Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 29
49
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill

Right, lets ignore the lack of spraying equipment on airplanes. Let's ignore the lack of air tests and soil tests (which happen every day) showing anything abnormal. Let's ignore the lack of evidence. Let's live in ignorance.

You might be listening to a little too much A.M. radio...




posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
WOW, it's like attack of the debunkers..

Someone must be pushing to have these threads derailed fast..


..................Ye Doth Protest Too Much...............................



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill


Do you have any evidence to support any of the three claims above?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
WOW, it's like attack of the debunkers..

Someone must be pushing to have these threads derailed fast..


..................Ye Doth Protest Too Much...............................


You know, it's funny, because I tend to think the people who come here and offer NO EVIDENCE while calling everyone who asks for it "sheep" to be the real 'derailers'.

You see, the best way to discredit a subject is have a bunch of uninformed people associated with it.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
WOW, it's like attack of the debunkers..

Someone must be pushing to have these threads derailed fast..


..................Ye Doth Protest Too Much...............................


You know, it's funny, because I tend to think the people who come here and offer NO EVIDENCE while calling everyone who asks for it "sheep" to be the real 'derailers'.

You see, the best way to discredit a subject is have a bunch of uninformed people associated with it.

Especially when one recognizes this is a thread DEBUNKING false 'chemtrail' data. Which means that anyone posting on it without offering evidence to debunk the debunk is the one derailing.
edit on 20-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill


Do you have any evidence to support any of the three claims above?

No, but I doubt he is above asking us to prove a negative.

The guy can't even do the math to figure out I've had an account for longer than him, when claiming my "ignorance" is from being new.
edit on 5/20/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill


Do you have any evidence to support any of the three claims above?


Why would any intelligent person star that post??



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill


Do you have any evidence to support any of the three claims above?


Why would any intelligent person star that post??

Why would any intelligent person choose to believe in 'chemtrails' with absolutely zero evidence to substantiate any of their claims?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..


There are more facts than that - for example the FACT that everything that has ever been described as a chemtrail looks and behaves exactly like a contrail, or is something else entirely that is also known phenomena.

Also that there has never been any verifiable evidence showing that chemtrails exist.

Also that various "samples" purported to show high levels of aluminium, barium, etc have been shown to be disinfo (at best) or outright falsehoods (at worst)



Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...


Which is still better than the FACT that not one chemtrail has ever been shown to exist at all.

Do you think chemtrails exist?

If so why?



What a shrill


I believe the insult you were after is "shill"
edit on 20-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by adeclerk
 



That's fine, but my opinion is based on fact. Are you willing to admit yours is based on faith?


The only FACT you have is that contrails exist..
Not that EVERY trail we see is just a contrail...

What a shrill


Do you have any evidence to support any of the three claims above?


Why would any intelligent person star that post??


Who the # cares about stars anyways?



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


Apparently BIB does.

It takes all sorts



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Of all the "relevant" things we could be arguing about... that has got to take the cake.

My head almost literally exploded, good thing I've got my Anti-ExplodoHat, new from Porton Down!

Get yours today!
edit on 20-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


Well since there's no actual evidence of chemtrails to discuss might as well chat about inanities....they're just as relevant as fantasies, and at least this one does actually exist



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I everyone. Ill like to post a new thread on the chemtrail but since I dont have yet 20 post, I can't create a new subject. I'am a true believer of geoengineering. With all the documentation we have now, we can say it's a fact. Not a conspiracy. The question is more how and why.

I read an article on the french canadian broadcasting website this morning about the presence of bacteria in the ailstone. After a few research I found a link in english on the bbc website: www.bbc.co.uk...

The bacteria is call Pseudomonas syringae. You can find it everywhere on the earth. But one thing bring my attention to this bacteria.

The Pseudomonas syringae has the ability of Ice nucleating. This is not a big news. They actually use this bacteria for a while to create snow for ski resort. So, this ability it's well known. Wiki link : en.wikipedia.org...

I'am living in Quebec, Canada (that why my english it's so basic, yes, I'am a frenchy ), this spring, we had a lot of unusual ailstone here. I tough this was really weird because we don't have the habit of ailstone so often here. So when a saw this article, this fact came to my mind.

My hypothesis is they probably put some Pseudomonas syringae in the chemtrail cocktail to doing more easily cloud and rain in high altitude. When it's fell down, most of the time, the ailstone melt to simple rain. But often, they don't and that's why we can see more and more ailstone.

Anybody can do a better job and a new thread on this topic for me? I think we can find something with this new bacteria. Maybe it's presence is increase last few years... Or the illness on some trees increase too... I would like to have your comment and your contribution on this one.

Thanx to all atsers.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Sorry, this thread has no activity for more than a week, so a post my comment on this one. Sorry for that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by çimon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I just reviewed the Frances Mangels section of 'What in the World Are They Spraying?' In the movie, there is NO REFERENCE to either the soil sample taken under Mr. Mangels' house or the Brookings, OR sample. This data appears only in your linked collection of test results associated with the movie. These test results were never "used in the movie." The filmmakers are NOT ASSERTING that the soil sample taken from underneath his house has high levels of Aluminum. The soil test done on soil from underneath his house was most probably performed as a REFERENCE ONLY showing what unaffected soil looks like. As for the Brookings, OR sample, I will give you that these are not abnormally high levels as noted in the handwriting on said document. Speaking as a filmmaker myself, I can tell you that making a movie (as many other things) is a process. Along the way, a filmmaker may write something or say something incorrect. Anybody who says they have never been wrong is full of it. The fact is that this Brookings, OR document has an erroneous notation scribbled on it, but it was NOT REFERENCED IN THE MOVIE IN ANY WAY. The film does not assert what you suggest the film asserts.
Then, you did it again with the Mt. Shasta snow sample data. In the movie, Mr. Mangles and Mr. Murphy talk about test results showing 61,100 micrograms per liter. What you reference is different test results entirely WHICH WERE NOT USED IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. You reference a different test which showed 368 micrograms per liter.
Although what I have written so far already thoroughly destroys your position, I will address your ramblings about dust in the pond. You are asserting something that cannot be known from the available information. I looked through the long-winded, boring book you reference and did not immediately find the chart you mention. Maybe you can tell me which page it is on. Regardless, let's assume there IS higher concentrations of Aluminum blowing in dust then there is in soil. That doesn't mean that the Aluminum in the pond came from dust. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Being that the pond in question is,"...located on a filtered, forested mountaintop, miles and miles and miles away from any industry, highway and so forth" it probably doesn't get a lot of exposure to the dust of which you speak.
I suggest you get a copy and watch 'What in the World Are They Spraying?' before you go making a bunch of claims about what is presented therein. The filmmakers encourage people to share the movie in any way you wish. You should take them up on their generous offer. Next!...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRealMrX
 


AND...the entire film is a load of bogus nonsense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

SO, who(m) do you work for?? Michael J. Murphy? G. Edward Griffin?? Cliff Carnicorn?




edit on Sun 29 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I just presented a logical, fact filled analysis that destroys an illogical, incorrect hit piece. Then you come along with more unsubstantiated, irresponsible nonsense. Since you responded within seconds of my rebuttal, I know you didn't read and verify what I am writing. I suggest before you shoot your mouth off, you get your facts straight. But, people like you usually would rather engage in personal attacks. I understand.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
In the movie, Mr. Mangles and Mr. Murphy talk about test results showing 61,100 micrograms per liter. What you reference is different test results entirely WHICH WERE NOT USED IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. You reference a different test which showed 368 micrograms per liter.


The 61,100 ug/L test is debunked here:
metabunk.org...
(dirty snow in summer)



Although what I have written so far already thoroughly destroys your position, I will address your ramblings about dust in the pond. You are asserting something that cannot be known from the available information. I looked through the long-winded, boring book you reference and did not immediately find the chart you mention. Maybe you can tell me which page it is on. Regardless, let's assume there IS higher concentrations of Aluminum blowing in dust then there is in soil. That doesn't mean that the Aluminum in the pond came from dust. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Being that the pond in question is,"...located on a filtered, forested mountaintop, miles and miles and miles away from any industry, highway and so forth" it probably doesn't get a lot of exposure to the dust of which you speak.


The 375,000 ug/L pond test is debunked by its own test report:
contrailscience.com...
(They did not test water, they tested sludge/sediment)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRealMrX
 

You're right. The movie does not show any soil test results. All it did was make vague allusions to high levels. Are you claiming that the movie makers did not attempt to create the impression that soil testing showed unusually high levels of aluminum? Are you saying that the alleged (no test results available) increased soil pH levels were not ascribed to the spraying of aluminum?

The Shasta snow sample. Again, no test results were provided in the movie. That's why I did not address that claim. At the time I could not find those test results. I since have been directed to them:
www.thetruthdenied.com...
That snow sample was taken in the middle of the summer of 2008.
That was a very dry and dusty summer.
www.mtshastanews.com...

Here's Shasta in July of 2008:


You can find a picture of what Shasta Ski Bowl looked like that summer (September) here:
northerncaliforniahikingtrails.com...
Someone had to look pretty hard for some snow to sample and it sure would not have been very clean.

I don't know why you couldn't find the table I reference. The link directs you to it, but it is on page 162.



Along the way, a filmmaker may write something or say something incorrect. Anybody who says they have never been wrong is full of it.

So there is an implied disclaimer? "The makers of this film are not responsible for its content."

The movie is available online. I sat through it though I'll admit my eyes glazed over due to being subjected to such garbage being presented as scientific evidence. Perhaps the disclaimer should include, "For entertainment purposes only."

edit on 5/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
49
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join