The Chemtrail Phenomenon

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by interestedalways
 


I can't for the life of me figure how anyone can look at a picture with no context and claim they're chemtrails!

Different strokes for different folks indeed!



Excuse me?

I said I didn't see how anyone could look at pic number three and say they are "natural" I didn't call them chemtrails, now did I?

What do you mean about no context? It is a picture for pete's sake. Contains all the context by looking at it!!!




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus



So the big question is... What was that that was poured into the atmosphere?


Good question.

Why can't some of the larger pro-chemtrail websites getting about do a bit of real research themselves? If chemtrails are so prevalent getting the hard data needed to prove the theory shouldn't be too hard right?

THAT is the big question.



Here is some data. Go to -

2008 Phoenix Air Particulates Lab Report

at the top of the link page.
There are also soil and water samples as well. Have fun.


In this lab report, we wrote in the parts-per-billion (PPB), to better show the reading vs. the Maximum Contaminant Level (toxic limit) of all these metals in our air.

There are also pictures of some of these readings, comparing them to the Maximum Contaminant Levels, or toxic limits, for each of these metals:

www.arizonaskywatch.com...








[edit on 30-5-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


The comment wasn't directed at you specifically, it was an open comment in tandem with your comments about different strokes for different folks.

As for the picture, by looking at it does it tell you the time, date, location or any other bits of helpful information?

No.

You need more than just a picture because a picture can be very deceiving:






posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Well, Chadwickus............

You are good at what you do............I won't take up a challenge from you cause I have other things to do with my energy, as in I am not going to watch two unrelated videos to gain "perspective"

Carry on..........I am outta here...........

But I am sure at some time I will be back..........



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


I've seen these results before and it sets quite a few alarm bells off for me.

1. No location is given, why not?
2. The indicated toxic levels are inaccurate, take the barium readings as an example:

The molecular weight of barium is 137.33. The fatal dose of barium is 50mg/m3, convert to the units of ppm by multiplying 24.45 x 50 mg/m3 ÷ 137.33 = 8.90ppm.

Which is 8900 Parts Per Billion not 2000.

3. Compare that figure with the graph which is 556,000 Parts Per Billion and we see a HUGE discrepancy here, any living creature near where these results were gained would be dead many times over from the extreme high levels of all these compounds.

4. If these results are true and accurate (which they're not) then we should be getting the same results all over the world..Are we?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Well, Chadwickus............

You are good at what you do............


What exactly do I do?

Do you think I'm a big bad disinfo agent paid by the government to remind you that a picture can be deceiving?




I won't take up a challenge from you cause I have other things to do with my energy, as in I am not going to watch two unrelated videos to gain "perspective"


That's very close minded of you isn't it?

Poor form.



Carry on..........I am outta here...........

But I am sure at some time I will be back..........


Ciao...........



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Barium is not bioaccumulate and when it is sprayed from airplanes it is being used for weather modification not for poisoning animals or people.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Do you think I'm a big bad disinfo agent paid by the government to remind you that a picture can be deceiving?




I try to never use the words "Big" and "Bad" in the same sentence when I speak of disinfo agents~

Which I rarely do. All are free to draw their own conclusions.

I urge each reader to go back to the OP and look at picture three..........

Natural? It's all about perspective.

If I was 4 years old it may be "natural" to me because it is all I have known, but I am not a young child I Know how the skies look, I have spent four decades observing them...........

And you? The Reader.............



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234
Barium is not bioaccumulate and when it is sprayed from airplanes it is being used for weather modification not for poisoning animals or people.


Wow! This almost got lost when I bit into the drama~

I felt the need to look up bioaccumulate and this is what my first hit on Wiki gave me.....


Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of substances, such as pesticides, or other organic chemicals in an organism. [1] Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism absorbs a toxic substance at a rate greater than that at which the substance is lost. Thus, the longer the biological half-life of the substance the greater the risk of chronic poisoning, even if environmental levels of the toxin are very low.


Bioaccumulation explains why chronic poisoning is a common aspect of environmental science in the workplace. Repeated exposure to very low levels of toxins in these environments can be lethal over time.


So are you saying that Barium is present, but in not bioaccumulative?

[edit on 30-5-2009 by interestedalways]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


I've seen these results before and it sets quite a few alarm bells off for me.

1. No location is given, why not?
2. The indicated toxic levels are inaccurate, take the barium readings as an example:

The molecular weight of barium is 137.33. The fatal dose of barium is 50mg/m3, convert to the units of ppm by multiplying 24.45 x 50 mg/m3 ÷ 137.33 = 8.90ppm.

Which is 8900 Parts Per Billion not 2000.

3. Compare that figure with the graph which is 556,000 Parts Per Billion and we see a HUGE discrepancy here, any living creature near where these results were gained would be dead many times over from the extreme high levels of all these compounds.

4. If these results are true and accurate (which they're not) then we should be getting the same results all over the world..Are we?



ACCORDING TO THE EPA -
the MCL is 2000 not 8900 Parts Per Billion.


Drinking water concentrations are usually below 200 ppb, although many communities in Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico are supplied with drinking water at much higher concentrations, as much as ten times higher than the MCL of 2000 ppb (U.S. EPA, 2001)


Also - if it is fatal as you say - at 8900 - wouldn't these folks from the above states - who were exposed to 10 times the 2000 mcl - be dead if they drank water that was at 20,000 PPBs?

also - these numbers are taken from air samples -
Hepa filter - not from water -

I know the location.
These results are accurate.
I know who and where they came from.

I know the way the data was collected.
I certainly understand your skepticism.

Are we testing all over the world? Um no?
Will different areas produce different results?
I would certainly think so. Wouldn't you?

The trees are dying- and the animals are dying -
and our respiratory systems are dying -








[edit on 30-5-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinkyboo

ACCORDING TO THE EPA -
the MCL is 2000 not 8900 Parts Per Billion.


Drinking water concentrations are usually below 200 ppb, although many communities in Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico are supplied with drinking water at much higher concentrations, as much as ten times higher than the MCL of 2000 ppb (U.S. EPA, 2001)


Also - if it is fatal as you say - at 8900 - wouldn't these folks from the above states - who were exposed to 10 times the 2000 mcl - be dead if they drank water that was at 20,000 PPBs?


Fatal dosage of barium is 2.0 milligrams/Litre OR 50milligrams/cubic metre.

It all depends on if it's airborne or waterborne.

Can you provide the source for the above?



also - these numbers are taken from air samples -
Hepa filter - not from water -


Yes so the lethal dosage is 50 milligrams/cubic metre. Which makes my calculations correct.



I know the location.
These results are accurate.
I know who and where they came from.

I know the way the data was collected.
I certainly understand your skepticism.


Care to share these details?
The data may be accurate but I doubt it reflects what's in the air in the area.

For all we know the air sample was taken from inside an exhaust pipe of a car with it's engine running, hardly an accurate test.



Are we testing all over the world? Um no?
Will different areas produce different results?
I would certainly think so. Wouldn't you?


Why would different areas yield different results if all chemtrails are being sprayed by the same people?

You should be able to record elevated levels of certain chemicals and see a definite pattern.



The trees are dying- and the animals are dying -
and our respiratory systems are dying -


Why blame an unprovable thing like chemtrails? Why not the obvious thing like factories and mines?

Have a look at how much pollution and waste a paper mill creates.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   




I am a complete disaster when it comes to using the quote function in multiple ways - so I have to answer like this. Sorry.

Here is the link - to the quote from the EPA -
www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/BariumPHGposting120602.pdf
It is on page 12 of the PDF.

This is how and the area in which testing was done -
You can find this info at:
www.arizonaskywatch.com...


Here are charts of measurements we have taken and had analyzed by an independent laboratory. Some of the materials have a detection limit, but not a maximum contaminant level. We suspect these materials to be components of the aerosols being sprayed daily in our skies. Click here to see the article we have titled "Aerosol Devices & Components", in our articles section, that names 15 of them. Click here to see the list.

Besides our rainfall samples, we took water and soil samples from various pristine locations around the state of Arizona, such as the Cochise Stronghold in southeastern Arizona. These locations receive their water only from rainfall, and not from runoff, springs or streams. The charts show evidence of unhealthy quantities of many of these materials which we perceive being sprayed almost every day from the air.

The soil samples show accumulations of these materials in incredibly huge amounts. We have designated the "Maximum Contaminant Level", or toxic limit, of these materials in the soil to be twice that for surface water. This is due to the absence of any realistic soil standards that would account for the health effects of these materials in the soil, which is blown around repeatedly by strong Arizona winds and dust storms.

We also took air samples in Phoenix, on non-windy days, using a HEPA filter, then vacuuming the particulates from that filter into another pristine HEPA filter, which we then emptied into a sterile container. We were amazed at the huge accumulations of the same chemtrail metals noted above. We feel it is reasonable to designate the "Maximum Contaminant Level", or toxic limit, of these materials in the air particulates to also be twice that for surface water.

Again, this is due to the absence of any realistic air particulate standards that would account for the health effects of these materials in the air we breathe every day. After looking at the levels of toxic metals in our air, we conclude it's only by the grace of God that we stay alive and relatively healthy. Of course, jogging is not one of our activities, and we feel much better when we wear a dust-mask while doing anything strenuous outdoors.


"Why blame an unprovable thing such as chemtrails?"

My personal belief is that the persistent trails that cause
full white outs skies are causing us harm.
I'm not blaming them for all of our ills.
I'm including them as one of the reasons.

"Why would different areas yield different results if all chemtrails are being sprayed by the same people?"
You should be able to record elevated levels of certain chemicals and see a definite pattern."

I don't know if they would yield different results - but -
I also don't believe that every square inch of air in various areas
will provide us with the same results - or that every trail contains
the same chemical and/or causes the same result.

You can record high levels of certain chemicals as is seen in these
water, soil, and air lab tests.
There is other testing going on -
and testing is accelerating - and so this will bring more results -
Perhaps a pattern has emerged or will emerge.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Here in wisconsin, usa, we see these trails all the time, surely you can't
think there is a positive reason for them, just alot of toxic junk being put
into the atmosphere, to make us sick.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I have stumbled upon an article which adds credence to my theory which has yet to be shot down by the huge cadre of anti-chemtrailers here on ATS.

Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”


Chemtrails Flights Exposed - Evergreen Aviation (A CIA Front)
I wrote in the above earlier thread about my personal observations of spraying activity AND my theory that Chemtrails (which is a phrase I believed was coined by govt. paid chemtrail debunkers as a misdirect because the trails are not chemicals. The phrase chemtrails then serves to muddy the waters and cause the uniformed to believe the chemtrail conspiracy is about spraying the US population with chemicals designed to harm humans and bring about depopulation. THIS IS WRONG; A red-herring designed by the anti-chemtrail govt agents.)

My chemtrail theory is this... That the spraying is being done by a small fleet of aircraft. 10 or less. They are spraying a substance which is meant to reflect sunlight and alter the albedo of Earth.

A major anti-chemtrail conspiracy argument is: Chemtrails dont exist because SOMEONE would notice the tanks or see something suspicious.
This is false logic.

The chemtrail organizers who are facilitating this operation ARE NOT dumb enough to try and use public commercial aircraft.
So lets put the commercial airliner theory to rest because it is implausible. I, as a trained pilot, have never believed commercial airliners were involved.

It would be much simpler to have a small fleet of government or contract aircraft... I believe 747 tankers, I believe contracted from Evergreen Aviation. Or if not Evergreen, they are perhaps entirely military.
However I believe it would be easier to get contractors to keep quiet than if it was military. My example for this would be the case of the missing nuke from the Base in ND. Word got out. Someone in the chain of command had to report.

OK back to my main point regarding this thread.
I came upon this article: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

This council wants MORE I repeat MORE small reflecting particles in the upper atmosphere.

This statement proves a few things....
That we already are putting small reflecting particles in the upper atmosphere.
And that my theory that chemtrails are clouds of reflecting particles designed to alter the ALBEDO of Earth... has proof to back it up.

I encourage Essan, Ozweatherman, and the rest to debunk this particular theory, which they have yet to do in ANY of my or their past threads or posts, involving the chemtrails actually being small particles of reflective material meant to alter the albedo of earth. And please dont misdirect and start talking about other aspects.

I believe that most chemtrail sightings are falsely identified by people without the knowledge to correctly determine what they see and that in fact they are seeing contrails as the chemtrail debunkers so relish. They use this as ammunition to discredit the entire theory.

Can you deny it is possible that a small fleet is spraying a reflective substance in order to alter the albedo in an attempt to control climate change?

HERE IT IS Cryptogon: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

AND HERE IS THE ACTUAL PDF from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Planetary Geoengineering….
PDF from www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Remind me again what that thread proves?

That Evergreen Aviation does work for the CIA?

As I showed in that thread, this is no big secret.

There is no link between chemtrails and Evergreen.

One trick pony comes to mind...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld


Some think that Chemtrails have been debunked.

Has anyone seen these picture or have an opinion on them.


They all show manmade clouds called contrails - which have been observed and studied for 80 years. Nowadays we often use sataelite images for that purpose. A lot of current research is into their effect on climate and weather and how we might prevent them forming. Unless anyone can show why they cannot be contrails, is not the simple, prosaic, well known and well understood explanation not the most likely?

More info:

www.airspacemag.com...

For more images of contrails check the link at the bottom of my signature



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
AllseeingI: erm. No, the word "more" implies that there are reflecting particles in the atmosphere (well duh). It says nothing about where they come from.

It also says 15 to 50 km hight. That starts 4 km above a passenger jets cruise altitude (yes, i know you said no passenger jets, but still)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


You're right, that image I linked to seems to be complete bogus. Sorry about that, guys.

Cloud seeding however happens a lot with trails, and those trails containing silver iodide should form clouds, so you'd see a white trail.
silver iodide flare burning

Are you saying those trails would be too low in altitude or just wouldn't look the same?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


To cloud seed you need a cloud to seed.

And the cloud has to be at a certain altitude, to increase the chance of rain.

Here's a video from Snowy Hydro showing ground based burners seeding clouds:




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I thought this was all so much nonsense till one morning I drove over the moors and found I had left the blue sky behind and in front of me, over the town of Halifax UK, was a clear grid pattern of trails - gradually spreading out to form a white haze.
It was so obviously artificial. Nor was it a time of peak holiday traffic. Besides I have got to know the direction and frequency of planes overhead. And this was something done with intent, a constructed grid pattern.

However, while it might cause illness, I don't believe this is either a plan to cull the human race, or to prepare us for depopulation by whatever means. Hey there must be easier, cheaper and less obvious ways!





new topics




 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join