Do some research before you promote a theory
11 Dec 2005
What is the truth about chemtrails? Did Apollo astronauts land on the moon? How about the theory that the airplanes that hit the towers were holograms, or blue screen illusions? Is the official story of the Holocaust correct? What about the theory that mini nuclear bombs brought down the WTC towers?
The US Government has been caught using the public in experiments. For example, they sprayed bacteria in the San Francisco area, and they used both citizens and soldiers in tests with atomic bombs, LSD, and radioactive materials.
The government admits some experiments here:
The numerous and bizarre experiments cause many
people to assume the military is still conducting experiments on us. This
is a valid concern, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that every airplane
that leaves a persistent trail is spraying us with a mysterious substance.
Sheepherders gather sheeple
The mysterious sicknesses on cruise ships could be the result of their testing of new bacteria. However, but if you trust Clifford Carnicom or other "experts" on chemtrails, you will be looking high in the sky, not at the cruise ships.
These "experts" seem to be sheepherders who lure Gullible Goyim into a "goy pen" where they are fed deceptive information.
Mike Ruppert tells us that the CIA is the primary group behind the importation of drugs in America. The people who trust Rupert are foolishly investigating the employees of the CIA, and they will never figure out how the CIA employees, such as Valerie Plame, are getting drugs into the country and distributing them.
I suspect that Mike Rupert is a Zionist agent, and that the drug trade
is primarily coming from the Rothschilds, the Zionists, and their associates.
The people who trust Mike Ruppert are fooled into looking at the wrong group of people. The people who promote the chemtrail theory also seem to be sending people into the wrong direction. If some group is spraying us with something, I would suspect that:
There have been experiments in weather control for decades, but the chemtrail "experts" don't seem interested in differentiating between valid experiments and diabolical chemtrails.
Some people respond that they are spraying at 30,000 feet because they are trying to change the ionosphere for some sort of HAARP related project. (They claim HAARP is a mysterious weapon.) But where is the evidence for such an accusation?
Some people complain that the airplanes make grid patterns in the sky, but take a look at all the airports in the world, and explain how airplanes can get from one airport to another without occasionally creating grids, parallel lines, and other patterns.
Don't forget that military pilots must practice. If one of them were to fly in ovals or other patterns, dozens of fools would panic that he is spraying the city with chemtrails.
Nobody can agree on what these chemtrails are because nobody has any evidence for their accusations. People are just looking into the sky and making wild assumptions.
The UFO theories also come from people who see something mysterious in the sky, and then jump to the conclusion that it is a spacecraft from another solar system.
I think the chemtrail issue is another trap. The exhaust of a jet will persist for hours if the air in that location of the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor. This is why clouds can persist for long periods of times.
Don't be a fool; don't talk about chemtrails unless you actually have some evidence for your theories.
How can you tell the truth from a trap? For example, which is the truth, and which is a trap:
A) Apollo astronauts landed on the moon.
I say that anybody who believes he official story of the Apollo moon landing is a Useful Idiot who is helping to cover up these crimes.
If my Apollo accusations are flawed, why doesn't somebody come forward and show me where my mistakes are? Why doesn't somebody expose me as a fool?
My brother told me that a physics professor he personally knows will put me in my place by showing me the flaws in my Apollo accusations. That was in 2004. Hey, Mr. Physics Professor... I'm still waiting! When are you going to do it?
A lot of people tell me I am wrong about Apollo, but without proof,
you are a fool to criticize me.
Nobody would resort to whispering insults if they had evidence of my mistakes.
Their inability to find flaws in my documents, book, and video is simply
evidence that I have not made any mistakes, or at least none worth complaining
If you are incapable of figuring out who to listen to, and who to be suspicious of, you may end up dangling on one of their fishing lines.
Of course, unlike Ritter -- who was arrested -- you may never realize
that you have been caught because you will not
be arrested for promoting nonsense. Instead, you will be praised
A man who visits my website eventually come to the conclusion that he
was a sucker for believing in Bigfoot,
chemtrails, and UFOs. He wrote about it here:
Holograms or Blue Screen illusions?
Some people claim that the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers were not real airplanes. Rather, they were holograms or illusions created by the television news crews.
They base these theories on the fact that when we zoom in on the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center we can clearly see that the airplane changes shape from one frame to the next.
Below are three sequential frames of video that I took of an airplane moving slowly along an airport runway. The video images are actually much larger; I zoomed in on the flag on the airplane.
|Notice that the letters are jagged, and the shape
changes from one frame to the next. Also, notice that the stripes on the
flag change from one frame to the next. Is this airplane a hologram? Was
the video edited? No!
This distortion occurs in video images with all objects in motion.
And the distortion would be worse if
the plane had been moving at high speed.
Don't get caught in their Hologram Trap
Please look into this issue of interlaced video before you give us an analysis of a video image.
The following web site has a good photo of how a car in motion is blurred
by interlaced video, while the background is clearly visible:
This next web site has lots of photos and descriptions:
And finally, here is a web site with animated images to show you how
a ball in motion appears differently on different types of video systems: