Chemtrails, the dismal EPIC failure.

originally posted by: Petros312
and I'm not having further discussion about it.

Thanks for driving my point home.

a reply to: theMediator

My views on the whole chemtrail deal is on the fence, I don't think anyone in my position is delusional.

I am pretty sure I didn't say you were.

The reason I said he would have to be delusional to agree with you, is because I know his stance on this topic.

Why the hell are you insulting me anyway?

I am pretty sure I wasn't.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312
Is there any chance at all you would like to discuss the points I made about your video?

originally posted by: Petros312
...I'm not having further discussion about it.

originally posted by: network dude
Thanks for driving my point home.

Really? That last quote is nothing but a cheap jab at me. Look at this line of arguing you fabricated above. You make it look like you need my permission to "discuss" the facts presented in the above post.

If YOU dispute these facts, if YOU dispute there's a positive correlation derived from these facts, then YOU discuss them for the sake of the forum members. You don't need my permission, and you know it.

This thread is still going???

Be back in 3 months with a pilots license & a chemsprayer job b#tches

a reply to: Petros312

Lol, no, I sure don't need your permission. I do, however require your responses when having a conversation. (something you claimed wasn't on the agenda)

I (while knowing the futility, attempt this one more time) am curious to know, given the perimeters of the facts you displayed in your post, do you feel that adequate sleuthing was done to determine the cause of the barium poisoning mentioned in your post?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Since they aren't spraying bacon, I think you can leave now.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
I do, however require your responses when having a conversation.

No that's lame. You do not need to have a "conversation" with me to refute the facts I already presented above.

originally posted by: network dude
I (while knowing the futility, attempt this one more time) am curious to know, given the perimeters of the facts you displayed in your post, do you feel that adequate sleuthing was done to determine the cause of the barium poisoning mentioned in your post?

Distractions! Again, you don't need my consent!

Are you going to dispute the facts or merely continue on with your "debunker" rhetoric?

a reply to: Petros312

This is kind of circular, but what the hell.

I don't refute any of the claims of poisoning. I accept that those two people went to the doctor with cold like symptoms and were tested for barium. strontium, and aluminum. I even will not dispute the levels or allowable levels.

My question is (again), is there any possibility, however remotely, that the 20 people in a small town in Arizona who claim to have been poisoned, could have been exposed to the chemicals in some other way than "chemtrails"?

If you look at my first post to you on this (where I asked this same question) I listed some information about barium and how it finds it's way into everyday life.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312

This is kind of circular, but what the hell.

My question is (again), is there any possibility, however remotely, that the 20 people in a small town in Arizona who claim to have been poisoned, could have been exposed to the chemicals in some other way than "chemtrails"?

You seem to be making a big deal out of all these people being in one small town in AZ. If you watch and listen to the video, carefully, you'd find the 20 people who also had blood tests done and tested high for barium and aluminum are NOT from this same small town.

But more importantly, you're not disproving the positive correlation that exists between 1) elevated aluminum and barium in the blood tests, 2) jet exhaust, and 3) elevated aluminum, barium, and strontium in the rainwater, which are each based on factual data. Instead, you're trying to shift the focus off the obvious correlation and focus instead on some "remotely" possible source of the contamination.

originally posted by: Petros312
But more importantly, you're not disproving the positive correlation that exists between 1) elevated aluminum and barium in the blood tests, 2) jet exhaust, and 3) elevated aluminum, barium, and strontium in the rainwater, which are each based on factual data.

Where, other than in the opinion of the people in the video, did the jet exhaust become a proven factor in the equation?

Again, I am not disputing anything other than where this contamination may have originated.

Please explain why I should accept that the contamination is from chemtrails when other, much more likely sources may exist?

a reply to: Petros312

It is widely known that barium and aluminum are among the chemical elements suggested by proponents like David Keith to be used in geoengineering aerosal sprays. Is it a mere coincidence that the individuals tested had high levels of barium in their blood?

Yes because they read the results wrong...

Also as far as this goes...



Enjoy this...

www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: network dude
Please explain why I should accept that the contamination is from chemtrails when other, much more likely sources may exist?

What is the "much more likely" source responsible for elevating barium levels in both 1) blood tests of more than 20 people and 2) rainwater ?

Look, your line or reasoning is like this: If I can show there's a possible source of contamination other than persistent jet exhaust then it invalidates the whole argument. The correlation exists even if you find an additional possible source to explain it. It's a desperate measure to invalidate a correlation by citing all possible third factors that could be responsible for the correlation. A correlation is a correlation.

Again, you're not disproving the positive correlation that exists between 1) elevated aluminum and barium in the blood tests, 2) jet exhaust, and 3) elevated aluminum, barium, and strontium in the rainwater, which are each based on factual data. Instead, you're trying to shift the focus off the obvious correlation and focus instead on some "remotely" possible source of the contamination.

a reply to: Petros312

Kingman is located in Northwest Arizona, in Mohave County which is the fifth largest in the US and one of the most rapidly growing counties in the Western US. Business opportunities abound for individual entrepreneurs, start up ventures, and larger corporations.
Among the larger employers in Kingman are General Cable, Guardian Fiberglass, American Woodmark, Tru-Serve Distribution Center, Kingman Regional Medical Center, Wal-Mart Super Center, and Home Depot.

There’s an Industrial Corridor along I-40 for larger industry, as well as the Airport Industrial Park with the airport rated for DC-9 and 737-type aircraft. Rail service is provided by the main line of the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Rail service within the industrial park is provided by Patriot Rail.

link to source

How does barium get into my drinking water?
The major sources of barium in drinking water are discharge of drilling wastes; discharge from metal refineries; and erosion of natural deposits.

A federal law called the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) requires facilities in certain industries, which manufacture, process, or use significant amounts of toxic chemicals, to report annually on their releases of these chemicals. For more information on the uses and releases of chemicals in your state, contact the Community Right-to-Know Hotline: (800) 424-9346.

link to source

Where Does Barium Come From?
Barium was first identified in 1774 by Carl Scheele and first extracted by Sir Humphrey Davy of England in 1808. Since then, different forms of barium have been widely used in the manufacture of countless products:
Paint
Tile
Glass
Rubber
Textiles
Electronics
Paper
Soap
Linoleum
Cosmetics
Pharmaceuticals
Spark plugs
Vacuum tubes
Fireworks
Fluorescent lamps
Rat poison
-www.aquamd.com...

Because barium is used often in so many manufacturing operations, a lot of waste is produced that needs to be removed from the environment. How much? In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency reported more than 222 million pounds of barium and barium compounds were legally released into the air, wells, lakes, rivers and landfills.
Ten states account for about half of all legal barium released in this country:
1. Texas (17.1 million pounds)
2. North Dakota (15.7 million pounds)
3. Illinois (11 million pounds)
4. Alabama (10.2 million pounds)
5. Michigan (10.1 million pounds)
6. Colorado (10.1 million pounds)
7. Minnesota (8.8 million pounds)
8. Ohio (8.2 million pounds)
9. Montana (7.9 million pounds)
10.Indiana (7.8 million pounds)
And 26 additional states released anywhere from 1 -- 7 million pounds of barium apiece into the environment. Of course, none of these statistics take into consideration the illegal, unreported dumping of barium metals into the environment.

link to source

Again, I am not claiming to KNOW anything, just asking what I consider to be common sense questions.
Taking the above into consideration, do you feel as if it's possible that this contamination MAY have come from a more likely source?

originally posted by: Petros312

Again, you're not disproving the positive correlation that exists between 1) elevated aluminum and barium in the blood tests, 2) jet exhaust, and 3) elevated aluminum, barium, and strontium in the rainwater, which are each based on factual data. Instead, you're trying to shift the focus off the obvious correlation and focus instead on some "remotely" possible source of the contamination.

OK, fair enough. Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

originally posted by: network dude
Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

And if they didn't measure the barium in the jet exhaust, this proves it doesn't exist?

originally posted by: network dude
Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

And are you prepared to show me the measurements of all the above sources of barium that you claim authoritatively as apparently much more likely sources of elevated levels of barium that were found in both the blood tests (as much as 800% higher than normal limits) and the rainwater?

Your post outlining other possible sources of barium are STILL nothing but a distraction.

a reply to: Petros312

Please look here:
www.metabunk.org...

You may not like the source, the information presented is what you need to discuss.

Notice there is a map, with a local mine noted.

Also, notice the information about testing levels. And please don't be angry with me, I am only offering data to back up my point. If you have an issue with the data, please explain why.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

And are you prepared to show me the measurements of all the above sources of barium that you claim authoritatively as apparently much more likely sources of elevated levels of barium (as much as 800% higher than normal limits) that were found in both the blood tests and rainwater?

You seem to be unaware that Dicicco's Barium level was well within the normal range, as well as the others. On the test Reporting Limit means that is the smallest amount the lab can detect. Elevated means it is above the median. If you take time to read the whole thing it shows that his test was normal.

a reply to: Petros312

Just in case you didn't scroll down far enough.


ETA:
not saying this is the cause, but given the information I already provided, do you think it's worth looking into, or should those people ignore anything other than the chemtrail aspect?

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: network dude
Please just show me the levels of Barium in jet exhaust and how that was measured.

And if they didn't measure the barium in the jet exhaust, this proves it doesn't exist?

If they didn't measure the barium in jet exhaust, how can it be included in your list of three points?
It's nothing more than speculation. Not based in any fact at all.

Do you disagree?