EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

reply to post by weedwhacker

What comes out of the "chem"-trail pushers mouths and keyboards are utter fantasies....future science fiction. This is from people who sit, and they have their own "brain storm sessions"....but, they do not take into account the physics, and restrictions that the actual current technology imposes. Because, they are abjectly ignorant of such details. And, that is a prime definition of science fiction....because, it is "scientific"....and it is theoretically possible, certainly....just as future interstellar human star travel is theoretically possible, some day....BUT, the actual technology to achieve, as imagined, is still a bit out of our reach.

Probably the silliest paragraph you've ever written..
What's "science fiction" about spraying compounds in the air.??
Forgetting whether they are doing it or not, please explain that rant which basically say it's currently impossible due to technology...

IMO it's MORE than possible with current tech which is simply a plane equipped with spraying apparatus.

Hard to hide from the public and expensive YES, but science fiction???

reply to post by Phage

What? Where did I say "he wouldn't debate"? I never tried to engage with a debate with him. Once again, I asked him some questions. Asking questions is not a debate. It may lead to a debate but it is not a debate.

Again - your play with words astounds even the most humble viewer.

Originally posted by Phage
If you have been reading the thread you would know that the doctor did not come here to debate. He came here to answer questions.

Your arguments baffle me. You twist even the slightest meanings of words. Sure, you didn't say specifically that "he wouldn't debate," but implied that "the doctor did not come here to debate. He came here to answer questions."
I don't have to logically rip the structure of the words you typed to show people exactly what you meant, it's only a few posts back and quoted above... in plain sight.
Have you stooped to this level these days? You used to be better then this... you used to make everyone feel as if they were living in some altered state that conformed to your reality... but these days... nah. I can see through the twists and turns of your chess games as if you are not even trying to play anymore.

I did not ask him for evidence. I asked him for comments on evidence contrary to what he stated. It is not I who is twisting things here.

Logic is against you my friend. You "didn't ask him for evidence" but yet you claim " I asked him for comments on evidence contrary to what he stated."
Isn't that... um, asking for evidence? Isn't that twisting things?
Also - note that you did not answer any of my questions that I asked you: Pot calling the kettle black about the doctor not answering yours? Seems so. The questions I asked you were on topic because they pertain to your knowledge of the issue of chemtrails. You simply ignore the questions and continue on - twisting the conversation to the way you want it to conform...

He asked for alternative sources for the aluminum in the snow sample. I offered one.

It was not I who started bringing extraneous information to the thread. It was not I who introduced information about high sulfur fuels and the hypothetical spraying of H2SO4 to the thread. It was not I who brought information about computer simulations of radar propagation to the thread. It was not I who brought chaff (yes, it does have to do with aluminum) to the thread. It was not I accusing anyone of "disinformation". It is not I who is twisting things.

It is not I who made other members the topic of discussion.

But yet - you contributed to the equation. You can not remove yourself from the equation if you are part of it. You seem to point the finger in the other direction. You don't have the answers, but yet pretend to with a montage of scientific illusion. Sure, I can wave my magic wand all over google and find the answers that best suit my cause... you pretend to be knowledgeable of many different aspects, chemtrials, UFOs ect but present no credentials that raise you to that level of "awareness."

It is not I who is twisting things.
What? Where did I say "he wouldn't debate"?

Interesting logic.

It was not I accusing anyone of "disinformation".

Wouldn’t negating peoples information about a specific topic which is either true or false be attesting that their information is "dis" informative? Dis is a negative prefix - so, it is the counter to the actual prefix of the word. So, if I say something is information, the counter to that is disinformation. You have countered the information on this thread countless times - thus inciting the usage of the word in your actions of typed letters on the screens for all to see. So, in essence - you are accusing all the people you disagree with, you just don't point it out as plainly as others do.

Your circular tactics of picking and choosing what to address and what to answer are starting to fail - time to rethink your strategy.

Again, I ask that you supply your own research and diagrams to this thread to prove the doctor and the people who support the notion of chemtrails existing to be proven wrong. I also ask that you supply validated credentials that you are indeed part of a research aspect of this topic.

reply to post by kroms33

I have supplied my research. It was that which I asked Dr. Thyme to comment on.

In your opinion, do the soils tests shown in the movie demonstrate unusually high levels of aluminum? If so could you comment on this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I made no attempt to "prove" the doctor wrong. I didn't get a chance to do so.

"Disinformation" has a specific meaning on ATS.

I have provided links to my sources. If you wish to refute my sources or my interpretation of the data you are free to do so. So far no one has made such an attempt. All they do is accuse me of "twisting" something and bring up irrelevancies. If you disagree with what I say in the above linked post, please post your disagreement and the reasoning (and hopefully evidence) behind it. That is what I asked the Doctor to do.

My credentials are irrelevant. What matters is the evidence brought forth. If you have issue with that, please discuss it. If you wish to discuss me further, I'm finished.

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage

15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.

Hmm, odd isn't it?
I've been asked many times what my credentials/experience is..
Those posts don't seem to get acted on so that part of T&C seems to be ignored..

I guess it's peoples perception that you are an expert on everything when in fact no one knows what or who any of us are unless we freely post that information like the good Doctor did..

The fact is, unless otherwise proven, everyone's opinion carries equal weight and should be treated as such..

reply to post by Phage

I have supplied my research. It was that which I asked Dr. Thyme to comment on.

Seeing how you are so big on "precise speech" as you pointed out to me,
is it really "your" research that you supplied ?

I highly doubt you wrote a book in 1920....

reply to post by backinblack

Yes. I researched historical information on soil chemistry. Finding Soil Science was a result of that research.

S: (n) research (systematic investigation to establish facts)

# S: (v) research, search, explore (inquire into) "the students had to research the history of the Second World War for their history project"; "He searched for information on his relatives on the web"; "Scientists are exploring the nature of consciousness"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

reply to post by Phage

Yes. I researched historical information on soil chemistry. Finding Soil Science was a result of that research.

So the best researchers are those with good Google and copy/paste skills..
Gotcha.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage

 

Yes. I researched historical information on soil chemistry. Finding Soil Science was a result of that research.

So the best researchers are those with good Google and copy/paste skills..
Gotcha.

I did not copy/paste anything from the book. I used the historical soil testing data to compare to the soil testing data from the movie. I applied my research to the topic.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yes. I researched historical information on soil chemistry. Finding Soil Science was a result of that research.

S: (n) research (systematic investigation to establish facts)

# S: (v) research, search, explore (inquire into) "the students had to research the history of the Second World War for their history project"; "He searched for information on his relatives on the web"; "Scientists are exploring the nature of consciousness"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

edit on 3/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Nah, you can't get away with that..Twisting words again..
You said.

I have supplied my research.

my (mī)
possessive pronominal adjective
of, belonging to, made by, or done by me:

www.yourdictionary.com...

So, did YOU supply research done by YOU as you clearly state,

YOUR research was merely the act of searching for someone elses research which YOU then presented..

reply to post by backinblack

Are you sure you want to start doing this again?

What do students do when they go to the library to work on an essay? They conduct research.
What do lawyers do when they look for legal precedents? They conduct research.
What do scientist do when they look for prior research to back up their theories? They conduct research into work by other scientists.

reply to post by backinblack


I agree wholeheartedly. From Science"fiction" springs forth reality. It has ALREADY happened,in myriads of technological breakthroughs. Bioengineering,Geoengineering,etc............

To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken. Some limited tree planting[5] and cool roof[6] projects are already underway, and ocean iron fertilization is at an advanced stage of research, with small-scale research trials and global modeling having been completed.
link

I would say we are on the cusp of it.To point blank say it is a fantasy,is really thinking INSIDE the box. I have said it before,it is ignorant to think that Chemtrails couldn't happen. To blatantly cry foul,when people see things in the sky,they have no answer to,is ignorant also. It is still akin though to UFOS,Bigfoot,Loch Ness,or any other mystery,without tangible proof. Time will tell.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Are you sure you want to start doing this again?

What do students do when they go to the library to work on an essay? They conduct research.
What do lawyers do when they look for legal precedents? They conduct research.
What do scientist do when they look for prior research to back up their research? They conduct research.

edit on 3/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes all true...
But when they present it they don't try to mislead people into believing it was THEIR RESEARCH..
In fact Lawyers note past cases and GOOD researchers post where they FOUND the information..

reply to post by pianopraze


WHAT?!?!? My gawd. man!!! You keep harping on about information deconstructing....and this entire response to me was an EXACT EXAMPLE of the very "tactics" you are accusing others of, and decrying!! I just hold my forehead in amazement....but, the most amazing of all? Is this incredible "summation" at the very end! It is borderline fringe off-the-wall....and I am shocked that anyone with an ounce of reason and logic would spurt such hyperbole:

These eugenic globalists ...... They want us dead.

I mean, come on!! You should step back a bit, and take a fuller inventory of yourself....this is just the first step on the path to losing touch with reality, big time. Already the case with quite a few "chemmies".....


Anyway....I said that *you* in particular have completely utilized the very tactic you accuse others of...you broke down my post, into 10 separate "bits", and addressed them in ways that are just "out there", in many cases. The interpretations being made are just not supported by real facts.....paranoia is running rampant, here.


I called that junk film "deceptive and malformed"....because it is, to rational people. But:

[1] The documentary was an eye opener ........ things I've learned since then that fall right in the globalist agenda.....

...is right up there. With what I just wrote. It is paranoia incarnate.

You continued on the attack against Phage, which is obviously from your very odd decision to remain attached to your confirmation bias.....(and, the full Wiki entry). You are well on the way to becoming brain-washed by that crap film. Apparently, THAT was its intent!! There is an agenda behind this "chem"-trail hoax....sorry you are blind to it.

______

[2] ...... So far it has not made as compelling a case as the geoengineering case, in my mind.

....Because you continue to remain in the fantasy of belief. The reality refutes any such activities. You should consider doing more research, to see why. I (and others) have provided the info....you really do not fully comprehend the incredible technical obstacles that have to be surmounted.


______

[4] I have shown one source of aluminum on Mt. Shasta... This is not geoengineering, no, it is military.

No, it was wind-blown dust. Mother Nature can provide FAR, FAR more material and deliver it in that manner, than any meager release of chaff by a few military flights. (I presume you were referring to the chaff material, in the claim of "military" source for the "aluminum"? I've seen the break-down on the chaff component molecular structure. You are incredibly wrong....it doesn't present sufficient quantities to even come close).

AND, RE: Mt. Shasta : We saw Dr. Thyme himself write in this thread that the snow samples "came from the top of " Mt. Shasta!!! "the top"!!?? DO you see, yet, how the exaggerations, and hyperbole are ever-muddying and spreading DIS-info in the "geoengineering debate"??

______
As to my statement that any geoengineering studies underway doesn't equate to actual, physical implementation:

[5] You are correct. It does not mean they are not either.

Aaaack!! Yes, it does!

..... But these studies have shown it is cheap to do....

Huh? Your definition of "cheap" beggars belief...

... and the technology is already in use....

What??! Oh, no.....we aren't confusing "cloud seeding" again, are we??

______
In trying to emphasize to you the technical hurdles, I mentioned the "implausibility":

[7] I have not seen this evidence presented, feel free to do so.....

It is scattered about, in the many, many threads on "chem"-trails here at ATS....just read any number of my posts. I could link them to here...but would clutter up an already messy thread, and frankly...I want to wrap up this post!!

Related to the above, this is a gross misconception:

[8] The geoengineers have done these studies and all the technology is available.

NO.....you surely have been reading the same "studies"?? The jury is out...there is yet to be any consensus on methodology. Back to the technical hurdles.....on the scale imagined (by you, and others) it would require at least as many jets as currently flying....and those currently cannot be re-tasked, away from passenger and cargo commercial transport, without a HUGE number of people noticing!! (..as their holiday plans, and business trips unexpectedly get cancelled!!).

So, the other "choice" is to manufacture a large number of NEW jets....there just isn't the amount of hardware currently in existence, to achieve these literally "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. Besides the hardware....where is the MANPOWER??! See, here's yet another example of the lack of comprehension about what it involves, in flying. These factors are ignored, glossed over, by the "true believers", like yourself (at this point). Try to see the reality, here. It isn't matching up with the fantastic claims.....


______
My "challenge" about the ground operations that would be necessary, in order to support such a (non-existent) fleet of airplanes (airplanes, just for example):

[9] I don't know. That's how black projects work.

More fantastical hand-waving? The off-hand use of "black projects" again shows a lack of understanding about the nature of such things. They remain "black" (secret) be being SMALL in scope!! Manageable. Something like a geoengineering project?? HUGE in scope.

______

[10] .... I am just beginning......

That's why it is so easy for the snake-oil salesmen, and that film is a prime example....to use their deceptive tactics, and appear to be "putting pieces together". They are very, very clever at it...whether they are also self-delude, or intentionally deceptive (or a little of both...).

So far my reason tells me there is smoke here, we need to put it out before it becomes a fire that kills millions of people.

What? Normal amounts of some base metals discovered in soil samples?? You call that "smoke"? I call it "Chicken Little"....

reply to post by backinblack

So you are accusing me of plagiarism?
Please provide evidence.

reply to post by sonnny1

I would say we are on the cusp of it.To point blank say it is a fantasy,is really thinking INSIDE the box. I have said it before,it is ignorant to think that Chemtrails couldn't happen. To blatantly cry foul,when people see things in the sky,they have no answer to,is ignorant also. It is still akin though to UFOS,Bigfoot,Loch Ness,or any other mystery,without tangible proof. Time will tell.

Yes well crop dusters and other aerial spraying applications clearly show us the technology is already there..
Heck, it's not even that difficult..

It's just the scale and hidden aspects that are in question..
Not as Weedwhacker says, the ability to do it...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

So you are accusing me of plagiarism?
Please provide evidence.

No, I'm accusing you of misleading whether that is accidental or not..
Many believe you are an expert in everything and incorrect statements such as that one can only lead to that assumption if not corrected..
I've seen you state you are NOT a soil expert yet that's not how you come across..

reply to post by backinblack


I provide the source for crying out loud. So people could see it for themselves. I said it came from a book published in 1920.

You call that misleading?

Originally posted by Phage
I did not copy/paste anything from the book. I used the historical soil testing data to compare to the soil testing data from the movie. I applied my research to the topic.

edit on 3/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage researched and found a very interesting book. Let's stop playing such semantics. This is one of the valid things he has presented.

What it does not do is explain what is causing the soil to go from 5.5 to nearly 7 in five years all across the region. The movie suggests it is the spraying of Aluminum Barium and Strontium. Dr. Thyme says on the movie that this could raise the pH and explained how on ATS, but he does not know conclusively that this is what is raising the pH. He only addresses the samples presented him. Weed has suggested vulcanism which is a good idea but there has been none in the last five years there.

So far no one has a theory as to why the pH changed other than spraying which has not conclusively been proven (other than chaff), there is only anecdotal evidence.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, you live in a fantasy world, not us..

Back to the technical hurdles.

Please detail the TECHNICAL hurdles you constantly rattle on about..

I see Logistical and Economical hurdles but ZERO technical hurdles..

Please enlighten us.....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

I provide the source for crying out loud. So people could see it for themselves. I said it came from a book published in 1920.

You call that misleading?

No, I found this misleading...

I have supplied my research.

Odd, I've seen you argue semantics often..
Usually you win and stay calm...
Seems when you lose you don't...