How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Great, more semantic picking. Yes, thank you.

Originally posted by Phage
The samples weren't prayed over. The bottles were. The bottles did not contain the same water.

There were also other tests done, though I don't have them all off-hand. The image I posted above apparently comes from a separate study.

reply to post by bsbray11

I'm confident that the other tests had more rigorous controls. I anxiously await the articles describing them.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by bsbray11


Did you read the graphic you posted? If yes, read it again. If not, read it. Then you will see why I brought it up.

Everything that you have posted in this thread has been bunk science. Regardless of whether or not any extra variables are actually affecting the samples, they still need to be eliminated. Otherwise, the experiment is invalid.

Have a read on the scientific method and experimental design.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Great, more semantic picking.

Yes, thank you.

It changes the whole meaining of what you so IMO it's really quite important as far as "semantic picking" goes - apparently you thought you said one thing, but you actually said something completely different.

I am puzzled why you would want to do that.

reply to post by adeclerk


If you are dissatisfied with all of it just because he put the two control bottles into a cardboard box, instead of the EM-shield room, then fine. You can call it "junk science" based on that. At best that makes his paper inconclusive.


Stanford's Dr. Bill Tiller comes at the same issue from another angle, and you can find some introductory information to his work here: tillerfoundation.com...

Information on his particular theoretical model here: tillerfoundation.com...

Psychoenergetic Science involves the expansion of traditional science to include human consciousness and human intention as capable of significantly affecting both the properties of materials (non-living and living) and what we call "physical reality." For the last four hundred years, an unstated assumption of science is that such a thing is impossible. However, our experimental research of the past decade shows that, for today's world and under the right conditions, this assumption is no longer correct. We have discovered that it is possible to make a significant change in the properties of a material substance by consciously holding a clear intention to do so. For example, we have repeatedly been able to change the acid/alkaline balance (pH) in a vessel of water either up or down, without adding chemicals to the water, merely by creating an intention to do so. While this is very exciting - even more exciting is the fact that we have been able to use a simple electronic device to "store" a specific intention within its electric circuit. This is important because this “intention programmed” device (we call it an intention-host device), can be placed next to a vessel of water at any physical location to obtain the same results we have achieved in our lab. In this way, we have had others replicate these water pH results at multiple locations around the world. Such results are consistently reproducible!

Not to be a nag but I couldn't help but to notice this entire thread has gone way off topic. The last mention of the cloud busting tech was the post which outlined that the inventor/discover of the orgone tech said that those mixing his technology with the "chemtrail" debate were inappropriate in doing so and that contrails denote a healthy environment. As soon as this was mentioned the OP managed to distract everyone with this water study stuff.

Would the OP be so kind as to address this post as it does seem to be the last on topic post in this thread. You can also comment on the retesting of the Mt. Shasta area and its results of no contamination if you would like.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It changes the whole meaining of what you so IMO it's really quite important as far as "semantic picking" goes - apparently you thought you said one thing, but you actually said something completely different.

I am puzzled why you would want to do that.

Okay. I said molecular structure, in reference to the way in which all the molecules had come together and formed an over-all pattern.

You pointed out that the term generally refers to the actual inner structure of a molecule.

Why would I want to do that? I did not do it on purpose. I was trying to describe something and I used a poor choice of words, because it opened me up to you attacking me on these semantic grounds.


There. Anything else about it?

Jdub297:

Have you read the actual report of this "test?"

4 bottles of Fiji water, 2 prayed over, sent to a team member who then selcted "samples" for photography and "aesthetic" analysis over the internet.

The selector, by coincidence, no doubt, chose 50% MORE of the prayed-over "samples" to submit for "aesthetic" evaluation. And you are surprised that MORE of the one set was higher-rated than the other? Give me a break.

Even the authors of the study acknowledge the likelihood of the intervening preferential selection. What a pathetic waste of time!

That is not science, it is pretend-science, that makes it sound like something the grown-ups do. How pathetic. Good luck in your paranoia.

reply to post by bsbray11


There, bsbray11, that is exactly what did not need to happen.

By dragging the beloved Dr. Emoto in to this mess concerning 'ChemTrails' you have connected him to it in a way the man never would have wished for.

And you have caused his work to be needlessly dragged out on to one of these threads.

Thanks, buddy.

Now please put down the rubber chicken and step away from the keyboard.

Here's the test results again.

download.journals.elsevierhealth.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8c52fa167a1.jpg[/atsimg]

Treated: 24 crystals, 2.80 average. Control 16 crystals, 1.80 average. Treated/Control = 1.55

Now let's run the test again, but this time instead of actually doing it, we just assume that the number of crystals is random from 8 to 32 per sample, and the quality of each crystal is also random, from 0 to 5. We run a number of simulations, and see what the results are:


Treated: 15 crystals, 2.20 average. Control 9 crystals 1.33 average. Treated/Control = 1.65
Treated: 11 crystals, 2.18 average. Control 14 crystals 2.07 average. Treated/Control = 1.05
Treated: 24 crystals, 2.00 average. Control 12 crystals 1.67 average. Treated/Control = 1.20
Treated: 19 crystals, 2.05 average. Control 25 crystals 2.12 average. Treated/Control = 0.97
Treated: 24 crystals, 1.92 average. Control 23 crystals 2.57 average. Treated/Control = 0.75
Treated: 24 crystals, 2.46 average. Control 21 crystals 1.71 average. Treated/Control = 1.43
Treated: 24 crystals, 1.79 average. Control 19 crystals 1.63 average. Treated/Control = 1.10
Treated: 22 crystals, 1.73 average. Control 14 crystals 1.86 average. Treated/Control = 0.93
Treated: 13 crystals, 2.54 average. Control 15 crystals 1.53 average. Treated/Control = 1.66
Treated: 8 crystals, 1.38 average. Control 30 crystals 1.70 average. Treated/Control = 0.81
Treated: 24 crystals, 2.08 average. Control 27 crystals 1.96 average. Treated/Control = 1.06
Treated: 25 crystals, 1.64 average. Control 28 crystals 1.93 average. Treated/Control = 0.85
Treated: 12 crystals, 2.00 average. Control 19 crystals 1.89 average. Treated/Control = 1.06
Treated: 25 crystals, 1.92 average. Control 9 crystals 1.67 average. Treated/Control = 1.15
Treated: 16 crystals, 2.00 average. Control 30 crystals 2.23 average. Treated/Control = 0.90
Treated: 25 crystals, 2.48 average. Control 8 crystals 2.12 average. Treated/Control = 1.17
Treated: 30 crystals, 1.53 average. Control 31 crystals 1.81 average. Treated/Control = 0.85
Treated: 9 crystals, 1.33 average. Control 11 crystals 2.45 average. Treated/Control = 0.54
Treated: 17 crystals, 2.35 average. Control 24 crystals 1.96 average. Treated/Control = 1.20
Treated: 19 crystals, 1.63 average. Control 16 crystals 1.69 average. Treated/Control = 0.97


This shows that 3 out of the first 20 trials have similar high rations of treated/control.

Hence the results are what you'd expect about 15% of the times you do such a test. So unless the exact same test is replicated several more times, then the results are meaningless.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Would the OP be so kind as to address this post as it does seem to be the last on topic post in this thread. You can also comment on the retesting of the Mt. Shasta area and its results of no contamination if you would like.

The Mt Shasta article I posted was my response to that. As far as the re-testing showing no such contamination, so what? You now have two contradictory studies. No different than global warming, alternative energy or any other controversial topic. Why do you think contradictory studies come out about these kinds of things? What interests do you think are being protected here?

Originally posted by bsbray11
The Mt Shasta article I posted was my response to that. As far as the re-testing showing no such contamination, so what? You now have two contradictory studies. No different than global warming, alternative energy or any other controversial topic. Why do you think contradictory studies come out about these kinds of things? What interests do you think are being protected here?

the interests of the hoaxers who make money from this baseless scaremongering, bad science, dis-information and outright lies, and the intgerests of people who get a kick from winding the world up in support of those few individuals.

Certainly NOT the interests of the "ordinary people on the street".

reply to post by bsbray11


Before I address any of your queries I would be delighted to hear more about what the creator or ogone tech's views regarding chemtrails means to you. I cannot think of anything more on topic or to the point than the creator of the tech in the OP disavowing the tech's use for the purposes postulated in the OP.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
the interests of the hoaxers who make money from this baseless scaremongering, bad science, dis-information and outright lies, and the intgerests of people who get a kick from winding the world up in support of those few individuals.

Can you show how the people claiming to have contaminated water in Mt. Shasta made any money from their claim please?

Certainly NOT the interests of the "ordinary people on the street".

That is exactly why they would cover-up any contamination of the water, not why someone would lie about there being contamination when there really was none.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Before I address any of your queries I would be delighted to hear more about what the creator or ogone tech's views regarding chemtrails means to you.

As far as I know chemtrail theories did not even exist in the 1950s. And Reich did not refer to chemtrails, he referred specifically to contrails.

I cannot think of anything more on topic or to the point than the creator of the tech in the OP disavowing the tech's use for the purposes postulated in the OP.

Except that this interpretation of yours requires "chemtrail" and "contrail" to mean the same thing.

reply to post by bsbray11


Dilligaf28:

Before I address any of your queries I would be delighted to hear more about what the creator or ogone tech's views regarding chemtrails means to you. I cannot think of anything more on topic or to the point than the creator of the tech in the OP disavowing the tech's use for the purposes postulated in the OP.

I warned you, Dude.

And now, thanks to you, we can re-name Dr. Emoto's book, "The Messages that Used to be in Water"

The ideas in Dr. Emoto's books help thousands in recovery and therapy to build empathy and compassion for others.

Lets us not totally jeapordize that, OK?

And your mis-understanding of Reich doesn't help either. No reason for both these guys to go down the toilet with 'ChemTrails'

Thanks again.

Originally posted by Frater210
I warned you, Dude.

And now, thanks to you, we can re-name Dr. Emoto's book, "The Messages that Used to be in Water"

As long as you keep bringing it up, you're not exactly helping your own case.

It doesn't matter even if someone can claim his work was inconclusive based on him putting the controls in a cardboard box, and the actual prayed-over samples in an EM-protected room. It's not as if this is the only research in these kinds of areas.

The ideas in Dr. Emoto's books help thousands in recovery and therapy to build empathy and compassion for others.

Lets us not totally jeapordize that, OK?

You can't seriously believe that what is said in this thread would have that much of an effect.

And your mis-understanding of Reich doesn't help either. No reason for both these guys to go down the toilet with 'ChemTrails'

Thanks again.

Well I asked earlier for your interpretation of Reich's word with orgone, but you never responded to that. Come on man, why are you nagging me about something you won't even freaking explain?

I have figured this thread out! This thread is meant to belittle orgone technology via association with the "chemtrail" hoax. I must say there may just be something to the "orgone" tech if the govt shills that get on ATS and speak about "chemtrails" existing (while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate to the contrary) in order to make us all look crazy are now draging "orgone" tech into the mix.

I've long felt that TPTB created the "chemtrail" hoax and employees people to post on ATS and similar sites in order to make us all look crazy and to distract us from something that actually is important and real; perhaps "orgone" tech is part of what these "chemmies" wish to distract us from?

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can't seriously believe that what is said in this thread would have that much of an effect.

Surely if some guys in Japan can change the molecular structure of water in the US, just by praying for five minutes, guided only by Google Maps, then all this negative energy in this thread is going to have SOME effect?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you show how the people claiming to have contaminated water in Mt. Shasta made any money from their claim please?

Oh, they generally don't. It's others who exploit and promote the fear who benefit.

www.chemtrailsproject.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1814d1afc383.jpg[/atsimg]