The Truth, A Radical Conversation With California Governor Candidate Chelene Nightingale Part 1 of 2
The Truth, A Radical Conversation With California Governor Candidate Chelene Nightingale Part 1 of 2
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO WATCH PART 2 OF 2
http://blip.tv/file/3407551
CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO WATCH PART 1 OF 2
http://blip.tv/file/3369704
ABOUT VIDEO:
The Truth, A Radical Conversation With California Governor Candidate Chelene Nightingale Part 1 of 2 California Governor candidate Chelene Nightingale is a political candidate who is not afraid to exercise both her beliefs and her first amendment rights. During this exclusive part one interview, Mike Murphy discusses with Chelene the importance of 911 truth, the population control agenda and the controversial issue of stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering also known as chemtrails.
http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/
www.framingtheworld.com
www.paulwittenberger.com
CREDITS:
Executive Producer: Paul Wittenberger
Staring: Chelene Nightingale, Mike Murphy
Camera by: Paul Wittenberger
Edited by: Paul Wittenberger
Date: 2010
- framing the world's blog
- Login to post comments
Associations not helpful
It doesn't help to associate 9-11 truth-seeking with these theories:
"...the importance of 911 truth, the population control agenda and the controversial issue of stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering also known as chemtrails. "
Of interest to myself and others
Could you explain why?
I agree, and here's why;
When you say things you cannot prove, or at least make a convincing point about in the space of a single interview, it discredits yourself. This interview came off as extremely unprofessional and vague. Based on the video, her opinions on chemtrails, for example, were formed by hearing an anonymous veteran rant about them. As a matter of fact, she doesn't really give much about any subject other than anecdotal experiences that she's had. I'm not trying to be mean here, but she seems extremely naive. The large font titles before the sections about these other "controversial" topics seem to me that the video is cashing in on "conspiracy subculture" by using words that they think will resonate with a target audience. It doesn't help that throughout, instead of asking proper follow up questions, the interviewer nods along with her and doesn't challenge anything.
I'm getting a little tired of hearing "do your own research". It's 2010, and alot of credible professionals HAVE done the research and staked their reputations on the line, quote them as opposed to coming off as lazy and arrogant, preaching truth to the sheeple. We're past that stage. Disinformation agents, wether knowing or not, mix BS in with the icecream. Narrow the focus, and there's much less that can muddy your argument. That's why I'm so hopeful about this "building what?" initiative and its policies to not talk about anything other than the facts regarding wtc7.
A little disappointed to see this on the front page, honestly.
Well said Darcius, it did
Well said Darcius, it did appear to be a political infomercial.
"...seem to me that the video
"...seem to me that the video is cashing in on "conspiracy subculture" by using words that they think will resonate with a target audience."
BINGO
Below
I will explain why below your second post on this.
If.......
If you're a 911 truther out in the street promoting 911 truth, I agree, you should shy away from some of these other controversial issues, but.........If you're running for public office, your job description requires you to deal with lots of issues....and I say she did a pretty damn good job speaking to lots of different issues. I think she might really shake things up over on the left coast. It's about time.
What??
Why do we have this "United Nations"???
Jesus.
The United Nations was established during the Second World War so that the world could avoid fighting another global war and murdering millions, making lampshades out of human skin, attempting genocide against particular races, etc.
It was created as an organization to provide a place for international diplomacy instead of automatic war. The UN Charter was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization.
The UN Charter declares that war, in most circumstances, is illegal.
It's far from perfect but it has nothing to do with "one-world-government" -- it relies on dues from all of the member nations to exist, it does not "control" the world. The US often does not even pay it's dues.
Have you ever sent mail internationally? Why can you do that? Because of the UN. Who coordinates the rescue of the thousands of civilians when countries fall apart? Who held up George Bush when he wanted to get into Iraq and bomb, for months, providing valuable time for the Iraqis to either leave or prepare? The UN.
Here is the PREAMBLE of the UN Charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
Victoria?
Why would you bring up the Holocaust? I don't get it. Why the heck would you do such a thing on this blog? Seriously. What are you thinking?
Why are you defending the U.N.? The U.N. has never achieved anything it has promised. Genocide is rampant throughout the world, and the U.N. has done everything it can to encourage this genocide. The U.N. is in bed with the IMF which has bankrupted almost every nation on this planet.
Copying and pasting what I assume is text from the U.N. website proves nothing except a sad level of naïvete. Why ignore all the travesties happening around the globe in your defense of the U.N.?
Chemtrails????? Please!
Why is it that people are not listening to people in this movement like me that work in aviation? There is no "hard evidence" that one single Condensation Trail I have seen ever could be a "Chemical Trail"?
There are many variables deciding when and where a Con-Trail will form including,
1. Altitude (air pressure)
2. Temperature
3. The amount and type of particles being emitted from the engines turbine
4. The pressure being emitted from the engine, both the exhaust and the bypass fan
5. The moisture content in the air
etc etc etc
People that postulate and speculate about chemtrails and link it to 9/11 really annoy me and I have seen many examples of people who are obviously paranoid losing there marbles and there health while believing they are being poisoned on a daily basis.
Did any one stop to considered that the elite, their families and their friends are all being sprayed as well?
Did any stop to think they are seeing more Contrails because now they're looking for them????
Did any one stop to think that there should be some serious scientists with real peer reviewed reports proving poisonous spraying?
Did anyone think that blood analysis of sick patient's might show that they had been poisoned??
Now to make a claim that they are spraying certain substances to change the weather is possible, but I personally have never seen it done over a city or anywhere else, but I am happy to entertain that it is possible and there is clear history shown they have done this before.
Also we know that LOW LEVEL spraying of populations has been done by the US government, that does not make a Chemtrail though...that word is not even a real word??
People get a grip...
Regards John
Thank you!
Why this topic keeps getting married to 9/11 truth is beyond me. People should keep their silly bullshit to themselves. Wake up! The 9/11 truth movement does not exist for us as a one stop shop for every conspiracy theory under the sun.
The two subjects are in no way related. Its not that difficult to ask members to resubmit blogs after objectionable content has been excised by the blog creator themselves.
What
I thought you just said it was 'of interest to myself and others'?
Sure
I wanted him to explain WHY it is not appropriate on a 9/11 truth site. Whether you thought I agreed or disagreed with him is entirely in your interpretation.
Yes. And thanks for answering...
your own very reasonable question:
"Why this topic keeps getting married to 9/11 truth is beyond me. People should keep their silly bullshit to themselves. Wake up! The 9/11 truth movement does not exist for us as a one stop shop for every conspiracy theory under the sun. "
G. Edward Griffin Talks Candidly About Chemtrails
World renowned author G. Edward Griffin (CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND - famous exposé on the Federal Reserve) is known for his powerful insight into complex issues. In this exclusive interview, Mike Murphy discusses with Mr. Griffin the important issue of chemtrails, where they are being deployed, political motives behind the program and how those responsible will sell the program to the public.
From my good friend Bill Horn
I heard this program yesterday on NPR and it was quite disturbing. They were proposing a "spraying" project of our skies as a "last resort" to global warming when WE know that they've been doing it for years now.
What is up with this?
They even said we would have to get use to not seeing a blue sky anymore.. that it would be white. WELL? That's what I've been seeing for several years. They also said that CO2 was "causing" the oceans to become more acidic....... REALLY? I could swear that it's CHEMTRAILS doing that. If you know chemtrail researchers please pass this to them. Somebody please put a spotlight on this spin or setup whatever.
Bill
Can We 'Cool The Planet' Through Geoengineering?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125789622
Picture
A few months ago, I described this to you verbally:
http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=6077011.jpg
That picture was taken last winter in Central Finland.
You wrote that what I described was definitely a chemtrail.
I don't see in the picture anything that I didn't see already decades ago when I was a kid and the occasional plane left a trail in the rural skies.
Surely you aren't arguing that even sparsely populated regions in a country like Finland have been chemtrailed for decades...???
Edit. And surely videos could be used to reveal if the trail from a plane is coming out of some other location than that from which the exhaust fumes (or whatever) are normally coming...
Would love to see the lonely trail...
Would love to see a photo of the lonely trail you saw as a child. What you saw could have been a smoke trail from a fighter jet. Who knows. I never remember seeing such a thing and I looked up at the sky all the time. The photo you posted is definitely a chemtrail, and you can see the smearing from a previous trail there too.
Take a look at this video from Germany. Please don't try to tell me that these are contrails. Like G. Edward Griffin says, it's obvious that they are spraying the skies... horizon to horizon as far as you can see. Did you ever see THIS as a child:
BTW, did you follow the NPR link?
No previous trail
"The photo you posted is definitely a chemtrail, and you can see the smearing from a previous trail there too."
There was NO previous trail. The other "fluffy" things are just clouds.
What is in the photo is the same thing I occasionally saw as a child and in adolescence. The idea of chemtrailing in rural Finnish sky is absurd.
The air was cold in the wintry Finnish sky...
Contrails (short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are basically artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will comprise tiny ice crystals.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
Smoke vs Contrail
Contrails are like your breath on a cold dry day. You see it, then it's gone. Contrails form at high altitudes where the air is freezing and dry. Contrails rarely, if ever, form in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere. That's where clouds form. The idea that contrails form clouds is absurd. At high altitudes, where contrails form, the trail dissipates quickly because the moisture evaporates in the dry air.
Your photo shows that the smoke trail is very low to the ground in terms of altitude in the atmosphere. Much too low for a contrail. Claiming that you will see contrails in the troposphere, where clouds form, is like saying you will see your breath in a steam room or a sauna. That’s absurd.
CHEMTRAILS (smoke trails) will form anywhere at anytime at any temperature at any altitude. Concerning rural areas vs. urban areas, you will see CHEMTRAILS in all types of areas, populated or not. As the CHEMTRAIL programs continue, allegations of mass environmental destruction are being made from around the world. The following video is documentation and evidence of the destruction being recorded in Shasta County California, a very rural area.
I would also suggest that you not use wikipedia as a source. That wikipedia page you referred to is a government controlled page. When the truth is written on that page, less than 24 hours later the page is put back to the exact same state it was in before the truth was inserted. Looking to wikipedia for the truth about chemtrails (they won't even let you create a page titled 'chemtrails') is like looking to wikipedia for the truth about 9-11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11 .
Please John
"1. Altitude (air pressure)
2. Temperature
3. The amount and type of particles being emitted from the engines turbine
4. The pressure being emitted from the engine, both the exhaust and the bypass fan
5. The moisture content in the air"
If you want to disassociate 9-11 truth from other truths in order to keep newbies from becoming overwhelmed and unfocused, then I can understand your position, but spewing out non-science and general lists to debunk chemtrails is just silly. Nothing you said debunks chemtrails. You are attacking truth advocates, and you have no standing to do so. I grew up in Tennessee and I looked at the sky all the time, and I never saw what I see now. I didn't see what I see now over LA twenty years ago when I moved here. It's crazy how much they are spraying the skies.
So please, keep the discussion focused on 9-11 instead of irresponsibly and haphazardly deriding truth advocates with positions you are not prepared to support. Your comment doesn't encourage others to stay focused on 9-11 Truth. You have attacked truth advocates and you are begging for a response. Here is a response to your non-science.
What altitudes, how and why? What temperature, how and why? What amount and what types of particles being emitted from the engine's turbine, how and why? What pressure being emitted from the engine, both the exhaust and the bypass fan, how and why? What moisture content in the air, how and why?
My suggestion is that if you really want to drop the subject, then just drop the subject, rather than trying to instigate a discussion about chemtrails. Next time just don't even leave a comment. As you can see, no chemtrail truth advocates left a comment, so why did you?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
wacla.org
P.S. The English language is a malleable language. Language is meant to grow and evolve. In science, new words are invented all the time. No one has a monopoly on creating new words. If people are using the word 'chemtrail' then 'chemtrail' is a word. It's that simple.
Paul Wittenberger
Thanks Bruno.
Though there is MUCH to suggest that "Chemtrails"...
...and "geoengineering" are a real and credible threat, I also suggest that 9/11 Truthers stick to the areas where they have the most solid evidence. As John's above post demonstrates, this "side-issue" could serve as a perfect wedge to divide and conquer the Movement.
Always use your basic principles, axioms, and maxims as a "litmus test". Does this line of questioning, or this course of action support my basic principles? How will this help me acheive greater liberty, justice, peace, etc?
Pardon my outburst, but...
Does anyone else smell something rotten? What exactly is going on in Part 1 of this video between about the 8:30 mark and the 9:40 mark? What the hell is she babbling about? Why is the camera doing all those weird, artsy close-ups and blur effects? Makes one feel a little dizzy and confused, doesn't it? Then that sudden cut to the "journalist" who is interviewing Chelene... CREEPY! Why does he have the look of demon possession in his eyes? It is almost as if the viewer is being lulled into some kind of dream-state by Chelene's nonsensical stream of drivel, combined with the trippy video editing, then suddenly transfixed by the steely gaze of the interviewer. Then immediately after, many news articles are flashed across the screen FAR too rapidly for one to CONSCIOUSLY make out what is written in them.
LOOKS LIKE SOME KIND OF NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) TRICK TO ME.
Hmmm... Somebody has studied the "Freedom Movement" and the "Truth Movement" very well. Yes indeed, she has demonstrated her knowledge of all the Truther/Patriot "talking points". Does she pass, Truthers? Is she "in"?
Here is one of Chelene's speeches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMW__K528aQ
I'm sorry, but what is with the FAKE AS HELL, DISINGENUOUS crying? Geez, at least Arnie was a second-rate actor, now the best they can find to be their shills are failed Hollywood extras? Are you really going to fall for this AGAIN? Are you going to trust another actor (trained liar) with political office?
Here she is, turning in another "A-Plus" performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoeAl9XneY&feature=related
"I'll set 'em up, you knock 'em down, Chelene." Boy, she sure does know the "right" answers to EVERY question, doesn't she?
Some things to consider:
-body language
-facial expressions ("microexpressions", "ticks", "tells")
-videography (flashy, trippy, distracting, dream-like imagery)
-obvious scripting or "framing of the debate"
-obvious, over-zealous, or unsolicited attempts to gain trust, or create an air of "trustworthiness"
Didn't the wonderful Mr. Cass Sunstein very recently announce his desire to send infiltrators into the Truth Movement? Didn't the SPLC (Southern Propaganda and Lies Center) suggest something similar? When do you think they would actually mobilize people for that task, before, or after they publicly proclaimed their intentions?
My suggestion:
Truthers should look VERY CAREFULLY AND DEEPLY into this woman's history, associations, backers, campaign contributors, family, voting record, etc. What is her REAL name? ("Nightengale" smacks of a stage name. She was an actress, right?) Does this woman have any qualities, connections, or history that might suggest that she has divided loyalties? Could she be "serving two masters"? ...Or maybe just another master entirely?
Hone your skills with respect to sniffing out bullshit. You have no hope if you cannot differentiate between the genuine article and the fraudsters. Also realize, not all of them will be as bad at lying as George W. Bush was. Some of them will be VERY good indeed. MUCH better at it than Chelene here.