In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: john666

Man, you're really going all out to make us think you're an incompetent shill for the Bad Guys.

The page you linked could have been designed to make chemtrail believers look like high-grade mixed nuts.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks very much for that. It was frustrating thinking that information was out there, but just out of reach! Damn google!

It does make a lot of sense that if it was a dangerous chemical doctors wouldn't be asking you to drink it or pipe it up your bum.

So it looks like at least one part of the hype has been put back into the reality box.

I had a barium meal once about 15 years ago. The lemon flavouring didn't really help.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Krazysh0t



When will someone go up in planes and test these "contrails" to see what they are made of?? Cause they certainly are not just water, pretty crazy that they have not been found to be most damaging to the Earth.

You mean like this?

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: waynos
Just a thought regarding the justification of chemtrail belief with the line that one "knows the local air route so it can't be them"'.

In my years of sky watching and taking around 30,000 photos of planes (hey! I enjoy it), as well as understanding about aviation, I've also become familiar with certain flight routes. Now one of these, by way of example, is EK17 and its return counterpart EK18 which pass directly over my house on a daily basis, except that sometimes they aren't directly overhead, sometimes it passes North of me, sometimes South. Indeed I've learned that it can appear almost anywhere in the visible sky as the highly distinctive and recognisable white Emirates A380 double decker makes its way to and from Manchester. So you see, flight routes are fairly flexible, so that justification just doesn't work.

Plus 'planes in the sky may appear closer than they are'. I've been surprised to find just how far away flights that looked pretty much overhead to me actually were when I get home and check

I posted a graphic that illustrates this in the Aviation forum today. A flight you can see in the sky could be 100 miles away, even one 20 miles away can appear to be almost overhead.

Edit to add graphic. I think it was created by Mick West.

Could be up to 200 miles, there's a bit of a competition going on over at Metabunk

I was going through my photos from last year when I thought of this thread as I came to this shot.

The interesting item for us is the contrail to the left of the shot running top to bottom, which it can be seen is still being made. In the lower half of the image its a normal persisting trail, but in the upper half it has already started to fade away.

The aircraft has left the region of humid air it was travelling through into a drier region. It's not often you capture this moment where the trail is not quite sublimated, as what people tend to see and photograph is the gap in the trail from the end of persistence to the short trail the aircraft is currently leaving and i'm sure this is what tends to make them think the trail was 'switched off and on'.

a reply to: Astyanax


Yeah, thanks for that and for doing the leg work. Good find. So talk of 'toxic levels of barium' is the same as chemtrails themselves then. Whatever the claimant wants them to be

a reply to: waynos

Can you hear the crickets on that side of the water too?

a reply to: network dude

You noticed that? They must be off doing research.........or summat.

Quick reply to sheaplenation.

Come on dude..i want mentioning the fact she that ATS er was female to be sexist. Just so others might know which thread I was on about.

No sexism with me mate.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: waynos

In slightly more detail, here.

A Barium swallow and meal involves swallowing a drink that contains barium (a substance which shows up on X-rays). The barium coats the inside of your throat, oesophagus (the pipe that goes from your mouth to your stomach), stomach and small bowel. This allows for clearer X-ray images.

The test is often done as an outpatient procedure in a hospital's imaging or radiology department.

A barium swallow and meal test can give your doctor information about your swallowing action. It can also pick up patches of irritation such as ulcers, abnormal growths, narrowing or a blockage.

Oh yes, because every different Barium compound is exactly the same right?

Is the Barium compound used for enemas in X rays the same Barium compound that causes gastroenteritis?

Whats the difference between Barium Sulphide, Barium Chloride, Barium Iodide, Barium Carbonate?

I suppose calcium flouride and sodium flouride are the same thing too?

Just because it has the word Barium in it, doesnt mean its the same thing with the same poisonous results.

a reply to: OneManArmy

But the claim is barium poisoning. Barium. Nothing about the other elements that make up those compounds. So which is it?

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

But the claim is barium poisoning. Barium. Nothing about the other elements that make up those compounds. So which is it?

So are you saying that barium poisoning doesnt exist, even though I linked the proof that it does?
Just because a blood toxicity level is not easily forthcoming, does that mean it doesnt exist?

The studies I linked regarding "Barium Poisoning" included Barium and other Barium compounds.
It would seem the research on Barium poisoning includes all the toxic compounds.
So whats your point?

a reply to: network dude

Thanks. I must confess, though, that I got the chemistry wrong. This bit:

Note that 'barium toxicity is produced by the free cation'. For those who aren't familiar with chemistry, this means it's the other substance in the barium compound that causes the toxic reaction. The barium itself (the 'anion') is harmless.

This is a basic and stupid error; what was I thinking? The cation is, in fact, the positively charged ion — the barium ion, in this case. However, you have to consume soluble barium salts in large quantities (the guy who tried to kill himself swallowed about 13gm of barium chloride and lived, though he'd have died without medical intervention) to experience toxicity. You need concentrations tens of thousands of times higher than anything that could result from bioaccumulation. The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: network dude

Thanks. I must confess, though, that I got the chemistry wrong. This bit:

Note that 'barium toxicity is produced by the free cation'. For those who aren't familiar with chemistry, this means it's the other substance in the barium compound that causes the toxic reaction. The barium itself (the 'anion') is harmless.

This is a basic and stupid error; what was I thinking? The cation is, in fact, the positively charged ion — the barium ion, in this case. However, you have to consume soluble barium salts in large quantities (the guy who tried to kill himself swallowed about 13gm of barium chloride and lived, though he'd have died without medical intervention) to experience toxicity. You need concentrations tens of thousands of times higher than anything that could result from bioaccumulation. The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

Now that I can agree with.

Yes its true, barium doesnt seem to be very toxic, which makes me wonder why we are getting so hung up on it.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Its not my point. I'm not claiming anything. we had a post which claimed that toxic levels of barium were discovered after spraying.

Quite apart from there being nothing to connect any levels of barium with aerial spraying, nobody seems to know what constitutes a toxic level. Therefore the claim appears to be fatuous.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

Its not my point. I'm not claiming anything. we had a post which claimed that toxic levels of barium were discovered after spraying.

Quite apart from there being nothing to connect any levels of barium with aerial spraying, nobody seems to know what constitutes a toxic level. Therefore the claim appears to be fatuous.

I dont think that just because a particular blood toxicity level isnt quickly forthcoming, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Just the fact that barium poisoning exists proves that there is a level at which barium becomes toxic, hence the limits in water.

I wonder, I havent looked yet, but Id assume that the studies dont exist, on the combined toxicity of aluminium and barium together.
Obviously as we have ascertained, barium when mixed can have different toxicity levels. I may be wrong, but Id wager that no study exists on combined effects.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Oh yes, because every different Barium compound is exactly the same right?

Good question; thanks for asking. See above and the document I linked earlier.

Is the Barium compound used for enemas in X rays the same Barium compound that causes gastroenteritis?

No. The first is barium sulphate. The second is actually a range of soluble compounds such as barium chloride.

Whats the difference between Barium Sulphide, Barium Chloride, Barium Iodide, Barium Carbonate?

The composition of the negatively charged ion to which the barium ion is bound.

Some soluble barium salts are toxic if you consume enough of them. Essentially, they give you severe diahrroea and may cause kidney failure. But the amount you need to swallow, inhale or otherwise put into yourself in order to make yourself even slightly sick is enormous compared to the amount that is found in the environment, even in places where the concentration is said to be 'high'. And since barium is quickly removed from the body by natural metabolic processes, you don't get a build-up over time.

Very well said.

I became a victim of the debunker brigade in my first thread regarding chemtrails:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't help but laugh at the blind denial... But the contrast is pretty disturbing.

originally posted by: rebelv
I swear (not really) that if the moon were slowly drifting away
from the earth appearing to get smaller gradually over time,
only older people that have lived a few decades would even notice it,
and if the official story was no, no, the moon's not drifting away from the
earth, its always looked that way, your official explanation believers
would agree.

BTW, I haven't confirmed the story, but I heard on a talk radio
station that the fairly new curriculum for public schools includes
a textbook that actually teaches children what geo-engineering is,
that they are spraying chemicals from airplanes into the air,
and their purpose is to combat "global warming"

Maybe I'll just ask a 5th grader, if this is true then
they would probably know more about "chem-trails" than we do, lol.

I'd love to see the look on a "chem-trail" debunkers face, when they're
outside at the park with their kid, and the kid points up to the sky and
says something like:

"Wow dad, sure are spraying a lot today!"

And dad says, "What do you mean, spraying?"

And kid says, "Spraying chemicals to cool down the earth"

And dad says, "Who told you that?"

"At school, its right in this book, let me show it to you"

Originally posted here: Science Texbook Teaches About Chemtrails!

A science textbook from 14 years ago, in the chapter called "Solutions For Global Warming," near an image of what is a PASSENGER JET AIRLINER, "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen."



At least the textbook says, " You will be asked to consider the consequences of each technological fix."

a reply to: Petros312

If you think a school textbook is bad, wait till you get a load of this...

www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk...