https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyJl-Jlls7Q
"Geoengineering is strategic..." and I paraphrase: [and] the only United States institution which is capable of being strategic consistently, credibly and coherently is the military. He goes on to acknowledge DARPA's involvement.
The thing that gets me is that in actual observation with ones own eyes and ears, there is ample phenomenological, empirical evidence and data that there are airplanes that are spraying an effluent which remains in the sky and later widens and thickens into heavy clouds and that this happens on a daily basis and lasts nearly all day. Further, the flight paths are clearcut diagonals and as if on a mathematical grid, something that has been strategically mapped out like a grid. Add to this that my memory tells me that there were not as many flights and certainly passenger airflight routes were never diagonal, rectangular, and square or crossgrid! If I could take either of these two gentlemen outside at one of their conferences I could assist them by politely pointing up at the chemtrails in the sky and discussing the phenomena in a shared-analogue grapsing of the truth of the observed meteorological phenomena. And if their denial is some sort of technical denial for example that the use of the term 'chemtrail' somehow disqualifies my speaking of the truth of this phenomenon. Allow me to define 'chemtrail': the phenomenologically valid perception of the sky and its meteorological aspects which reveals an unusually high flight activation, on a clearly angular and finitely measured distribution grid (and there may even be mixing---I have observed this), the planes delivering a precise effluent of an unknown stream or smoke along the grid which when continuously observed through the passing of the day later forms thick, billowing clouds---it is like a drawing tool as an artist you do one stroke of a whitish-grey brush across the cerulean blue sky---now the color spreads evenly in the suspension. This is the meaning of the term 'chemtrail'---you can call it anything you like: call it a billowy quarabulum for all I care! Call it phenomenon 'cloud-Z'---but if I were standing there in Calgary or in Canberra at a geoengineering conference and I drew the three of us into a congenial chat and then saw these effluents and various phenomena---then I could ask these two major scholars to illuminate my understanding concerning the truth of this phenomenon. Is there any even deeper deep strategy for changing our minds to not be able to speak with confidence concerning one's own actual existential evidence. And the geoengineering "debate" is a meta-protocol conditioning program (algorithm) whose real target is my own phenomenologically given truth, my analogue perception of the beauty of the skies---I love to paint clouds---
By the way, artists know a whole lot more than scientists about clouds---look at Turner's paintings which as Clive Hamilton says, reflected the actual phenomenological and meteorological effects
of a volcano. I have been using my eyes watching clouds and cloud formation since I was a boy!
I can prove this through my poetry. In other words my poetry is evidence of the meteorological and phenomenological evidence given as truth to my poetry. Dennis Blalock, my painting teacher, said "Shit Pete an artists has got to know everything about nature. THe more you know about the cloud---whether it is cirrhus, or cumulus, that such striate-shaped clouds do not occur in your pennsylvania skies, that these are from New Mexico, etc., etc. The artist has to know everything!"
Or put it another way the more an artist knows about phenomenon x, y, or z, the more that their art can show the truth about x, y, or z! You cannot tell me that my minute observations of water during my 55 year sojourn on this planet---which is well recorded in all of my journals and poems---you are going to tell me that this has no value, no truth value, cannot be considered "scientific"? THen what kind of science are Keith and Hamilton discussing anyway. Science is a pretty broad term---I have defined my science above---truth given as phenomenal evidence to an analogue person who tells the truth about what they have received. Are these men speaking the truth? OR is it the case that truth is nowhere considered in the debate concerning geoengineering. Is it a case of chalatanry?
All I can say is thath with Bob Dylan I agree that "They are trying to make a liar out of me."
The contrail-chemtrail conspiracy deniers (the 'anti-truthers') such as David Keith and Clive Hamilton make a special point of denying this---in fact Keith actually is publishing "science" articles addressing the sociological fact of the conspiracy. [Could this be an even higher dialectic than either Keith or Hamilton could imagine? Could there be a strategy that is even "deeper" than Dane Wigginton is able to grasp. In other words, the complete transformation of terrestrial science, academics, military, and it proves that Keith can generate so-called science and yet it has nothing to do with what is patently observable by everyday citizens---this is a brutal attack made upon the essence of democracy. Much like 9/11---not only are you discouraged from stating the truth but these hidden strategists even want to limit your capacity to deliver a 'logos' concerning one's own empirical evidence of truth. Now ponder this carefully: if this is what science does that is to actively militate against the truth of the individually existing truth-bearer and to shroud our analogue world with sulfuric acid---an acid-bath of effluents such as Keith describes. But no, there are no chemtrails---those guys are Kooks! Pretty funny if you ask me----Listen I don't think that these guys are actively nefarious (though sometimes I am not sure! :) :):):): आं
"Geoengineering is strategic..." and I paraphrase: [and] the only United States institution which is capable of being strategic consistently, credibly and coherently is the military. He goes on to acknowledge DARPA's involvement.
The thing that gets me is that in actual observation with ones own eyes and ears, there is ample phenomenological, empirical evidence and data that there are airplanes that are spraying an effluent which remains in the sky and later widens and thickens into heavy clouds and that this happens on a daily basis and lasts nearly all day. Further, the flight paths are clearcut diagonals and as if on a mathematical grid, something that has been strategically mapped out like a grid. Add to this that my memory tells me that there were not as many flights and certainly passenger airflight routes were never diagonal, rectangular, and square or crossgrid! If I could take either of these two gentlemen outside at one of their conferences I could assist them by politely pointing up at the chemtrails in the sky and discussing the phenomena in a shared-analogue grapsing of the truth of the observed meteorological phenomena. And if their denial is some sort of technical denial for example that the use of the term 'chemtrail' somehow disqualifies my speaking of the truth of this phenomenon. Allow me to define 'chemtrail': the phenomenologically valid perception of the sky and its meteorological aspects which reveals an unusually high flight activation, on a clearly angular and finitely measured distribution grid (and there may even be mixing---I have observed this), the planes delivering a precise effluent of an unknown stream or smoke along the grid which when continuously observed through the passing of the day later forms thick, billowing clouds---it is like a drawing tool as an artist you do one stroke of a whitish-grey brush across the cerulean blue sky---now the color spreads evenly in the suspension. This is the meaning of the term 'chemtrail'---you can call it anything you like: call it a billowy quarabulum for all I care! Call it phenomenon 'cloud-Z'---but if I were standing there in Calgary or in Canberra at a geoengineering conference and I drew the three of us into a congenial chat and then saw these effluents and various phenomena---then I could ask these two major scholars to illuminate my understanding concerning the truth of this phenomenon. Is there any even deeper deep strategy for changing our minds to not be able to speak with confidence concerning one's own actual existential evidence. And the geoengineering "debate" is a meta-protocol conditioning program (algorithm) whose real target is my own phenomenologically given truth, my analogue perception of the beauty of the skies---I love to paint clouds---
By the way, artists know a whole lot more than scientists about clouds---look at Turner's paintings which as Clive Hamilton says, reflected the actual phenomenological and meteorological effects
of a volcano. I have been using my eyes watching clouds and cloud formation since I was a boy!
I can prove this through my poetry. In other words my poetry is evidence of the meteorological and phenomenological evidence given as truth to my poetry. Dennis Blalock, my painting teacher, said "Shit Pete an artists has got to know everything about nature. THe more you know about the cloud---whether it is cirrhus, or cumulus, that such striate-shaped clouds do not occur in your pennsylvania skies, that these are from New Mexico, etc., etc. The artist has to know everything!"
Or put it another way the more an artist knows about phenomenon x, y, or z, the more that their art can show the truth about x, y, or z! You cannot tell me that my minute observations of water during my 55 year sojourn on this planet---which is well recorded in all of my journals and poems---you are going to tell me that this has no value, no truth value, cannot be considered "scientific"? THen what kind of science are Keith and Hamilton discussing anyway. Science is a pretty broad term---I have defined my science above---truth given as phenomenal evidence to an analogue person who tells the truth about what they have received. Are these men speaking the truth? OR is it the case that truth is nowhere considered in the debate concerning geoengineering. Is it a case of chalatanry?
All I can say is thath with Bob Dylan I agree that "They are trying to make a liar out of me."
The contrail-chemtrail conspiracy deniers (the 'anti-truthers') such as David Keith and Clive Hamilton make a special point of denying this---in fact Keith actually is publishing "science" articles addressing the sociological fact of the conspiracy. [Could this be an even higher dialectic than either Keith or Hamilton could imagine? Could there be a strategy that is even "deeper" than Dane Wigginton is able to grasp. In other words, the complete transformation of terrestrial science, academics, military, and it proves that Keith can generate so-called science and yet it has nothing to do with what is patently observable by everyday citizens---this is a brutal attack made upon the essence of democracy. Much like 9/11---not only are you discouraged from stating the truth but these hidden strategists even want to limit your capacity to deliver a 'logos' concerning one's own empirical evidence of truth. Now ponder this carefully: if this is what science does that is to actively militate against the truth of the individually existing truth-bearer and to shroud our analogue world with sulfuric acid---an acid-bath of effluents such as Keith describes. But no, there are no chemtrails---those guys are Kooks! Pretty funny if you ask me----Listen I don't think that these guys are actively nefarious (though sometimes I am not sure! :) :):):): आं
No comments:
Post a Comment