Unlike traditional forms of warfare that cause environmental harm as collateral damage, today vast segments of biota-populations, including humans, are at risk from undeclared global environmental warfare, undertaken through deception and deceit, orchestrated by undisclosed perpetrators for undisclosed purposes.
By J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D., & Mark Whiteside, M.D.
As we reveal here, the purported goal of preventing environmental warfare was the key to developing a means to co-opt sovereign nations into waging covert, highly destructive environmental warfare against their own citizens.
Marvin Herndon gives an interview on Tulis Report at NoogaRadio 92.7 FM. On FB starting at 18:00
The means involved deceiving leaders of sovereign nations into signing onto a deceptively-worded “Trojan horse” international treaty ostensibly to prohibit environmental warfare, but which specifically does not prohibit “peaceful” environmental modification where “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.” Moreover, that international treaty mandates contribution and co-operation in unspecified environmental modification, by unspecified entities, without specificity of risks to human and environmental health.
Although “environmental modification techniques” are applied and conducted with secrecy and deception, the horrific environmental damage, ascertained by scientific forensic investigations and reviewed here, cannot possibly be considered “peaceful” but instead constitute global environmental warfare. Citizens everywhere must wake up, look up, speak up, and demand an end to this environmental warfare. [Abstract]
[This scientific paper, “Global Environmental Warfare,” is by J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D, Transdyne Corp., San Diego, Calif., and Mark Whiteside, M.D., M.P.H., Florida Department of Health in Monroe County, Key West, Fla., and appears April 25, 2020, at Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 7, No. 4. See PDF at http://nuclearplanet.com/gew.pdf. Footnotes omitted.]
Historically, modern warfare, waged by and between readily identifiable nation-states or assemblages of nation-states, results in environmental harm as collateral damage. Today, however, large segments of humanity and other biota are at risk from global environmental warfare, undertaken through deception and deceit by undisclosed globalist-type factions who remain in the shadows.
Concerning the United States, in 1838 Abraham Lincoln famously stated: “At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.” To some, Lincoln’s remark might seem to connote the likelihood of coup d’état, which, of course, is an ever-present danger. Another possibility, yet unrecognized by national security officials and strategic analysts, but disclosed here, is that an entity from abroad might discover the means to coopt sovereign nations’ military and government functions into waging covert, highly destructive environmental warfare against their own citizenry.
In 1968 notable geophysicist Gordon J. F. MacDonald authored a book-chapter entitled “How to Wreck the Environment” in which he wrote: “Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet.” MacDonald described how the forces of nature might be surreptitiously turned against enemy nations with devastating consequences. MacDonald foresaw the future potentialities of environmental warfare, but his use of the phrase “national objectives” indicates a traditional nationstate concept of warfare. During the next fifty years much of what MacDonald described became not only possible but a reality with new technology that he had not envisioned.
Environmental warfare was documented during the Viet Nam War with the wide-spread use of the chemical defoliant, Agent Orange, and with cloud seeding operations to cause additional rainfall over the Ho Chi Minh Trail to impede movement of troops and supplies. Nevertheless, unlike nuclear warfare, which previously had been released from Pandora’s Box, environmental warfare was yet in its infancy. Preventing environmental warfare was an idea people everywhere might willingly embrace. But as revealed here, the hope of preventing environmental warfare was the key for realizing a means to co-opt sovereign nations into waging covert, highly destructive environmental warfare against their own citizens. The means involved deceiving leaders of sovereign nations into signing onto a deceptively-worded “Trojan horse” international treaty, sometimes referred to as ENMOD.
Trojan horse
The United Nations international treaty, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” through concerted efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union was entered into force on October 5, 1978.
The following are highlights of a legal critique of ENMOD [7] published previously. Logically, the term “environmental modification techniques”, that which is being prohibited, should be defined prior to its prohibition. But that is not the case here. The term “environmental modification techniques”, is defined quite precisely and in the broadest possible terms in Article II, which states: “As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.”
The “prohibitive terminology” Article I is not prohibitive at all as it uses the non-binding phrase “undertakes not to” instead of the prohibitive “shall not” which would carry the force of law.
Article III that actually mandates compliance on activities not connected in any way with the subject expressed by the ENMOD title. It is a Trojan horse: Article III deceptively mandates environmental modification not at all indicated by its title.
• Article III, Section 1, by the use of shall, mandates that there shall be no prohibition whatsoever on the use of environmental modification techniques “for peaceful purposes.”
• Article III Section 2, although confusingly written, is clearly understandable when some of the unessential words are removed: “States Parties … shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to…co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment.”
ENMOD does not prohibit environmental warfare, but instead mandates environmental modification within the range and domain described by Article II that is not connected by intent with its title. Moreover, ENMOD fails to define “international organizations” or “peaceful” or “improvement of the environment.” Furthermore, ENMOD does not specify the purpose, nature, time, cost, level of commitment, and the risks to human health and to environmental harm to which all humanity may be subject (Figure 1) via mandated “contributions” from “States Parties.”
Test of truth
Law and science are pillars of civilization. Each in its own way has helped to lead humanity from an untamed and chaotic wilderness toward a better understanding of the ways to live harmoniously with one another and within the sustainable limits of the complex, interrelationships between
multiple biota and the various environments of Earth. Despite differing philosophical approaches, the progress of both law and science are inextricably connected to the necessity of truth and transparency. Yet both truth and transparency in law and science are opposed by the dark side of
human nature. Truth invariably becomes compromised with the absence of honesty and transparency.
Truth is inextricably connected to the progress of an enlightened society whereas absence of truth is invariably associated with inhumane, totalitarian regimes.
On January 30, 1933, after Adolf Hitler had been Chancellor for only a few hours, Herman Goering addressed the German people by radio and announced: “A new chapter opens today and in this chapter liberty and honor will constitute the very basis of the new State.” Soon thereafter, Hitler seized the labor unions, their bank accounts, and pension assets and, subsequently, committed crimes against humanity.
Particulate trails across the sky, like those shown in Figure 2, have concerned observant citizens for at least two decades, especially as they have become more frequent occurrences. Not only has there been no public disclosure as to the nature of the particulates jet-sprayed into the region where clouds form, but there has been a systematic pattern of false information alleging the trails to be harmless ice-crystal contrails from moisture from engine exhaust.
Contrails only superficially resemble the particulate trails. Contrails form under very humid, very cold atmospheric conditions, appearing as short trails that evaporate quickly to become invisible gas. Particulate trails, on the other hand, spread out and for a brief time resemble cirrus clouds before becoming a white haze in the sky. The contrail disinformation stands in conflict with observations and is disputed by scientific evidence.
Environmental warfare
When does peaceful environmental improvement, as defined by ENMOD Article II, become a new form of warfare, facilitated by the deceptively worded ENMOD Trojan horse? By definition, warfare is an activity undertaken by a political unit to destroy another. In the following we describe activities, sanctioned by ENMOD, that, we posit, constitute undeclared acts of environmental warfare. Warfare may also be defined as violent, organized, and purposeful. Environmental warfare conducted under aegis of ENMOD fulfills those criteria.
There is no truthful public disclosure concerning the aerial particulate emplacement. Nevertheless, it is possible to deduce the intentions of this global operation from the physical behavior of aerosol particles in the lower portion of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (Figure 3).
The atmosphere consists principally of two main parts, troposphere and stratosphere. There is little vertical movement of air in the stratosphere, but that is not the case for the troposphere. Air at the bottom of the troposphere is heated by the surface. The warm air rises, displacing the cooler air in the higher altitudes of the troposphere. This vertical atmospheric circulation, called convection, is an important mechanism for surface heat removal. The greater the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the troposphere, the more efficient is surface-heat removal by atmospheric
convection.
Whereas particles emplaced into the stratosphere tend to remain suspended for months, particles emplaced into the troposphere fall to the surface in a matter of days as a consequence of the convection-driven air circulation.
Particles in the upper regions of the troposphere are heated by short- and long-wave radiation from the Sun and by long-wave radiation from Earth’s surface. That heat is transferred to the atmosphere by collisions with air molecules, thus raising the temperature of the upper tropospheric air.
This lowers the temperature difference relative to near-surface air, thus reducing convective heatloss efficiency.
The primary consequence of jet-emplaced particles is to retard heat-loss from the surface thus causing surface warming locally and/or globally. Thus, one can legitimately infer that one purpose of the near-daily, near-global particulate emplacement is to cause global warming. Pollution particles, upon settling to Earth’s surface, continue to absorb solar radiation, heating the surface. Upon settling on snow and ice, they can cause melting and also reduce sunlight-reflection (albedo), contributing to additional global warming.
Just as it is possible to deduce the intentions of the global environmental modification operations from the physical behavior of aerosol particles in the lower atmosphere, it is also possible to deduce critical information, not divulged to the public, about the nature of the substances being emplaced
into the troposphere, their consequences on the planetary environment, their risks to public health, and their potential harm to agriculture and the environment.
Toxic aerosol particulates
The relative proportion of chemical elements measured in samples of rainwater collected after aerosol particulate emplacement are consistent with the relative proportion of elements water extracted in the laboratory from coal fly ash, the waste-product of industrial coal-burning. Similarly, the relative proportion of chemical elements measured in particle-trapping snow following the jet-spray activities are consistent with the relative proportion of elements measured in coal fly ash.
What are effects of coal fly ash on the lungs? Read more
More on sky striping over city
