Are They Spraying Anything?

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.

reply to post by TheRealMrX

The sample was probably taken under these conditions IN ORDER TO show an alarmingly high level of contamination.

You're probably right about that. Why else take a sample of old, dirty snow? Dirt which contains aluminum. But dirt also contains things like silicon and iron. Why were those not tested for? I'll tell you why. Because if they were they would have shown that the snow was contaminated with dirt. That doesn't fit in with the "chemtrail" line, does it?

reply to post by Phage

You're back at it again, huh? Why don't you write about how I thoroughly destroyed your original thread when I exposed the fact that you were writing about things that NEVER APPEARED IN THE MOVIE. Now, I guess I'm supposed to go through your garbage and put it down the chute again where it belongs... O.K., no problem. You are doing the same thing again. You are completely misrepresenting what is in the movie. I didn't say that the movie does not show any test results. It does. You really should watch it. I'm not even going to write about what test results are in the movie in an attempt to get you to watch it. You are discredited. Get out of the way!

Phage WOW :-)

Originally posted by CapnCaveman
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 and pot growers.

S+F Great thread, looking for more recent samples 4 myself, not read all but like above, it really does to me look different in the skies than it used to, the phoney science samples you point out though soo true and thanks.


Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by TheRealMrX


"movie"?

You mean that idiotic piece of detritus and garbage, "What In the World Are They Spraying"? THAT "movie"??

What, are you Michael J. Murphy, or something? Seems only a maker or principle behind the making of that ridiculous mess would be so defensive over it......

reply to post by weedwhacker

Are you afraid to debate the issues? All I have seen from you is baseless attacks. I think we have a name for what you are. It is a 5 letter word that starts with T. You often find them under bridges. Do some homework and bring some real issues to the table. BTW, thanks for allowing me to gracefully get more points. I'm about to drop a 2000 lb. bunker busting bomb ON YOUR HEAD.

reply to post by TheRealMrX

Back at it again? No, not again...still.

I'm misrepresenting what was in the movie? You mean they don't claim there are unusually high levels of aluminum in the soil? Or are there soil test results other than those released? If that's the case I would be interested in seeing them. Why wouldn't they release those instead of the ones which show nothing out of the ordinary?

Or is it only the snow and sludge tests which matter? Does the sprayed aluminum somehow not reach the soil? Is it targeted on snow, ponds, and mud puddles? Oh, but what about the claim that aluminum was causing the increased soil pH? Where's that aluminum?

reply to post by TheRealMrX


You're *new* here. Pretty ill-informed, too......

All I have seen from you is baseless attacks.

And, your posts have been nothing but deflection and attacks against Phage

. Do some homework and bring some real issues to the table.

I'm afraid I've been at this MUCH longer than you....with far, far more experience, knowledge and understanding than you have exhibited, so far..... I have REAL world, practical hands-on experience....unlike the majority of the clueless, hoax-pushing con artist keyboard warriors....

I think we have a name for what you are. It is a 5 letter word that starts with T.

Took the words right out of my head.....

reply to post by Phage

Do you read at all? Or just write? I suggest you refer to my first post on this thread where I exposed the fact that you are writing about data THAT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. You write about soil samples taken in Brookings, OR and one from underneath Mr. Mangel's home which you say were,"used in the movie" when these samples are never mentioned anywhere therein. You are presenting tests associated with the production of the movie and trying to pass them off as something that was,"in the movie." You also write about Mt. Shasta test results of 368 micrograms per liter WHICH WERE NEVER IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. You just set me up so well.

reply to post by TheRealMrX

So then. The movie does not claim that samples show high levels of aluminum in the soil.
I'm glad we settled that.

reply to post by weedwhacker

If you haven't figured it out already. You are dealing with a HARD CORE Infowarrior. You better start running because I have the most powerful force in the universe on my side. It's called the Human spirit and there could never be anything more powerful created in a lab. My finger's on the trigger. Just ONE... MORE... MOVE...

reply to post by TheRealMrX

"Chemtrails" are a paranoid fantasy.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TheRealMrX

Besides being a paranoid fantasy they are a cash cow for those who promote the myth.

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

If you haven't figured it out already. You are dealing with a HARD CORE Infowarrior. You better start running because I have the most powerful force in the universe on my side. It's called the Human spirit and there could never be anything more powerful created in a lab. My finger's on the trigger. Just ONE... MORE... MOVE...

Does that human spirit of yours come armed with verifiable facts and evidence and whatnot? Or just lots of emotion?

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

If you haven't figured it out already. You are dealing with a HARD CORE Infowarrior. You better start running because I have the most powerful force in the universe on my side. It's called the Human spirit and there could never be anything more powerful created in a lab. My finger's on the trigger. Just ONE... MORE... MOVE...

Yep - and it's out here determined to stop this stupid chemtrail hoax - we're performing a public service stopping people from suffering un-needed paranoia (yes there is needed paranoia!!), stress and anxiety bought on by scam artists, snake-oil salesmen and nut-jobs!

reply to post by Phage

I'm still waiting for somebody (except myself) to address the issue that this OP contains BLATANTLY FALSE INFORMATION which I have outlined in previous postings. Are we afraid to discuss real issues here?

Originally posted by TheRealMrX
reply to post by Phage

 

I'm still waiting for somebody (except myself) to address the issue that this OP contains BLATANTLY FALSE INFORMATION which I have outlined in previous postings. Are we afraid to discuss real issues here?

Phage linked to a file of test results that were used in the movie. Not all the test results in that file were actually used as numbers by the movie, but they were similar to ones that were, and performed by the same people, for the same reason, and they were referenced by the movie - Mangels for example says he tested for aluminum and found high levels.

ihost.nu...

If you would like to restrict your science to only those tests that had numbers quoted in the film, then that's fine by me, as those were the most incredibly inaccurate of the bunch. Basically testing dirt, and passing it off as water.

Do you actually think the WITWATS tests show anything unusual?

reply to post by Uncinus

Now you are openly defending the OP. Thank you for the opportunity. I understand what Phage is referencing. The problem with this OP is that Phage asserts that soil sample data taken from underneath Mr. Mangels' house AND soil sample data from Brookings, OR were "used in the movie" when this is not so. He goes on and on about how presented samples are questionable, but these samples he writes about were NEVER USED IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. I wish one of you guys would go back and check on this information. It is verifiable. Phage also erroneously asserts that "in the movie" test results from a snow sample taken on Mt. Shasta showed Aluminum at 368 micrograms per liter. This is not true. The filmmakers didn't mention these test results anywhere in the movie. In the movie, Mr. Mangels and Mr. Murphy talk about test results showing 61,100 micrograms per liter. I look forward to your reply.