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.

 

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Maybe chemtrails consist of ultra finite plastic particulates designed to turn our skies into a projector screen compatable with space based projectors mounted on satellites. They're gearing up for the alien invasion deception


Just kidding everybody, would make a good story though!




posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
You see cases presented in which the proposed nano-size elements to be used in geoengineering experiments (aluminum, barium, and strontium) are suspected as the cause of increased respiratory illnesses like asthma or pneumonia, and these cases are concomitant with reports indicating these elements are being detected at higher levels than what should be present in the soil, snow, or water.


If this offends you, I sincerely apologize. When making claims, sometimes it is required that you present something factual to legitimize your claim, or it will be ignored.

You have claimed that there is an increase in respiratory illness like Asthma or pneumonia. I don't doubt that this could be true, but before this is used as an accepted talking point, could you please provide some sort of reference for this claim?

(to all those who are on the chemtrail side, please don't take this as an attack, it's the type of things required to have a logical discussion)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Maybe chemtrails consist of ultra finite plastic particulates designed to turn our skies into a projector screen compatable with space based projectors mounted on satellites. They're gearing up for the alien invasion deception


Just kidding everybody, would make a good story though!


It may not be a joke.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Eunuchorn


Or the whole Sky is a hologram to hide any incoming celestial objects. Personally, I hope Nibiru is really close by now.

I keep reading somewhere that Planet X is here.

On the cool idea of the sky hologram, any idea how high the projected images begin? Are the bad planes even real?


LoL! Now that's one hell of a conspiracy!



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy


2ppm or 20mg per litre in the drinking water supply is considered the maximum "safe" level by the EPA.

Which translates to blood levels of ______%?


Its in HERE... Lots of studies with various results. Upto and including mortality within minutes in dogs at very high doses.

It is a poison...


Barium is an alkaline earth metal, principally found as barite (barium sulfate) and witherite (barium
carbonate) ores. Barium and barium compounds have a variety of uses including as getters in electronic
tubes (barium alloys), rodenticide (barium carbonate), colorant in paints (barium carbonate and barium
sulfate), and x-ray contrast medium (barium sulfate).


Source

All of the experimentation has been done on animals, I think the answer you are looking for is found through human experimentation, and that is illegal.

They have MRL's which are just estimated minimum risk levels based on the animal studies and from data gathered after one off or short term exposure to high levels from "accidental" exposure in humans. The levels define safe exposure limits, not specific blood levels.

Google is your friend too.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Maybe chemtrails consist of ultra finite plastic particulates designed to turn our skies into a projector screen compatable with space based projectors mounted on satellites. They're gearing up for the alien invasion deception


Just kidding everybody, would make a good story though!


It may not be a joke.


Here's a starting point:

worldexaminernews.wordpress.com... -army-research-lab-military-document/



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

How unfair of people, wanting evidence that supports a claim in order to give it credence and not just accept what people say about chemtrails is just so unsporting!

The trouble is, there is reams and reams of evidence that supports that contrails, their creation and their persistence has been understood for decades. There are reams and reams of evidence that show that contrails are far more prevalent than at any time in the past due to advanced technology changing the nature of engines to reduce fuel burn (a good thing?) and the year on year increase in air traffic. Likewise, lots of genuine evidence shows how the world is criss crossed by thousands of different air routes, many of which are extremely busy.

All of these, examined and considered in conjunction with each other, offer a perfectly reasonable and realistic explanation of why we see the sky covered in grids from time to time. Our understanding of the weather also tells us why it's not ALL the time.

Now, if these "chemtrail" sightings weren't rationally explainable by all of the above, the utter absence of any material evidence that they exist, over more than 20 years of supposed spraying, might not be a killer blow. However..........
edit on 18-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Google is your friend too.


LOL, after being accused of awful tactics, I almost hesitate to ask this.

I have googled this a good bit, asked around lots of places, and gotten some vague answers, but not exactly what would answer this debate. I didn't make the claim, (and neither did you) but in order for this claim to be validated, shouldn't the one's making the claim be able to provide the answer? Burden of proof and all.

If it can be categorically stated that "X" ammount of barium found in the blood is "high", then there should be a source to determine levels in HUMANS. (should) I realize this isn't your fight, I am posting this for Petros312 and any other person who might be able to answer this.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: OneManArmy

I found all that, and even some other papers that mentioned "normal" levels. It just seems as if we know what "high" is, there should be some sort of official range used to determine "high" and "normal".

Perhaps a doctor's office who would interpret a blood test might not have been compromised by "them".

This is a tough point with discussing things in this forum. You bring peer reviewed scientific evidence to back up your statement, and it's shot down because it's from "NASA" and we know they lie about everything.




One thing I know above all else is that mankind throughout the whole of history has been lied to and manipulated by those that would use their intelligence or social position to manipulate those not so "gifted" or lucky.
TRUST NO ONE. Unless you have an argumentative/political/social point to make. Then you run to the nearest empirical evidence to support your claims, even the evidence from the "bad guys".
Im starting to wonder who are the good guys?
Does such a thing even exist?
Is anyone not driven by an "agenda"?
I would hope so, but Im not sure.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy


Its in HERE... Lots of studies with various results.

If the answer is in there why didn't you post it?

What is a "toxic" blood level for humans? You kinda need to know that to claim blood tests show a "toxic level", which was the point of my question.




I think the answer you are looking for is found through human experimentation, and that is illegal.

Bull#! You just posted a link to human studies.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I'm trying to find it too, unsuccessfully so far. However, I have uncovered the following,

Would you want a Barium Enema!!!!

Then there's this;

Barium is a thick chalky liquid which is completely harmless.


www.dbh.nhs.uk...

There is one overriding impression I'm getting from this search, and that is a distinctive lack of concern about Barium at all except on conspiracy sites. The search goes on.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I looked for quite a few hours and asked Mick over at metabunk, and he gave me some good info, but I just was unable to come up with what I thought would be an easy thing to find. If you can say a blood pressure reading of 190/150 is high, then there is some sort of range to be considered normal. (120/80)

For barium, strontium, aluminum, they are all apparently testable in blood samples and (I assume) would have an amount that would raise concern, but to find that level seems impossible.

Any and all help on this from knowledgeable members would be greatly appreciated.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy


Its in HERE... Lots of studies with various results.

If the answer is in there why didn't you post it?

What is a "toxic" blood level for humans? You kinda need to know that to claim blood tests show a "toxic level", which was the point of my question.




I think the answer you are looking for is found through human experimentation, and that is illegal.

Bull#! You just posted a link to human studies.


They were not just human studies. As human studies on the toxicity level of barium in the bloodstream dont seem to have been done. Not that I have been able to find.
There is lots of studies on mice and animals. But the studies seem to be just about the environmental exposure levels not the absorbed level in the blood that proves to be fatal or what proves to be a valid estimation based on animal of toxicity level within the blood.
I think that info might have to be gleaned from coroner reports of people that have died as a result of suspected barium poisoning. To get a lowest fatal level. And from people that are suspected to have been poisoned by barium to be systematically tested for ppm in the blood stream to correlate ppm to the onset of particular symptoms of barium poisoning.

I cant find that specific information.
What blood level of alcohol is toxic? I found that in seconds.
But the toxic blood levels of barium is proving a little harder to find. Im sure it must be out there though.

I dont think there is one specific level that would prove toxic to all individuals, just a general estimation based on age, gender, weight etc. The data must exist, it MUST. lol. Or maybe the studies just havent been done. That wouldnt be a first, I find it almost impossible to find studies that test the fatality of some vaccination programs.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos


There is one overriding impression I'm getting from this search, and that is a distinctive lack of concern about Barium at all except on conspiracy sites. The search goes on.


That isnt true, there is lots of data on the dangers and cases of Barium Carbonate poisoning usually in the form of gastroenteritis, from eating poisoned food.
Even one guy tried to commit suicide by barium, he almost succeeded.


Heres a case of mass barium poisoning...
Link

Check the references there are 12 cases right there.
It is something to be concerned about, whats proving hard to find is a definitive level in the blood.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn
For further reading, might i suggest this?

Enjoy!



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: waynos


There is one overriding impression I'm getting from this search, and that is a distinctive lack of concern about Barium at all except on conspiracy sites. The search goes on.


That isnt true


What? So you know better than I do what impression a particular search result gave me? You don't even know what search parameter gave me that impression. Or are you calling me a liar, for a reason I can't fathom?

I still haven't found what the toxic level actually is, though there must clearly BE one as it is a toxic substance. I'll try another time.


edit on 18-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy
The data must exist, it MUST. lol. Or maybe the studies just havent been done. That wouldnt be a first, I find it almost impossible to find studies that test the fatality of some vaccination programs.


I feel validated. I just couldn't believe this information was not easily found. A bit irritating.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: occrest

This is pretty good too. And the theory I lean toward most.

Scalar Waves and Tesla Shields

As the story goes (and I've only heard this from a paralyzed doctor, who is a neighbor of mine and once worked for in military intelligence for HAARP off the shores of Japan, and who was paralyzed by a "vaccine" he was given on that particular tour that by all accounts should have killed him), Tesla gave three countries weapons or parts of weapons so powerful they could destroy the planet but also gave each the ability to shield themselves from the other two with something referred to as the Tesla shield, which is deployed in the Earth's ionosphere.

The Tesla shield works well, kicks ass in fact, but there's one problem with it. It shimmers. And many believe that governments deploying the shield for one reason or another have to hide it from our view. Hence...well you know.

Mythology also has it that Kruschev made an unscheduled, posthaste trip to the U.S. at one point because they almost blew it all to hell at one point.

Anyway, that's another theory.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: waynos


There is one overriding impression I'm getting from this search, and that is a distinctive lack of concern about Barium at all except on conspiracy sites. The search goes on.


That isnt true


What? So you know better than I do what impression a particular search result gave me? You don't even know what search parameter gave me that impression. How arrogant of you. Or are you calling me a liar, for a reason I can't fathom?

I still haven't found what the toxic level actually is, though there must clearly BE one as it is a toxic substance. I'll try another time.



So, because something you said is not true, that automatically makes you are liar?
Quick to jump on the defensive there.
I didnt say that, I said the statement was not true.
I didnt say you are a liar. If I was going to call you a liar, I would call you a liar.

Of course there MUST be one, but yes, its proving hard to find. I wasnt being arrogant at all, I even linked you some information in the right direction.

Heres some more...


ƒ Barium can be measured in bone, blood,
urine, and feces. However, there are no
data correlating barium levels in these
tissues with specific exposure levels.



ƒ Approximately 90% of the body burden
of barium is contained in the bones and
teeth.



Barium and compounds are used in oil
and gas drilling muds, automotive paints,
stabilizers for plastics, case hardening
steels, bricks, tiles, lubricating oils, and jet
fuel
as well as in various types of
pesticides.


Source

My eyebrow is raised. There it is right there. Barium is in the fuel. Its no secret.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: waynos


There is one overriding impression I'm getting from this search, and that is a distinctive lack of concern about Barium at all except on conspiracy sites. The search goes on.


That isnt true


What? So you know better than I do what impression a particular search result gave me? You don't even know what search parameter gave me that impression. How arrogant of you. Or are you calling me a liar, for a reason I can't fathom?

I still haven't found what the toxic level actually is, though there must clearly BE one as it is a toxic substance. I'll try another time.



So, because something you said is not true, that automatically makes you are liar?
Quick to jump on the defensive there.
I didnt say that, I said the statement was not true.
I didnt say you are a liar. If I was going to call you a liar, I would call you a liar.


What's the difference? I was seeing a distinct lack of concern about barium on the medical websites my search threw up, yet you are telling me I didn't. What's that if not calling me a liar? You quoted my statement that I was getting an impression of a lack of concern from the websites I searched and you said my statement wasn't true. Which must mean it was a lie. Inaccurate perhaps, unrepresentative almost certainly from the small sample, but it was definitely a true statement.


Of course there MUST be one, but yes, its proving hard to find. I wasnt being arrogant at all, I even linked you some information in the right direction.

Heres some more...


ƒ Barium can be measured in bone, blood,
urine, and feces. However, there are no
data correlating barium levels in these
tissues with specific exposure levels.



ƒ Approximately 90% of the body burden
of barium is contained in the bones and
teeth.



Barium and compounds are used in oil
and gas drilling muds, automotive paints,
stabilizers for plastics, case hardening
steels, bricks, tiles, lubricating oils, and jet
fuel
as well as in various types of
pesticides.


Source

My eyebrow is raised. There it is right there. Barium is in the fuel. Its no secret.


That never was. Just because it's a component part of jet fuel (in what quantity?) isn't proof of spraying, is it?

Linking barium poisoning to aircraft will need a bit more than that. After all, hospitals openly admit to shoving it up your arse, as per a previous link. I'd imagine that exposes one to a higher dose 😊
edit on 18-2-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join