge because it is independent of variables and subjective interpretation.

Saturation-over-ice is required for horizon-to-horizon contrails. I am not aware of any conventional alternate explanation for such formations. Therefore, we need to concentrate solely on that category of observations.

NEW TRACKING WORKSHEET AND NEW DATA SOURCE
We have updated our data worksheet to reflect this change, so that simplifies things a bit. But, wouldn't you know we thought of a way to complicate it again. We need two additional bits of information before we can generate the proof we seek. They are temperature and RH at the time and location the aircraft is observed. Without that, we cannot demonstrate that saturation-over-ice did not exist. Fortunately, this information is readily available from a web site maintained by the University of Wyoming, Department of Atmospheric Science. Twice each day they send up weather balloons that measure different parameters of the weather, including temperature and RH, at different altitudes up to about 50,000 feet. With a click of the mouse, we are able to select almost any major city in North America and find weather data for that general area for either the first or last half of each day. You won't need to worry about determining conditions for saturation-over-ice. We will do that. (If you want to do it yourself, we'll be happy to send you the chart, but it is not necessary.) The University shows altitude in meters; so, if you are using a plane-tracking program that measures in feet, you will need to convert to meters before you can locate the right elevation on their site.

Download new Observation Worksheet here. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityz ... ksheet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link to University of Wyoming atmospheric web site here.
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link to chart converting feet to meters here.
http://www.metric-conversions.org/lengt ... meters.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Learn more about saturation over ice here.
http://www.rhsystems.net/papers/RH_WMO.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
*******

FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON AIRCRAFT SIGNALS
2011 June 2 from L. Graves
ADS-B is relatively new in aviation, lagging the in-cockpit use of GPS by several years, while transponders have been around for 40+ years. I would characterize the use of transponders and "squawk codes," especially in busy airspace, as nearly universal, even among the "low-and-slow" trainer fleet of little two-seaters. Ground radar sends out an interrogation, and the transponder replies, amplifying the radar signature of the individual aircraft. ADS-B is in the adoption stage, and will someday take the place of the ubiquitous transponder interrogation/response IFF system. ADS-B is satellite-based and is not radar-dependent.

PILOT CLARIFIES AIRCRAFT TRANSPONDERS
2011 June 1 from David Lamb
As a licensed private pilot, I offer some clarification on the issue of aircraft transponders. Operating transponders are required to be installed on all civil aircraft, by FAR 91.215 (US Code of Federal Aviation Regulations). (Exceptions are aircraft manufactured without an electrical system (ultralights, antiques, and gliders) .) The requirements for when the transponder must be operating are complex, but basically any civil aircraft operating in any controlled airspace, in any Class A, B, or C airspace, within 30 miles of a major airport, within 10 miles of a minor airport, in or above a cloud ceiling, or above 10,000 ft., must have the transponder operating during flight. Essentially, any civil aircraft flying near a populated area below 10,000 ft., and any civil aircraft flying above 10,000 ft., will have the transponder turned on. The transponder is the primary means for ATC radar to identify specific aircraft and verify location.

The ADS-B system is the new GPS-based system. Civil aircraft are not required to have a ADS-B transmitter, but the newer aircraft that do are still required to have an operating transponder. My guess is that most commercial airlines are installing ADS-B transmitters in all of their older planes too, but there may be some that aren't.

I'm not sure why there's the assumption that the chemtrail sprayers won't be operating a transponder. My guess is that they probably are, because it is likely that they are civil aircraft per FAR definition, and I'd wait for some data to come back that indicates otherwise.

*******

Thanks again to everyone who has volunteered to participate in this important project

G. Edward Griffin

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

IS GRIFFIN WILLING TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG ABOUT CHEMTRAILS?
2011 June 8 from Ross Marsden
Hi Ed,
I am concerned about what you are doing here in light of what you have done so far and who you have associated yourself with. The reason is this. If you do this [chemtrail vs. contrail] project honestly and properly, you will come to the conclusion that the trails, short, medium length, broken, horizon to horizon, narrow, wide... are all contrails. All of them. Because that is what they are. True. You will become a skeptic again and you will have to do a massive climbdown and apologise to the debunkers and the people you misled, alike. Are you really ready to do that?

G. Edward Griffin's REPLY:
Hello Ross.
I am always prepared to acknowledge the truth, even if it means admitting I have been wrong in the past. I used to believe that the Federal Reserve was a government agency acting in my best interest. I used to believe that most politicians in high office are honorable. I used to believe everything I heard on TV news programs was true. I used to believe that the health industry was motivated primarily by a desire to cure disease. I used to believe that those with scientific degrees would never alter data in exchange for job security. I used to believe that aircraft trails are all contrails. Obviously, I am prepared to change my view if truth requires it.

User avatar
Moss Man
captain of 100
Posts: 317
Location: Black Hills USA

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by Moss Man »

moonwhim wrote:IS GRIFFIN WILLING TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG ABOUT CHEMTRAILS?
2011 June 8 from Ross Marsden
Hi Ed,
I am concerned about what you are doing here in light of what you have done so far and who you have associated yourself with. The reason is this. If you do this [chemtrail vs. contrail] project honestly and properly, you will come to the conclusion that the trails, short, medium length, broken, horizon to horizon, narrow, wide... are all contrails. All of them. Because that is what they are. True. You will become a skeptic again and you will have to do a massive climbdown and apologise to the debunkers and the people you misled, alike. Are you really ready to do that?

G. Edward Griffin's REPLY:
Hello Ross.
I am always prepared to acknowledge the truth, even if it means admitting I have been wrong in the past. I used to believe that the Federal Reserve was a government agency acting in my best interest. I used to believe that most politicians in high office are honorable. I used to believe everything I heard on TV news programs was true. I used to believe that the health industry was motivated primarily by a desire to cure disease. I used to believe that those with scientific degrees would never alter data in exchange for job security. I used to believe that aircraft trails are all contrails. Obviously, I am prepared to change my view if truth requires it.
This is an excellent response!

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

moonwhim wrote:IS GRIFFIN WILLING TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG ABOUT CHEMTRAILS?
2011 June 8 from Ross Marsden
Hi Ed,
I am concerned about what you are doing here in light of what you have done so far and who you have associated yourself with. The reason is this. If you do this [chemtrail vs. contrail] project honestly and properly, you will come to the conclusion that the trails, short, medium length, broken, horizon to horizon, narrow, wide... are all contrails. All of them. Because that is what they are. True. You will become a skeptic again and you will have to do a massive climbdown and apologise to the debunkers and the people you misled, alike. Are you really ready to do that?

G. Edward Griffin's REPLY:
Hello Ross.
I am always prepared to acknowledge the truth, even if it means admitting I have been wrong in the past. I used to believe that the Federal Reserve was a government agency acting in my best interest. I used to believe that most politicians in high office are honorable. I used to believe everything I heard on TV news programs was true. I used to believe that the health industry was motivated primarily by a desire to cure disease. I used to believe that those with scientific degrees would never alter data in exchange for job security. I used to believe that aircraft trails are all contrails. Obviously, I am prepared to change my view if truth requires it.

I find it humorous how the person wrote nothing pertaining to scientific data showing G. Edward Griffin is wrong.

User avatar
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4251

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by moonwhim »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:
moonwhim wrote:IS GRIFFIN WILLING TO ADMIT HE IS WRONG ABOUT CHEMTRAILS?
2011 June 8 from Ross Marsden
Hi Ed,
I am concerned about what you are doing here in light of what you have done so far and who you have associated yourself with. The reason is this. If you do this [chemtrail vs. contrail] project honestly and properly, you will come to the conclusion that the trails, short, medium length, broken, horizon to horizon, narrow, wide... are all contrails. All of them. Because that is what they are. True. You will become a skeptic again and you will have to do a massive climbdown and apologise to the debunkers and the people you misled, alike. Are you really ready to do that?

G. Edward Griffin's REPLY:
Hello Ross.
I am always prepared to acknowledge the truth, even if it means admitting I have been wrong in the past. I used to believe that the Federal Reserve was a government agency acting in my best interest. I used to believe that most politicians in high office are honorable. I used to believe everything I heard on TV news programs was true. I used to believe that the health industry was motivated primarily by a desire to cure disease. I used to believe that those with scientific degrees would never alter data in exchange for job security. I used to believe that aircraft trails are all contrails. Obviously, I am prepared to change my view if truth requires it.

I find it humorous how the person wrote nothing pertaining to scientific data showing G. Edward Griffin is wrong.
Probably a black ops troll trying to discourage exposure.

User avatar
Moss Man
captain of 100
Posts: 317
Location: Black Hills USA

Re: G. Edward Griffin Needs Help With Chemtrails

Post by Moss Man »

I noticed a couple of planes leaving their mark and went to planefinder.com. There were no planes showing anywhere near my location.

User avatar
LDSNZ
captain of 100
Posts: 275
Location: Te Ika a Māui

Chemtrails Lawsuit Help Find Law Firms!

Post by LDSNZ »

Facebook Group
FIRST EVIDENCE DUE MAY 15 2012.

if you just joined, secondary evidence will be accepted thereafter. Please get it done t...o help us.

BREAKING NEWS! Our California attorney is taking our case pro bono! We do need more attorneys.

This group is for those interested in filing a lawsuit for Geoengineering and Chemtrails that have evidence of Chemtrail toxins such as Barium, Aluminum, Strontium and other toxins in their blood or hair, urine, soil, rain water, we plan file a complaint in all 11 US Federal Courts and Courts abroad. We now have over 1700 potential Plaintiffs and we are growing VERY fast now.

Thanks to all that have joined. This is global and similar actions may be brought in other countries. Since the group was started, we have since done more testing, rain water was tested and was high in Aluminum and Barium and Strontium.

There is an ongoing effort to discredit and placate THE PUBLIC by certain people regarding this issue. Many doctors do not test for heavy metal toxicity on patients. If they don't, I suggest a new doctor.

PLEASE HELP US FIND MORE LAW FIRMS THAT WILL TAKE OUR CASES WE HAVE ONE SO FAR AS OF 4-18-2012 in California.

[We previously stated that we all should save $100 for the attorney. I have pledged to my $100 to get this off the ground big time. 1700 x $100 is $170,000. The first case will likely be filed in California as that is where our attorney is located.]

It would be great if someone had some big money to help. Like maybe someone in Hollywood? Or some millionaire Philanthropist that is tired of chemtrails as is our attorney and all of us.

In the event FB has a crash or something occurs to this group, email: chemtrailgeoengineeringlawsuit@hotmail.com

Post Reply