Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Al Gore talks to Ellen about GeoEngineering - Says Speak Out!
We cannot be silent about this. We are literally being kept in the dark.
Why no questions or outrage? Are we more afraid of being labelled
as 'conspiracy nuts' than we are about the health of our planet?
One woman is taking the bull by the horns -
&ebc=ANyPxKqpdfLkfDQBpmxGQP1V7VomK_2OocxrfjN6MsuwEo9mbRm_ohdngBYfP2FS_2er4gyGm4Ts2muYly4pBOPnbGXq63eQog
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
1) Al Gore does not even mention chemtrails.
The title over the video ("Al Gore Publicly Confirms to Chemtrails"
is not even meaningful English.
Al Gore does not say that the so-called geoengineering is "chemtrails". He does not link them, even conceptually.
Gore is clear that what he is talking about is only future proposals.
2) The Rosalind Peterson video is 2010 and has nothing to do with Gore.
3) Peterson in 2012 says there is no evidence for Chemtrails after 10 years of research.
Rosalind Peterson, founder of California Skywatch, says there's no evidence that those trails in the sky are anything other than normal contrails, aircraft emissions. Transcript of that portion:
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.
And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, [font color = "red"]I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions.[/font]
Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.
When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.
So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
"We have to stick with what we can prove. We have to stay away from opinions and beliefs. And if we go to sue someone, we have to have enough rock solid evidence that is so tight to make a case so that we don't lose the case, and that we have many many people, in other words experts in various fields, to testify on our behalf. This mean university professors, this means people that can come and back up our statements, back up the studies, where we can prove that the jets for example reduce the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth, they change the climate.
And so what happens is, that when I see though, that we are talking about suing, ... who? In other words, I find that the direct proof to link up who's doing what ..., and also I can tell you that in ten years of research, other than aluminum coated fiberglass, chaff releases by the US Military, [font color = "red"]I have no proof whatsoever that the jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions.[/font]
Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there's tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn't even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there's Pentagon reports, there's all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.
When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don't have the documentation, and I don't have a single study, I don't have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.
So there's a differentiation for me in putting my name or associating myself with something where I can't back it up. Now if anyone has direct proof, they've got university studies, if you've got documents, government documents, if you've got reports, then that makes a big difference. But right now, after ten years of research, I can't do it."
