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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy


I dont think that just because a particular blood toxicity level isnt quickly forthcoming, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

There is no chronic concentration level that has been shown to be toxic. Barium toxicity results from consuming a whole lot of it at once. The levels attained by accumulation are far too low to cause a reaction.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OneManArmy


I dont think that just because a particular blood toxicity level isnt quickly forthcoming, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

There is no chronic concentration level that has been shown to be toxic. Barium toxicity results from consuming a whole lot of it at once. The levels attained by accumulation are far too low to cause a reaction.


Yes indeed, but what sidetracked us from the original OP into the rabbit hole of bariums blood toxicity level is what got this barium discussion going in the first place.

Also, while google'ing this the other day, one case had 12 fatalities, but granted they had been fasting before the meal that ultimately killed them.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmFri, 20 Feb 2015 13:07:33 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Unfortunately thats what can happen when you come against the flip-flop nature of chemtrail discussions. You try and refute one point then another gets thrown in. looking back i've done it too, trying to offer explanations for different parts of the chemtrail meme, as they were mentioned in posts by members.

Overall it becomes confusing and unhelpful. Individual threads on specific parts of the theory might be better, but will never happen IMO.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OneManArmy

Unfortunately thats what can happen when you come against the flip-flop nature of chemtrail discussions. You try and refute one point then another gets thrown in. looking back i've done it too, trying to offer explanations for different parts of the chemtrail meme, as they were mentioned in posts by members.

Overall it becomes confusing and unhelpful. Individual threads on specific parts of the theory might be better, but will never happen IMO.



This whole damn "chemtrail" debate is an obfuscation of geoengineering.
Which is real.
Its obfuscates chemical and biological testing on unknowing and unwilling participants.
Which is real.

Its just another rabbit hole that takes away from what the real debate should be about.
And thats the elites willingness to not only poison its own populations with chemical and biological weapons, but also to pollute the oceans for some crazy scheme to draw CO2 from the atmosphere at the expense of the sea life.

Or plans to dump carbon and other materials into the atmosphere to "dim" the sun, at the expense of all the life on earth.
All on some "mad" theory, that the world is going to end as a result of CO2 and global warming or should I say climate change that we as humans have inflicted upon the world, even though throughout history the earth has been much hotter and much colder.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
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.


Since you have everyone's attention, could you point to the offensive posts in that thread in hopes that we could have better discussions in the future?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OneManArmy


I dont think that just because a particular blood toxicity level isnt quickly forthcoming, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

There is no chronic concentration level that has been shown to be toxic. Barium toxicity results from consuming a whole lot of it at once. The levels attained by accumulation are far too low to cause a reaction.


Yes indeed, but what sidetracked us from the original OP into the rabbit hole of bariums blood toxicity level is what got this barium discussion going in the first place.

Also, while google'ing this the other day, one case had 12 fatalities, but granted they had been fasting before the meal that ultimately killed them.


Petros312 posted a link to a movie quite a few times and really wanted to discuss a few points made in the movie. One of them was the barium levels in about 20 people being "high". It's a shame more posters aren't as tenacious as you. Right or wrong, you didn't back down easily. Made me work pretty hard too. Those are the discussion that are most enjoyable.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

Petros312 posted a link to a movie quite a few times and really wanted to discuss a few points made in the movie. One of them was the barium levels in about 20 people being "high". It's a shame more posters aren't as tenacious as you. Right or wrong, you didn't back down easily. Made me work pretty hard too. Those are the discussion that are most enjoyable.


One thing I learned from you, more than anybody else, is that if you are going to argue about something, you at least have to back up your case, and provide good sources too. Meaning you have to put the research in, I have found it to be very very education personally and provides wisdom from the knowledge and not just the knowledge alone.
It also made me come to the stark conclusion that just as the elites have their agendas, so does everyone else, even the so called "truth movement".
When I come away from a discussion having learned a great deal, it makes me very happy indeed.
And thats why I post on ATS. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
From above, regarding comments about barium (one propopsed chemical element for use with geoengineering) and levels found in the bloodstream of individuals claiming the source of it was airborne from jet aircraft, mentioned in the first post on pg 1:


originally posted by: Astyanax
And here's the reason you weren't able to find a 'normal' range.

"Investigations of chronic barium toxicity in humans have focused on cardiovascular toxicity, with a specific emphasis on hypertension. A chronic dose of barium capable of producing cardiovascular toxicity has not been identified. The NOAEL for both Brenniman et al. (1981) and Wones et al. (1990) was estimated by EPA to be 0.21 mg/kg-day using standard estimates for drinking water intake (2 L/day) and average body weight (70 kg). However, low confidence is placed in these NOAELs because they are not linked to an adverse effect level and because of limitations in the designs of these studies."

Of course, all this data is from the EPA — the 'bad guys' — so Petros & Co are going to tell us it's eyewash and hogwash.

No. It's eyewash and hogwash for a much more important reason. And so is this:


originally posted by: Astyanax
Barium toxicity results from consuming a whole lot of it at once. The levels attained by accumulation are far too low to cause a reaction.


Nobody needs to be a self-proclaimed chemistry expert to see that the very inconclusive data you are overconfidently presenting supposedly indicating a proposed "safe" level for barium in the bloodstream has little relevance to what happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium in the form of particulate matter, which is what is relevant to the discussion regarding jet exhaust, observations of contrails, experiments conducted for geoengineering purposes, and so-called chemtrail conspiracy theory. You successfully confounded respiration of a chemical element in particulate form (such as nano-sized particles) with ingestion of the chemical element, which has been done before on ATS and very uncritically accepted as a "debunking" of barium as toxic.

But maybe you actually do have enough confidence based on the research you posted to walk into a space in which barium particulate matter is injected and you'll willingly breath this air for an extended period. I'll wait for the results before dismissing this unbelievably distorted claim:


originally posted by: waynos
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



*I'm reminding readers at this point that the purpose of this thread topic, as I outlined, was to pay attention to how "debunkers" operate through various tactics that do much more for the sake of confirmation bias than for using scientific research in an honest manner. Here's a prime example.

Again, this thread topic is not for the sake of these debunkers who will not examine the manner in which they craftily argue against anything associated with geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory. I started this thread for the sake of others to understand what these people are doing: resorting to logical fallacies and ignoring the limitations of the scientific research they cite as "evidence." Watch as they try to:

1) innocently claim they are engaging in no mischief
2) pat each other on the back
3) continue to band together and spin a web of deceit.


It's not a discussion. It's basic sabotage.






edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:50:29 -0600201529312 by Petros312 because: Addition; format



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
*I'm reminding readers at this point that the purpose of this thread topic, as I outlined, was to pay attention to how "debunkers" operate through various tactics that do much more for the sake of confirmation bias than for using scientific research in an honest manner. Here's a prime example.

Again, this thread topic is not for the sake of these debunkers who will not examine the manner in which they craftily argue against anything associated with geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory. I posted this for the sake of others to understand what these people are doing: resorting to logical fallacies and ignoring the limitations of scientific research.


Your irony here is pretty funny. You are trying to argue from a point of intellectual superiority like chemtrails aren't in question. The debunkers don't have to rely on flimsy science to back themselves up. That is what chemtrail science is.

If you as a believer want to prove chemtrails, go get an aircraft and test the next contrail you see in the sky. It's that easy. It's so damn easy that it is actually intellectually dishonest of your camp not to have done it and pretend like there is a controversy. There isn't. It's all just made up nonsense. Because we both know if you tested a contrail it wouldn't produce evidence of it being a chemtrail. Otherwise, these tests would have been done already.
edit on 20-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312
resorting to logical fallacies and ignoring the limitations of scientific research. Watch as they continue to band together and spin a web of deceit.



I would argue that many shills dont ignore limitations in scientific research, they actively use it. By asking for what isnt available. To know what research is available and which isnt is paramount in being able to use knowledge gaps as a ruse.

Im not accusing anyone of anything, but this is a thing I noticed in some vaccination debates, and also the chemtrail debates.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...The debunkers don't have to rely on flimsy science to back themselves up.


I pointed out quite clearly that's what they just did. They used flimsy science in a flimsy manner. That behavior does not "debunk" anything and reveals someone who has another agenda here.

And they can have the last word because only fellow debunkers are buying it.




edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:12:38 -0600201538312 by Petros312 because: Addition



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Ah, Angry Man With Beard returns to the party. Long time no see.


Nobody needs to be a self-proclaimed chemistry expert to see that the very inconclusive data you are overconfidently presenting supposedly indicating a proposed "safe" level for barium in the bloodstream has little relevance to what happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium in the form of particulate matter.

What? I presented no data indicating a proposed safe level for barium in the bloodstream. Do try to read the links, won't you, instead of just coming online and spluttering. It's been quite a civilized discussion in your absence, because people have reading the references, thinking about what the other party says, and generally being polite to each other. You should try it some time.

What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted earlier. As you would have noticed if you had bothered to read even the table of contents.


You successfully confounded respiration of a chemical element in particulate form (such as nano-sized particles) with ingestion of the chemical element.

No, I answered a request from network dude for more information concerning what concentration of barium in the bloodstream is considered toxic. Do try to keep up.


edit on 20/2/15 by Astyanax because: hey, you should try it some time too.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
...The debunkers don't have to rely on flimsy science to back themselves up.


I pointed out quite clearly that's what they just did. They used flimsy science in a flimsy manner. That behavior does not "debunk" anything and reveals someone who has another agenda here.

And they can have the last word because only fellow debunkers are buying it.





Thats not true, Im not a debunker.

Well I am if that means Im pro truth. You see I really am a seeker of truth. I dont have any followers to brainwash.
Only myself. So if I dont do the required research then Im only fooling myself.

A skeptic debunker isnt quite the same thing as a shill.
Skeptic debunkers are the guys you want to debate with, shills arent.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Don't worry, I think he means me.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Christ, do you just hover around the forum waiting for CT threads to jump on?

I took no offence to your comments. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, however jaded they may be. Though in order for a discussion to take place, there has to be at least two sides. Not just yours.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Yeah well, I still believe that it's weather modification. ~$heopleNation



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

Norther CA has been the loudest voices of chemtrail since I started to hear about it. I was under the impression there wasn't a day EVER where you didn't have a sky full of lines.


How did you come to that crazy assumption?



I believe it's probably normal contrails.


Well I disagree with you, I believe it's probably weather modification. ~$heopleNation



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: network dude

Christ, do you just hover around the forum waiting for CT threads to jump on?

I took no offence to your comments. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, however jaded they may be. Though in order for a discussion to take place, there has to be at least two sides. Not just yours.


Wow, I am almost afraid to answer this. Am I allowed to be here?

I fear that you and most of the chemtrail community are completely missing the point. I cannot speak for everyone, but I do hover around a few forums. The one's I like to follow. But, I am not interested in seeing only my point. I really want a good discussion. In the past there were some very good debaters here. Even though they were arguing that they sky was some other color than blue, they made you work to prove it was blue. Sadly, most of them got mad and would break the rules when they did. Others ran away when things didn't go their way.

I asked you this in hopes to get some idea why everyone runs away. Are the 4-5 persistent debunkers here that damn good? If you have something to say, by all means, say it. But, this is a discussion site. If you find that someone disagrees with you, then it's time to man up and do a better job at presenting your case. I want to be challenged. I do admit I am pretty sure I'm right, so it helps with my confidence. If I find that's not the case, I will have to have a complete paradigm shift in my thinking. I can accept that. I wonder how many on your side can say that.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

Most of the adamant chemtrail posters here are from CA, mostly northern. Dane Wigington and his posse are centered in the Mt. Shasta area. What little bit of visible news seems to come from there. It's just how I see it.

What weather do you think is a result of the trails?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

In a sense contrails are. The three days after 9/11 showed a diurnal difference without contrails being in the air. It wasn't long enough to draw any conclusions though.




top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join