The Kids understanding it. Why can't you?

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What then, if they put other things in the air, silcon, iron, and etc, to raise those level too? Wouldn't your full spectrum test fail in that aspect?

I think that even if tested in Chicago, there must be a maximum natural amount that could be used as a baseline/threshold for any given element/compound. If said threshold is breached, then there's something there.




oh eta: I thought maybe you were hinting at mood altering chemicals being chemtrails, and not the stadard aluminum or whatever used for weather control. You got my hopes up - I thought we were going to get silly with it.
edit on 3/25/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


What then, if they put other things in the air, silcon, iron, and etc, to raise those level too? Wouldn't your full spectrum test fail in that aspect?
Yes. If they put other crustal elements in the air in the same proportions as natural dust there would be no indication that anything but natural dust was present. And in fact, if that was the case, there would be no actual difference from natural dust.



I think that even if tested in Chicago, there must be a maximum natural amount that could be used as a baseline/threshold for any given element/compound.
You completely miss the point. The only "baseline" you can use is the relative amount of aluminum. If there is more aluminum than silicon (or even the same amount) in your sample, that would be unnatural. If there is just "a lot" of aluminum along with "a lot" of silicon, it just means there is a lot of dust. The amount of dust is affected by a lot of factors and finding it in rain water is no indication of "chemtrails".

edit on 3/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


How full spectrum is full spectrum? Every known chemical compound? Every elements of the periodic table?

If so, I think your test would just be an over complicated test. If you know how much is the maximum for any given element, you should be able to find a threshold.

Think of it like knowing the maximum amount of dust that would be in the air based on the wind and what's natural in the dust. You could thereby know the maximum allowance for aluminum, and not have to test the other elements.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


How full spectrum is full spectrum? Every known chemical compound? Every elements of the periodic table?
I'd say four would be sufficient. Silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium. You might want to add potassium and magnesium to be more thorough.


Think of it like knowing the maximum amount of dust that would be in the air based on the wind and what's natural in the dust.
Maximum amount of dust is a meaningless statement. Dust does not just come from local sources. The amount of dust is not determined only by wind.


You could thereby know the maximum allowance for aluminum, and not have to test the other elements.
Incorrect. Without testing for other elements you know nothing about the source of the aluminum.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think I see what you're driving at now. You would like to account for all sources based on the other chemicals in the tested compound. Thus, you can effectively rule out all seemingly "natural" or accountable sources, leaving you with an unaccountable source - a possible chemtrail. Is this right?

The way I am looking at it, is that you should be able to calculate all possible sources, before you test the compound. (Just reverse of what you're wanting to do.)

So... do you have it in your mind that there is no feasible way to account for all nearby sources of aluminum (or even far off factories or sources) and because of that, the whole thing is moot?

Seems like you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Is this deliberate?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Basqiat

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Basqiat
I'm only saying that 'something' is going on, ......

Whoever does this .....


What is the "this" that you think is going on, and what is the evidence?


I don't know what it is, that's why I'm here, trying to see if there is anything to this topic,


Your post says that you have determined that "something" is definitely happening.


- prompted by a terrible personal experience that may or may not have been part of this "conspiracy".

As for evidence, I have none.


but you say you have personal experience - that is evidence. It may or may not be good evidence of an aerial spray operation of some sort....but it is evidence.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Phage
 



The way I am looking at it, is that you should be able to calculate all possible sources, before you test the compound. (Just reverse of what you're wanting to do.)


I think that would be extremely difficult to do and introduces far too much uncertainty. Sampling inside and outside a persistent trail is the only way I can see to rule out as many variables as possible.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Thus, you can effectively rule out all seemingly "natural" or accountable sources, leaving you with an unaccountable source - a possible chemtrail. Is this right?
Yes.


The way I am looking at it, is that you should be able to calculate all possible sources, before you test the compound. (Just reverse of what you're wanting to do.)
There is no way to do what you are talking about. You cannot test for a single element in rainwater and determine if there is more than there should be. Only by doing a comparative test can you do so.


Seems like you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Is this deliberate?

You are the one who wants to test rain water. I am pointing out what must be done to determine if there is anything unusual in the rain water. Rain water has dust in it. If that dust has an unusual level of any particular element then something unusual is indicated (even though the source is not). If the levels of all the elements are in natural proportions there is nothing unusual indicated.
edit on 3/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


What if the whole 7000 feet up atmosphere is so polluted that the "outside" is infinitesimally different than the "inside"?

Also, did you see my chicken farm analogy?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


What if the whole 7000 feet up atmosphere is so polluted that the "outside" is infinitesimally different than the "inside"?


If the "chemtrail" sample is no different to the "control" sample then the "chemtail" does not exist - it is just the same as the surrounding atmosphere.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


We're just arguing two sides of the same coin. You want to rule out sources after taking a sample, and I want to rule out sources before the sample.

Moreover, you think my way is insufficient and I think your way is overly complicated. However, both ways would work, and we're just arguing semantics.

Good debate but I think I don't want to repeat myself over and over, any more than you do.

Was fun.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That was just for argument sake. I don't think it is actually that polluted. I do, however, think that it would be too much work chasing planes around. See the chicken farm analogy.

oh and eta: If it actually were that saturated it wouldn't rule out the chemtrail's existence. Think of it like filling a balloon with more helium after the balloon has lost some. Just because what is there was already put there before the second refill to the balloon, it doesn't rule out the canister of helium.

edit on 3/25/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
I'd say four would be sufficient. Silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium. You might want to add potassium and magnesium to be more thorough.


How about we add barium too? For thorough's sake.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Basqiat

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Basqiat
I'm only saying that 'something' is going on, ......

Whoever does this .....


What is the "this" that you think is going on, and what is the evidence?


I don't know what it is, that's why I'm here, trying to see if there is anything to this topic,


Your post says that you have determined that "something" is definitely happening.


- prompted by a terrible personal experience that may or may not have been part of this "conspiracy".

As for evidence, I have none.


but you say you have personal experience - that is evidence. It may or may not be good evidence of an aerial spray operation of some sort....but it is evidence.



Okay, I think that there might be something going on, certain bodies of power, who deem it necessary to spray certain kinds of chemical in certain space, certain amount of time, for reasons I can't even speculate.

It could be that its not meant for us as targets, but we are casualties of a larger "project" of a sort, and not as important as the outcome of the project, just collateral damage.
edit on 25-3-2013 by Basqiat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Uh, no.
Think about getting a blood test. If you bled onto the floor, would you want that blood tested? How about they catch it on the fly, somewhere between artery and floor? Or maybe they just check your bandaid? Or the blood found in the Kleenex when you blew your bloody nose? Everyone has a bit of blood in their urine and stool samples...if you were looking for a particular mineral (I need to get my K checked often), maybe they should just check those. I mean, who likes needles, right?
If you want to see what is in your blood, you have someone remove blood from a vein. No other test is going to accurate, and you would expect no other method of testing.
Because you cannot possibly know within the chaotic place of the planet what crust is going to be pulverized to what size, which would be suspended by which wind and travel how far before getting in the way of one of the billions of droplets that make clouds, then collide and gather the million or so (my meteorology text book uses the figure of 1 million droplets=1 rain drop) droplets into a rain drop, you cannot possibly hope to get any kind of "clean" sample from a ground-based test.
That is just the way it is.
Every city, county, state, and nation is constantly testing air and water quality, as well as schools and industry. If someone was trying to hide something, they would have to hide it from everyone involved in this. If there was an unusual amount of anything, they would know. If there is something to"chemtrails" that is indeed "chem-", it either is nothing unusual (which would be absolutely pointless), or more likely, nothing is there. When one of the spokespeople for the cause (sorry migraine, so can't remember her name...she does Caifornia Skywatch) says there is no evidence after doing the ground-based tests, perhaps they should try something different.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I've missed quite a bit of the chat today. Here are my thoughts on some of what's been said.

Regarding the chicken farm analogy, many Chemtrail believers claim to be able to tell a trail by sight. This would be more skin to looking for a wolf among the chickens if they have this ability.

The problem I would have with testing something collected on the ground is that any results gleaned still tell you nothing about where what you found came from, it requires one to assume it came from an overhead contrail and to me this defeats the point of the test.

It is not humanly possible to eliminate variables before you even test, you can only see what you actually find, guesswork about what should and shouldn't be there undermines the whole operation. For instance, what about the Saharan sand I mentioned falling on Yorkshire? That was caused by freak unexpected conditions. If you have decided beforehand it shouldn't be there wouldn't you be led to think that a plane dropped it? However if it turned up in samples from inside and outside the trail, at height, you could see it was carried in the wind and not released from the plane. A rather crude comparison but it does the job.

Returning to the chicken farm analogy, it's not quite like that. Believers contend that any persisting trail is a Chemtrail because contrails disappear quickly. Therefore you can test 10, 50, 100 persisting trails at will, for they are ALL female chickens, and see if any of them differ from normal contrails. If none of them do you might reasonably conclude the premise of chemtrails is flawed.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Your post is all flip floppily. I love it.

On one hand you liken chemtrails to the blood, in that it may undergo chemical changes after it leaves the source. Thus, the rain can't be trusted.

But then

You say that if there was something there, it would be found by everyone testing air quality. (but not if chemical changes have occurred? Are you canceling out your first point? A don't get it.)

more

To the first point... Maybe you just solved the whole thing? They spray stuff but by the time it hits the ground it has undergone chemical changes, and has become undetectable?

To the second point... Maybe they're not testing for everything, and if they are, maybe your first point solves the mystery?

*I'll give you a star for the interesting perspective.

edit on 3/25/2013 by Bleeeeep because: *perspective not perceptive*



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


"It is not humanly possible to eliminate variables before you even test, you can only see what you actually find, guesswork about what should and shouldn't be there undermines the whole operation."

Eliminating predefined variables is basically the same thing as a hypothesis and is fundamental to the scientific method, isn't it?

To your other points..

I don't know that a chemtrail must linger for a certain amount of time for it to count as a chemtrail. Sure it's one of the attributes ascribed by the common chemtrail believer, but I don't think it should be put in that box. I think that spraying any chemical from a plane/jet, in order to have it secretly and adversely manipulate the people or the environment, should count as a chemtrail. I'm not referring to crop dusters so don't even mention it.


And your other points are just the same things we already went over, and we will just have to call it a stalemate, unless you have something new to persuade me with. (no offense of course) I just don't want to keep repeating myself.

Actually, I think I've already said all that I can on this topic.

You guys have fun!



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That was just for argument sake. I don't think it is actually that polluted.


Sure - but my point remains - if the sample is no different to the control then there actually isn't "anything" to be sampled.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Reply to post by JrDavis
 


Maybe you could ask one of the: kids to explain here what some of us idiots don't get.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join