Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

reply to post by K-Raz
Yeah but I'm sure myself and the public would like to know about it before hand...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Samples have been taken if you do the research (In which you most likely don't) The samples contained barium and aluminum oxide...Aluminum oxide huh? A metal particle...If you were to put the stuff into the upper atmosphere and It could stay there awhile don't you think it would reflect sunlight and make it hotter on the ground?

The samples I've seen taken of "chemtrails" were actually water samples, most of them left unopened for lengthy periods at ground level. This is not an acceptable method to sample aircraft emissions (or water for that matter).

I have also seen results of said water samples that were tested on ICPMS which are not designed for aqueous solutions, and compared against EPA regulations that were arrived at through gas chromatography. Since ICPs cannot approach the sensitivity of GCs, I've seen default zero readings from the ICP compared against parts-per-ten-million results from the GC which were reported at 700% above EPA levels. This is poor science that can easily be detected by someone who actually work is labs that use these machines (such as myself).

[edit on 27-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by K-Raz
I will repost this in this thread, since noone cares to answer:

I still feel the chemtrailers missed my question earlier - was right around when the insults started flying around (pun intended)

Would you rather:

Put additives into jet fuel, which is tested, regulated, and used in very sensitive engines flying around at very high altitudes where you would have no control what so ever about where the chems would land due to weather

Or

Just put it in regular gas where it is burnt in engines that can run on anything from veggie oil to methanol, will burn it at street level, and where you have total control of which places it should get burnt at (spiking gas stations)

?

Riddle me this.

Those questions are based on the assumption that whatever is being sprayed is intended for the population. Perhaps it is intended for the upper atmosphere?

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


You need to read more chemtrail threads then.

It's like a religion to some, they need their beliefs validated.

Compare this, if you will, to having the opportunity of proving that alien life exists.

Does that make sense?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
"This is poor science that can easily be detected by someone who actually work is labs that use these machines (such as myself)."


That makes sense...

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

"This is poor science that can easily be detected by someone who actually work is labs that use these machines (such as myself)."


That makes sense...

In addition to drumming, I enjoy a career in tribology and test oils, fuels and coolants. Indeed, we use ICPs and GCs amongst other things.

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
What does it matter to you what other people believe?

Why does anyone have to prove anything to you?

Edit: What I mean to say is: If someone believes lines behind a plane are chemtrails, and you believe they are contrails, then what's it matter? And why should they feel the need to prove it to you?

Indeed, if people want to believe the earth is flat and that thunderstorms are caused by the gods fighting then they may hold such beliefs.

However, if you keep start threads claiming thunderstorms are caused by the gods fighting, that there is a conspiracy to conceal this fact, and that people must be blind not to see what is happening, then don't be surprised to see others offer the alternative scientific explanation. And don't get angry when they ask you for evidence for your theory or a reason why you refute so strongly the scientific explanation.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Trying to come off as normal?
Look I'm not saying that you know whats going on but the high level scientists do and they get a big healthy pay check to stay quiet...Just like they get paid to "believe" that global warming is real when in fact it's cooling to the point where the next ice age soon is a possibility...


I wish I learned how to play the drums...



[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by Chadwickus

It's like a religion to some, they need their beliefs validated.

Compare this, if you will, to having the opportunity of proving that alien life exists.

Does that make sense?

Yes but the whole premise of this thread is to say "Can you match my samples? If not, chemtrails don't exist."

While you don't actually say that, it is implied. However you say that you are 'enabling' the 'Chemtrailers' to prove the existence of chemtrails.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
Trying to come off as normal?
Look I'm not saying that you know whats going on but the high level scientists do and they get a big healthy pay check to stay quiet...

And this presumption about "high level scientists" is based on what?

Do you have anything to say about the "scientific research of chemtrails" you referenced and claimed I haven't researched? Maybe you could provide me some of this research that maybe I haven't seen yet.

Originally posted by Essan

Indeed, if people want to believe the earth is flat and that thunderstorms are caused by the gods fighting then they may hold such beliefs.

However, if you keep start threads claiming thunderstorms are caused by the gods fighting, don't be surprised to see others offer the alternative scientific explanation. And don't get angry when they ask you for evidence for your theory or a reason why you refute so strongly the scientific explanation.

I don't get angry

But it is a straw man approach. Whilst not said directly, but implied, the OP is saying that because 'Chemtrailers' can't take air samples from the back of a moving aircraft, then they aren't real.

There is no actual 'refuting' of anything going on here. Just an "I have more information then you (or more air samples, or degrees, or whatever)", then I must be right and they don't exist.

It seems pretty childish actually.

[edit on 27/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
But it is a straw man approach. Whilst not said directly, but implied, the OP is saying that because 'Chemtrailers' can't take air samples from the back of a moving aircraft, then they aren't real.

Are you certain? It seems to imply that there is finally a method available for someone to prove the chemtrail hypothesis once and for all. It also provides a baseline result of contrails for comparison. The OP has done you a huge favor.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
portland.indymedia.org...




and if you believe the government really cares about you and your family look up what happened (or started) in oakville washington August-7-1994





vodpod.com...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Are you certain? It seems to imply that there is finally a method available for someone to prove the chemtrail hypothesis once and for all. It also provides a baseline result of contrails for comparison. The OP has done you a huge favor.

I fail to see why the OP would be helping 'Chemtrailers' prove their hypothesis, as has been put forward. Therefore I must call it a straw man argument.

For instance, the thread implies that chemtrails don't exist if air samples can't be taken. That is a seemingly large undertaking.

And if the OP wants us to contact a larger organisation/website/person to collect air samples to prove they exist, or don't, then perhaps he should've taken the initiative if it concerns him that much.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

portland.indymedia.org...




and if you believe the government really cares about you and your family look up what happened (or started) in oakville washington August-7-1994

I'm sorry, I thought I asked for scientific results. That page features Kuchinch rambling about a bill he proposed, Canadians petitioning against military chaff and cloud seeding, complaints about aerial miitary grids, a computer program that found differences in contrail formation, something about soot causing health problems and an unnamed air force scientist claiming they're real. This apparently is enough for someone to claim "chemtrails confirmed!" and start a page designed to appeal to the credulous. So where are those scientific results?

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
For instance, the thread implies that chemtrails don't exist if air samples can't be taken. That is a seemingly large undertaking.

As I said, science is hard, assumptions are easy. At this point the chemtrail hypothesis is unproven. There must be definitive results to either confirm or deny their existence, someone has to take the initiative to do it, and the results in the OP provide a baseline for comparison.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer
www.lightwatcher.com...


www.aeonia.com...


and It's as simple as watching the discovery channel when they were talking about them being ridiculous while stating that Geo engineering will be used in the future...When they are already doing it, these people are children.


SPACE PRESERVATION ACT OF 2001
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
HR 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.




So the government admitting chemtrails as a weapon while denying them at the same time isn't enough for ya?



[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
....the thread implies that chemtrails don't exist if air samples can't be taken. That is a seemingly large undertaking.

Now that is a straw man

Whether or not air samples can be taken has no bearing on whether or not chemtrails exist.

All the OP is doing is providing a baseline for comparison should anyone ever take an air sample of a chemtrail. Which would allow them to prove that they exist.

At present there is exactly zero evidence that what people see in the skies are chemtrails.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
For instance, the thread implies that chemtrails don't exist if air samples can't be taken. That is a seemingly large undertaking.

As I said, science is hard, assumptions are easy. At this point the chemtrail hypothesis is unproven. There must be definitive results to either confirm or deny their existence, someone has to take the initiative to do it, and the results in the OP provide a baseline for comparison.

Why does somebody have to do it? Why must there be definitive results? Why must the chemtrail hypothesis be proven?

When there are definitive results, either confirming or denying, then somebody will start up a thread claiming the results are bogus.

I know you just want people to be healthy by stopping their paranoia, but it all seems rather pointless.

People who believe they are chemtrails, will. People who believe they are contrails, will.

The irony is that people believe they are being poisoned every day but cannot seem to get motivated enough to band together and collect the sort of evidence that would blow the conspiracy wide open. Instead, as has been pointed out, they take pictures in their backyard of ordinary contrails and make hysterical claims.