Source: Truthstream Media
Related article:
Media Normalization of Geoengineering: “The Fact Is, We Are Living Through a Test Already”
May 3, 2017
“The fact is, we are living through a test already.” — The New York Times
The New York Times recently printed a cheerleading article in obvious support of spraying the atmosphere (and thus, the population) with tons of particulates. The article’s headline, “Is It O.K. to Tinker With the Environment to Fight Climate Change?” should have been: “It is O.K. to Tinker with the Very AIR We All Breathe to Fight a Crisis Created by Dishonest ‘Scientific’ Data”.
Apparently Harvard scientists David Keith and Frank Keutsch are moving ahead with plans for atmospheric geoengineering experiments, according to Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric Geoengineering Experiments, published in MIT Technology Review. (Shocking, isn’t it. That was rhetorical.)
Keith has long been an outspoken proponent of “atmospheric geoengineering” or “solar geoengineering.” Of course, if he used the term “chemtrails,” he would be a labeled a conspiracy theorist in the pejorative, but he’s an official scientist at Harvard, so he uses terminology that makes widescale spraying of chemicals in the atmosphere via jets sound like something positive for the environment we should all get behind.
When Keith says atmospheric geoengineering, he is referring to spraying the air with liquid sulfur, sulfur dioxide, ice crystals and calcium carbonate — limestone — alumina, diamond dust, etc.
Keith’s plans for the planet, via NYT:
1) For the past few years, the Harvard professor David Keith has been sketching this vision: Ten Gulfstream jets, outfitted with special engines that allow them to fly safely around the stratosphere at an altitude of 70,000 feet, take off from a runway near the Equator. Their cargo includes thousands of pounds of a chemical compound — liquid sulfur, let’s suppose — that can be sprayed as a gas from the aircraft. It is not a one-time event; the flights take place throughout the year, dispersing a load that amounts to 25,000 tons. If things go right, the gas converts to an aerosol of particles that remain aloft and scatter sunlight for two years. The payoff? A slowing of the earth’s warming — for as long as the Gulfstream flights continue.
Key phrase “if things go right”…
Continuing:
2) Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.
How unfortunate for Tucson…
And oh, just by the way, it takes reading most of this 3,000+ words of pro-global geoengineering anthropomorphic climate change propaganda to get to the buried line, “But Keith is not trained as an atmospheric scientist.”
Oh good. That’s a lot like finding out on your kid’s first day of school that he’s riding home on a bus driven by a bus driver without a license who was never trained on how to drive school buses before he was put in charge of chauffeuring small children around in a 25,000 lb. vehicle. Will it be much of a surprise then if that bus crashes or goes off a cliff? (Of course, in this instance, the bus is the entire planet…)
In Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health, (an article by the late Dr. Ilya Perlingueri, first published by Global Research in May 2010), the poisons of chemtrails and their toxicity are frankly discussed:
Over the past decade, independent testing of Chemtrails around the country has shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium, nano aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide, and polymer fibers. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic. Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying.
Yet Keith wants to deliberately spray alumina in the atmosphere under the guise of solar/atmospheric geoengineering. And Keith has support from the National Academy of Sciences, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Hewlett Foundation and billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates, whom Keith personally advises on climate change.
By the way, alumina and aluminum are different because alumina is a compound, which includes aluminum so I guess that makes it okay, right?
What is the difference between Aluminum and Alumina?
• Aluminum is an element, and alumina is an aluminum containing compound. The molecular formula of alumina is Al2O3, and aluminum is shown as Al.
• Aluminum is a good electric conductor, but alumina is an electrical insulator.
• Aluminum is largely reactive with oxygen, acids or bases. But alumina is not too reactive like aluminum; thus, acts as a protective layer over aluminum.
• Alumina can be used to produce aluminum.
Maybe you do not believe there has been any “solar geoengineering” or “atmospheric geoengineering” because you don’t believe government agencies would spray people or the atmosphere with anything because that just sounds like crazy sauce. Before making up your mind, please read Army Sprayed St. Louis With Toxic Dust and ‘One of the largest human experiments in history’ was conducted on unsuspecting residents of San Francisco and Blood & Fog: The Military’s Germ Warfare Tests in San Francisco, then make up your mind.
As IFLScience detailed in “The U.S. Military Once Tested Biological Warfare On The Whole Of San Francisco”:
It sounds like a prime conspiracy theory, and indeed if you type it into Google that’s a lot of what you find, but for a period of at least 20 years, the U.S. Army carried out simulated open-air biological warfare attacks – on their own cities.
In the wake of World War II, the United Sates military was suddenly worried about and keen to test out the threats posed by biological warfare. They started experiments looking into how bacteria and their harmful toxins might spread, only using harmless stand-in microbes. They tested these on military bases, infecting soldiers and their families who lived with them, but eventually they stepped things up a notch. Disclosed in 1977, it turns out that the U.S. military carried out 239 secret open-air tests on its own citizens…
Apparently the idea for “atmospheric geoengineering” has been in the works for many decades, as even admitted in The New York Times article:
A report issued in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration called attention to the dangers of increasing concentrations of CO2 and, anticipating Keith’s research, speculated that a logical response might be to change the albedo, or reflectivity, of the earth.
If they were talking about doing this more than 50 years ago, isn’t it possible they already started and are only now informing us because the “geoengineering” is going to become so obvious they can no longer call it a conspiracy theory?
These paragraphs should alert you to some serious issues with these plans to change our air:
Finally, what if something goes wrong either in research or in deployment? David Battisti, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, told me, “It’s not obvious to me that we can reduce the uncertainty to anywhere near a tolerable level — that is, to the level that there won’t be unintended consequences that are really serious.” While Battisti thought Keith’s small Scopex experiment posed little danger — “The atmosphere will restore itself,” he said — he noted that the whole point of the Harvard researchers’ work is to determine whether solar geoengineering could be done “forever,” on a large-scale, round-the-clock basis. When I asked Battisti if he had issues with going deeper into geoengineering research, as opposed to geoengineering itself, he said: “Name a technology humans have developed that they haven’t used. I can’t think of any. So we can work on this for sure. But we are in this dilemma: Once we do develop this technology, it will be tempting to use it.”
An around-the-clock forever basis… but without any long-term effects data.
By the way, how many people do you know that have developed allergies in the last few years? How many people do you know who have breathing difficulties, sinus infections, regular bronchitis, etc.? We’re not suddenly having all of these allergy problems en masse out of nowhere for no reason.
These “geoengineering” efforts cause droughts in some places while excessive rainfall in others. Do you think it’s normal to get 6-8″ of rain in an hour repeatedly? Here’s another question: why isn’t the sky really blue anymore? Most days it’s a greyish blue or even white. It sounds like Dark City, but it’s getting hard to remember the last time the sky was really blue.
This is not normal.
They are deliberately changing the very air we breathe. Ask yourself “WHY?” There are a multitude of possibilities that do not have anything to do with climate change.
The very last paragraph of The New York Times article was the most chilling. The author perhaps meant it from the viewpoint of climate change but climate change was not mentioned in the paragraph:
If anything could sway a fence-sitter to consider whether geoengineering research makes sense, perhaps it is this: The fact is, we are living through a test already.
Sadly, the one sentiment in the entire piece upon which we can all agree.
Truth Comes to Light highlights writers and video creators who ask the difficult questions while sharing their unique insights and visions.
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
