posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by DroppinSuga
Oh, this is available here many, many times. It's wrong. The reporter knows it's wrong. I know about the reporter because I contacted him
First, you can't begin to think that collecting anything in a mayo jar in your backyard is going to be a good test. It's not. Any time a wind blew
dust on a dirt road or field, it would show up in the sample. If any body used fertilizer or pesticide outside, it wil be in the sample. Any air
pollution downwind from you will be in the sample. Unless you know what all of these have added and in what amounts, you can't say that what is in
the jar came from a plane. That's just one thing wrong; the easy thing.
The other thing shows up around the 1:00 mark. The reporter shows the results on the test done and says one number, but the paper shows another. I
would think since the number he says is different people would question it. But I have only seen this fact pointed out on contrail sites.
"Chemtrail" sites use this video and don't mention a really obvious error.
Because of the third mistake. At the same mark, the report says "parts per million". The paper shows doesn't show parts per millionth, it shows
a "ug/L", which means "parts per billionth". That is a very large error, especially when the toxic level is 2.0 parts ppm. The actual amount is
0.06888 ppm, well below toxic. The area the sample was taken is an area rich in barium in the soil. It would be weird to NOT find barium in any
A lot of "chemtrail" sites use this same video as proof, but they don't point out the errors. Why not? Well, either they don't understand
scientific notation or they notice it and don't want people to know it's wrong. Either one is not good for their cause, because they are either
inept or liars. Or both.
If you go to Contrail Science
, they have a page about this same report and a breakdown of the
While you are there, look around. I have yet to hear any debate about "chemtrails" that isn't debunked by science and discussed on the site.