posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by Uncinus
Yes, let's talk about something that was actually IN the movie, even though the 61,100 micrograms per liter data was NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the
original thread. Must you deniers defend by association a completely disproven thread? If you want to talk about stuff that was not in the original
thread, maybe you should start a new one. You guys really have a hard on for this movie! I wonder why. Anyway, so you are saying that the Mt.
Shasta data is no good because the sample was contaminated by dust, particulate matter and concentration of snow melt. Yes, this probably did raise
the level of contaminants per liter. But by what magnitude? As noted by Mr. Mangles, the normal level of aluminum is .5 micrograms per liter. The
test results show a level 30,550 TIMES THE NORMAL AMOUNT. This may seem normal to you, but even under these conditions, I find that amount
disturbing. The sample was probably taken under these conditions IN ORDER TO show an alarmingly high level of contamination. This is probably what
we need to get people asking the tough questions.
As far as the debunking of the lined pond goes, Mr. Wigington DOES NOT STATE that the sample was of the pond water as you suggest. He says,"After
several heavy spray days, there was a film that we saw form on the surface of the water, then we tested that crust." Get your facts straight, buddy.
They are telling the truth. You should try it sometime.