- Dear Clifford,
-
- I am writing this to you from France, and will not be
able to listen to your program with Jeff tonight. I regret this since I
know you will do evedrything in your power to address the issues that many
of us have expressed so much concern about.
-
- It is somewhat awkward to open a public dialogue of this
nature with someone for whom I have friendly personal regard as well the
utmost impersonal respect.
-
- But the Internet is not worth anything if it cannot provide
a forum for sincere dialogue among those equally concerned with the most
vital issues of our lives. So I will try my best to set forth the serious
concerns I have about the implications and aftereffects of the astonishing
ìpreemptiveî message you have delivered, because my questions
are real, and they are fair.
-
- Nothing I have been thinking and writing about this message
is unique. To the contrary, many similar thoughts have arisen naturally
from these circumstances in other minds than mine. So, I am not going too
far in saying that I know I do not speak only for myself but for at least
a few others as well, in wishing to discuss this at greater length, quite
openly, and in good faith. Because this latest communiquÈ of yours
is of such a nature as to require a great deal of our very best collective
and most disinterested consideration.
-
- In order to allow me to make my point, please put yourself
in our shoes for a moment. Many of us have also been working on this issue
for years now, and we care deeply about what may and may not be true about
every facet of this problem. Imagine that the experience you have described
happened to someone else, and you were in our place, reading such a blanket
statement as you have presented us with. Would you simply swallow such
an amazing item whole, no questions asked? I think you would read a post
like this and maintain at the very least strict neutrality, until such
a time as verifiable evidence arose supporting such amazing claims. This
type of material, offered point blank and without supporting data, can
only be taken for now as a series of personal statements by you, neither
verifiable nor subject to disproof by anyone else. In short, for the sake
of maintaining all-important objectivity, these claims must be considered,
technically speaking, as hearsay. This is not to say they are not true,
but to affirm that we cannot prove it. You will surely agree that all of
us who cannot share your personal experience in any way must naturally
scrupulously catalogue such a report in as detached a manner as possible.
-
- Since we know you at least well enough to know you never
lie, we understand that you are reporting exactly what you believe to be
true. And your message implies an invitation for us to believe it too,
simply because it comes from you, and is your sincere interpretation of
the events you describe. But since there is no supporting information or
evidence forthcoming of any kind whatsoever, such a leap of blind faith
by the rest of us cannot reasonably ensue. The fundamental problem with
this unhappy situation is clear. None of us is perfectly informed on the
inner workings of the full scope of global aerosol operations, to put it
mildly, and none of us is foolproof either. There isnít one of us
who havenít been mistaken now and again, and who couldnít
be mistaken again at any time. In short, believing the unsubstantiated
statements even of our best-informed friends is not something we are likely
to do very often. It has happened, but it is extremely rare. And in this
case, for some of us there are other potential problems with this version
of events which we must carefully examine, aside from the inevitably and
rightly very touchy issue of purported received wisdom from anonymous secretive
authorities.
-
- In answer to my initial questions, you posted the following
on your message board:
-
- "REPEATED: This information is relayed without qualification,
as I am knowledgeable in the level of integrity of the researcher that
has made this information available to the public. There is both risk and
restraint that has been exercised in the preparation of this statement.
My primary role here is to make the information from this meeting available,
as I am aware of the circumstances surrounding it. I will not be at liberty
to discuss the information in any greater detail than it has been presented.
CEC"
-
- OK, let me then repeat myself as well.
-
- My question to you is how you could expect us to do the
very thing you yourself have said, over and over again, you try never to
do. And that is to simply believe what someone else has said, on the basis
of no included evidence. You have taught us very well in this regard. I
know you will not think us monsters of ingratitude for raising these issues,
and I expect that you can even smile at just how well we have taken all
you have taught us to heart. Because thanks to you and other similarly
hardy and discriminating minds, we have learned to distinguish the crucial
difference between what we merely believe, and what we know for a certainty
to be true. And as you see, we arenít going to forget it either.
-
- Next, "there is both risk and restraint that has
been exercised in the preparation of this statement." We know you
are the very soul of integrity and carefulness, and we do take your word
for it that this is what you experienced. But still, since this is not
provable to anyone else, at the level and in the way you experienced it,
such a statement unfortunately in the end just ends up adding to the general
wholesale mystification. That is, while we trust your integrity absolutely,
your experience here is your own, and is not directly transferable as useful
fact to anyone else.
-
- Then, "My primary role here is to make the information
from this meeting available, as I am aware of the circumstances surrounding
it."
-
- Well, but that's just it. To what information are you
referring? I don't see anything resembling what I would call actual information
in any of this. From my perspective, I can see at best merely yet another
possibility. I can't even quite understand the point of posting something
of this extraordinarily volatile nature in the first place. In essence,
for now, it amounts to terrifying and wholly unverifiable speculation,
and apparently, from what you say (and more importantly do not say), that
is what it will remain. To what end? What about the effects of such a tremendous
assertion, when no one else can either confirm or disprove it to any degree?
You are obliging us either to believe or disbelieve you, just on your say-so,
on a very specific technical matter of the highest imaginable importance.
This is a rather ironical situation for you of all people to generate.
-
- Either we are expected to believe this material, or not:
but in any case, there is no viable information offered with which we can
manufacture any sort of reasonable, informed opinion. Please correct me
wherever you think I am inaccurate in my assessments, as I making an effort
to be as precise as possible.
-
- As I comprehend it, there is only an unknown secretive
personís version of events to go on with here, given to you for
whatever motive, and offered to us at third hand, and all this regarding
one of the direst problems of the human race. Then there is the very important
question of the dangerousness of this information. Countless people throughout
history have been willing to sacrifice their lives for others, if necessary,
for far less than something as truly terrible as THIS operation. And are
we to believe that many people (microbiologists in particular, I take it?)
have already been imprisoned and murdered for this cause without a single
one of them ever managing to transmit even a smidgeon of usable data to
the public? This seems to me a statistically unlikely sequence of events,
although I can see that it is not impossible. But such a portentous contention
as this is requires substantiation at all costs.
-
- The problem is not that any of this is impossible, but
that we have no way of doing anything useful with what so far adds up to
yet another irresolvable quandary. Surely as a scientist you can see the
intellectual predicament you present to us with this claim? After all,
many of us do not belong to any particular sect of the Church of Many Chemtrail
Theories. Rather, we are an ad hoc congress of profoundly concerned citizens
who prefer making the effort to think for ourselves, based on whatever
kinds of reasonable evidence we can find. And while belief and blind faith
have their ordained places in our lives, this investigation of a scientific
fact as deadly serious as unregulated aerosol operations is most definitely
not one of them.
-
- Let me reiterate. I do not know, and none of the rest
of us out here can know, whether what you have reported happens in fact
to be true, or not. No one familiar with you and your work could ever doubt
your sincerity. But there is no way many of us can know what to do with
such a presentation as this, except to ask a number of questions to which
you firmly assert there will be no reply. Therefore I must ask you: what
are we supposed to do with this material? The bombshell has dropped and
duly exploded, but as to its origin, history, and ultimate purpose we remain
completely in the dark. And yet you know better than most that for all
practical purposes, without a chain of evidence, viable data do not even
exist.
-
- You wrote: "It is expected that any statements of
this nature will always be subject to analysis, interpretation and scrutiny,
as they should be. My primary role here is to make the information from
this meeting available, as I am aware of the circumstances surrounding
it. CEC"
-
- My point yet again is that there is no possibility I
can see at present of anyone else effectively analyzing or interpreting
these statements. You refer to information you have made available, but
I remain completely puzzled as to where the actual information resides.
As I understand the meaning of the word, information refers to something
that can be verified objectively by others, at least to some degree. Therefore,
do statements that are, according to you, devoid of all hope of confirmation,
even fit the basic definition of information- that is, as far as we are
concerned? I fail to see how we can in all honesty categorize enigmatic
pronouncements as actual information. This is not to say that everything
you have said may not turn out in the end to be genuine information. Everything
you have said may constitute very real truth. I fully understand that.
But just so long as it is presented to us in the form of impenetrable,
unverifiable mystery, then mystery is the category it belongs in. If you
find my reasoning faulty, I would appreciate it if you would point out
where you find I am being illogical.
-
- Please do not misunderstand me. I fully concur with the
following statements made by our mutual friend and highly trustworthy coworker
ST, who hopefully will not mind my reproducing them here:
-
- "Clifford, please do not take this as a personal
attack.
-
- None of us are aware of the constraints you have dealing
with this information.
-
- It is simply insufficient for a matter of such grave
relevance.
-
- You must understand that there is legitimate concern
that you, and we, could become victims of a carefully crafted disinformation
effort.
-
- Given the full implications of this revelation, your
source has no justification for not providing the conclusive evidence.
-
- Doing less is simply cowardly and insincere."
-
- Can you argue with what ST has said here? I cannot. And
as I said, there are quite a few of us with these same kinds of questions
and concerns. Because we have no choice but to carefully think through
every single piece of material that comes our way, regardless of its supposed
or actual origin, in respect to the monumental subject of what is being
done to the atmosphere of our planet. There is not one of us who has ever
been above and beyond sharply pointed questioning by the rest of us. And
this is, as you have said yourself, just as it should be.
-
- Respectfully, Diane
|
