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.

 

Aluminum & Bees - Further Evidence

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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

They will never reply to you, that is their tactic. You will have to excuse me because if I do not go back to DO's massive post and read it and reply he may have a conniption and I would not want to be responsible for that.




originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

That appears to be a lot to digest, but I will do my best and get back to you on it. Thank you.


That was your reply to my post where I referred you to the thread about that stupid bill in Rhode Island you brought up.

What test did you have that showed high levels of aluminum? How high was it?

What did you use to cut it in half?




posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I'd love to elaborate, but am not a doctor and cannot give out medical advice, nor would I allow myself to be corralled into acting like one, but I can say that organic cucumbers are a healthy thing to eat and you might want to investigate a nutritional supplement called Horsetail.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

You can certainly say what YOU did and why you think it made a difference, and how you tested your own levels - there is nothing "acting like a doctor" in any of that.



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Well I just went to my GP and asked to have my blood tested for heavy metals. It is very common there days especially for old people (I'm 61) because of many complications due to joint replacements (I have none). My levels were 73 mcg/L as illustrated in the following

www.metabunk.org...

Do the debunkers have a valid question of "prove where it come from?" Of course, but how? And in the end, does it really matter, or is correcting the problem the real issue? Do not be afraid Federal Government, nobody anywhere is going to sue you over geoengineering, although just about anybody, anywhere, at any time can sue you over just about any reason because the lawyers, YOUR lawyers are completely out of control. THAT is the real and unsolvable problem. Work on it!



posted on Jun, 11 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

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

Well I just went to my GP and asked to have my blood tested for heavy metals. It is very common there days especially for old people (I'm 61) because of many complications due to joint replacements (I have none). My levels were 73 mcg/L as illustrated in the following

www.metabunk.org...

Do the debunkers have a valid question of "prove where it come from?" Of course, but how? And in the end, does it really matter, or is correcting the problem the real issue?


thank you for the information - and yes correcting the problem is certainly the main issue.

But since the accusation in this forum is specifically that it comes from aircraft "spraying" the question is completely relevant.

If aircradft spraying (chemtrails, geoengineering, whatever) is not an issue tehn you should be posting in a health forum - chemtrails are the ONLY reason to write about it in this forum.


Do not be afraid Federal Government, nobody anywhere is going to sue you over geoengineering, although just about anybody, anywhere, at any time can sue you over just about any reason because the lawyers, YOUR lawyers are completely out of control. THAT is the real and unsolvable problem. Work on it!



And that belongs somewhere in political madness or similar - apparenly you are telling us that you have no reason to be posting your issues under chemtrails/geoengineering!!



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Maths? I have spent a lot of time outdoors



You should probably spend some of that time indoors studying some science. then you might understand some of what you're talking about.

Carry on with the entertainment though. Your ignorance is delightful



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: waynos

Well then by your own words you oh angry one, are the simpleton. The red tinted trails of which I spoke were observed between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm during full and direct sunlight. I even called my neighbor out one day about a year ago and we watched them morph right before our eyes. He became convinced that very day.


Then you and your neighbour are very silly. he became convinced that day?? WOW! Because some contrails behaved in a "weird" way, he started to believe in an idiotic conspiracy? No proof needed, no further research into it...THAT very day! Just like that!

Shame, because if you actually used your common sense and brain and tried to understand the very simple points we are all making then we could be onto something. But you insist on ignoring ALL our valid points and keep whining about how we are attacking you.

If we are talking crap, please prove us wrong. i assure you, you canntot.

That very day?? Just like that! Gosh....

edit on 12-6-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If we are talking crap, please prove us wrong. i assure you, you canntot

You must be new to the Internet my friend, because the very nature of this cyberworld is that there is NO proving anything, there is only blabber on all sides of every issue which debunkers know well and utilize at every opportunity. So in the big picture I really should not be responding to you or your buddies who will harass annoy any of us that care to take this side of the issue just as those pesky little gnats in the woods like to fly into your eyes or up your nose as you try to split firewood. Guys like me have learned how to deal with it.

This Geoengineering Watch website is a very good resource for the rest of you humans out there who, like me have been looking to our skies overhead for over 5 decades and question why they now look like they never have before:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

I was made aware of this by an interview that Dane Wigington did for USA Watchdog with Greg Hunter:

www.youtube.com...

For my fellow humans who are looking to investigate this issue rather than avoid it, I suggest that you consider these site. To my little buddies, come on back and tell me how stupid I am, I never tire of hearing it.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If we are talking crap, please prove us wrong. i assure you, you canntot

You must be new to the Internet my friend, because the very nature of this cyberworld is that there is NO proving anything, there is only blabber on all sides of every issue which debunkers know well and utilize at every opportunity. So in the big picture I really should not be responding to you or your buddies who will harass annoy any of us that care to take this side of the issue just as those pesky little gnats in the woods like to fly into your eyes or up your nose as you try to split firewood. Guys like me have learned how to deal with it.

This Geoengineering Watch website is a very good resource for the rest of you humans out there who, like me have been looking to our skies overhead for over 5 decades and question why they now look like they never have before:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

I was made aware of this by an interview that Dane Wigington did for USA Watchdog with Greg Hunter:

www.youtube.com...

For my fellow humans who are looking to investigate this issue rather than avoid it, I suggest that you consider these site. To my little buddies, come on back and tell me how stupid I am, I never tire of hearing it.



Ive been using the internet since 1993. So. no im not new. And there very much is proving things. That you refuse to even try tells me you are now trolling and so we are done talking .

Also, geoengineeringwatch? Really? known liars and charlatans.

Maybe the other reglars will indulge you some more, but you and i are done.
edit on 12-6-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Not angry, just enjoying myself. Thanks for pointing out I'm a simpleton, I hadn't noticed.

Now, you say you saw red/pinkish trails in the sky between 10 and 3. Two possibilities. 1 this was around midwinter when the days are shortest and the sun is lowest in the sky. 2 you are lying. So let's talk and see what you can bring to the discussion. I take it you fully grasp that the sky has a blue, red or even yellow tint to it due to the angle that the sunlight hits it and the refraction of the light spectrum that triggers, and that the atmosphere isn't actually blue, yes? It's not such a huge leap that these colours will and do also reflect from clouds, contrails and aircraft. So what was it about your trails that their colour doesn't fit with the known natural order?

Have you abandoned your fleet of bombers analogy, as you omit mention of it in last few posts? Are you now understanding that a single trail is caused by one aircraft and it is simply too big to have come from inside it? If you genuinely don't understand that I'm happy to talk about it. Properly



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If we are talking crap, please prove us wrong. i assure you, you canntot

You must be new to the Internet my friend, because the very nature of this cyberworld is that there is NO proving anything, there is only blabber on all sides of every issue which debunkers know well and utilize at every opportunity. So in the big picture I really should not be responding to you or your buddies who will harass annoy any of us that care to take this side of the issue just as those pesky little gnats in the woods like to fly into your eyes or up your nose as you try to split firewood. Guys like me have learned how to deal with it.

This Geoengineering Watch website is a very good resource for the rest of you humans out there who, like me have been looking to our skies overhead for over 5 decades and question why they now look like they never have before:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

I was made aware of this by an interview that Dane Wigington did for USA Watchdog with Greg Hunter:

www.youtube.com...

For my fellow humans who are looking to investigate this issue rather than avoid it, I suggest that you consider these site. To my little buddies, come on back and tell me how stupid I am, I never tire of hearing it.



Below are some more funny videos for you too prove your argument. Everyone here has already seen them but, they are still good for a few laughs.


WITWATS
Shade
Rosalind Peterson

You're not going too prove anything about chemtrails with a Youtube video. How about some real evidence.

ETA; we've gone 6 pages without them so I thought I would get it out of the way.
edit on 12-6-2015 by anton74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I was not the one who started with the name calling here, and if did get snippy with you before, I apologize. Unfortunately I am partially human myself and can, on occasion, fall prey to primitive emotions too so please forgive me. I do wish you folks would stop trying to tell me what I see and when I see it, because I have observed these trails (red tinge and all) at every time of day and during all four of the seasons that we experience here in Western New Jersey. I know very well the beautiful orange-yellow sunrises and gorgeous sunsets that we have most every day,. Why do I have to be a liar? Why go there? Does your Queen or Parliament lie to you as our "elected" officials do for a living, yet we all look to these chronic liars as the ultimate authorities and unless they publically announce something we cannot accept it, even though we KNOW they are not even capable of telling the truth? I have personally been party to numerous cases where the newspapers (who even reads them anymore anyway) conjure up distorted stories of what happened at events that I witnessed, so to the best of MY knowledge they cannot be trusted either. Where does this all leave us anyway? Why without ANY authorities of credibility on which we can rely upon, which is why our sitting here tippy-tapping away in Cyberspace is just a viable a source as any. In the end we are all left with opinions, NOT facts just as the Lawyers, Doctors and so called "experts" have, opinions, theories, and possibilities.

There is one big difference between your side and mine and that is that while I tell you what I see and argue my opinion as an opinion, I will certainly admit that I may be wrong and you guys do not.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Oh, oh perhaps I was too quick in discounting the MSM because it looks like they are starting to raise the subject themselves now:

www.nytimes.com...

I know, NY Times, known liars, speculation or whatever other heinous adjective can be conjured up to degrade the source. Fact is, they seem to be joining in the discussion as far back as February:

The second option, called solar radiation management, is far more controversial. Most discussions of the concept focus on the idea of dispersing sulfates or other chemicals high in the atmosphere, where they would reflect sunlight, in some ways mimicking the effect of a large volcanic eruption.
edit on 12-6-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: To add



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: waynos



There is one big difference between your side and mine and that is that while I tell you what I see and argue my opinion as an opinion, I will certainly admit that I may be wrong and you guys do not.



Part of being a skeptic like those here is admitting too yourself that your perceptions are often wrong and science has show that over and over. People here are trying to get you to understand that. Opinions and beliefs do not trump solid verifiable evidence.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
Oh, oh perhaps I was too quick in discounting the MSM because it looks like they are starting to raise the subject themselves now:

www.nytimes.com...

I know, NY Times, known liars, speculation or whatever other heinous adjective can be conjured up to degrade the source. Fact is, they seem to be joining in the discussion as far back as February:

The second option, called solar radiation management, is far more controversial. Most discussions of the concept focus on the idea of dispersing sulfates or other chemicals high in the atmosphere, where they would reflect sunlight, in some ways mimicking the effect of a large volcanic eruption.



Geoengineering proposals have been discussed for many years now. Have you not read any of them?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: anton74

When I was schooled decades ago, there were three states of matter - solid, liquid and gas and Pluto was a planet. Now there are four states, plasma being added and Pluto was declared NOT a planet, now they call it a "dwarf" planet. "Solid verifiable evidence" does not exist and those who sit around waiting for it never understand anything nor do they sail West because the Earth is flat and the "solid verifiable evidence is that the world is flat".



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Your post claims that you accept that geoengineering may exist but you claim it has not been tried yet, am I getting that right?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: anton74

When I was schooled decades ago, there were three states of matter - solid, liquid and gas and Pluto was a planet. Now there are four states, plasma being added and Pluto was declared NOT a planet, now they call it a "dwarf" planet. "Solid verifiable evidence" does not exist and those who sit around waiting for it never understand anything nor do they sail West because the Earth is flat and the "solid verifiable evidence is that the world is flat".



Prior to Plasma there where 3 KNOWN states of matter.
Pluto is still there and is still the same size. Only the definition of a planet has changed.
The flat earth claim is complete nonsense.
The math needed to calculate how much water is in a contrail hasn't changed either.

Do you prefer youtube videos over science?



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

You seem to be trying to have two different arguments here, as is often the case in these threads.

Our arguments are not denying the theory or possibility of Geoengineering. We are arguing that chemtrail theory is dumb.

There are many ways proposed for Geoengineering. One or two of them involve disbursing stuff from aircraft. It's only chemtrail believers who think this "stuff" is already being sprayed into thick visible trails forming patterns in the sky. This is often supported by complete misconceptions such as "airliners don't cross paths" or "contrails cannot persist and spread" and other such nonsense.

Nobody here is telling you Geoengineering isn't real. What we are saying is that whatever you saw, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it has anything to do with Geoengineering and that chemtrails themselves, as preached on sites like geoengineeringwatch and their ilk are a physical impossibility.

For every ton of fuel burned, 1.25 tons of water is created. Even then, the proportion of water in contrail that was created by the aircraft is extremely tiny (I'm out at the moment so don't have the actual figure to hand, but it's less than 1%). If you study photographs of, or actual contrails, you will see that they are generally wider than the span of the plane that left them. When you extrapolate that into 3D and consider only the visible portion of the trail which may be thousands of miles long, then no, that trail cannot have been sprayed from something carried by the aircraft. Anything sprayed for GE purposes as described in some proposals (if it has already been done) would probably not be visible from the ground at all. And certainly would not be so vast.

Does it make any more sense without the sarkiness?

edit on 12-6-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join