This Forum Should Be Closed Down !

For any one who is interested.

Chemtrails Explained by Insider A. C. Griffith

zedek.us...

“Project Cloverleaf”

Dont feed the trolls... they will just come back over and over for more... bye trolls.. I'm out.....

I'm out too. When they give us a thesis on why old photos can't be trusted for color fidelity, then demand we scan and upload them because otherwise we're just unable to produce evidence, it's a fool's errand.

Debunkers? perhaps they should be put in the same category as the 'Flat Earthers' = More to be pitied than scolded....oh dear there's a conundrum.

reply to post by SaberTruth


I never suggested you scan them. I agree that it will do no good. It is an effort in futility, I'm sorry that it took us this long to realize that we are agreeing.

reply to post by chiptrim


Except for the fact that flat-earthers derived their opinion based on their own observations rather that delving into the scientific realities of a situation. Almost exactly as those who support chemtrails-- all observational data. All "scientific" proof being misinterpretations of photos or videos or data that was not understood.

Originally posted by auraelium
dirt is 7% alluminium?` pretty broad statement. Dirt from where? your saying all soil has 7% alluminium? i think you need to go check that out.

See:
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

Aluminum is the most abundant metal and the third most abundant element in the earth’s crust, comprising about 8.8% by weight (88 g/kg). It is never found free in nature and is found in most rocks, particularly igneous rocks as aluminosilicate minerals (Lide 2005; Staley and Haupin 1992). Aluminum is also present in air, water, and many foods. Aluminum enters environmental media naturally through the weathering of rocks and minerals.

So 7% is a low estimate, but a good conservative figure.

So snow would have dirt in it.... Yes it should have minute particles of dust and possibly some particles of alluminium. 1200 times above normal no.. im afraid not.

The Shasta test reports 61mg/L, So if the sample were 100ml, then you would need 6.1mg of aluminum to get that level of contamination. That's 0.0061 grams of aluminum, or at 7%, about 0.08 grams of dirt.

You argument is that there should be trace amounts of alluminium in mountain snow. but your still not explaining why these samples are 1200 times above normal.

See above.

Here's the lab report again.
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by ProRipp

I live in the Poconos/Lehigh Valley Pennsylvania and I have never seen all the contrails that people talk about. Ever since first coming here and reading about them I have made a point to observe the sky each clear sunny day and other than the occasional "real" plane contrail.... I have never personally observed what I keep reading about. Where are the majority you those reporting them, seeing them???

Originally posted by SaberTruth
I never said your info was wrong. The point, one more time, is why the continued demands that I produce photos when they are already to be rejected. Why ask for photos when you know they won't prove anything to you? That's my point. I've said it every whichway I can think of.

edit on 13-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: typos

Photos were brought up by a chemtrail believer as evidence. Perfectly valid reasons were given why the sky would look overly blue in many old photos. Examples were given of high quality old photos where the sky looks just the same color as in modern digital photos. This all seems very reasonable.

If you have evidence then produce it. This running and hiding just makes it look like you don't really have evidence.

Why would it matter to you if a "debunker" were to reject your evidence? Surely you are trying to convince impartial observers?

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Illustronic

 

I thought myself i'd provided some pretty decent satellite imagery
to show how its done ?
If you'd care to go back some and take a look ?

Peace

Tell me how and where on the aircraft do they carry enough chemicals to disperse hundreds of miles. Have you ever seen the Boeing 747 forest fire fighter empty it's huge load in less than 10 seconds? There aren't many jets up their with larger capacities than a good 'ol 747.

Originally posted by UncinusPhotos were brought up by a chemtrail believer as evidence. Perfectly valid reasons were given why the sky would look overly blue in many old photos. Examples were given of high quality old photos where the sky looks just the same color as in modern digital photos. This all seems very reasonable.

If you have evidence then produce it. This running and hiding just makes it look like you don't really have evidence.

Why would it matter to you if a "debunker" were to reject your evidence? Surely you are trying to convince impartial observers?

What evidence would you ever accept, when old photos are going to be rejected no matter what? I told you, over and over, that I REMEMBER the vivid colors, and gosh golly, when I first got the film developed way back when I was not surprised that the photo matched what I saw, and what I remember is not anything like the murky skies we have now. You have made it clear that any and every photo I'd go to the trouble of scanning and uploading will be rejected as proof of the color of the sky in the 70s, but you still want me to waste my time. Ain't gonna play such a stupid game. Buh-bye.

Originally posted by auraelium
For any one who is interested.

Chemtrails Explained by Insider A. C. Griffith

zedek.us...

“Project Cloverleaf”

edit on 13-5-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

"Project Cloverleaf" is a term invented by Will Thomas, who started the "chemtrails" to make money from books and videos. There is ZERO proof of anything with that name.

Originally posted by auraelium
For any one who is interested.

Chemtrails Explained by Insider A. C. Griffith

zedek.us...

“Project Cloverleaf”

edit on 13-5-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

"Project Cloverleaf" is a term invented by Will Thomas, who started the "chemtrails" to make money from books and videos. There is ZERO proof of anything with that name.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
What evidence would you ever accept, when old photos are going to be rejected no matter what? I told you, over and over, that I REMEMBER the vivid colors, and gosh golly, when I first got the film developed way back when I was not surprised that the photo matched what I saw, and what I remember is not anything like the murky skies we have now. You have made it clear that any and every photo I'd go to the trouble of scanning and uploading will be rejected as proof of the color of the sky in the 70s, but you still want me to waste my time. Ain't gonna play such a stupid game. Buh-bye.

I asked why you would not produced evidence that would convince what you consider to be an impartial observer? Don't you want people to believe your theory? Why hide your evidence from those as yet unaware of chemtrails?

Originally posted by Lost in america
reply to post by v0ice0freas0n

 

You have a belief , and I have mine.. I would love to look stupid if this is proven wrong, cause there is no poisons.... BUT... how will you feel if we are right....

This is a response to unsinus...sorry voice clicked wrong reply....

edit on 13-5-2011 by Lost in america because: (no reason given)

I would personally feel just fine, like I have for nearly a decade of never getting sick enough to actually miss work. Ah yes I have taken a few sick days over the years, but that was due largely because I wanted a free day, and the little know fact to me that (until this economy stared crashing and our company started slashing our benefits) we were afforded 1,000 hours a year of sick time off, (thats essentially half of the entire year).

If I'm not getting sick, what difference does the chem trails make? You can clearly see by my profile I'm in a populated area with a commercial International airport, and two military airports nearby, one huge one just down I-70 and many within a 150-mile radius. If they are up there I should be right smack in the middle of them never getting sick!

Originally posted by auraelium
You argument is that there should be trace amounts of alluminium in mountain snow. but your still not explaining why these samples are 1200 times above normal.

Here's a satellite photo of the region from the date the samples were taken:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c5e4a396b4c.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by ProRipp


But isn't that the way it is about everything, especially on the Net? We live in such an age of ignorance that so many people will stand in the sun and tell you it isn't shining. Whatever your position, take it, argue it, substantiate it as best you can and keep on truckin'. Hell, people have been executed for taking positions that the majority attacked relentlessly only to find out later that the majority was full of it.

But to close something down for that reason would pretty much shut down the Internet.

The last thing is to close down a forum like this. It is one forum that deals with a conspiracy theory, a published scenario/s that would include the use of exactly what the conspiracy theory is about "If necessary" and the popular science of what has now become 'Climate change' and you can add to that the problematic theorised source of some chemtrails, the exhaust itself. It doesn't take long then to discover that there are those who seek to ridicule anything that a serious poster might have to say on the subject, and any tactic will suffice, from the sublime to the ridiculous. As long as you then know who they are, carry on regardless....wait for it!

reply to post by awareness10



TOTALLY untrue:

....Strontium Barium Niobate -- this has been proven to be found in Chemtrails...

"proven"??

NO.....you have been lied to, by the same con artists that will do anything, anything at all, to keep this hoax going.

SBN matrices, used for hologram projection technologies (emerging) are a SOLID CRYSTAL MATRIX BLOCK!

Not in a widely-scattered form...as those liars would have you believe. They are very clever, they want to keep this hoax alive, because they will make money from it. Follow the money......

reply to post by SatoriTheory


I agree about solar protection, but they also contain aluminum which is not so readily excreted by the body. And Monsanto seeds are now aluminum resistant. (no, don't anyone ask me for the link, use the search feature.) It's been on ATS enough.