Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

And if they didn't measure the barium in the jet exhaust, this proves it doesn't exist?

If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?

Don't forget Barium and Aluminum are in almost everything, including the roof, gutters, and rain barrel. Not finding those two in rain water from a rain barrel is as likely as finding rain water with no water in it.

originally posted by: network dude
www.metabunk.org...

You may not like the source, the information presented is what you need to discuss.

Notice there is a map, with a local mine noted.

Also, notice the information about testing levels.

1. How many times do I need to tell you all the 20 people tested did NOT all live in Golden Valley AZ?

2. How many times do I need to explain that it does not invalidate a correlation between blood tests, rainwater, and jet exhaust to locate some alternate "remotely possible" source of barium contamination?

3. Mick West (master metabunker from the metabunk website) is assuming the blood tests of these individuals is actually within "normal" range, all based on disputing this: "Normal levels are between 2 and 10 mcg/L for barium according to Labcorp and Quest Labs." He claims the "normal" level is actually as high as 400 mcg/L, but he's getting this from a source that says: "Spectrum Laboratories provides this information in its website as a free value to anyone who cares about environmental or chemical issues. The sources of this information could not be validated. This site is a compilation of information meant for casual reference only." From the video, we see that Alan DiCiccio says normal level is 11 and his level was 190. This is obviously a case where a source is not correct about the normal limits of barium found in the blood. Allan DiCiccio's doctor saw the results of his blood test. Did he lie to his patient when he concurred barium level was elevated?

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
www.metabunk.org...

You may not like the source, the information presented is what you need to discuss.

Notice there is a map, with a local mine noted.

Also, notice the information about testing levels.

1. How many times do I need to tell you all the 20 people tested did NOT all live in Golden Valley AZ?

2. How many times do I need to explain that it does not invalidate a correlation between blood tests, rainwater, and jet exhaust to locate some alternate "remotely possible" source of barium contamination?

3. Mick West (master metabunker from the metabunk website) is assuming the blood tests of these individuals is actually within "normal" range, all based on disputing this: "Normal levels are between 2 and 10 mcg/L for barium according to Labcorp and Quest Labs." He claims the "normal" level is actually as high as 400 mcg/L, but he's getting this from a source that says: "Spectrum Laboratories provides this information in its website as a free value to anyone who cares about environmental or chemical issues. The sources of this information could not be validated. This site is a compilation of information meant for casual reference only." From the video, we see that Alan DiCiccio says normal level is 11 and his level was 190. This is obviously a case where a source is not correct about the normal limits of barium found in the blood. Allan DiCiccio's doctor saw the results of his blood test. Did he lie to his patient when he concurred barium level was elevated?

All of their tests where within the normal range. Did you actually read the data?

originally posted by: network dude

If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?

Hell yes I disagree. Are you questioning that barium is in jet exhaust, or are you questioning that David Keith and other proponents of geoengineering sprays have suggested that barium is a chemical element that can be put to use? As far as the correlation goes, it's in relationship to the proposed chemical elements to be used as aerosols, which I cannot possibly find simply a coincidence in this case. Jet exhaust does normally contain barium, but I'm not sure how much, and it's not relevant.

originally posted by: anton74
All of their tests where within the normal range. Did you actually read the data?

Yes I did, and I also read the disclaimer at the website that Mick West used as his source to determine what the supposed "normal" range is for the blood. The video clearly states that it's not 400 mcg/L, it's 11.

Again, Mick West (master metabunker from the metabunk website) is assuming the blood tests of these individuals is actually within "normal" range, all based on disputing this: "Normal levels are between 2 and 10 mcg/L for barium according to Labcorp and Quest Labs." He claims the "normal" level is actually as high as 400 mcg/L, but he's getting this from a source that says: "Spectrum Laboratories provides this information in its website as a free value to anyone who cares about environmental or chemical issues. The sources of this information could not be validated. This site is a compilation of information meant for casual reference only." From the video, we see that Alan DiCiccio says normal level is 11 and his level was 190. This is obviously a case where a source is not correct about the normal limits of barium found in the blood. Allan DiCiccio's doctor saw the results of his blood test. Did he lie to his patient when he concurred barium level was elevated?

Moreover (and this is going to go right over most of your heads), something that is statistically "normative" (as in a blood test indicating barium levels) should never be confounded with what is "normal."

And no I do not trust the people at metabunk.com because they are mostly "debunkers" (as defined above). In this case, one of the prime metabunkers is using a questionable source for what is a normative barium level in the bloodstream (not what is normal).

PLUS, depending on when the normative value was determined, it could be skewed by environmental toxins.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude

If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?

Hell yes I disagree. Are you questioning that barium is in jet exhaust, or are you questioning that David Keith and other proponents of geoengineering sprays have suggested that barium is a chemical element that can be put to use? As far as the correlation goes, it's in relationship to the proposed chemical elements to be used as aerosols, which I cannot possibly find simply a coincidence in this case. Jet exhaust does normally contain barium, but I'm not sure how much, and it's not relevant.

If I may, I would like to question if barium is present in jet exhaust and how much. While you claimed to believe the jet exhaust is causing the elevated barium levels, then saying the levels aren't relevant perplexes me.

I do question weather anyone is actively doing any geo-engineering at this point. To date, all the information states that any SRM projects are in the planning/discussion phase. (please note that in order to claim this is happening, you need to provide real links to real data showing it is currently happening.)

So, to recap, regardless of where the rest of the 20 folks lived, the TWO you pointed out in your post did live in that town in AZ. And the mine I showed is close to that town. So, barring any other factors, do you agree that it's possible that the barium contamination may have come from another source?

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: anton74
All of their tests where within the normal range. Did you actually read the data?

Yes I did, and I also read the disclaimer at the website that Mick West used as his source to determine what the supposed "normal" range is for the blood. The video clearly states that it's not 400 mcg/L, it's 11.

Again, Mick West (master metabunker from the metabunk website) is assuming the blood tests of these individuals is actually within "normal" range, all based on disputing this: "Normal levels are between 2 and 10 mcg/L for barium according to Labcorp and Quest Labs." He claims the "normal" level is actually as high as 400 mcg/L, but he's getting this from a source that says: "Spectrum Laboratories provides this information in its website as a free value to anyone who cares about environmental or chemical issues. The sources of this information could not be validated. This site is a compilation of information meant for casual reference only." From the video, we see that Alan DiCiccio says normal level is 11 and his level was 190. This is obviously a case where a source is not correct about the normal limits of barium found in the blood. Allan DiCiccio's doctor saw the results of his blood test. Did he lie to his patient when he concurred barium level was elevated?

Moreover (and this is going to go right over most of your heads), something that is statistically "normative" (as in a blood test indicating barium levels) should never be confounded with what is "normal."

Here is a link that actually shows the results.

Metabunk

The paragraph on the lower left shows what is normal.

Do you understand what Elevated means on a blood test? If 10 was the max anything over 10 would be High. Elevated is anything over the Median and below the max allowed.

ETA, the 2 to 10 is actually the max daily intake. That is according to the people making the claim.

More regarding this doubt debunkers cast on the elevated levels of barium in blood test results:

You can see in the video at 54:00 there's a form (likely blood test results) saying "Patient has an abnormal Barium Level" with a signature of the prescriber. Is that a lie too? We all have reason to doubt the papers received from blood test results all come from health care professionals who don't know what is an elevated level of barium?

originally posted by: network dude
If I may, I would like to question if barium is present in jet exhaust and how much. While you claimed to believe the jet exhaust is causing the elevated barium levels, then saying the levels aren't relevant perplexes me.

Because you don't understand what correlation I derived from the facts regarding "jet exhaust," which you are now confounding with "jet fuel." Or maybe you're intentionally shifting the focus from "jet exhaust" to "jet fuel," all to invalidate my argument.

originally posted by: network dude
So, barring any other factors, do you agree that it's possible that the barium contamination may have come from another source?

What does "it's possible" get you? -- a chance to start dismantling my perspective? A correlation is a correlation.

originally posted by: Petros312
More regarding this doubt debunkers cast on the elevated levels of barium in blood test results:

You can see in the video at 54:00 there's a form (likely blood test results) saying "Patient has an abnormal Barium Level" with a signature of the prescriber. Is that a lie too? We all have reason to doubt the papers received from blood test results all come from health care professionals who don't know what is an elevated level of barium?

The Reporting limit is the minimum amount that the labs test equipment can detect it is not the max amount your blood should have. In this case the smallest amount detectable is 11. In my above post I gave a link that shows the actually test.

a reply to: Petros312

Do you have any opinion on my data showing other possible contamination possibilities?

I am not a doctor and cannot seem to find any linkable data on allowable barium levels in the blood, but as I said before, that's not what I am discussing. I am only questioning the blame of the source.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
If I may, I would like to question if barium is present in jet exhaust and how much. While you claimed to believe the jet exhaust is causing the elevated barium levels, then saying the levels aren't relevant perplexes me.

Because you don't understand what correlation I derived from the facts regarding "jet exhaust," which you are now confounding with "jet fuel." Or maybe you're intentionally shifting the focus from "jet exhaust" to "jet fuel," all to invalidate my argument.

I am sorry, where did I mention jet fuel? I was under the impression you were discussing jet exhaust. Is that not the case? If not, then where is the barium contamination coming from?

originally posted by: network dude
So, barring any other factors, do you agree that it's possible that the barium contamination may have come from another source?

What does "it's possible" get you? -- a chance to start dismantling my perspective? A correlation is a correlation.

You are convinced the contamination is coming from jets. Why, because they said so in the movie. If I have that wrong, please set me straight. I asked, and continue to ask, IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE that the contamination may be coming from a more likely source, like the mine pictured?

originally posted by: anton74
Do you understand what Elevated means on a blood test? If 10 was the max anything over 10 would be High. Elevated is anything over the Median and below the max allowed.

ETA, the 2 to 10 is actually the max daily intake. That is according to the people making the claim.

YOU and those who agree with you are misrepresenting what is or is not an elevated level.

From the metabunk link, the second post on the metabunk website, which shows a copy of Zanna Gianluca's blood test it says quite clearly that this person's blood tested at 130 mcg/L. That's clearly elevated above the median, which is only 21 mcg/L.

The range that extends to 489 mcg/L is the HIGHEST amount found in 1155 people in the general public. It is not necessarily "normal" to have this level. Statistically, this is not even a "normative" value. You are misrepresenting what this number actually means. It could be very abnormal to have a level this high!

Again, all of you who agree the blood tests do not show elevated levels assume the doctors and blood test reports that came back indicated elevated levels of barium are all lies coming from professionals and health care practitioners. Ridiculous.

originally posted by: anton74
You seem to be unaware that Dicicco's Barium level was well within the normal range, as well as the others. On the test Reporting Limit means that is the smallest amount the lab can detect. Elevated means it is above the median. If you take time to read the whole thing it shows that his test was normal.

190 mcg/L (DiCiccio's blood test as reported in the video) is way above 21 mcg/L (median as reported by your metabunk link). It must be you who does not understand, or maybe you're intentionally being deceptive?

a reply to: Petros312

Yes it is higher than the median - so are half the results of anything, by definition.

However it is well within what is considered the normal range.

Both statements are true - don't fixate on one as if it is particularly important when it is not.

originally posted by: network dude
If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?

I disagree in another important way. It's not based on speculation that proponents of geoengineering have proposed barium as a chemical to be used in aerosols. You keep completely overlooking this and shift the focus to whether barium was measured in the jet exhaust over Golden Valley AZ, an obvious impossibility. It doesn't invalidate the positive correlation between the elevated levels of barium found in blood tests, the elevated rainwater barium, and the proposed chemical elements to be used as aerosols for geoengineering. There is barium in jet exhaust, and it is quite possible that jet exhaust itself is the source of the toxin.

originally posted by: network dude
I asked, and continue to ask, IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE that the contamination may be coming from a more likely source, like the mine pictured?

You keep trying to make it look like a nearby mine or some other source of barium is more plausible, but the truth is you have no more or less evidence for this claim than I do regarding the barium potentially contained in the jet exhaust. You will not dismantle my argument with "possibilities." It may not be the exhaust per se, I have no clue what the actual delivery system is to deploy a chemical of this kind, and it's not relevant to my argument. The positive correlation is my concern, and it's a health issue whether it's related to geoengineering or jet exhaust in general. They both appear to be toxic to the public.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Petros312

Yes it is higher than the median - so are half the results of anything, by definition.

However it is well within what is considered the normal range.

Both statements are true - don't fixate on one as if it is particularly important when it is not.

I'm not "fixated" on anything. Again, "normative" is not necessarily "normal." Statistics that are above the median may well be at toxic levels, and the effects of this can vary among individuals.

Typical distortion of statistics.

It's also misleading to try to support a "normal" level of a substance like barium in the blood by giving the median because this number is only the middle value that was found. This middle number can be skewed very low or very high depending on the data set. The MEAN or an AVERAGE amount would be far more valid if you want to determine a baseline for what is or is not "elevated."

a reply to: Petros312

More regarding this doubt debunkers cast on the elevated levels of barium in blood test results:

You do understand no matter how many times you post that video, it doesn't make it any truer.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?

I disagree in another important way. It's not based on speculation that proponents of geoengineering have proposed barium as a chemical to be used in aerosols. You keep completely overlooking this and shift the focus to whether barium was measured in the jet exhaust over Golden Valley AZ, an obvious impossibility. It doesn't invalidate the positive correlation between the elevated levels of barium found in blood tests, the elevated rainwater barium, and the proposed chemical elements to be used as aerosols for geoengineering. There is barium in jet exhaust, and it is quite possible that jet exhaust itself is the source of the toxin.

In order for me to consider your point, we first have to establish that SRM or as you say, geo-engineering, is actually taking place. EVERYTHING I have read so far, points to what David Kieth has been saying, that all ideas are just that, and no active SRM programs are taking place or have yet. If you have some new information stating that Geo-engineering is taking place, then please post it. If not, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

originally posted by: network dude
I asked, and continue to ask, IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE that the contamination may be coming from a more likely source, like the mine pictured?

You keep trying to make it look like a nearby mine or some other source of barium is more plausible, but the truth is you have no more or less evidence for this claim than I do regarding the barium potentially contained in the jet exhaust. You will not dismantle my argument with "possibilities." It may not be the exhaust per se, I have no clue what the actual delivery system is to deploy a chemical of this kind, and it's not relevant to my argument. The positive correlation is my concern, and it's a health issue whether it's related to geoengineering or jet exhaust in general. They both appear to be toxic to the public.

Again, since geo-eningeering is not taking place, you need to be able to find a legitimate source for the contamination. Speculating that it's coming from planes is disingenuous.

Scientists have discussed such strategies for decades, but (until recently) mostly behind closed doors, in part because they feared that speaking publicly about geoengineering would undermine efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Keith, who is McKay professor of applied physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, strongly advocates bringing discussion of geoengineering into the open. He says, “We don’t make good decisions by sweeping things under the rug.”

harvardmagazine.com...

Can you explain why they would use words like discussed, and discussion, if not to explain they have been talking about it?

Don't fall for the trap of assuming a lie to make your theory more plausible.