ChemChasers a new reality TV concept + local images

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I'm at work right now but I'll address any points that may remain unanswered when I get home if you really want a discussion.

I see Zaphod answered about Meghan. Regarding the WITWATS video, there's a very lengthy thread about it on this very forum where it's claims are examined if you wish to look for it in the meantime.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Also. The "documentary" WITWATS has been debunked many many times on ATS. It's pure junk.

One of the makers has even gone back on a few claims the film makes.

And as has been said countless times here in the chemtrail sub forum, for the 50k the film cost, they could have hired an air sampling plane and flown up to sample a con/chemtrail and ended this sillyness once and for all and exposed the global conspiracy and made millions of dollars. They didn't.

Gee...i wonder why?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Aluminum, barium, strontium. pH changes to more alkaline. If this is happening, why? It's not climate change. It's not increases due to increased air traffic or changes in fuel. So what is it?

Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth's crust. It makes up about 7% of the mass (essentially the weight) of the earths crust. If you apply this number to an acre of soil 6 2/3 inches deep (2 million pounds of soil), that 7% "Total Al" would equal about 140,000 lb Al/acre or 70,000 ppm. Those of us involved in producing plants, whether those plants are agricultural, turf, or ornamental, should understand how Al can affect these plants.

www.spectrumanalytic.com...

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants.
Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.

Read more: www.lenntech.com...

Strontium is commonly occurs in nature, formung about 0.034% of all igneous rock and in the form of the sulfate mineral celestite (SrSO4) and the carbonate strontianite (SrCO3). Celestite occurs frequently in sedimentary deposits of sufficient size, thus the development of mining facilities attractive. The main mining areas are UK, Mexico, Turkey and Spain. World production of strontium ores is about 140.000 tonnes per year from an unassessed total of reserves.

Read more: www.lenntech.com...

This is not to say that there isn't a massive operation covertly spraying evil juice on the populace for unknown reasons all while being completely secret and having the end product look EXACTLY like contrails, but to see that the chemicals you asked about are abundant in nature, please explain how on Earth you would sample soil and water and NOT find these chemicals.

And please explain where the massive increases in autism and Alzheimer's and asthma are coming from, particularly in high air traffic and contrail activity. And how massive wildlife dieoffs are just blantantly disregarded?

I cannot explain this. I have not seen any data proving that these are increasing, or that they exist in larger amounts where higher air traffic occurs. Do you have links to this?

And how it is totally unrealistic to think that geoengineering would not have side effects to humans and to the planet?

It's completely realistic. In fact, it's the driving force to NOT do it according to the leader of the Geo-engineering information, Dr. David Kieth. Everyone who discusses it seems to have the same thoughts. It's go too many risks that are unknown to do any of the proposed ideas. Unless you know of some reason we should disregard all the documents stating that Geo-engineering is not being done, I am afraid it looks as if they aren't doing this yet. (and I don't think they should, it man's influence on nature is that great, we need to adjust our actions, not the Earths.) IMHO

Also, debunkers, please tell us how you got samples of military fuel and jet fuel to test and how you took samples to labs and got them to give you the results.

I did when I was in the military working on the flight line. I bet that if you went to a bar near a USAF base and bought a avionics tech a beer and asked him to get you a small jar of fuel, and you smiled pretty, he would. Then you could test it yourself and KNOW what's in there. And I don't think he would be in any danger for doing that.

And why you disregard people who are testing the water and the soil and are finding increased levels?

Thanks. We'll wait.

I think that was already covered in the above links. But to reiterate, testing ground soil or water could have contamination from a multitude of sources. Almost all of them terrestrial. Why do you think anything found in the water or soil would have to come from a plane? Once something is atomized in the air, it dilutes. If it dilutes at 25,000 feet, do you know how much you could detect of ANYTHING at ground level? Me neither, but I suspect it's minuscule if even detectable at all. But I admit to not having that answer, just logic.

And for the videos, we have seen them and discussed them many times. Not being rude, but please try the search function for those.

Thanks for the discussion and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss instead of posting 2 hours worth of video and vague statements about chemicals in soil and water?

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss instead of posting 2 hours worth of video and vague statements about chemicals in soil and water?

Not specific enough for you?

Aluminum, barium, strontium. pH changes to more alkaline. If this is happening, why? It's not climate change. It's not increases due to increased air traffic or changes in fuel. So what is it?

And please explain where the massive increases in autism and Alzheimer's and asthma are coming from, particularly in high air traffic and contrail activity. And how massive wildlife dieoffs are just blantantly disregarded?

And how it is totally unrealistic to think that geoengineering would not have side effects to humans and to the planet?

Also, debunkers, please tell us how you got samples of military fuel and jet fuel to test and how you took samples to labs and got them to give you the results.

And why you disregard people who are testing the water and the soil and are finding increased levels?

And thanks for the other answers, Zap et al.

Just a general response.

This used to be a place where things like the people doing the debunking and their possible reasons for it were questioned. Where whistleblowers being silenced was entertained as a possibility. Where it was okay to think about things like this. Where it was okay to say hey something's going on here. We just don't know what and why.

Now with certain topics, it's gotten pretty obvious what's going on. Maybe this is all just too big picture or too scary or something for some people to even allow themselves to entertain the possibilities.

I don't find this nearly as out there as 90% of the crap on this site these days, and yet there is a very strong force.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Oh come on. That's a cop out. Is that all you want? For us to leave you with what we think are your delusions?

You make it sound like it was a positive thing that peoples motives were questioned here...i dont think it is.

I have read every single thread on chemtrails. Every single one. Why? I just find it interesting and i think you guys are nuts (joke). I'm just a 3d animator from London who find this topic interesting and who loves planes. And im almost certain that that is most debunkers reasons.

a reply to: OPUFO3257142119

Yawns at all the meteorologists and experts on contrails.


I say keep spraying...Who knows maybe we become lucky and end up not looking like an ET Grey in 2037. Looks painful.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
This used to be a place where things like the people doing the debunking and their possible reasons for it were questioned. Where whistleblowers being silenced was entertained as a possibility. Where it was okay to think about things like this. Where it was okay to say hey something's going on here. We just don't know what and why.

Now with certain topics, it's gotten pretty obvious what's going on. Maybe this is all just too big picture or too scary or something for some people to even allow themselves to entertain the possibilities.

I don't find this nearly as out there as 90% of the crap on this site these days, and yet there is a very strong force.

Should those who don't believe in chemtrails not post here? Should there be no counter arguments?

If I bring a video of a Pie tin hung by fishing line to the UFO forum, should I feel threatened if someone points out the falseness?

I realize I post here a lot. I enjoy it. I enjoy a challenge to provide something worthy of discussion in hopes that intelligent discussion can be had. Why does this topic require kid gloves? Why not rebut the statements made here with logical, verifiable posts?

This topic has evolved from it's original white lines in the sky, to geo-engineering and all it's complexities. Sadly, since the two are lumped together, logical discussion on the latter is usually hampered. But do we need to stop sharing the science in favor of yet another chemtrail love-in type site? I sure hope not. I thought the members here were better than that.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity


This used to be a place where things like the people doing the debunking and their possible reasons for it were questioned.

It's always been a place the subject should be discussed, not each other. Opposing views are fine. Speculation and wonderment are fine, but you'll find the sites motto has been 'deny ignorance' for at least the 11 years I've been here. To me, deny ignorance means things like pointing it out where a theory is built on something that is known to be factually incorrect, to make its seem credible to people who would have no reason to know any different. An example of this is the number of people who have come here posting that they know they see a chemtrail, because contrails only last a short while. This is the big lie peddled since day one of the chemtrail conspiracy and I'm extremely skeptical about any conspiracy that relies on blatant lies to make sense.

As for questioning motives, as soon as the discussion turns into "you're a paid government disinfo shill" it's more a sign that the debate has been lost that anything else. There are a small number of believers on this site who will now make such remarks in their very first post in a thread. I'm sure you've seen them, this is because they already know they can't argue against true facts because they've lost every time they tried. By lost, I mean that they are unable to show that something explained by a skeptic is wrong, and that's why they try to undermine that member in order to save their flimsy case.

Where whistleblowers being silenced was entertained as a possibility. Where it was okay to think about things like this. Where it was okay to say hey something's going on here. We just don't know what and why.

It still is, isn't it? Surely, if something can be explained rationally and factually, then it should be? Theorising and speculating is fine in the absence of true fact, but if truth seeking really is the goal, factual information should be welcomed when it comes along. In many chemtrail debates, I've found that quite often someone will become angry and aggressive when a real life fact pisses all over the theory they've concocted out of pure imagination.

For example, using chemtrails as an example since we are here, when someone believes that every time a trail persists and spreads it must be a chemtrail because that's what Dane Wiggington told them to believe, that person will constantly post photos of clouds with lots of OMG's without understanding anything about what's really going on. If they are one of those who sees everyone who doesn't immediately agree with what they say as a disinfo agent, they will also never learn anything more. So, If in reality some kind of invisible chemtrails are being laid just further on, they will be oblivious to it and never even know how to recognise the signs that may be there. On the other hand, If there is a serious point to be made about the effects that contrails are having on the environment, that person will never be in a position to make it, because they are just seen as a chemtrail nut who doesn't know anything about planes and weather by anyone who might be in a position to help. They will have neatly parked themself into a cul de sac of pointlessness. Isn't conspiracy theory more than that? Isn't it about knowing as much as possible by the way of true fact and looking for the signs where the explanations you are given don't match up with what is known to be true? That's my reason for being here.

Making up false science and facts to make a theory stand up is just playing a game, like a sort of conspiracy dungeons and dragons, and I've also witnessed a fair few who I'm sure are engaged in that. They've slso tended to be the MOST agressive when their claims are challenged because they know they made them up.

Now with certain topics, it's gotten pretty obvious what's going on. Maybe this is all just too big picture or too scary or something for some people to even allow themselves to entertain the possibilities.

I don't find this nearly as out there as 90% of the crap on this site these days, and yet there is a very strong force.

Possibilities are fine, it's the impossibilities that just sound daft. I find chemtrails - as in the possibility that someone would spray chemicals from a plane for evil reasons - extremely plausible. Just look what Saddam Hussain did to several Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq to see the reality of it. Those people died hideous agonising deaths after being sprayed by planes (a real event that Chemtrailers strangely never mention).

However, when the original claim for chemtrails, way before GE theories were roped in, that ANY trail you see in the sky for more than a minute or so must be a chemtrail because contrails can't do that, is such an obvious lie, wouldn't you doubt there is anything there at all?

When photos can be plainly seen to be faked or misreprented, and here I'm referring to Renses Tanker photos, the so called chemtrail plane interiors shots and countless other photos and you tube videos, wouldn't you wonder why lies are needed?

When finding natural elements such as aluminium, barium etc in soil (where they've been since creation) is held up as proof of chemtrails, wouldn't you question the integrity of those claiming it?

When Kirsten Meghan is held up as the chief whistleblower on chemtrails, despite her own statement that she is not, someone is definitely trying to hoodwink me.

Finally for now, when soil and water tests are promoted as proof of something sprayed seven miles up in the air with no regard for industry, traffic, winds etc, I also question the sanity of those claims.

I'm interested in chemtrail theory, I think all of us skeptics would take up any good evidence and run with it, but everything posted in support of them so far is just so damned weak. And despite all of that, it's still mainstream provable science that is viewed with suspicion while all the bull excrement described above is fine and dandy. I really don't get that one. What do you think about the way the word "debunker" is used on here with such negative connotations? Is allowing bunk information to stand ever a good thing?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You asked about the retired neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock.

I'm not in a position to dispute anything he says about medical matters, though in passing, I note that he makes several claims about things such as bird flu vaccines, artificial sweetener etc that are not supported by General consensus or research findings by others. He seems a bit of a lone wolf in these matters and yes, sometimes lone wolves are later proven right. What is it that you find more credible about his claims than others?

I would point out that neurosurgery is not aviation or meteorology if that were not so facile, but when he makes comments that I know to be false, that casts doubt on his general credibility. He clearly states, right at the start, that he saw plane trails criss cross in the sky and that this was clearly the result of a deliberate operation.

You do know why that is just dumb, don't you? I'm happy to explain if it's not obvious (it isn't to everyone, I just wonder if you've read it before). In fact he presents nothing at all to connect the nano particles he talks about with aircraft, it's just assumed - which is far from good enough. You see, it matters not how intelligent or qualified a person may be. If they have an agenda they have an agenda. You can't judge anyone from what they tell you about subjects you don't know. It's when they lie to you about subjects you DO understand that you find them out. He is wrong.

The reasons why he is wrong are all plastered on the front page in this forum. They are to do with commercial air routes over North America. It's sbsolutely physically impossible for commercial flights to avoid criss crossing, so his immediate conclusion is false. I refer you back to my previous post about blatant lies.

a reply to: waynos

Regarding the WITWATS video, there's a very lengthy thread about it on this very forum where it's claims are examined if you wish to look for it in the meantime.

Here you go...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gotta say. I expected more of Lucidity. Considering how active she is on the forum, i thought she would be better than this.

Questioning debunkers motives and not replying to valid answers is a real cop out IMO.

silly me.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Just a general response.

This used to be a place where things like the people doing the debunking and their possible reasons for it were questioned. Where whistleblowers being silenced was entertained as a possibility. Where it was okay to think about things like this. Where it was okay to say hey something's going on here. We just don't know what and why.

Now with certain topics, it's gotten pretty obvious what's going on. Maybe this is all just too big picture or too scary or something for some people to even allow themselves to entertain the possibilities.

I don't find this [chemtrail theory] nearly as out there as 90% of the crap on this site these days, and yet there is a very strong force.

This "strong force" coming from the "debunkers" of chemtrail conspiracy theory using dubious tactics:

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Oh come on. That's a cop out. Is that all you want? For us to leave you with what we think are your delusions?

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
It's very telling telling that you aim straight for the posts where someone's patience has been tested to the limit, whilst completely ignoring all the patient, polite and factual posts and genuine invitations to discuss evidence that have preceded them over thousands of threads over many years.

Debunkers here have been "patient" with chemtrail believers? Of course, the patience of chemtrail believers to explain the limitations of the relevant "facts" presented that supposedly debunk their "delusions" could in no way matter just the same. If you were honest, you would agree that the anti-conspiracy debunkers of chemtrail conspiracy theory on ATS spend as much time discussing chemtrail believers as they do posting so-called "evidence" that supposedly debunks the hazards of anything associated with the chemtrail jet exhaust they want us to observe.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And how it is totally unrealistic to think that geoengineering would not have side effects to humans and to the planet?

--Because the hardcore empiricists known as "new atheists" have influenced enough of the Internet community to believe that it's only a "scientific method" to conclude something does not exist if there is no direct evidence for it, even in cases where it may very well be impossible to obtain direct observable evidence, and this applies equally to matters that involve the existence of God, the so-called "chemtrail" of a certain jet exhaust or aerosol, and unicorns. These people are talking about "debunking" videos in a manner in which when one point raised in the video is questionable, the entire concept of jet exhaust being dangerous to the population -- whether you call it a "chemtrail" or whatever -- suddenly is worthy of instant ridicule. They are using the tactics of anti-conspiracy thugs, which make it unrealistic to have a constructive discussion unless you indicate you too respect the approach of the new atheists to conclude what does and what does not exist.

Evidence of a type that is supposedly proving something important counter to the claims of people who believe there is a potential danger associated with proposals for geoengineering include lots of posts about Aluminum Barium and Strontium being found abundantly in nature. Here is the structure of their argument :


Claim A: Aluminum, barium, and strontium levels are inexplicably increasing in soil, snow, and water samples
Evidence: Research indicating aluminum, barium, and strontium are "commonly" found on the earth and released through mining activities
Conclusion: The aluminum, barium, and strontium found in soil, snow, and water samples can only be from natural sources.


If it's possible these metals CAN come from other sources other than the proposed aerosol chemicals associated with geoengineering, then it DOES. This is essentially a non-sequitur argument. Why? Because this conclusion does not follow "logically" from the premise. It's only one possible conclusion. But heck, present the above argument, throw in a little ridicule like this:

originally posted by: network dude
This is not to say that there isn't a massive operation covertly spraying evil juice on the populace for unknown reasons all while being completely secret and having the end product look EXACTLY like contrails...

All has surely been debunked with a non sequitur and a cheap jab, and so when someone asks "why you disregard people who are testing the water and the soil and are finding increased levels" we should all confidently conclude:

originally posted by: network dude
I think that was already covered in the above links. But to reiterate, testing ground soil or water could have contamination from a multitude of sources. Almost all of them terrestrial. Why do you think anything found in the water or soil would have to come from a plane? Once something is atomized in the air, it dilutes. If it dilutes at 25,000 feet, do you know how much you could detect of ANYTHING at ground level? Me neither, but I suspect it's minuscule if even detectable at all. But I admit to not having that answer, just logic.

No......it's the logic of a non-sequitur argument. This is a very dubious and dangerous approach, especially given many different sources that suggest there are people who desire to control the weather.

There is undoubtedly among any proponents of geoengineering the likes of Bill Gates and David Keith the desire to keep any experiments and activities associated with geoengineering hidden from the public. I realize it's contestable if there are articles in which they claim their activities and decisions are best made out in the open. However, I do not buy that these people have no capacity to lie to the public while rationalizing that it's "necessary" in the name of science, something the US government has a great track record of doing.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
It's very telling telling that you aim straight for the posts where someone's patience has been tested to the limit, whilst completely ignoring all the patient, polite and factual posts and genuine invitations to discuss evidence that have preceded them over thousands of threads over many years.

Debunkers here have been "patient" with chemtrail believers? Of course, the patience of chemtrail believers to explain the limitations of the relevant "facts" presented that supposedly debunk their "delusions" could in no way matter just the same.

Can you show an example of this patience? I don't recall one. Patience is, after all, a virtue. Also, What are the limitations in the facts that you referred to? You omitted to say.

If you were honest, you would agree that the anti-conspiracy debunkers of chemtrail conspiracy theory on ATS spend as much time discussing chemtrail believers as they do posting so-called "evidence" that supposedly debunks the hazards of anything associated with the chemtrail jet exhaust they want us to observe.

Given that nobody disputes the potential hazards of jet exhaust, and therefore nobody tries to debunk that at all, probably yes, they do. i.e. not at all. I'll give you that one.

--Because the hardcore empiricists known as "new atheists" have influenced enough of the Internet community to believe that it's only a "scientific method" to conclude something does not exist if there is no direct evidence for it, even in cases where it may very well be impossible to obtain direct observable evidence, and this applies equally to matters that involve the existence of God, the so-called "chemtrail" of a certain jet exhaust or aerosol, and unicorns.

Talking about members and not the topic! Tut tut. Curious how you link chemtrail, jet exhaust and aerosol as one thing. Almost as if you don't quite get what an aerosol is. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. You do know that aerosols are naturally occurring and virtually always there, don't you?

These people are talking about "debunking" videos in a manner in which when one point raised in the video is questionable, the entire concept of jet exhaust being dangerous to the population -- whether you call it a "chemtrail" or whatever -- suddenly is worthy of instant ridicule.

Now there's a point you can't support with evidence or quotes. Guaranteed . Of course, if you are blurring the lines between a jet exhaust as a constant by product of aviation, as opposed to a chemtrail as being created by a deliberate spraying operation that is different to regular jet exhaust and contrsils, you are either far less clued up about this theory than most others involved in these discussions, or you're simply being dishonest as that definition was coined by the leading proponents of the theory themselves.

Jet exhaust is real, chemtrails are a fantasy, they aren't the same discussion however much you might want them to be.

They are using the tactics of anti-conspiracy thugs, which make it unrealistic to have a constructive discussion unless you indicate you too respect the approach of the new atheists to conclude what does and what does not exist.

Au contrare. You are the one employing thuggish tactics by focussing your posts on attempting to discredit people who disagree with you, as we can see in the very post I'm quoting from,, rather than on the subject itself. This is a cowards approach. Please try to have a constructive discussion on the topic of chemtrails.

Evidence of a type that is supposedly proving something important counter to the claims of people who believe there is a potential danger associated with proposals for geoengineering include lots of posts about Aluminum Barium and Strontium being found abundantly in nature. Here is the structure of their argument :


Claim A: Aluminum, barium, and strontium levels are inexplicably increasing in soil, snow, and water samples
Evidence: Research indicating aluminum, barium, and strontium are "commonly" found on the earth and released through mining activities
Conclusion: The aluminum, barium, and strontium found in soil, snow, and water samples can only be from natural sources.

it's possible these metals CAN come from other sources other than the proposed aerosol chemicals associated with geoengineering, then it DOES.

If you think this is what is being said then it can only be as a result of your own misunderstanding. The conclusion can patently be nothing of the sort. If multiple sources are possible, then they are all valid, are they not? There is, however, a preponderance of claims that raised levels MUST come from aerial spraying with nothing to support that conclusion. Why, for example, are you so determined to force the point of aerial spraying without any consideration of industrial activity, winds etc? You almost seem to be saying that if we point out there are alternative possibilities, then we are saying they must be the explanation.

All has surely been debunked with a non sequitur and a cheap jab, and so when someone asks "why you disregard people who are testing the water and the soil and are finding increased levels" we should all confidently conclude:

No......it's the logic of a non-sequitur argument. This is a very dubious and dangerous approach, especially given many different sources that suggest there are people who desire to control the weather.

Now, if you are DETERMINED to see a perfectly reasonable counterpoint as somehow offensive I guess you will. It's a shame though, just like its a shame that you're putting so much effort into trying to convince others that posts say something they don't. People here don't tend to fall for such tactics, but knock yourself out.

There is undoubtedly among any proponents of geoengineering the likes of Bill Gates and David Keith the desire to keep any experiments and activities associated with geoengineering hidden from the public.

Apart from the published reports and David Keith warning that Geoengineering should be avoided because it could have calamitous consequences? What of that?

originally posted by: waynos
What are the limitations in the facts that you referred to? You omitted to say.

Nice to see you following the approach of the new atheists (i.e., just keep asking, where's the evidence?) This is the only thing worth responding to because even this request, which appears honest, is nothing but rhetoric. If others are interested, start HERE and you will see the limitations of evidence presented as science were highlighted and refuted as if none of the issues matter in the slightest. In fact, as one debunker put it, it's been known "for ages" that barium levels as high as 400 mcg/L in the bloodstream are completely "normal," and by "normal" he means the individual is perfectly healthy despite this, when such conclusions cannot be derived from the presented evidence.

Then of course, once this blood test is "debunked" it supposedly "debunks" every point made in the Shade video. And if not, then there are already posts that debunked every claim made in the Shade video and I just needed to find it all so that I too can forget about the limitations of the evidence being presented as "scientific."



I knew it. I was waiting for someone to "debunk" that when moderators say there is an issue here at ATS regarding how this topic is being discussed there really is nothing to be concerned about. People are now "debunking" the concerns of moderators.

a reply to: Petros312

Do you know how to use the alert button? If not, please say so. I'll be sure someone gives you a lesson.

And again, it's not the poster you need to be attacking, it's the content of the post.

There is even a bit about that in the T&C.

Is there anything in any of the posts in this thread that you would like to discuss? If not, please go to GLP when you can bitch about people when you run out of smarts. It's frowned upon here.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: mrthumpy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss instead of posting 2 hours worth of video and vague statements about chemicals in soil and water?

Not specific enough for you?

No, that's just vague statements

originally posted by: Petros312
Claim A: Aluminum, barium, and strontium levels are inexplicably increasing in soil, snow, and water samples
Evidence: Research indicating aluminum, barium, and strontium are "commonly" found on the earth and released through mining activities
Conclusion: The aluminum, barium, and strontium found in soil, snow, and water samples can only be from natural sources.


If it's possible these metals CAN come from other sources other than the proposed aerosol chemicals associated with geoengineering, then it DOES. This is essentially a non-sequitur argument. Why? Because this conclusion does not follow "logically" from the premise. It's only one possible conclusion.

The argument is that since these compounds can be found in abundance in the Earth's crust naturally, to claim that they "MUST" be coming from the spray of planes, is illogical. Planes "COULD" be spraying these compounds, but the more likely answer is when the dirt is moved, and the wind blows, these compounds will travel. Please don't twist that around. It's such a simple concept.

But heck, present the above argument, throw in a little ridicule like this:

originally posted by: network dude
This is not to say that there isn't a massive operation covertly spraying evil juice on the populace for unknown reasons all while being completely secret and having the end product look EXACTLY like contrails...

I am sure the quoting function will screw this up as usual, but please explain how reiterating the crux of the chemtrail theory is derogatory. I mean other than the entire premise.

All has surely been debunked with a non sequitur and a cheap jab, and so when someone asks "why you disregard people who are testing the water and the soil and are finding increased levels" we should all confidently conclude:

originally posted by: network dude
I think that was already covered in the above links. But to reiterate, testing ground soil or water could have contamination from a multitude of sources. Almost all of them terrestrial. Why do you think anything found in the water or soil would have to come from a plane? Once something is atomized in the air, it dilutes. If it dilutes at 25,000 feet, do you know how much you could detect of ANYTHING at ground level? Me neither, but I suspect it's minuscule if even detectable at all. But I admit to not having that answer, just logic.

No......it's the logic of a non-sequitur argument. This is a very dubious and dangerous approach, especially given many different sources that suggest there are people who desire to control the weather.

There is undoubtedly among any proponents of geoengineering the likes of Bill Gates and David Keith the desire to keep any experiments and activities associated with geoengineering hidden from the public. I realize it's contestable if there are articles in which they claim their activities and decisions are best made out in the open. However, I do not buy that these people have no capacity to lie to the public while rationalizing that it's "necessary" in the name of science, something the US government has a great track record of doing.

The Urinal on board a C-130 has a tube that exits the plane and has a small flapper at the end of the tube. If you use this urinal, the fluid exits the plane and flows freely into the sky. (or a puddle on the ground which makes the crew chief super happy if the plane is parked) Knowing that, have you ever been pissed on?

Death from above.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
What are the limitations in the facts that you referred to? You omitted to say.

Nice to see you following the approach of the new atheists (i.e., just keep asking, where's the evidence?) This is the only thing worth responding to because even this request, which appears honest, is nothing but rhetoric. If others are interested, start HERE and you will see the limitations of evidence presented as science were highlighted and refuted as if none of the issues matter in the slightest. In fact, as one debunker put it, it's been known "for ages" that barium levels as high as 400 mcg/L in the bloodstream are completely "normal," and by "normal" he means the individual is perfectly healthy despite this, when such conclusions cannot be derived from the presented evidence.

Then of course, once this blood test is "debunked" it supposedly "debunks" every point made in the Shade video. And if not, then there are already posts that debunked every claim made in the Shade video and I just needed to find it all so that I too can forget about the limitations of the evidence being presented as "scientific."



I knew it. I was waiting for someone to "debunk" that when moderators say there is an issue here at ATS regarding how this topic is being discussed there really is nothing to be concerned about. People are now "debunking" the concerns of moderators.

Yawn.....you are doing the standard chemmie tactic:


- Present "evidence"
- Said evidence is debunked easily
- Instead of discussing the points that have been brought up, get mad at debunkers and moan that "we are all the same", "what is our agenda", blah blah blah

So silly

The dumbing down goes further mainstream. Maybe they will at least try to get a chemical analysis

Nahhh too much money!