Does it serve any purpose, when one is not a government, to state publicly that one's policy towards any individual involved in any way in secret spraying programmes would be to recommend immunity from prosecution in return for full disclosure of everything one knows about the activity in which one has been participating?
I am reminded of the argument that one encountered with 'chemtrail' debunkers that if any such spraying activity were actually occurring they would be the first to condemn and denounce it (because it would be illegal, because it would violate 'the Nuremberg Laws' . This was of course a cunning 'divide and rule' stance, skilfully separating 'chemtrail activists' from potential 'whistleblowers' through a pointed reminder of the litigation any such 'insider' scientists might face from 'climate change sceptics' if they actually went public with anything they knew [thus incriminating themselves]. And climate change sceptics could amply justify their own righteous indignation by the thought of the absolute lack of necessity for any climate change 'mitigation', given that anthropogenic climate change is itself 'a hoax' in their eyes, or at least 'unproven'.
"This question of immunity - I don't understand it as who can give such guarantees except those holding the reins and they are the ones who do not want this truth to come out?"
My response to this:
"The usefulness of taking this position is that one can use it in public discussion with climate scientists to enable them to speak without compromising themselves, and to put them on the spot.
The question would be: if these allegations concerning illegal spraying were correct, and if as you say you would be opposed to such techniques as a solution to problems related to climate change and/or ozone depletion, would you favour prosecution or immunity from prosecution in exchange for disclosure of knowledge in the case of individuals involved?"
Brian Holmes also said:
"IMHO - it need not be as black and white as that. It is possible to have some useful measure of disclosure without individuals being placed in any personal jeopardy. It is a matter of finding those individuals..."
"I need to think about the issue for a bit. As a rule I don’t engage debunkers, nor do I tend to bang my skull against a brick wall thinking I can bring it down. Both are painful and a waste of time and emotional energy, my time is better spent on other projects.
"Having a hard time understanding your question....but believe I can comment on the part I understand...Serving any purpose. No, I do not think it would...any individual just making disclosure statements regarding their knowledge about ChemTrails or the entirety of the operations thereof...would not be enough credible evidence for the existence of ChemTrails. They would have to make the statements to a major news source and demand that it be aired publicly, globally. Seems this would be immunity itself if they are a whistle blower. As you know Jim Phelps has made such claims however has not produced credible specificity of operations, mission objectives etc., only his participation in the invention of some of the suspected objectives, i.e. Climate change, Weather Modification/manipulation and the US DOE's ongoing operations. Where's his evidence of damage caused by these chemical spraying operations, radical meso cyclonic manipulation! and destruction thereof...where's something of evidence that he would broadcast on a Major News Network? No one seems to be able to communicate this....in the case of the debunkers, Jay Reynolds opinion on anything has no merit and he/they are a non-important entity, I do not hear them or what they have to say. Climate changers are mission bound and their efforts are all connected to a paycheck. They are also neutral in any discussions.
Am I missing something here or are the ChemTrails Activists' chasing their tails again?
Two more answers, one from Robert VanWaning, who wants more time to think about it, and also says that "chemtrail-theories complicate the discussion."
Another from George Paxinos, whom I quote in full:
"People are scatocephalics, always been so, ever will be, but the worst thing about them is that they WANT to be seduced by crooks, they like it to know someone is "in charge" as they themselves can never be.
So of course, the sheep DEFEND the farmer, because although he eats them, he for the moment also feeds them. The sheep are our problem, for their inertia disallows us freedom of action.
My policy is, I AM, I have a rifle, and should I survive and the sheep be out of the way with their pointless arguments, I will hunt down as many of the perpetrators as I can and do them in, but not in any clean way."
"A lot of unknowns out there. I can definitely say that these unknown sprayings affect the weather in a huge way. We've had some weird weather here the last month (and some pretty heavy spray days). The sprayings usually happen just before weather fronts come in. The weather channel says it's gonna rain and all we get is barely a few droplets. They then call for a sunny day. The heavy spraying accumulates and by mid day they announce "cloudy and partly sunny". It has happened this way for the past month (they're constantly getting it wrong). Thus the weather is definitely being controlled.
You propose an interesting perspective with your Chemtrail question. It may not be necessary though, people are talking and disclosing already (willingly) and it's just a matter of time...
Last Edit: May 6, 2005 9:04:05 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall
Halva: The usefulness of taking this position is that one can use it in public discussion with climate scientists to enable them to speak without compromising themselves, and to put them on the spot.
The question would be: if these allegations concerning illegal spraying were correct, and if as you say you would be opposed to such techniques as a solution to problems related to climate change and/or ozone depletion, would you favour prosecution or immunity from prosecution in exchange for disclosure of knowledge in the case of individuals involved?
This question would fit into a strategy that seeks to REMOVE the media from their present position as intermediary between chemtrails activists and climate scientists. In this sense they play the same role as chemtrails debunkers like Reynolds: the 'divide-and-rule' role of middlemen.
Mike Castle: Yes, give them immunity from prosecution provided they agree to stop the spraying, immediately and then come to the table and openly address the most critical problem caused by ChemTrails, the toxicity issue and chronic health problems. Then the debate of legitmacy or purpose could begin.
As I have claimed since year 2000, these chemical toxicities are horrendous. They have selected some of the crudest technologies to accomplish these tasks...Weather Modification, Global Warming mitigation, UV blocking, Infrared heat dissipation and so on, not to mention the Ozone remediation technologies. All of these ChemTrails technologies are crude and have these massive negative side-effects that have not been taken into account prior to commencing the first operations.
Climate Scientists are just like the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind the veil of secrecy, thinking they are correct in doing what they are, never asking themselves if they should be doing any of these things.
If the Climate Change Scientists would have a little faith in what we have been asking them to consider, I believe the potential for exploring other/alternative solutions to these Planet Earth problems would be forthcoming...without the extreme side effects....and possibly would be legal to conduct these operations. The first order of solution(s) is for the immediate halt to what is being sprayed into the atmosphere.
Halva: Since presumably you would be addressing individual scientists it is hard to see how you could ask them to 'stop the spraying immediately'.
You can raise the demand in addressing the authorities but if you are setting yourself up as a counter-authority the formulation would be that you propose to stop the spraying, and given the power, you will.
Last Edit: May 7, 2005 7:13:02 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall
"We now have a program that is not just one country but many so international laws would be a consideration. It would be interesting to find out the stance of the World Court in whistleblower cases. We now have certain countries actively spraying others countries. The laws in one country would not necessary apply to the laws in another thus international laws and perhaps the World Court would be avenues to explore."
"Why should the insider risk coming out, with or without immunity, so scientists, if you can call them that will address the contrail issue without repercussion? A thinking scientist would study the issue on his/her own time then decide whether it is an issue that warrants research on the clock. My feeling is that the right climate scientist just hasn't been found. We always want to try and make people see our side of the story as we see it though our eyes. That just isn't possible. The right person will be attracted to the issue at the right time. That is just how all things work.
You and I and a half-million others worldwide know the score with thousands others daily searching for answers or just seeing things in the sky that seem a little too unusual. The right one will see what we see be converted thereby assisting the cause without reservation. That will be another powerful tool in the arsenal of truth. Truth always wins in the end."
Last Edit: May 8, 2005 14:15:29 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall