It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


G Edward Griffin - help me prove chemtails exist

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by wcitizen

I think you are missing the point. Griffin is not trying to convince government shills. He's trying to convince regular folk.

Hence gathering evidence would be a good idea. No? So why don't you do it? Why does nobody do it?

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:53 PM
Star and flag for being open minded and fair to all parties involved. I like the idea of both sides using technology to figure out a mystery, rather than just arguing back and forth with each other. I'll see how this thing works.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:07 PM

Originally posted by SaberTruth
So Gaul has accused the people proposing the study of intent to deceive,

no I haven't.

Again you can't actually read properly.

I said I think believers will fudge the evidence - I didnt' say anything about the proposer doing so.

and me for quoting him with intent to deceive.

Which was completely true.

You can't-- and I won't try anymore-- reason with people like that.

you might not be able to - but anyone else can do so by simply not quoting out of context to decieve. It's not difficult for most people!

you also wrote:

The fact remains that Gaul poisoned the well by proclaiming in advance that any evidence showing chemtrail theory to be factual must be due to deliberate, premeditated falsification. No matter what the study may find, Gaul has already written it off as a fabrication; he did NOT say it would be merely "mistaken".

no I didn't - I do beleive people like Sabre would take the opportunity to send in false evidence to deliberately skew the results.

But I also said I could be mistaken, and that it would be possible to PROVE that he evidence was not falsified and that if that was done then I would have to accept the results.

He's just looking for an excuse to not do this - like this other post.....

The problem is not getting evidence, it's getting debunkers to define what they'd even accept as evidence.

more excuses to not do anything!

No - us defining the evidence is trivial - we've done so many times here on this board - and it would take very little actual verifiable evidence - fuel samples for example, if there's something in fuel - go down to your local FBO and buy some fuel and see what is in it! Photos of identifiable jets with extraneous equipment fitted that is used for spraying.........aircraft operating or maintenance or parts manuals or modification instructions or other documents showing whatever-it-is-they-show-that-is-used-for-chemtrails.

what would be difficult to prove is photos or videos of unidentifiable jets when they should be identifiable.......that one I will admit would be harder, because it would might be difficult to prove the time and location with any certainty, and it is also difficult, IMO, to show that a jet is really unidentified when it shold be identifiable from underneath when it is at 30+ thousand feet, simply because a lot of airlines have unmarked undersurfaces.

But there is certainly no shortage of possible evidence that is verifiable and should be able to be found somewhere in the real world.

this and similar has been said time and time again - you aer just anothe chemmie who doesnt' ant to know because if yuo do then you have no excuse to not go and actually find it!

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:46 PM
Its about time we have a site that is taking names, places and dates for evidence-the shills will love this one!!
I sent e-mail offering my help when i seen it at and

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:47 PM

What was I expecting?


...when I started this thread?

Actually I expected chemmies to be more-or-less happy that someone was going to the effort to actually try to gather some verifiable evidence!! boy did I get that wrong!!

Obviously I don't think Griffiths' programme will work - I am convinced there are dishonest chemtrail "believers" out there who will happily manufacture evidence - we have at least 1 case of that here on ATS this year, and the same guy stated that he didn't care whether a photo he posted as evidence was "real or not"!

however I must confess to being surprised by the tack that since I think any study is going to be flawed therefore there's no point in doing one - I didnt' realisse my opinion was so important to chemmies!!

However as I've stated a couple of times in the thread, I also, now, believe that the people who have posted to that effect on here are just looking for an excuse to not get real evidence. Perhaps they are lazy and don't want to go to the effort, or perhaps they "know" that the theory is gibberish and don't want to be part of causing its downfall. I don't kow the exact reasons although I think the latter is probably more likely.

For me this response is more evidence of the bankruptcy of the whole chemtrail "movement" - rather than face the truth the proponents in this thread would rather perpetuate ignorance and blame their lack of action on anything and anyone else.

so all in all the response to this thread has solidified and deepened my low opinion of those propounding the chemtrail hoax.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:50 PM
Alright, since you're still calling me a liar, one last comment.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You are omitting something that is relevant and shows you to be wrong - it's simple really - your original post is only a partial quote and you refused to acknowledge that part of my post which shows it to be a lie.

Remember this? And be sure to note when it occurred in the thread.

If this is what you believe, then claiming you'd admit to being wrong is a mere attempt to appear open-minded in spite of it.

I omitted nothing. "I'm not surprsed you refuse to acknowledge it." Neither am I surprised at the rest of your fallacies.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:02 AM
1) Omitting relevant (and verifiable) information on purpose, is a lie.
2) Omitting relevant (and verifiable) information because of unawareness, is laziness and apathy.
3) Omitting relevant (and verifiable) information, because you think it is not necessary to include it, is arrogance.

1 = devious
2 = room for growth
3 = a closed mind

4) requesting relevant (and verifiable) information = seeking the truth.

Aren't we supposed to be striving for #4 ?

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

i see you hold to double standards then after all on the many posts that we have bashed heads on you pick and choose the bits from the post you want to quote and dismiss or sidestep the rest and here you are attacking a member who happens to do the same to you.
You have an answer for every thing we may have to say apart from if it has truth to it and then you attack the source of that information.
The problem here is not that we don't have prof after all we see that it is real and to us that is enough its your side that keeps asking for prof which brings me to this quote.
All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent.
so fellow members don't be downhearted they may attack you and insult you but these are common traits found in someone who lies and knows they are lying keep posting keep pointing it out to others the amount of flags this subject gets with the same faces in thread shows you that they want this subject to die a death.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:19 AM
ok i need some help here as i'm sure that many of you here with your fingers on the pulse so to say can you answer this for me?
first quote is from a public heath assessment released July 8 2010 by EPA facility id mon00070523.
Because the concentrations of barium detected in 3 private drinking wells exceeds its mcl of 2000ppb with a max of 2230 ppb the EPA provided the residents with bottled water.
so i take from that the USA EPA limit is 2000ppb
conversion between ppb and ppm:

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm
new dutch intervention levels for barium 625ppm
new dutch intervention levels for barium corrected to UK standards 423ppm

i don't know about anyone else but the difference between what we accept and what the EPA accepts seams highly suspect in its self thats point 1.
(Ba) is found in concentrations exceeding the intervention level of the
Corrected New Dutch list in 19 samples:
R03,540ppm, or 540,000 ppb
R05,440ppm, or 440,000 ppb
R08,725ppm, or 725,000 ppb
R09,547ppm, or 547,000 ppb
R11,427ppm, or 427,000 ppb
R12,505ppm, or 505,000 ppb
R13,2004ppm, or 2,004,000 ppb
R15,493ppm, or 493,000 ppb
R17,444ppm, or 444,000 ppb
R19,691ppm, or 691,000 ppb
R20,660ppm, or 660,000 ppb
R21,647ppm, or 647,000 ppb
R22,605ppm, or 605,000 ppb
R23,742ppm, or 742,000 ppb
R24,766ppm, or 766,000 ppb
R26,547ppm, or 547,000 ppb
R27,578ppm, or 578,000 ppb
R28,641ppm, or 641,000 ppb
R30.474ppm, or 474,000 ppb

I think that says it all those tests where done by the Royal Holloway University Laboratory
edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by djcarlosa

so what is the EPA doing about this? They will fine anyone they can find responsible. They must be looking for the source.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by network dude

you missed my point completely i only quoted that line from that report to show the difference in what is acceptable in the USA compared to here in the UK as for the cause etc i am sure that they are looking into it i can't really comment.
But what i can comment on is the fact that out of 30 samples taken here in the uk 19 where over what is the UK acceptable levels of barium and the rest where just under but all where over EPA acceptable levels is a real cause for alarm especially when you convert the ppm into ppb and then look at how high they are over what the EPA would consider safe levels.
edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by djcarlosa

no I got the point. It looks like most of the samples are just over the limit. But there is no need to translate them into parts per billion. If they are over the limit, then an investigation needs to be done to determine the source. Since your information didn't give a specific location, I guess the local group will do the investigation. It would be nice to hear the outcome. My post has to do with that aspect of it. Seeing the outcome. I sincerely doubt that the barium is coming from aircraft, but if a study finds that, then I will have to accept it. If the study finds that it came from a local factory, I will have to accept that as well.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by network dude

i agree that this in its self is not prof and like you i will be looking into what the outcome is and if they can find a cause what i can tell you is the soil samples where taken from a residential area. The site investigated covers a surface of 19 hectares and is located in Ashford,
Middlesex. It is situated to the north of the river Thames
The problem i am facing more often than not is when i search for results from soil testing the error 404 comes up more often than not which is really infuriating i my self am taking soil samples around the area where i live which i will be sending of for testing when i get the results back i will update you. i am lucky as in the area in which i live is free from factory units or major industry so the chance of them being the source is greatly reduced if i can find the actions taken or if they found the source of the barium i will let you know the other thing i would like to add is i was looking for barium but the high levels of other metals like lead and arsenic [lead especially] found in these samples are also very worrying.
after compiling data Ba has high correlation with Cr and Ni with Cu. Also Zn and Pb have a high
correlation with each other. These could indicate that the source for them could be
the same.
edit on 27-5-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by djcarlosa

Do you have the location of these wells? It's very important if you want to understand the results of the test. A list of numbers is meaningless without a location, because there is a lot of information that needs to be gathered before interpreting the results for origin.
Where does the water in the drinking wells come from? Deep wells and artesian springs? How long have the wells been there?
What is the mineral content of the watershed of the wells? If there is mining, industry, agricultural, construction....all contribute to any contamination of anything at or near ground level and below-ground level.
What is the percolation rate of the watershed? You need to know how long it takes for water to get from the source into the well. Depending on the strata involved, it could be fast, or very, very slow. Also, a layer of barium-rich rock in the water shed would contribute barium. Here's a quote about the Pocatello (Idaho) aquifer:

Average residence time (time spent) in aquifer by a water molecule: about 40 years

Most states (at least every state I've ever taken the chance of researching ) has both a state geologist and a state hydrologist. That would be the place to start if we knew the location of the wells involved.
It's important.
Because, if the water is 25 years old? It's not from "chemtrails".

Edit to add info: I see from a post above it's from GB. You should have both offices with pertinent information there, too. Don't look for soil, look for geology and water. The layers of the earth below the soil can act as a very efficient filters.
edit on 27-5-2011 by stars15k because: additional info.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by stars15k

the point i will make first is that as for the reason behind the levels in the EPA report i will say i don't know but as i posted before i used it to show what the EPA consider a unacceptable level and then compared it to what we consider to be a unacceptable level.the point here is that these levels are way over what the EPA safe levels can you not see why it is of great concern lead was even more frightening in that report.but the reason i posted it here is that i have been told many times show me results from soil/water samples that show barium is above the safe levels this s what i have done

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:37 AM
Barium in well water almost certainly comes from natural sources - i.e. rock.

The presence of barium in sea water, river water, and
well-water has been documented, and it is also found in
sediments and natural waters in contact with sedimentary
rocks. Barium is present in almost all surface waters at
concentrations up to 15,000 µg/litre and contributes to
the hardness of the water. The barium concentration in
wells depends on the content of leachable barium in rocks.

Drinking-water contains 10-1000 µg/litre, although water
in certain regions of the USA has been shown to have con-
centrations in excess of 10,000 µg/litre. Municipal water
supplies depend upon the quality of surface and ground
water and, depending on the hardness, contain a wide range
of barium concentration. Studies from USA show levels in
drinking-water ranging from 1-20 µg/litre. Based on this
information and assuming a consumption rate of 2 litres
per day, the daily intake would be 2-40 µg barium.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by djcarlosa
first quote is from a public heath assessment released July 8 2010 by EPA facility id mon00070523.
Because the concentrations of barium detected in 3 private drinking wells exceeds its mcl of 2000ppb with a max of 2230 ppb the EPA provided the residents with bottled water.
so i take from that the USA EPA limit is 2000ppb
conversion between ppb and ppm:

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm
new dutch intervention levels for barium 625ppm
new dutch intervention levels for barium corrected to UK standards 423ppm

The dutch intervention level of 625ppm is for soil, they have a limit of 625ppb for water. The EPA limit of 2000ppb is for water. Soil levels and water levels different things (and something that is frequently conflated). The test results you list are also for soil, and just look like normal variation.

Barium is ubiquitous in soils, being found at concen-
trations ranging from 100-3000 µg/g (Schroeder, 1970;
Robinson et al., 1950). Brooks (1978) estimated an average
soil concentration of 500 mg/kg. Due to its abundance in
soils, barium may be present in the air in areas with high
natural dust levels.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:51 AM
This could be a good thing, as people who do the homework may ultimately realize that what they thought were "chemtrails" are simply contrails from routine flights

When Griffin got on the chemtrail kick he declared chemtrails were real because he'd been looking at planes all his life. I feel sorry for anyone who believes things for bad reasons.

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by Uncinus

what the levels are set for being safe is not an issue here the fact that 19 out of 30 soil samples exceed that level is a valid point and shows that there are soil samples showing unusually high amounts of barium can you contest that point?

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by SaberTruth

Why attack the Op? He has every reason to doubt any 'findings' from the chemtrailer camp. Thus far there has been no acceptable scientific proof provided, which contradicts the thousands of claims of smoking guns and impeachable 'truths'... when in fact, there never were any. If there were, you wouldn't see this kind of statement from chemtrail mascots like Griffin.

Your anger is misplaced... and very telling. Were circumstances as chemtrailers claimed, you would not be resorting to deflection tactics and ad-homonyms. You might as well just raise a white flag man, because you already display the hallmarks of a defeated person with a baseless argument.


top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in