A Question When Sampling for Chemtrails

In more than one thread recently (and many threads down the years) it has been suggested that samples could be taken and tested (and that many have already) by putting out some sort of receptacle to collect particulates and detritus that settle into it.

Once this has been done, one can then test to see what is in there, with many people clai ing to have found increased levels of aluminium, barium and other elements.

When i have suggested that this cannot be a satisfactory way of determining what is coming from aircraft exhaust I've been called too picky, or even accused of being a party to goal posts being moved.

When I was out taking photographs last night, this question occurred to me again. there are clearly people out there who know exactly how this is done correctly to get an unarguable result and so this is my question.

If someone here tries to carry out the same experiment, how EXACTLY do they establish what they find in the container comes from the aircraft in the foreground, rather than the power station a few miles behind the trees?

I am finding this quandary insurmountable

a reply to: waynos

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough. So that is that.
The answer to all is derision and name calling and that is about all of the intelligent conversation you will get whatever you do whatever you saw or experienced or tested.

“They say they have a lot of science, they presented us a lot of information and I think it’s important for us to have that public discussion,” she said.

www.redding.com...

One case

a reply to: waynosAH, this is the main reason that anyone can't use a ground based test to prove for or against chem trails.
Firstly a whole number of perameters must be took into consideration.
1. What is the normal average readings for air polution. It can be a number of thing like volcanic fallout, weather patterns (as you are in the UK you have certainly experienced polutants from the Sahara landing on your car after a storm) polutants from car exhausts. The list is endless.
Once you've established a norm then.
2. Does the contamination increase or decrease with more air traffic activity.
3. Can the increase or decrease be discarded as coming from the nearby power station.
These are just a few off the top of my head and there are many more. The ONLY way to prove chem trails by experiment is to sample the trail itself and at the same time sample the area immediately outside the trail. So unless you have the means to do that(which I doubt) it cannot be done by ground based tests.

originally posted by: waynos

If someone here tries to carry out the same experiment, how EXACTLY do they establish what they find in the container comes from the aircraft in the foreground, rather than the power station a few miles behind the trees?

I am finding this quandary insurmountable

There would need to be control samples taken in order to identify and isolate the variables.

The person doing the sample collecting would need to collect control samples as well as test samples. Ideally, the test samples should be taken from an actual visible trail. One control sample should be taken from the same general part of the sky, but clear sky through which the plane had not flown (nor any recent plane). Another control sample should be taken from the same general part of the sky, but from behind a plane that is NOT producing a visible trail (taken from the same distance behind the plane as the visible trail sample.

Ideally, these three types of samples would be taken in several different regions of the world (three types of samples from each region). this would account for regional air quality variables. Also, it should be the exact same type of plane and similar weather conditions.

The three types of samples (one of the visible trail behind a plane, one from an area behind a plane with no visible trail, and one from a part of that sky that no plane had flown through) could then be examined to see the differences.

Since the biggest variable between the three types of samples would be (1) visible trail, (2) invisible exhaust, and (3) clear sky, the test should tell what's DIFFERENT about a visible trail compared to clear sky from that same region of the world, and what is different about a visible trail compared to the invisible exhaust.

Identifying and isolating the variables (or accounting for them in general) is key to any experiment.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough.

Wrong... provide a sample taken in the air after the so called chemtrail was sprayed...that proof would not be debatable, and pretty concrete.

a reply to: crayzeed

So unless you have the means to do that(which I doubt) it cannot be done by ground based tests.

Well there is a company that can conduct those tests...here is a thread about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can always get people to send you money when pushing the chemtrail hoax, so they could fund the testing if they really want the truth.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: SeaWorthy

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough.

Wrong... provide a sample taken in the air after the so called chemtrail was sprayed...that proof would not be debatable, and pretty concrete.

As I said above, you would also need two other samples for comparison: One from a region of that same sky, but where no plane had recently flown, and one from a region of that same sky that a non-trail producing plane had just flown.

Then the three samples could be compared top see what's in the sample from the visible trail compared to what's in a sample from a normal jet that made not visible trail, and compared to what is normally in the sky (with no planes).

lame.... f***ing chemtrails? I can respect an open mind, but this seems more like paranoia....

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If I remember correctly someone was supposed to go up and get some samples, but haven't seen, or heard anything else about it.

Supposedly he was going up to see what they get, but since there hasn't been any news on the results I am going to believe he didn't get the results he expected...because had he got the results he wanted it would have been all over the news and the internet.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: waynos

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough. So that is that.
The answer to all is derision and name calling and that is about all of the intelligent conversation you will get whatever you do whatever you saw or experienced or tested.

“They say they have a lot of science, they presented us a lot of information and I think it’s important for us to have that public discussion,” she said.

www.redding.com...

One case

I rank chemtrails somewhere between stargates and hollow earth theory in terms of stupidity.

But it certainly is very entertaining if frustrating.

a reply to: waynos

Here you go, back when I used to give a damn....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

It does matter how the samples are taken.

Read the thread I linked to.

There is a right way and many wrong ways.

An example of wrong way:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Chadwickus

Here you go, back when I used to give a damn....

Ah the good old days...

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: waynos

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough. So that is that.
The answer to all is derision and name calling and that is about all of the intelligent conversation you will get whatever you do whatever you saw or experienced or tested.

“They say they have a lot of science, they presented us a lot of information and I think it’s important for us to have that public discussion,” she said.

www.redding.com...

One case

It's the interpretation of the results that is not accepted.

For example in the video you posted there's a retired biologist who gives figures for aluminium in rainwater samples he has taken. He quotes the latest results as 13100 ug/l and claims "normally it should be zero" and "so 13100 is pretty damn much"

Except that he's just plain wrong. 13100 ug/l is only 13100 parts per billion so it's not a huge amount to start with, but more importantly he is talking about a very common naturally occurring substance normally found in dust blowing around outside and claiming that it should never be found in drops of water falling out of the sky.

This is an example 'proof' that is not accepted and I hope you can see why

a reply to: mrthumpy



So now that you guys have explained about the results and why they have not been taken seriously so far, will we hear back from seaworthy?

Ha! Of course not. Its so boring. No one is interested in the truth or in discusion

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: mrthumpy



So now that you guys have explained about the results and why they have not been taken seriously so far, will we hear back from seaworthy?

Ha! Of course not. Its so boring. No one is interested in the truth or in discusion

You've noticed that then. I usually just assume it's because of embarrassment

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: mrthumpy



So now that you guys have explained about the results and why they have not been taken seriously so far, will we hear back from seaworthy?

Ha! Of course not. Its so boring. No one is interested in the truth or in discusion

You've noticed that then. I usually just assume it's because of embarrassment

I doubt that. They are just not interested in the truth, Far more exciting to believe an idiotic conspiracy.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If I remember correctly someone was supposed to go up and get some samples, but haven't seen, or heard anything else about it.

Supposedly he was going up to see what they get, but since there hasn't been any news on the results I am going to believe he didn't get the results he expected...because had he got the results he wanted it would have been all over the news and the internet.

You're right. There was this chemtrail believer Matthias Hancke who made a documentary about chemtrails. Supposed he went up in a plane and sampled 'chemtrails'. No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to find his results. Allegedly the results are disclosed in his documentary, which you have to buy. If you don't mind, I refuse to do that under any circumstances. If he really got concrete results, he should share them with the world! But oh no.. it's just another money making scheme.

Same thing for Michael J Murphy, who apparently was going to be involved in a plan where a bunch pf paraglidewrs were supposed to sample 'chemtrails'.

themillenniumreport.com...

He also was involved in trying to sue those who he suspects of being behind the 'chemtrails, and obviously that resulted in more begging for money.

The only thing that these chemtrail guru's never seem to get their hands on is any kind of real evidence for 'chemtrails'.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: SeaWorthy

It doesn't matter how the samples are taken no one accepts them anyway. They say you need to have proof but no proof is enough.

Wrong... provide a sample taken in the air after the so called chemtrail was sprayed...that proof would not be debatable, and pretty concrete.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
Recently, a reader sent me data on air tests performed in the Phoenix area. These charts show a number heavy metals are present in the environment at levels far exceeding the safe toxic level standards for human health. The person who performed the air sampling had it analyzed by a professional laboratory, and has asked for confidentiality. Exact location in Phoenix of the samples collected and names involved will not be disclosed in this report.

I have personally seen the actual report with the name of the person who and location where air was sampled and the name of the testing laboratory, and certify that the report appears authentic.

Scans of the report provided to me of laboratory results were sent as files of more than 1MB in size each. Each chart has been reduced in size here to fit on your screen by this author. One chart was rotated for proper orientation but has not been altered in any other way.

DATA COLLECTION METHOD

a. Air was sampled through an air filter which operated approximately 4 hours during the day and 4 hours after sunset for 28 days.
www.rense.com...

Scientist along with two pilots set out to test Chemtrails phenomenon, all while breaking a few world records in the process.
www.crimescenecleanup.com...

Won't make any difference
his coming Spring of 2016 will see an unprecedented attempt to acquire the first chemtrail sky sample in modern history.
chemtrailsmuststop.com...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Recently, a reader sent me data on air tests performed in the Phoenix area. These charts show a number heavy metals are present in the environment at levels far exceeding the safe toxic level standards for human health.

Those "air tests" were discussed a long time ago. As far as sampling technique goes, they are nonsense. As far as exceeding maximum levels goes, they used a comparison to drinking water standards for some reason. As far as any connection to "chemtrails." Nope.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Won't make any difference
his coming Spring of 2016 will see an unprecedented attempt to acquire the first chemtrail sky sample in modern history.

So. It's summer of 2016. I guess they couldn't find any "chemtrails."