Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+23 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The movie What in the World are the Spraying has created quite a stir with the “chemtrail” crowd. Besides the usual talk about how “normal” contrails cannot persist and spread, much is made of some testing done in the Lake Shasta area of Northern California. Some scary numbers are discussed. Surely these high levels of aluminum (and barium and strontium) must be falling 6 or 7 miles from those “chemtrails” crossing the sky overhead.

Let’s look at the test results used in the movie.
ihost.nu...

Let’s start with the soil samples so frighteningly high in aluminum. The soil under Frances Mangel's house tested at 13,600 mg/k!. Brookings, Oregon; 38,000 mg/kg! Big numbers! 38,000 somethings must be a lot! But is it?

38,000 mg/kg is 38 grams per kilogram. That's 38 grams per thousand grams. That's 3.8%. Is 3.8% a lot? Let’s check. According the chart in the book linked below, the percentage of aluminum oxide in California soils ranged from 1.63 to 32.42. That translates to between 16,300 and 324,200 mg/kg. Samples from various locations in North America ranged from 3.26% to 14.16% (32,600 to 141,600 mg/kg). Oh, I should point out that these tests were done prior to 1920. Before jets. Before “chemtrails”. 3.8% doesn't seem to be a big deal.
Soil Science

What about that sample from the snows of Mt. Shasta? Mt. Shasta is a pretty big mountain. They don’t say where they collected the snow (in this test) and I doubt they climbed to the top of the mountain for their sample but let's continue. The test shows 368 μg/L for aluminum. That’s micrograms per liter of water. That is the equivalent of 0.368 mg/L (milligrams per liter). Aluminum is not considered toxic by the EPA so they have no enforceable standards for maximum allowable levels in drinking water. They do have Secondary levels though. These levels do not represent health concerns but possible “cosmetic” or “aesthetic” effects. Those levels are set at from 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L, so if you drank the melted snow sample it might have tasted funny. California sets the Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/L. California says you could use snow melt from Mt. Shasta as your water supply (as far as the aluminum level is concerned).

But where did the aluminum in the (supposedly) pristine snow sample come from? What about the aluminum in the other water samples? Remember that book from 1920? A chart in that book shows that the smaller the soil particles are, the higher the percentage of aluminum they contain. What does that have to do with anything? Dust. Dust blowing in the wind. The finer the dust, the more aluminum. Still, some of those numbers seem awfully high don’t they? Well, yes. Because the samples were taken from the bottom of ponds where dust carried by the wind and dirt carried by surface runoff collect. Where water evaporates and concentrations increase. And that’s the other misleading aspect of the presentation of the test results in the movie. There is nothing to compare the levels to. All that is given is the amount of aluminum compared to the amount of water. It has been shown that aluminum can make up a significant percentage of “pristine” soils. In others words, compared to the amount of iron found in soil, aluminum is generally quite plentiful. But compared to silicon, it runs a close to distant second. So where in those water samples are the silicon levels? Where are the iron levels. We can’t compare the water tests to the soil tests because they measure the amount of aluminum compared to a bunch of other stuff in the dirt. All the water samples show is the amount of aluminum compared to…water. Where’s the other stuff? Without those numbers there is nothing to compare to. There is no way of knowing if the aluminum levels are higher than they should be, much less a way to connect the aluminum to “chemtrails”. The same thing applies to the strontium and barium found. Both are naturally occurring components of dirt.

So. Are the makers of the video ignorant in disregarding these issues? Are they stupid? Or are they being deliberately deceptive?
edit on 3/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




So. Are the makers of the video ignorant in disregarding these issues? Are they stupid? Or are they being deliberately deceptive?


I'd have to go with option 3.

There is money to be made on this hoax, so obsfucating little details like you pointed out right here would be detrimental to selling people "chemtrails".

Thanks for the detailed breakdown



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


YES! disinfo agent for sure! Posting facts! Shame on you sir.

actually, I think you could work in the aluminum levels might be just east of the areas that Military Chaff training happened, since they did spend an inordinate amount of time talking about a very common occurrance.
chaff


+9 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Interesting thread. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

What is it called, when over 10 planes fly over your area in criss-cross patterns, leaving "contrails" in a gridlock form, which last for over an hour (as well as spread out into cloud-form)

--- I just gotta know, they did it yesterday here again.

And no, I don't live next to a damn corn field. I live on the coast, all we have here are cows.
edit on 7-12-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CapnCaveman
 


we call that air traffic.


Planes going to and form their destinations. Some north to south, and (gasp!) some east to west! a conspiracy to be sure.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CapnCaveman
 

It's called air traffic.
But that's not exactly the topic.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
if they were spraying, wouldn't they spray something more nefarious than aluminum oxide? I've never seen the movie but from what I know about chemtrials is it is used for some type of weather modification with a side effect of putting poisonous gasses that people breath, could they modify weather with just aluminum oxide?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CapnCaveman
 





What is it called, when over 10 planes fly over your area in criss-cross patterns, leaving "contrails" in a gridlock form, which last for over an hour (as well as spread out into cloud-form)


It's called air traffic.

The winds at high altitudes can be very powerful, but also somewhat consistent. When planes are flying in the same corridor, in close intervals, paralell trails can form as the wind blows the trails across the sky. When air traffic going a different direction crosses the other trails, the grid like pattern can appear.

Think about it like roads on a map, they intersect all the time.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 

The claim of the movie is that "chemtrails" are geoengineering in action. Several proposed methods of geoengineering involve the dispersal of aluminum oxide into the stratosphere. The claim in the movie is that the aluminum found in the Lake Shasta area is evidence.


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
There is no lack of evidence that something is being released as in geo-engineering going on.
What would the skies look like if they WERE spraying those elements in their patents? Pretty much the way the skies look now.

Not too many people can tail gate one of these planes and take fresh, untainted samples from the plane's exhausts, so this merry go round argument of lack of evidence can go on forever until that happens.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Obviously it's air traffic. I was asking what they were spraying. They are not going two and from the only airport within miles, or flying around for leisure. They are intentionally spraying something. Some of these trails go for miles. They do not act like normal contrails.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

Is it all right to misrepresent the test results?
Does that help further the "truth"?


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Haters gonna hate: dis·in·for·ma·tion




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CapnCaveman
 


Persistent contrails are normal.

What is your general location? I can help get you the weather soundings for your area that day to find out if conditions were conducive to contrail formation.
edit on 1-3-2011 by ZombieJesus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OleMB
 

Do you have anything to contribute to the topic or are you just going to post videos?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It can be argued where and how they got their test samples from I guess, that seems to be the main arguments on contrailscience, or that the results are too high and can't be for real.
There were many different types of tests done in that documentary not just the Mt. Shasta aluminum, and no it isn't good to misrepresent the truth if that is the case here. If they are wrong on this one test, does that discredit the other global pieces of evidence?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Thank you Phage for the facts.

I appreciate the work and research you do.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OleMB
 


A lot of us cannot watch, or don't have time to watch a 10 min video right now.

Can you point out the parts of the video that "make haters hate"?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

This is the only thing approaching evidence in the movie. The rest is just people talking about geoengineering proposals and pointing at persistent contrails.

So if they misrepresent the results as being something they are not, what does that say about the rest of the movie. Why do they have to do that if their other "evidence" is so strong?






top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join