It’s all in the wording…
Politicians are becoming increasingly careful in their choice of words when responding to enquiries by the ever burgeoning number of people asking questions about the trails from aircraft and the strange weather/skies we now see on a daily basis. Occasionally the two are not even connected but many others have now realised that one seems intrinsically linked to the other, and there seems to be almost no logical way of explaining the latter without considering the former. If the person questioning then considers that aircraft never used to produce trails at all the thought process can lead only to one conclusion. Planes are now doing something different, and that something is affecting our weather and overall climate.
This thought process should be no different for politicians, we are still receiving perplexing denials that anything is wrong, that anything is going on, and that everything we see is completely normal. The fact that every single response seems to follow a pattern, with similar structure, language and insinuation suggests very strongly that collusion is occurring. It is not possible for many people to all respond in exactly the same way to a similar enquiry unless they have consulted and agreed to do so, or been instructed to respond as such, or briefed on exactly how to respond to such enquiries, which amounts to the same thing. Any psychologist will confirm that.
The letter above is a perfect example.
As we all know politics is no longer a discipline based on truth, and in fact it is now based almost entirely on avoiding the truth. Indeed most politicians are now trained in such techniques to a very high level, with it being the primary skill of any successful politician at ministerial level. Evasion, diversion, confusion and creating loopholes so as to infer one thing in the immediate context, but allowing for manoeuvre and re-interpretation at a later date if their claims are disproved. One specific example of diversion is the repeated use in most letters of response that “no evidence exists” or they “have seen no evidence to suggest…”. How is it possible for tens of thousands of people to think they have seen lots of evidence to suggest… and yet politicians haven’t. The simple answer is they refuse to look at the evidence. This is the reason we are handing in a dossier to 10 Downing Street on the 27th September at the end of the Global March, which will also be copied in print for to several key ministers. We hope this will result in a state of ultimatum. They cannot then claim to not have seen the evidence. We hope then to force a response. Inevitably that response will be one of continued denial, but job done is some senses becuase
Once the preserve of solicitors and barristers, this is now, sadly, what we expect from them. Leaving aside the moral discussion for now, there seems to be no other topic that is exercising their skills in this area that climate change, climate engineering and the debate of what is going on in our skies. Thanks to the efforts of this website and other campaigners in this movement, there must be some extremely worried people walking the corridors of power right now, as we uncover more and more inconsistencies, outright lies, and false facts and information. As it stands, those in government and the organisations that are trying desperately to cover up this program, are deflecting the assorted random enquiries with all manner of excuses, disinformation and avoidance techniques but this can’t last obviously. If we manage to get this topic into the public consciousness quickly enough, any debate will result in the immediate crumbling of anything they can summon to explain what is happening. None of it stands up to scrutiny at all. The problem is ‘netting’ these people. They are like freshly caught fish, and are wriggling ferociously, so as to get back into the pond so as not to have to continue with the debate, because they know they are losing fast. With ever subsequent enquiry their excuses become more and more flawed and ludicrous.
This website is essentially committed to 3 things. Political pressure, awareness and legal action. these are the only 3 things that may be able, individually or in combination, to bring about an admission at worst or a complete cessation of this program. The latter is the most promising, but also the most complex in many ways, as we may face a quagmire of terminology and interpretation. Fish do not just jump off the hook and into the net as we said. If we are to accept the extreme interpretation of the situation then this program has been carefully planned by the private corporations involved. As crazy as that sounds, it almost has to be the case, in if so then they must have thought very carefully about the legal aspects and potential ramifications or becoming involved in a program of deliberate weather modification and hence climate engineering.
Now one would imaging that this would be illegal of course, but when we examine wording then there may be room for the fish to wriggle free. The ENMOD treaty is worded as such:
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
The immediately obvious problem with this is the word hostile. If it can be claimed by those behind this program that the intentions were not hostile then they may be able to avoid being prosecuted under its terms. We said a long time ago that the organisations behind the current Climate Engineering programs will, when forced to admit their presence, that they were simply trying to protect us from, global warming. Even one of the possible genuine reasons, weather control for financial reasons, cannot be considered hostile as such, unless we can prove the substances being used are harmful firstly, but crucially that they knew this before starting to spray them, and so were guilty of endangering life.