It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Who cares if barium is toxic! They're using it to make the sky a giant hologram, not poison us! Come on people.


Wild claims require a link to a Youtube video for verification.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: anton74

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Who cares if barium is toxic! They're using it to make the sky a giant hologram, not poison us! Come on people.


Wild claims require a link to a Youtube video for verification.


www.bariumblues.com...

truedemocracyparty.net...

www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

Sorry no YouTube links; that's only for widely accepted mainstream concepts.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Yea, I heard they were going to show The Wizard of Oz while playing Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, followed by a documentary of hollow Earth using a Reptilian overlord as the narrator. Big screen MADNESS!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Yea, I heard they were going to show The Wizard of Oz while playing Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, followed by a documentary of hollow Earth using a Reptilian overlord as the narrator. Big screen MADNESS!


OMG... that would be awesome!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Get your tickets at the nearest masonic lodge. (the password is "I eat babies")



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: anton74

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Who cares if barium is toxic! They're using it to make the sky a giant hologram, not poison us! Come on people.


Wild claims require a link to a Youtube video for verification.


www.bariumblues.com...

truedemocracyparty.net...

www.stopsprayingcalifornia.com...

Sorry no YouTube links; that's only for widely accepted mainstream concepts.


You should have warned me, I laughed so hard I almost passed out.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: anton74

this made me smile.

Definition of a contrail: A contrail occurs when a plane travels at a high altitude (about 30,000 ft. or more) and compresses the air into a water vapor or ice crystals through jet engines or the wing tips pushing through the air. This trail disappears after a minute or so due to evaporation, because it’s water. This is normal.
Definition of a chemtrail: The term “chemtrail” is a relatively new word, which appeared in the last ten years or more with the appearance of chemtrails. A chemtrail is not normal.
A chemtrail is very different from a contrail. At first a chemtrail might look a bit like a contrail. However, instead of disappearing like a contrail does, a chemtrail just keeps spreading out and forming a hazy cloud bank. These trails traverse the whole sky and stay for up to around five or even eight hours. They have been known to turn what was originally a clear blue sky into a grey haze.

Since it's warm up there, the contrail usually evaporates. Because it's water. I tried it and it didn't work. I took a block of water out of the freezer and it stayed on my counter for a really long time. I am calling shenanigans!
edit on 5-2-2015 by network dude because: chemtrails are as real as Santa.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: anton74

this made me smile.

Definition of a contrail: A contrail occurs when a plane travels at a high altitude (about 30,000 ft. or more) and compresses the air into a water vapor or ice crystals through jet engines or the wing tips pushing through the air. This trail disappears after a minute or so due to evaporation, because it’s water. This is normal.
Definition of a chemtrail: The term “chemtrail” is a relatively new word, which appeared in the last ten years or more with the appearance of chemtrails. A chemtrail is not normal.
A chemtrail is very different from a contrail. At first a chemtrail might look a bit like a contrail. However, instead of disappearing like a contrail does, a chemtrail just keeps spreading out and forming a hazy cloud bank. These trails traverse the whole sky and stay for up to around five or even eight hours. They have been known to turn what was originally a clear blue sky into a grey haze.

Since it's warm up there, the contrail usually evaporates. Because it's water. I tried it and it didn't work. I took a block of water out of the freezer and it stayed on my counter for a really long time. I am calling shenanigans!


That doesn't even make sense. That would require the chemtrails to be powder. That much powder would be more than the output of all the worlds mines combined.

I like the last one. Chemtrails sample was 6.68 ppm(six times the limit set by the EPA). When you follow the link it is about a guy that found a "substance" on the ground. Then go's talking about Barium samples in plants and soil are much higher. Perhaps we should capture the Chemtrails and breath it so we can lower our Barium levels.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The more read that the dumber I get. Water has to cool down to -30F before it can evaporate? Not to mention that, that amount of particles would "sandblast" the paint off of another aircraft very quickly.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: anton74

If someone cannot see past the first part of water evaporating in -50F/C temperatures being a fail, then I fully support them in their efforts to champion the chemtrail cause. Humor is an integral part of society.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: anton74

If someone cannot see past the first part of water evaporating in -50F/C temperatures being a fail, then I fully support them in their efforts to champion the chemtrail cause. Humor is an integral part of society.


What happened to science? Could you imagine if the people making these Youtube videos put the same amount of effort into gathering actual samples and having them tested?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: anton74

In their defense, it would be a short video with no room for a part 2.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

True, and being a skeptic without believers would probably get boring.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
...you aer [sic] just rearranging words to try to avoid having to acknowledge that het [sic] blood tests show no evidence of ahazard [sic]...

--the blood test data you rely on as some gold standard for the safety of barium levels as high as 489 mcg/L do not show evidence of a NON-HAZARD. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of the health of the 1155 individuals tested within the data set. So you can stop overgeneralizing and distorting what the statistics actually show.


originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
...you are using argument from ignorance to try to make others prove your baseless claim false.

--You want to get into logical fallacies? Here's the one you keep supporting:

Claim A: Barium levels were found at a range of 0 - 489 mcg/L is not "in any way" hazardous.
Evidence: Barium levels found in 1155 individuals range from 0-489 mcg/L
Conclusion: Barium levels in the blood up to 489 mcg/L are not "in any way" associated with poor health

That's a non sequitur argument. Here's another one you keep supporting:

Claim A: Barium levels of a group of people range from 0 - 489 mcg/L
Evidence: a data set done by NMS Labs of 1155 individuals
Conclusion: There are no individuals in the entire population of human beings who "in any way" can be negatively affected by this range of barium in the blood.

One more while I'm at it:

Claim A: Barium levels of a group of 1155 people range from 0 - 489 mcg/L
Evidence: a data set done by NMS Labs of 1155 individuals
Conclusion: These levels can only indicate what is a "normal" range among the human population.

In fact, the quote below in your own words is nothing but a conclusion from the same non sequitur argument:

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
"Normal" barium levels in blood are 80-400 micro-grams per liter - it has been known for ages

--It's also been known "for ages" what is essentially a non sequitur argument. You conclusions do not logically follow from your premises. You are using studies and data only for the purposes of confirmation bias while refusing to admit the limitations of this data used for reference in this specific case.




originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Absolutely - there is no evidence at all that the blood levels that have been reported are in any way hazardous, and they have been shown to be within the normal range expected of human blood - that is exactly what debunking is - removing the bunk.

--And in the absence of this evidence, this absence absolutely "debunks" that there's no level within the findings that becomes hazardous to certain individuals? It's really obvious that there is no great fact to support the language you are using here (i.e., over-confidently stating these levels of barium are not "in any way" hazardous). Above, you posted only a short-term study presented about how human beings digest barium, in comparison with rats, and then there's the mystery of how a number as high as 400 mcg/L barium in the blood is a "safe" level that has no negative health consequences -- even when individuals have gone public with blood test results that show levels elevated above the median (21 mcg/L) of a data set and claim to have had acute respiratory illness and the symptoms of barium toxicity. I know you feel content to call them liars or "misinformed" about their health issues.


edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:02:59 -0600201559312 by Petros312 because: formatting



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
There are also people here who are waiting for you to show how those levels are toxic to humans. The ball is in your court. Just show what the toxic levels of barium in human blood is. You may have a valid argument, but without anything other than opinions from you, the documents provided tell a much different story.

No! You and these "people here who are waiting" for hard evidence of a type that doesn't exist truly don't understand what I'm getting at. My point is that the "documents" DO NOT say anything about barium levels being SAFE, while everyone who thinks they are prime debunkers keep saying that these tests indicate these levels are SAFE. You guys continue to confound the word "normal" with the word "safe," and there is no evidence to support that the statistically normative findings by NMS Labs (range of 0-489 mcg/L) represents levels that come with no negative health impacts along the entire range. These statements below don't mean the same thing:


1. Barium levels in the blood at 2 -400 mcg/L is normal.

2. Barium levels in the blood at 2-400 mcg/L is the normative finding of a specific group tested for barium.

3. Barium levels in the blood at 2-400 mcg/L have been found to have no negative health impacts.

4. Barium levels in the blood at 2 -400 mcg/L have been found in most people, but it is unknown if certain individuals are highly sensitive to it.

5. Barium levels in the blood at 2 -400 mcg/L have been found in most people, but it is unknown if health effects differ based on ingestion or inhalation of aerosol particulate forms.

Yet, proponents of the "debunking" of these blood tests are making all the above assumptions, which is very bad science. If you don't understand why the above are not all valid claims based on the data set used by NMS Labs to derive a "normal" level of barium found among a group in which N=1155, then you need to re-read my post ABOVE without some presupposition in your head. If you disagree with this or you claim it's merely "obfuscation," then you clearly do not understand the limitations of statistics and the scientific method.

To be clear, I am NOT trying to support that proponents of geoengineering are taking over the world through use of barium aerosol sprays. However, I do believe there was an event that occurred in the southwest USA, including Golden Valley AZ, that was an experiment of some kind not revealed to the public (because it would have caused obvious public dissent), and that certain individuals who were more sensitive to airborne elements like nano-aluminum or barium particulates were affected by this experimenting. I do not have hard evidence of this because the data needed would be impossible to obtain--unless someone knows how to fly into a condensation trail at 30,000 feet and collect air samples. But not having this data does not negate that there is a correlation between a) blood tests of ill people that indicated elevated levels of barium, b) elevated barium and aluminum in the rainwater of this region, and c) the kinds of aerosol sprays proposed for geoengineering. I'll clarify my point in another way: This is NOT evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between airborne barium and blood levels of barium. I said correlation.

Stop asking me to support the claim that there is some specific level of barium below 489 mcg/L that is hazardous and try to understand why the 5 statements above do not mean the same thing, why it's wrong to say the blood test results and referenced data set rule out a barium level below 489 mcg/L in the blood as simply "normal," and why this data set says nothing about individuals who may be more sensitive to serum barium even within the range they found among a cohort of 1155 (who may not have been randomly selected and do not represent the general public).

You "debunkers" believe that you have enough evidence to not reject what is a false null hypothesis (stated: There is no relationship between the barium found in blood tests, ill health effects, and barium coming from particulate matter in the air). From an unbiased scientific approach, it would be an example of a type II error to accept this null hypothesis. There isn't enough evidence for it based on something like another possible source for barium other than an airborne source. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

It's wrong to overlook that barium and aluminum are among the chemical elements proposed by proponents of geoengineering like David Keith to be used in some way as aerosols. You cannot overlook that the proponents of geoengineering have monetary support from people like Bill Gates, and when they are ready to start experimenting they will not alert the public of what exactly they are doing because they know most people would oppose chemicals being dumped into the sky, and the experiments will take place despite having no clear understanding of the negative impact it will have on the environment, including the public's health and safety. At these times, it is not unrealistic to be suspicious.



One more point to address, and it pertains to the title of this thread -- the idea that if geoengineering was occurring it's a "dismal EPIC failure" based on the climate data indicating that 2014 was the warmest year on record. It's another non sequitur argument. Here's why:

Claim A: Geoengineering is said to be taking place to stop global warming
Evidence: Many observation of persistent jet condensation trails; weather data for 2014 indicates highest average temps ever recorded
Conclusion: Geoengineering must have been a failure

This argument presumes to know the one true purpose of geoengineering, which is supposedly to stop global warming. The goal may very well be to "control" it by slowing it down, and if the average temperatures were 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous recorded high, and this occurred while geoengineering was taking place, then there's no real way to know if the average temp would have increased by more. If computer models projected an average increase of perhaps 1 or 2 degrees F, then data indicating only a .07 increase would be labelled a success.





I entered this discussion reluctantly. I have endured the typical abuse from other members here at ATS. I am talking to walls at this point. And I'm done.

As I said in my first post: Good luck underlings.




edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Fri, 06 Feb 2015 16:07:42 -0600201542312 by Petros312 because: link; wording; addition



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

--the blood test data you rely on as some gold standard for the safety of barium levels as high as 489 mcg/L do not show evidence of a NON-HAZARD.


No, it doesn't - and there you go again with the argument from ignorance.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Look, I am not sure where the communication breakdown happened, but it's here, and it's massive.

Let's see it I can put this in a way that won't be missed.

I don't know anything about barium toxicity. I am trying learn.


NOW, you have made the continued claim that the levels of barium found are dangerous. Other information has pointed to that not being the case.

If you could point me to something, anything that states at which level barium in blood become hazardous, we might all learn something.

But.....my initial point is one that you have not addressed in multiple posts. Why does the contamination HAVE to come from planes, if there are many more, ground based reasons? Do you have anything other than the video to use as a reason for that decision?

And please skip the abused rhetoric. I have tried to be as polite as possible with you.
edit on 6-2-2015 by network dude because: chemtrails are as real as Santa.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I have to chime in here. I've read all the posts from page 1 til here. And it amazes me that the focus of this whole dispute that you and Petros and whomever was involved was focused on the barium levels produced by one documentary called shade which i have not watched nor do i need to. I was a hard skeptic of chemtrails, but now I know from my personal empirical data I collected on my own that to me they do exist. Has anyone actually taken the time to go outside and test the theory for themselves? I watched What in the World and Why in the World along with a ton of amateur videos of people showing what they believe to be chemtrails, many documentaries, us patents, documetns etc.. And it made me question wow whats going on here? How much time have you spent and what evidence have you gathered to prove that they don't exist? I figured the only way to really see if they exist is to get my ass off my chair and go outside and start paying attention to the sky on a daily basis. And every jet that I saw if I had the opportunity I took pictures of it as well as all types of cloud cover especially clouds that form after suspected planes that were emitting questionable exhaust plumes.
Especially, when you wake to a beautiful sky where there are a few planes flying east to west with no trails con or chem north of my location (where the international airport is its NE of me) and then you have another part the sky S and SW of my location with high air traffic west to east of planes flying sorties staggered formation with a lead plane emitting nothing and right behind at a slightly lower altitude southwest of the lead plane at a specific point in the sky where the lead has passed you see a trail form immediately behind the second plane and continue across the whole sky and about 5-15 sec after southwest of the second plane you see the third plane in the formation at approx the same specific point start forming a trail and spraying across the sky. Then they circle back and start again. Commercial airliners don't fly in formation and sure as hell do not repeat there flight path over and over again at non-cruising altitudes.
And its not just looking up and taking pictures its also watching the the flight path of these planes the times of the day that suspected planes were in the air and the flight direction. Looking for what airports are nearby military and civilian and what would be the general direction of planes taking off from airports around my locations to remove the possibility of it being a commercial plane. Also the weather because what a coincidence that anywhere from 1-7days the average being 1-3 days before a storm regardless of the season you will see heightened air traffic and these types of sorties being run and wind direction being most important. There is way more to debunking than looking at pictures and youtube videos and saying that they are full of # and that chemtrails are as real as santa. That's simply not the case. And we are all on a need to know basis. You are miniscule to the cartel that runs the show nothing more than an expendable commodity. You think they are going to just tell you? No, but they do expect you to be naive, narrow-minded, complacent and distracted enough to not pay attention or really care and just dismiss this as another conspiracy theorist. At that they are correct because I was a victim of that. That's why they got blatantly careless they didn't expect people to start really questioning things.
This all falls under the method of Problem(falsely created or facilitated and can be decades in the making), Reaction(usually from the public outcry wanting change), Solution(as if the solution as already been produced by a bill for example). Look at many of the high profile events that have happened 911, The federal reserve act of 1913, and the iraq wars to name a few and plug in this method and see the pattern of how they get you to consent to whatever there agenda is. Sorry to get off topic.

So, the evidence. I have since 2011 taken and collected over 9,500 pictures and over 2 dozens videos for myself to breakdown the data and empirically conclude with my own eyes that they do exist. What have all the skeptics done to gather empirical data and conclude the opposite?
Here are a few videos that I thought were very informative on evidence that this phenomena indeed is real. One is Clifford Carnicom - Aerosol Crimes 2005 the other is From Chemtrails to Pseudo Life - The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology by Sofia Smallstorm. you can hopefully still find these on youtube. And one of my videos I posted similar to what I described above www.youtube.com... or search youtube for CT Chemtrails. Also, I will provide two documents and one book to read. One document is called Weather as a force Multiplier Owning the Weather in 2025, the other is HR2977 - Space Preservation Act of 2001 link here www.congress.gov... Look for the word chemtrails. The book is called Angels Dont Play this HAARP by Nick Begich.
In my opinion chemtrails are used for a much broader spectrum of weather modification for warfare and control. Not population control. If they want you dead then you will simply disappear from the face of the earth. The CIA had in the late 60s and 70s developed a microwave type gun that can give you a heart attack from a specified distance. So we are niave to believe that there isnt a bigger agenda at play and were are the puppets getting our strings pulled every which way. What better to the puppeteers to have your little puppets attacking each other day after day year after year on who is right or wrong instead of joining forces in massive numbers and force the truth out of them. Until then they have us right where they want us. Well most of us that is. Goodnight.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: CTSoldier
a reply to: network dude

I have to chime in here. I've read all the posts from page 1 til here. And it amazes me that the focus of this whole dispute that you and Petros and whomever was involved was focused on the barium levels produced by one documentary called shade which i have not watched nor do i need to. I was a hard skeptic of chemtrails, but now I know from my personal empirical data I collected on my own that to me they do exist. Has anyone actually taken the time to go outside and test the theory for themselves? I watched What in the World and Why in the World along with a ton of amateur videos of people showing what they believe to be chemtrails, many documentaries, us patents, documetns etc.. And it made me question wow whats going on here? How much time have you spent and what evidence have you gathered to prove that they don't exist? I figured the only way to really see if they exist is to get my ass off my chair and go outside and start paying attention to the sky on a daily basis. And every jet that I saw if I had the opportunity I took pictures of it as well as all types of cloud cover especially clouds that form after suspected planes that were emitting questionable exhaust plumes.
Especially, when you wake to a beautiful sky where there are a few planes flying east to west with no trails con or chem north of my location (where the international airport is its NE of me) and then you have another part the sky S and SW of my location with high air traffic west to east of planes flying sorties staggered formation with a lead plane emitting nothing and right behind at a slightly lower altitude southwest of the lead plane at a specific point in the sky where the lead has passed you see a trail form immediately behind the second plane and continue across the whole sky and about 5-15 sec after southwest of the second plane you see the third plane in the formation at approx the same specific point start forming a trail and spraying across the sky. Then they circle back and start again. Commercial airliners don't fly in formation and sure as hell do not repeat there flight path over and over again at non-cruising altitudes.
And its not just looking up and taking pictures its also watching the the flight path of these planes the times of the day that suspected planes were in the air and the flight direction. Looking for what airports are nearby military and civilian and what would be the general direction of planes taking off from airports around my locations to remove the possibility of it being a commercial plane. Also the weather because what a coincidence that anywhere from 1-7days the average being 1-3 days before a storm regardless of the season you will see heightened air traffic and these types of sorties being run and wind direction being most important. There is way more to debunking than looking at pictures and youtube videos and saying that they are full of # and that chemtrails are as real as santa. That's simply not the case. And we are all on a need to know basis. You are miniscule to the cartel that runs the show nothing more than an expendable commodity. You think they are going to just tell you? No, but they do expect you to be naive, narrow-minded, complacent and distracted enough to not pay attention or really care and just dismiss this as another conspiracy theorist. At that they are correct because I was a victim of that. That's why they got blatantly careless they didn't expect people to start really questioning things.
This all falls under the method of Problem(falsely created or facilitated and can be decades in the making), Reaction(usually from the public outcry wanting change), Solution(as if the solution as already been produced by a bill for example). Look at many of the high profile events that have happened 911, The federal reserve act of 1913, and the iraq wars to name a few and plug in this method and see the pattern of how they get you to consent to whatever there agenda is. Sorry to get off topic.

So, the evidence. I have since 2011 taken and collected over 9,500 pictures and over 2 dozens videos for myself to breakdown the data and empirically conclude with my own eyes that they do exist. What have all the skeptics done to gather empirical data and conclude the opposite?
Here are a few videos that I thought were very informative on evidence that this phenomena indeed is real. One is Clifford Carnicom - Aerosol Crimes 2005 the other is From Chemtrails to Pseudo Life - The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology by Sofia Smallstorm. you can hopefully still find these on youtube. And one of my videos I posted similar to what I described above www.youtube.com... or search youtube for CT Chemtrails. Also, I will provide two documents and one book to read. One document is called Weather as a force Multiplier Owning the Weather in 2025, the other is HR2977 - Space Preservation Act of 2001 link here www.congress.gov... Look for the word chemtrails. The book is called Angels Dont Play this HAARP by Nick Begich.
In my opinion chemtrails are used for a much broader spectrum of weather modification for warfare and control. Not population control. If they want you dead then you will simply disappear from the face of the earth. The CIA had in the late 60s and 70s developed a microwave type gun that can give you a heart attack from a specified distance. So we are niave to believe that there isnt a bigger agenda at play and were are the puppets getting our strings pulled every which way. What better to the puppeteers to have your little puppets attacking each other day after day year after year on who is right or wrong instead of joining forces in massive numbers and force the truth out of them. Until then they have us right where they want us. Well most of us that is. Goodnight.


I wasn't going to reply to this until I saw its your first post ever.

Most amazing first post ever. Had to note the occasion.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CTSoldier
a reply to: network dude

How much time have you spent and what evidence have you gathered to prove that they don't exist?.


Apart from researching contrail information that has existed for decades, recalling all my work on aircraft engines and fuel systems, talking to pilots, engineers, mechanics, regulators, refuelers?

Apart from that....none at all.

You claim empirical evidence that "chemtails" exist....so what do you actually have that shows this to be the case apart from photos of "chemtrails" that look exactly like contrails, patents that have no bearing, movies that are full of easily provable nonsense, and this unoriginal argument from ignorance which is itself male bovine excrement - what do you ACTUALLY have by way of empirical evidence?

'cos all the stuff you listed is hearsay and anecdote - not empirical - empirical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. VERIFIABLE - which means something more than just seeing something and saying it is what you want it to be.

How is looking at something that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail and concluding it is not a contrail empirical - how much time have you spent establishing why that is the case?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join