Rose Cairns, Sussex U. Grant-Funded Chemtrail Debunker, Makes a Living Proffering Government/Establishment Denial Propaganda Dressed Up as Peer Reviewed "Science"
[Editor's Note: UK's University of Sussex is mentioned in most of Dr. John Coleman's books because of its connections to the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, the NWO's top mind control and propaganda ministry. There was a time in history when academic institutions of renown were interested in the pursuit of truth, expansion of human knowledge, and the betterment of humanity. Those days are long gone. Now we have career 'fellows' like Rose who live off the grants provided by taxpayers or private foundations by bloviating a paper of meaningless swill in order to deny the existence of the all-too-obvious chemtrail aerosol poisoning operations that have been taking place worldwide for the past 17 or 18 years. Part of Tavistock's misdirection is to try to get the public to adopt the word "geoengineering" in place of "chemtrails", in order to give the soil, air, and water poisoning operations a more friendly, perhaps "rescuing" sort of emphasis. Isn't that nice of them?]
July 5, 2015
By the way, you might be interested to know that you were listed/studied
in a report by the “Geoengineering Governance Research” organization,
titled: “Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the
international politics of geoengineering Rose Cairns,” by Rose Cairns
SPRU, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, April
2014. Here is the link:
SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, at the University of Sussex research fellow, Rose Cairns' (R.Cairns@sussex.ac.uk) idiotic "working paper" she published in April is literally that - idiotic - in every sense of the word (we're talking Sigmund Freud's definition of "id" here, as in ego or super-ego AS WELL AS idiotic, as in "lacking common sense").
You see, "fellows" really like to hear themselves pontificate. They like to read their own words and marvel at their majesty. They like to brag about their "papers" to other "fellows" at cocktail parties. Ms. Cairns is a fellow.
She has clearly been locked away in a pointy-headed intellectual Ivory Tower for WAY too long. She attempts to "provide a timely basis for the governance of geoengineering through robust research on the ethical, legal, social and political implications of a range of geoengineering approaches", but clearly falls short of her goal. Instead, what she does is concoct a hit piece on the anti-geoengineering movement, which is currently gaining much ground EVERY, SINGLE DAY by trying to classify it as "conspiracy" over and over and over again (the word "conspiracy" or some derivation of it is used 166 times in her 11,616-word paper. That means 1.43% of ALL the words in her paper are some derivative of "conspiracy". Now tell us... what is she trying to prove again?!).
Come on Rose, give it a rest. Can't you come up with something original already? How about attempting to actually disprove something scientific or data-related? Nope. All she does is use derogatory quotation marks (") over and over again, which is supposed to subliminally tell people that what we say isn't true. The people aren't buying what you're selling, Rose.
She never refutes or disproves anything that we say - such as the numerous (150+) geoengineering patents that exist - owned by the U.S. Government and others, or what a high bypass turbofan jet engine can and CANNOT do (they are nearly INCAPABLE of generating any type of contrail). She never disproves, or really even challenges any lab test data or soil, water, air samples - or the effects these chemicals have on humans - or EVERY LIVING THING for that matter. Do you know why she doesn't challenge them - except by using quotes (")? Because she isn't qualified to - by her own systematic standards. She's not a scientist. Not in her definition of the word at least.
She also apparently never goes outdoors and looks up.
It's a 2+2=4 equation that she simply never arrives at. Connect the dots, Rose. Unfortunately, we think she had her conclusions completely drawn before she ever wrote a single word. Is that "research" then? Or just trying to prove what you already believe?
She, like her colleagues, are incapable of believing her beloved "system" can be responsible for these crimes against humanity - which is what the ongoing geoengineering programs are. They're not conjecture, they're real. That's not just our opinion, but a provable fact. While we're on that topic, she also mentions "sustainability" in her paper. "Sustainability" (i.e. "smart growth") is U.N.-speak for Agenda 21.
Rose, we know how important your GRANT MONEY is [It (her research on this issue) is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) - grant ES/J007730/1. We know you don't want to rock the boat by going against the system that has been so friendly to you. We understand. So, that leaves really only one conclusion to draw... in the words quoted in the Conclusion of her own paper - I guess she is either "mentally retarded, clinically blind, or a paid liar." Actually, we are sure she isn't either of the first two things.
There are legions of scientists and academics, researchers and writers, from whom the faculty of human reason has completely fled. These pseudo-scientists are not only devoid of common sense; they lack the ability to apply objective and unbiased critical thinking. For many of these lost causes, years of university study have force-fed them incorrect science theories, taught them flawed scientific methodology and encouraged their blind allegiance to defective scientific paradigms.
These PhD types have often been exposed to years of intense and purposeful indoctrination. Erroneous information and incomplete knowledge, that is incessantly reinforced by professors and reference books alike, ensures that they will never leave such an intellectually-challenged reservation. They also know quite well who funds their various grants and scholarships, and how not to put them in jeopardy. Furthermore, the relentless doctoral conditioning and/or post-doctoral brainwashing virtually guarantees that they will always side with the "system".
As a matter of fact, they are programmed to see only see what the "system" tells them what they see. Conversely, they publish in the peer-reviewed journals only what their editors and peers permit them to write. Likewise, any and all TV and radio interviews contain content that has been thoroughly vetted by their government sponsors, academic mentors and/or corporate overlords. In these and other ways, it becomes perfectly understood that, if these PhD scientists want to keep their tenured positions and/or department chairmanships, as well as remain in their lucrative corporate consultancies, they will NEVER stray from the prescribed narrative.
Should anyone ever decide to leave this particular reservation, especially where it concerns such a multi-purposeful, global sky-spraying program like chemtrails, the consequences would be quite severe. No one is ever allowed to use their position of authority or lofty platform to espouse anything but the official government line. To do so would effectively translate to an immediate suspension of one's leadership positions and job title, as well as forfeiture of their compensation package and benefits, grants and stipends, and any other perquisites derived from their loyalty to the geoengineering/chemtrail cause.
Now that we know the ground rules by which the naysayers play, it's much easier to understand the many irrational, unreasonable and ridiculous responses provided by officialdom. All of the key policy makers, enforcers and their spokespeople are locked up in a gilded cage, wearing golden handcuffs, and furnished with golden parachutes. How could they possibly give all that up, particularly in the face of the harsh realities which would follow any departure from the official narrative.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.