2. Historic background of „plausible deniability“.
3. Plausible deniability in geoengineering scam.
1. Some general statements.
Before talking about about „plausible deniability“ in the scam of geoengineering, the historic background should be researched. The history doesn’t begin with the CIA and the cold war, but this point in the timeline is very important for us, because the institutions of that era are still working and have grown to monster size.
When their lies are exposed, they think they did not lie often and good enough!
When their „targeted killings“ are exposed, they think they did not assassinate enough potential witnesses!
When their scams explode, they blame it on not having enough financial and organizational support!
Instead they should stop lying, „targeted killing„, inventing new scams, manipulating public consciousness! Stop inventing ways for „plausible deniability“!
Just stop it and You won’t need to lie and kill any more.
Dear employees of such criminal state organisations, please seek a decent job, where the society, humanity and nature can profit from Your skills!
Invest and develop Your creativity for good!
2. Historic background of „plausible deniability„
The U.S. National Security Act of 1947,
and the Assassination of JFK
„Since NSC 10/2 authorized violations of international law, it also established official lying as their indispensable cover. All such activities had to be „so planned and executed that any US government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons, and that if uncovered the US government can plausibly deny any responsibility for them.“  The national security doctrine of „plausible deniability“ combined lying with hypocrisy. It marked the creation of a Frankenstein monster.“
„Plausible deniability encouraged the autonomy of the CIA and other covert-action („intelligence“) agencies from the government that created them. In order to protect the visible authorities of the government from protest and censure, the CIA was authorized not only to violate international law but to do so with as little consultation as possible. CIA autonomy went hand in glove with plausible deniability. The less explicit an order from the president, the better it was for „plausible deniability.“ And the less consultation there was, the more creative CIA authorities could become in interpreting the mind of the president, especially the mind of a president so uncooperative that he wanted to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.“
Plausable Deniability Law and Legal Definition
„Plausible deniability refers to circumstances where a denial of responsibility or knowledge of wrongdoing can not be proved as true or untrue due to a lack of evidence proving the allegation. This term is often used in reference to situations where high ranking officials deny responsibility for or knowledge of wrongdoing by lower ranking officials. In those situations officials can „plausibly deny“ an allegation even though it may be true.
It also refers to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.“
or How Leaders May Try to Conceal Their Roles
Dr. Walter Dorn Royal Military College of Canada
International Criminal Court/Office of the Prosecutor ICC/OTP Guest Lecture, 18 May 2010
„Hiding a truth is not necessarily unlawful or immoral.„
David J Bederman, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, „Privateering”“
“A new Office of Special Projects shall be created within the Central Intelligence Agency to plan and conduct covert operations … “As used in this directive, ‘covert operations’ are understood to be all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.
Accountability and the art of plausible deniability
„The problem for me is that plausible deniability is a phrase that equates to lack of accountability.“
„There are, however, telltale techniques that we and others – wittingly or unwittingly – use, created on the base of fallacious arguments that should let us know that what we are being offered or are offering is not the whole truth.“
„The Iran-Contra Affairs were designed to provide the President with plausible deniability.“
(Oliver) North on Plausible Deniability
3. Plausible deniability in geoengineering scam.
The geoengineering scam priests are presented as „renown scientists“ in the field of climatology. I don’t consider them as scientists, therefore the term „scientiputa(s)“ will be used here, to make the difference and protect real science and scientists.
For lying, deceiving politicians behind the geoengineering scam, the notion „politutes“ is used to protect the few politicians, which may exist somewhere on Earth or on any other planet of the Universe!
As climatology is about long term meteorology and weather, first the this knowledge should be completed.
One of their propositions is the application of SRM (Solar Radiation Management = Sunlight Robbery Menace) by „Stratospheric Aerosol Injection“ (SAI).
Here are 5 points of „plausible deniability“:
1. „Research“, not application!
2. „Computer Models“, not real!
3. „Saving climate“, not water grabbing!
4. In „stratosphere“ not „troposphere!
5. „SRM“, not sunlight grabbing for water grabbing!
Just for repeating!
- Aerosol injection is about building aerosols!
- „Aerosol“ means building droplets by accumulation of water on fine dust particles.
- 99% of atmospheric water and about 80% of air mass exists only in the troposphere and no water and only thin air in the stratosphere.
- SRM means someone can control the sunlight, prevent it from reaching the surface!
Whenever the scientiputas are asked about the application of SRM they „plausibly deny“ and „honestly“ say that it is not applied in the stratosphere!
The questioner normally doesn’t ask if it is applied within the troposphere, but if they were smart enough to do that, the scientputas can „plausibly deny“ „having knowledge“ about any such „propositions“ as they only „research“ on „stratosphere„.
The questioner may remind about the strange trails of many jets and ask if that is not visible SRM. The scientiputas can claim that these are „condensation trails“ of grown air traffic and they are „not experts“ in aviation.
The questioner may add that not all jets produce such staying trails. The scientiputas can claim that may be because of „different conditions“ in layers of air, but cannot answer this question because they are climatologists but not meteorologists. They can „deny having information“ about the conditions!
When asked about the „extreme weather events„, mass death in the oceans, mass death of the forests, rising CO2 and decresing O2 level, sickening people by rising vitaminD deficiency, the scientiputas may always claim that this „may“ be based on „climate change“ because of „greenhouse effect“ by „man made CO2“.
By that or similar ways the scientiputas can always escape!
No one asks the scientiputas how aerosol injection should be done stratosphere, if there is no water?
No one asks if that should be named Tropospheric Aerosol Injection (TAI), because nearly all water exists only in troposphere!
No one asks about SRM:
- Who is occupying the power of control on sunlight?
- Who assigned the power of sunlight control to anyone?
- Which consequences will sunlight control have on life?
- Was there a democratic decision about sunlight control?