$50,000 to Make a Movie

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
So the hugely popular movie/documentary What in the world are they spraying? cost $50,000 to make.

A fairly small budget as budgets go, but more than enough to actually prove the existence of chemtrails.

So why did they choose to miss this opportunity?

Could it be that they don't want to truth to be exposed?

Can't sell DVD's if it was known that chemtrails are a mere made up myth I suppose...

Over a year ago I presented to the pro-chemtrailers the clear cut way of proving the existence of chemtrails and it got shat on by these chemtrail "truth seekers".

It can be found HERE.

In summary I showed a study carried out on contrails and how the same method of study is the only way of proving chemtrails, namely taking air samples at the source.

I even provided a link to a company that has the aircraft and means to carry out such a test:


Requests for access to research flight hours begin with the submission of an Initial Request for Aircraft Support (Word (35kb), PDF (30kb)) to the manager of the facility. Based on information provided on this form, a DOE-empowered advisory panel recommends to DOE an award of flight hours for the proposed use. Then the user completes a more detailed Research Aircraft Deployment Document (RADD: Word (180kb), PDF (85kb)) in coordination with the RAF manager. RAF users not associated with the DOE Atmospheric Science Program will need to work with the RAF manager on an estimate of the cost of offsite aircraft logistics such as 1) landing fees, 2) hangar rental, 3) ground support facilities, and 4) labor and expenses for a PNNL flight crew of two pilots and two scientific support personnel. During the preparation of RADD, schedules are confirmed and safety and environmental compliance requirements are addressed.

The RAF does not cover the cost of engineering studies and airframe modifications needed for custom installation of project-specific equipment and instrumentation. Such costs must be budgeted separately through a contract with PNNL or Battelle. When requested, RAF staff will assist users in estimating these costs.
*



Gulfstream-1 Research Aircraft

The G-1 is a large twin turboprop with performance characteristics of contemporary production aircraft. It is capable of measurements to altitudes approaching 30,000 feet over ranges of 1500 nautical miles, and can be operated at speeds that enable both relatively slow sampling and rapid deployment to field sites throughout the world. The aircraft is configured for versatile research applications. It accommodates a variety of external probes for aerosol, radiation, and turbulence measurements and internal sampling systems for a wide range of measurements. The G-1 has sufficient cabin volume, electrical power and payload capabilities, and flight characteristics to accommodate a variety of instrument systems and experimental equipment configurations. Internal instrumentation is mounted in removable racks to enable rapid reconfiguration as necessary. Data from most systems are acquired on a central computer that is tailored to airborne research data acquisition. In addition to acquiring the various analog and digital input signals, it can be configured to communicate with and/or control other systems onboard, and to provide time synchronization to other computers.
*


Why aren't chemmies interested in the truth?

Why did the likes of G. Edward Griffin and Michael Murphy waste $50,000 on clouding the waters further when they could have blown the biggest conspiracy in the world wide open??




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
THe link doesnt work for me. Can you look into that?
edit on 6-11-2011 by DoctorSatan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DoctorSatan
 


All links are working fine on my end...




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DoctorSatan
 


Works for me - goes to another ATS thread - try it without a name/disguise/whatever: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Come on...

No one wants to defend the honour of chemtrails?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
why would someone defened a figment of the immangation ?
the only real cem trails will by planes spraying fields for bugs but even taht is to much lol.
reall cem trails so I gess our masters dontr breath teh same air we do



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Wow. Gotta love Aussies. Classic case of Attack The Messenger.

Sorry Chad but your OP is full of Fail.




A fairly small budget as budgets go, but more than enough to actually prove the existence of chemtrails.


This is a conspiracy is it not? So getting money to make the movie might prove difficult. And it's not even close to enough to "prove" the existence of Chemtrails.
Did you take into account the cost of things like
-Cameras
-Plane tickets
-Hotel Rooms
-Food
-Rental Cars
-Production of the DVD
-Much More




So why did they choose to miss this opportunity? Could it be that they don't want to truth to be exposed? Can't sell DVD's if it was known that chemtrails are a mere made up myth I suppose...


Choose to miss the opportunity?? WTH are you talking about. They are trying to spread information and figure out the truth because it is so obvious something is going on.
Don't want the truth exposed? ...that is laughable. Griffin and Murphy are searching for the truth just like the rest of us. Griffin donating any money goes to show he is willing to risk losing money for truth.

Also.... despite what you think they weren't out to make money. In fact they encouraged people to burn their disk and share it with others and not to worry about copyright. Hence the reason it is watchable for free all over the internet.

If you have some evidence that they made millions of dollars..... please present it.




Why aren't chemmies interested in the truth?


We are very interested in the truth.... struggling to fathom why you even said that.

As for your experiment..... it's not practical for us Average Joe's who need to work everyday to make a living.

Also ....in case you missed the many other posts about this topic....

We DON"T KNOW the Chemtrailers schedules. So to really be able to do the test ....

You would need a plane with a pilot ready to go on the spot when the Chemtrailers come out.

Obviously our skies are much different from Western Australia ...can you not comprehend that?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 




It's simple: If you have that much money to spend on proving the chemtrail phenomenon is real, why not go for clear cut 100% undeniable proof...get a plane, get up into a 'chemtrail' and take samples??

If your looking fro the 'truth' and you have a budget of 50'000, then that would be the way to go, would it not?

I don't see your problem with what the OP is suggesting. If you really are looking for answers then you have to consider the point that there is possibly people trying to make money off, and/or spread lies/fear about, this subject.
edit on 7-11-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


It's not simple. End of story.

Please enlighten us on how to "take samples" from a Chemtrail?

Keep in mind it has to be perfect and controlled perfectly so there is no arguing against the sample.

Also..... if you have read studies on Contrails then you know that those studies were preformed by Universities which were funded by NASA.

Not to mention they probably used pieces of equipment that cost $50,000 each.

The whole "it's simple ....just go get a sample up there between 20-40 thousand feet" ....is ridiculous.

and again..... PLEASE PROVE they are making money off of that movie ..... lol



...whatever little money they might make .... probably goes back into trying to find out the truth.
edit on 7-11-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
Also..... if you have read studies on Contrails then you know that those studies were preformed by Universities which were funded by NASA.


Even the German studies?

elib.dlr.de...

I'm sorry, but contrails have been studied since the 1940s (and written about since the 1920s), by many institutions, and in many different countries.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


It's not simple. End of story.

Please enlighten us on how to "take samples" from a Chemtrail?

Keep in mind it has to be perfect and controlled perfectly so there is no arguing against the sample.

Also..... if you have read studies on Contrails then you know that those studies were preformed by Universities which were funded by NASA.

Not to mention they probably used pieces of equipment that cost $50,000 each.

The whole "it's simple ....just go get a sample up there between 20-40 thousand feet" ....is ridiculous.

and again..... PLEASE PROVE they are making money off of that movie ..... lol



...whatever little money they might make .... probably goes back into trying to find out the truth.
edit on 7-11-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)


I'm not saying they are making money, I'm just pointing out that there are charlatans everywhere. Why are you trying to defend the makers of this movie? You seem very touchy if somebody says something bad about 'What in the world are they spraying', hmm I think we have a case of 'believer' syndrome here folks.

Go on a holiday, take a break, have a wank, do something to take your mind off the 'truth' for a while kid.
edit on 7-11-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 





I'm not saying they are making money, I'm just pointing out that there are charlatans everywhere. Why are you trying to defend the makers of this movie? You seem very touchy if somebody says something bad about 'What in the world are they spraying', hmm I think we have a case of 'believer' syndrome here folks. Go on a holiday, take a break, have a wank, do something to take your mind off the 'truth' for a while kid.


I don't "feel" as touchy as my words seem to be coming across.

I just find it too obvious that debunkers who attack the "messenger" is all to predictable.

That's how you discredit things. Attack the people telling everyone.

I think it's ironic how you claim I am getting defensive about it when you and the debunkers are the ones who seem to truly hate this movie. It seems to drive them nuts. They of course have even gone so far as to say they have debunked the entire movie. Which is a bunch of crap.

Either way man ...since I am just a "kid" I will go back to being ignorant. /sarcasm

Taking a "holiday" would be exactly what all debunkers on this site want. For us to just go away. That way everything can go back to just being a contrail.
edit on 7-11-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
They of course have even gone so far as to say they have debunked the entire movie.


Did we miss something?

Really the movie is terrible from a scientific basis. They do things like test sludge, and then act all surprised when it has a higher aluminum content than tap water.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


But why on earth do you believe what it says? It's one of the most distorted "documentaries" I've ever seen. Can you say with certainty that you're not in that state of mind that simply believes anything at all that goes against established knowledge, for no reason other than "the establishment always lies"?

Scepticism and an enquiring mind are good things, but what I've just described would be just as bad as unquestioning acceptance, wouldi you agree?
edit on 7-11-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Wow. Gotta love Aussies. Classic case of Attack The Messenger.



No. I think questioning the actions of the messenger is appropriate. It's not (in my opinion) an ad hom.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Please enlighten us on how to "take samples" from a Chemtrail?


Given that chemtrails have been sprayed all over the world since the mid 1990s (?) the most obvious course of action would be to examine ice cores from various parts of the world.

That's what I'd do. The evidence so produced would be very compelling.

Edit: unless chemtrails are deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals mixed with elements of aviation fuel and other known pollutants from aircraft engines.
edit on 7-11-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I don't necessarily "believe" everything that movie said. But I do think they had a noble purpose in the sense of them trying to get to the truth.

I simply watched the movie and absorbed the information with a healthy dose of skepticism.


I have said in previous posts that I know about Chemtrails because of what I have seen with my own eyes and the life experiences I have had around aviation.

In other words ...... no one ever convinced me of Chemtrails ...... I came to that conclusion myself through observation and research.

...a few of my personal observations are at the bottom of the linked thread.
edit on 7-11-2011 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


It's not simple. End of story.

Please enlighten us on how to "take samples" from a Chemtrail?

Keep in mind it has to be perfect and controlled perfectly so there is no arguing against the sample.



Thats quite ironic, considering the chemmies who stick open water bowls outside, then send the water samples to get testing, and claim that is sampling chemtrails.

If it is as impossible to sample contrails as you say, then basically none of the chemmies have the slightest bit of actual testing in reality, even though they try to claim they do.

Its ironic if he spent 50000 dollars making a movie, when you can get an mineralogy textbook or even go to websites for free, and see that aluminum minerals are naturally part of the earths crust. He has been informed numerous times since, and he has to realize it, but he avoid any questions along those lines.


edit on 8-11-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


Maybe they did have a noble purpose, I can accept that it's possible they really believe what they said. But when the methods used are so wrong, leading to conclusions that are equally wrong, why do they get a free pass from you when you don't seem able to find any factual inaccuracies in the meteorological science that is provided by such as uncinus and freebird? This is an anomaly that I find odd.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


I think you missed the whole idea Chad suggested. The movie was made and it did have a budget of $50,000. So that money was raised and it was spent. The thought process is one that most of us who don't believe in fairies, Santa Claus, or chemtrails have. We believe that in order to prove or disprove their existence, one would have to take samples of a trail left in the sky by a plane that fits your criteria of a chemtrail. Once that was done at several locations, with multiple samples taken, there should be no problem providing the source and structure of a "chemtrail". then you would either be a hero or a zero. But it's painfully obvious that the charlatans of the chemtrail fantasy want to keep their myth going, so they provide innuendo and supposition instead of proof.

Be ware of the underpants gnomes.





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join