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.

 

G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

page: 10
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   


The likelihood is very high that anything found in rainwater samples is due to environmental cross contamination.


I'm starting to get really choked up with laughter...


Last time I checked the air is part of our environment. So is the water molecules in the atmosphere, which eventually form into rain. Contamination can happen anywhere down the line true, but when you stick a rain gauge out in the middle of a field, or on top of your roof... What exactly are you expecting to mislead you?


I hope you're as good at pounding the drums as you are whipping up conundrums!




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by UfoSpecial
 


Because contaminates in water found at ground level couldn't possibly have come from anywhere else. They must have been sprayed at 30,000ft!

After all, there are no other possible sources of pollution.





Assuming you live in a remote corner of Antarctica



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


Originally posted by burntheships
What I have seen on the Internet regarding laboratory analysis of chemtrail samples is plausible. The fallout was picked up in rainwater and it was found to contain a high concentration of aluminum oxide and microscopic quartz crystals.


This is not a valid sampling technique and in no way could this be considered "plausible". The likelihood is very high that anything found in rainwater samples is due to environmental cross contamination.


Oh drummerboy, you took that quote out of its context, and removed the link, which is an attempt to mislead!!! If you have facts to back up your claims, please post them. Obvisouly you do not have any facts, or evidence, and are left to your own demise. You have no credibility here at all.

You cant just cut up my posts with the intention of misleading and not get called on it. Produce evidence, stop with the smoke and mirrors.

I am reposting the entire quote here:



What I have seen on the Internet regarding laboratory analysis of chemtrail samples is plausible. The fallout was picked up in rainwater and it was found to contain a high concentration of aluminum oxide and microscopic quartz crystals. Other investigators believe that barium oxide also is being dispersed. It appears that government black-box agencies are conducting a massive spraying operation to reflect sunlight, which supposedly will slow down global warming. I say supposedly because there is evidence that the long-term effect will be just the opposite, and that disruption of the normal atmospheric cycles may actually be causing a warming trend.

There also may be more sinister purposes involving the deliberate creation of health hazards or the dissemination of mind-altering chemicals, but I have not seen hard evidence of that. However, the fact that governments are lying to the public about the reality of this phenomenon is bad enough. It seems that collectivists are so accustomed to lying that they do it even when the truth would be easier.

Of one thing we can be certain: A tenet of collectivism is that anything can be justified simply by claiming that it is for the greater good of the greater number. Therefore, whatever is going on, when it eventually is disclosed to the public, it will be explained as a wonderful humanitarian measure that is in the best interest of all mankind, and we will be expected to be tingly all over with gratitude for the wisdom and benevolence of those great leaders who initiated it.


educate-yourself.org...



[edit on 16-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   


After all, there are no other possible sources of pollution.


See, that's the issue... The stage was set for plausible deniability from the get-go. Please provide a work-around instead of stating the obvious over and over again.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I'm starting to get really choked up with laughter...


Yeah me too. Especially anyone presenting or believing an argument that collected rainwater is representative of contrail composition (err, "chemtrails"). It's about as hilarious as the video in which he establishes his credentials by claiming he sat at the end of the runway to watch jets, so he knows contrails by god. This is becoming more dimwitted than I ever imagined possible.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


Originally posted by burntheships
What I have seen on the Internet regarding laboratory analysis of chemtrail samples is plausible. The fallout was picked up in rainwater and it was found to contain a high concentration of aluminum oxide and microscopic quartz crystals.


This is not a valid sampling technique and in no way could this be considered "plausible". The likelihood is very high that anything found in rainwater samples is due to environmental cross contamination.


Oh drummerboy, you took that quote out of its context, and removed the link, which is an attempt to mislead!!! If you have facts to back up your claims, please post them. Obvisouly you do not have any facts, or evidence, and are left to your own demise. You have no credibility here at all.


Are you deft? I challenged the portion of the quote that I posted. The rest was unnecessary. Get real for a change, please.

Anyway, by all means post the lab results referenced. It's up to you and/or Griffin to establish the claim (which is already errant due to sampling technique). I interpret lab results for a living. I'll be glad to offer a free interpretation of the results for you.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Lots of great information. However, do not degrade the original post by reducing the debate of its merits to personal attacks and off topic posts.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
People are still here trying to prove the impossible, that no one is dumping contaminants into our air?

"Chemtrails" is a conspiracy theory, sure. But you aren't going to debunk it. There is no logical way, short of proving the negative, and good luck with that.

You're all wasting your time.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are you deft? I challenged the portion of the quote that I posted.



deft

A deft action is skilful and often quick.


www.google.com...|en&hl=en&q=deft


If you're going to call someone names, how much worse it looks on you when you can't even get that right.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Let's address the feasibility of the testing of rainwater as a method of determining contrail/"chemtrail" content. Let's say an unusual contrail appears at 35,000 feet. Assuming that the "chemtrail" contains some particulate, that would have to fall to earth through polluted skies for nearly seven miles. Environmental cross contamination is certain.

Furthermore, nobody has thought through the obvious. If alleged "chemtrails" are spotted on days with clear or partially clear skies, how does one suppose they remain there long enough for a storm, its accompanying winds and rain to capture it and fall to earth? Let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume that aircraft are "spraying chemtrails" above or in a storm. Since they are not visible from ground level where the sample is collected, how may we be certain that the water captured contains the alleged "chemtrail" content?

In conclusion, testing rainwater content as evidence of contrail/"chemtrail" composition is a highly invalid sampling technique. Griffin is quick to assume such invalid results due to a confirmation bias and a proclivity for conspiracy theories in general. He does make money via conspiracy theories. It should be noted he posted this online, claims to have found the results online, yet did not link to it or provide the source of the findings.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are you deft? I challenged the portion of the quote that I posted.



deft

A deft action is skilful and often quick.


www.google.com...|en&hl=en&q=deft


If you're going to call someone names, how much worse it looks on you when you can't even get that right.


variant of dafte, foolish

Still in use in various parts of the english speaking world as sarcasm. Glad to know I sent you off to the dictionary though.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

You cant just cut up my posts with the intention of misleading and not get called on it. Produce evidence, stop with the smoke and mirrors.

I am reposting the entire quote here:


You did not, in fact, post the entire quote. In fact, you intentionally cut out the portion of the quote which states as follows:


I cannot claim that any of the Internet sources of information on this topic are totally reliable.


One who misleads should not try to claim someone else is misleading.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Oh yes, lets do examine air water pollution connection.
Drummerboy, you offer no proof whatsoever with your insipid three paragraph physics class.

A little education on the matter:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. -


The problems of air polltuion and water pollution are closely related. They spring oftentimes from the same causes, they affect the same areas, and in many cases the wastes discarged to the air are the same contaminente to the waters.

www.jstor.org...

[edit on 16-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


HOW do I get this through your head?!?

There is NOT ENOUGH FUEL carried onboard to do what you think is happening!


Directly dumped there is no burn off it's at air temp.



AND...they (the passenger flights) CANNOT just 'dump' fuel overboard!!! I've already shown you that the majority of passenger airplanes can't dump AT ALL!!!

And, they need the darned stuff to run the engines!

AND, it's expensive, and not wasted like that, unless it's an emergency!

What part of this is so difficult to comprehend?

This is getting ridiculous, trying to explain reality to those who cannot bother to learn.

It is truly, truly sad......



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships


A little education on the matter:


We're talking about using rainwater as a method of sampling contrails, not the relationship between air and water pollution. Please stay on topic.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

You did not, in fact, post the entire quote. In fact, you intentionally cut out the portion of the quote which states as follows:



I cannot claim that any of the Internet sources of information on this topic are totally reliable.


Right, which is why I quoted that author. Of course you realize since you are on the internet, and you are not using any valid source besides your own flawed logic you must be unreliable.



[edit on 16-4-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   




Sorry, sir. You intentionally excluded vital information to mislead and bolster your case. When I challenged part of Griffin's quote, you then posted something about water and air pollution. Please maintain an honest discussion and stay on topic.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Turn your thought pattern around. It's not a complicated process. You alter the fuel supply. It's been done in the past, so I'm not sure why you'd have such a hard time putting two and two together.


Altering the fuel supply? Are you aware that altering the fuel supply, be it in the fuel tanks on the ground or midflight, someone will notice it very quickly? Are you also aware that a lot of the ground vehicals at the airports also run on the same fuel sources? Do you realize that the ground crew personnel would be the first to "show symptoms" of whatever is in the fuel?

Or are you suggesting in midflight? Any alterations to the fuel would result in an improper running of the engines. At that altitude the engines would lose power, run roughly or even worse, flame out. But what about the "stuff" put in the fuel? Isnt that going to get incinerated in the engines? Dumping the fuel in midflight? Not a good idea since the plane would NEED THE FUEL to fly. You always need a reserve for safety reasons. So no that too is not possible. What else is there?

Your "not so complicated process" just got very complicated when its met with some serious critical thinking and common sense.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 



You fail to understand... The same think-tanks running the show even have an agenda for atomic weaponry/ DU. The thought process is mutating genes via radiation whereby stress "evolves" the human species.


This is the kind of rampant paranoia that is destroying rational thinking processes.

This is further being spread, and with FALSE and either intentionally, or completely whack-a-doodle by people, on those websites who might actually be crackers enough to believe it....

There is a large group, however, who make a living off of this nonsense, stirring people (like the ones here at ATS who fall for it) and hoping they'll buy the books, CDs, DVDs, T-Shirts, what have you.

Your qupte there is a fine example of how out of control this is, and how it veers well wide of the mark, into speculation and complete, unadulterated and unconnected topics.

To sum up, people are being fooled, taken in, by either a cleverly designed marketing ploy, one that PLAYS on people's lack of scientific understanding, and innate tendencies to 'fear' anything they don't understand, or it is being spread by a bunch of kooks.

It's a little bit like Scientology --- there are people who actually believe that mumbo-jumbo, and why they do is beyond comprehension. Because, when you look at it, with logic, and from the standpoint of reality, Scientology, like "chemtrails", is a flimsy pack of lies and 'false' promises.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTHING 4 NO ONE
Marine Corps observation and communications- sorry Chaz not gonna explain 4 u in detail.


HILARIOUS. Translation - "I'm running away from this one, you just havta believe me" (and who wouldn't..)


You might be surprised as to how many people can estimate distance. I estimate what you don't know can fill a warehouse.

Far more than that, actually. The one thing that denotes genuine researchers is a realisation of what they don't know, and that they do not make wild UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.


Scientific Method- Yes uneducated one, observations are one of, if not the most CRITICAL tool in researching phenomena.
Areas of high pressure= no moisture=no cloud formations=no ripe conditions for LEGITIMATE contrails.

Absolutely uneducated BULLDUNG. That ANYONE can research for themselves. Earlier I gave the link to the UWYO site showing upper air soundings. Take a good long hard look at the numbers, for any site you like. Here it is again, for any avid reader who doesn't take idiotic claims at face value:
weather.uwyo.edu...
Now the main clues here are TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY and DEWPOINT.
Go on, look at a few sites, and note what happens as you ascend, especially between say 7000 and 12000 metres. Then go take a look at sites that explain the conditions that cause formation of contrails (or cirrus clouds if you like), and see if you can put 1+1 together.

'Nothing 4' can't manage to do that - he just handwaves about huge dry high pressure regions.. Ask a meteorologist, and I've just posted a link to all the actual NUMBERS - I have faith in other readers ability to see through the garbage being posted by 'Nothing 4'.


I don't need to produce anything for you in the likes of spreadsheets, data, corroboration with scientists.... whatever.


No, of course you don't, sweetie. But thanks for proving that you LIED about doing research, and haven't got a clue about the topic.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join