G Edward Griffin Exposes Conspiracy - Monsanto's Aluminum Resistant Seeds and Geoengineering

reply to post by crimvelvet

"Cheapest" perhaps, but not cheap. Right?

While lime can be added to soil to neutralize some of the troublemaking acid, that's a luxury" many Third World farmers can neither obtain nor afford. Even when lime is a feasible expenditure, it's hard to place deep in the soil. So excess aluminum might still lurk below the limed zone, down where thirsty roots wander in the summer.

findarticles.com...

Selective breeding of crops (rather than genetic modification) is also being carried out BTW. It's not as if aluminum toxicity is not seen as a problem.
www.springerlink.com...

But the point of the OP is that the development of aluminum tolerant crops is "proof" of geoengineering. It isn't. Or is the presence of aluminum in soil something new?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/603b4d82b1ac.jpg[/atsimg]

Those big beer kegs? (if only...) They hold water. Water stays onboard, is pumped to move around to alter the CG, in flight. Much easier than moving heavy bags of sand, or whatever....

Not sure which airplane that is....might be from the B-777 testing, might be a B-747 variant. Other angles show the banks of computer equipment, as well).

Nice picture showing how a large passenger jet could be converted to carry a huge amount of liquid.

Do you think that set-up could be used in a plane like this?

reply to post by Kailassa


Oh, brother!!!!

More and more of the same insanity, huh?

Certainly, as shown in the Boeing (and not only Boeings, BTW) when conducting their test flight certification, to compile numbers to later be used to compile the performance charts, to program the performance computers onboard, to refine what the ENGINEERS already predicted....to fine-tune it, by using REAL WORLD collected data....really, any simple intellectual curiosity will show this to be the FACTS, not these silly, silly "chemtrail" nonsense claims.

SO......those tanks, notice how they're arranged??? (oh, and BTW....NONE of the "liquid" --- I.E., water, leaves the airplane, while in flight). There are NO METHODS to do so, from INSIDE the PRESSURIZED cabin. The tanks are arranged as you see, exactly for the reason I outlined....to alter the C/G (Center of Gravity) inflight, in a quick and easy way. FYI, merely the consumption of fuel --- burning off fuel, in flight --- ALSO alters C/G. Pilots, aviation engineers and aircraft designers all know this....seems the average layperson is totally ignorant of such technical niceties (Hence, they are so easily fooled by these "chemtrail" bozos, and their nonsense). By design, however...for the most part, this fact determines the PLACEMENT of the fuel tanks, in order to prevent extreme adverse effects from excessive C/G changes, in any given flight.

Back to the tanks....they are arranged to simulate the positioning of any passengers, in different seating arrangements, for different flights. Also, the location of any baggage loaded below, and cargo. Do you see how they don't even go UP TO THE CEILING??? Do you see how much wasted volume it there??? Oughta be a clue, to their actual purpose.

Man, this is so ridiculous, I have trouble understanding how people buy into ANY of this "chemtrail" crap, when it can be demonstrated, over and over and over again that, as you watch an airliner fly overhead, and leave a CONtrail, it can be independently verified AS a passenger flight (or, a commercial cargo flight, such as UPS or FedEx, for example). THOSE airplanes do NOT have the cabin, nor baggage hold areas, filed with "liquid" containers. And, as mentioned, but bears repeating --- NO way to get it outside the cabin!!! NO plumbing, no pumps, no nozzles, no NOTHING!

Finally, the photo of the Evergreen B-747 at the end of your post?? Was this meant as a joke, or do you really not understand just WHAT that is???

Ever heard of wildfires? Forest fires? Ever seen any videos of airborne fire-fighting methods, for those cases???

Know what happens? They dump their ENTIRE load, out of the BOTTOM (as that photo depicts) in a matter of seconds, then they have to land, and be filled up again, to go have another shot at it. They are specialized for that function....and, NO! They are NOT "dumping" anything, as seen (and completely misidentified) in normal CONtrails, at cruise altitude. Firefighting dumps have to be targeted, CLOSE to the ground...low altitudes. You will always, always, always see CONtrails form directly behind each engine, because that is what happens!!

I suggest a lot more education on this topic, lest more foolishness continue to be spread, here. And, elsewhere.....

Selective breeding of crops (rather than genetic modification) is also being carried out BTW. It's not as if aluminum toxicity is not seen as a problem....

The question is seen by a problem by WHOM? Or is that a solution (GMO) looking for a selling point?

Actually the use of wood ash, manure and compost is readily available in third world countries. My own experiments with commercial fertilizer and lime for a few years followed by wood ash and manure the next few showed the commercial stuff did not work nearly as well. Also the seed varieties planted by third world farmers are "tuned" to the micro climate of that farm. That is why the Global Diversity Treaty was set up to help steal the genetics from third world farmers. Monsanto and company are setting up seed accumulating stations in different countries. Click Click

I would suggest reading what Vandana Shiva has to say about the subject. Or UK's ISIS:

# The largest single study in the world in Ethiopia shows composting gives 30 percent more crop yields than chemical fertilizers
# Scientists, too, find organic out yields conventional agriculture by a factor of 1.3, and green manure alone could provide all nitrogen needs....
www.i-sis.org.uk...

In India, corporations have placed patents on their genetically modified seeds, making it illegal for farmers to save seeds from year to year. Scientist and environmentalist Vandana Shiva examines the correlation between widespread, continuous hunger and the introduction of genetically engineered seeds and agrochemicals, particularly in India. These corporations essentially force Indian farmers to buy new, genetically modified seeds every year. But, Shiva has created a seed bank program called Navdanya to provide farmers with organic seeds as an alternative to the expensive GMO seeds available. Inspired by tactics of Gandhi and his “celebration of the small,” Shiva hopes to return power over the Earth and its resources to the hands of the people. She believes that by preventing the extinction of indigenous seeds and involving women in the fight, "networks of the small" can fight corporations.
www.yesmagazine.org...

I do not have a problem with the concept of commercial fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and GMO seeds, IF they are proven safe and effective. I do have a problem with Corporate agents in governments and trade organizations stacking the deck and placing human livelyhoods, health and lives at stake. There is just too much evidence that something stinks to high heaven in the world of Monsanto, GMO and the international Agribusiness.

F. William Engdahl and many others have written extensively on the subject.
Seeds of Destruction Part I
Part II
Part III

History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job - By Nicole Johnson.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
really, any simple intellectual curiosity will show this to be the FACTS, not these silly, silly "chemtrail" nonsense claims.

What are you on about? I didn't mention chemtrails, I just asked you a polite question.

seems the average layperson is totally ignorant of such technical niceties (Hence, they are so easily fooled by these "chemtrail" bozos, and their nonsense). . . .
Man, this is so ridiculous, I have trouble understanding how people buy into ANY of this "chemtrail" crap, . . . . And, as mentioned, but bears repeating --- NO way to get it outside the cabin!!! NO plumbing, no pumps, no nozzles, no NOTHING!

Way to go, WW, showing how you can invent strawmen and be stupidly rude to someone asking a polite question.
Once more, I did not mention chemtrails.
And again, to get the point across ... I did not mention chemtrails.
I know the purpose of the set-up pictured, and asked politely in you thought the set-up could be adapted to releasing liquid outside the aircraft. And you carry on as if I've asked how often you've bedded your grandmother!

Finally, the photo of the Evergreen B-747 at the end of your post?? Was this meant as a joke, or do you really not understand just WHAT that is???

Ever heard of wildfires? Forest fires?

I hope, you rude, comprehensionially compromised example of arrogance, you never get to learn as much as I have about bushfires from personal experience and never lose friends of yours to them. I've lived in bushfire-prone areas most of my life and had to fight them myself to protect my children and farm animals.

Ever seen any videos of airborne fire-fighting methods, for those cases???

I've seen them (the Australian versions) from directly underneath, when I've been surrounded by fire. I have seen them dump water when need be, which, btw, they often add fire-retardent chemicals to first, and I've seen them release a spray slowly, further from the fire.

In Australian bushfires in eucalypt forests it's not possible to fly directly over the fire unless you are quite high up. Explosive fireballs can occur above the fires, like fuel/air bombs, and even if they miss you the air-pocket created can bring you down. The temperatures recorded in the last bushfires, where friends of mine died, were 1400* Celcius. Even the bones were turned to powder.

Know what happens? They dump their ENTIRE load, out of the BOTTOM (as that photo depicts) in a matter of seconds, then they have to land, and be filled up again, to go have another shot at it. They are specialized for that function....and, NO! They are NOT "dumping" anything, as seen (and completely misidentified) in normal CONtrails, at cruise altitude. Firefighting dumps have to be targeted, CLOSE to the ground...low altitudes.

The fire-fighting aircraft we use in Australia are not confined to dumping their whole load at once. They can alter the rate of flow as they choose, and spray a large area slowly if they want. They also are not confined to using water. It's quite common to see fire-retardent jelly being spread at some distance ahead of the fire.

However I've only seen these from outside, and was curious about the internal set-up, thus my question to you.

You will always, always, always see CONtrails form directly behind each engine, because that is what happens!!

And what does this have to do with my post?

I suggest a lot more education on this topic, lest more foolishness continue to be spread, here. And, elsewhere.....

You must be pretty arrogant to assume a person speaking to you politely is stupid and sound off at them like this. Especially when you are so lacking in comprehension you keep haranging them about something they didn't say.

Now lets try again.
I know what both the planes are for.
I never suggested fire-fighting planes were responsible for chemtrails.

However, there has been investigation into the spraying of aluminium, (that's English for aluminum,) aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect a part of the solar radiation.
You asked:

Show how this alleged quantity of aluminum can be "sprayed"....it has weight!! And mass, it takes up volume!!!

You must admit, an Evergreen B-747 outfitted for fire-fighting can hold a lot of liquid. And you already, (I should hope,) know the cruising altitude of this plane. The fact that it is used at a comparitively low altitude for fire-fighting does not indicate it could not be used at a higher altitude. The fact that it can dump water fast does not mean a calibrated spray system could not be set up. The fact that contrails come from jet engines does not mean an aluminium aerosol spray would have to.

Spraying aluminium would not be difficult at all.
The big question though, is would we be told about it, or would it be handled quietly by the military so the government could avoid law-suits from anyone who got sick with aluminium poisoning?

reply to post by zorgon





I suspect it's the same plane, but this one has a hazmat booklet on the wall, so I doubt it's water, more likely glycol or some other fluid.

reply to post by exile1981


NO, it is photoshopped, by one of the "chemtrail" websites supporters!!!

It is the lavatory. No "glycol" in there....why would they store glycol ON the airplane, in THAT location?? (Glycol is used primarily for external de-icing/anti-icing on the ground. Glycol/water mixtures have also been used in SOME cases, in turbine engines. It's called "water injection", and is used only to provide extra thrust, from the engines, during takeoffs. The water/glycol mix helps to keep the EGT down, by providing a cooling effect....thus, more "horsepower" can briefly be sustained, without exceeding internal engine temperature limits).

When I have time, I will hunt for the ORIGINAL photo, and source, before it was altered......

reply to post by weedwhacker


If you mix glycol with the water in those tanks then it thickens the water and would prevent sloshing of the water in the tanks. Then you could move the mixture around with pumps and be better able to control the variables than with water alone.

reply to post by exile1981


Oh, I see....you're talking about the flight testing tanks, and the mixture they use in that self-contained system?

Actually, I hadn't gotten around to researching that...I used "water" in the most generic of senses, to describe the actual function of those tanks.

There is a fine line, when I post, between becoming overly specific and technical, to just trying to explain in more generic ways. (I usually trend towards the former, and become too verbose....which makes my posts have less impact, if people's eyes glaze over while reading...)

For instance, above when talking about "water-injection" I mentioned its use in turbine engines, because THAT was my experience. Looked it up, and then was reminded (because, I HAD heard of this before, just forgot) that it was also used in piston reciprocating airplane engines, too. Also, I erred when I said it was "glycol and water" in those systems....it really is just plain old isopropyl alchohol and water, in about a 50/50 blend. (It makes a distinctive smell, when in use...as it enters the ventilation system, from bleed air sources --- in the case of turbine engines).

reply to post by exile1981


But, again....back to the inflight testing, and the photo which SHOWS an airplane equipped in that manner, here is an article on it (unfortunately, it TOO is 'generic' about hte substance in the barrels, just says "water". IF there is some glycol added to it, as you suggest, that certainly makes sense...but, it isn't really my area of expertise...I just fly the darn airplnes! Not a test pilot, nor an engineer involved in such activities).

Flight-Testing for the Boeing 777-300ER

Boeing's policy for flight-testing allows only pilots on board for an airplane's first flight. Gradually essential personnel, such as engineers and flight-test crew are allowed on to perform onboard analysis.

"These folks can make decisions and change testing immediately, if needed," Santoni said. "We beam the data to the ground, but we also can analyze the data while we're still in the air. The onboard crew is able to perform three or four experiments to maximize our time and minimize costs."

Not your typical airplane

The 242-foot-long 777-300ER is filled with rows of computer workstations and printers, racks of data storage and 45 60-gallon water barrels. During flights an engineer moves water among the barrels, shifting the weight between the front and rear of the airplane, which changes the airplane's center of gravity.

Computer workstations allow engineers to view what's happening on the flight deck. Video screens show the pilot's flight and navigation displays, and each screen includes a digital time stamp See timestamp. . If something goes wrong, the videotape relays can pinpoint the exact sequence of events.

Also inside the airplane are temporary sidewalls and overhead ceiling panels, which allow anyone on board to see the roomy open space in the crown of the airplane. Eventually this space will house an overhead flight attendant and crew rest.

Capisce?

reply to post by weedwhacker


The only flight test I was involved in was on a MUCH smaller dual prop plane. We used glycol mixed with water (It's been a long time 17 years) so I forget the mixture and since I was the grunt labour on that one I didn't mix just carried the buckets. It was also late october which up here means it can freeze overnight so we may have been using it to prevent ice in the tanks rather than to prevent sloshing to be honest. And we did just stick an MSDS sheet for the glycol in one of those plastic sleeves and stick it to the back of the pilots chair.

I can't see them using glycol to prevent freezing in the tansk on a 777 as they would have a heated cabin and have kept it in a hanger overnight.

Our hanger wasn't heated, cheap ***'s.

Originally posted by Phage
A bit off topic but..
The snow samples came from Shasta Ski Bowl, which is not really the top of a mountain. The entire area around Shasta was used for mining in the past. There could be several possible sources for the aluminum (one of the most common elements) in the sample. Windborne dust would be the most likely.

edit on 10/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Phage, please address the Scientist in this video who's been collecting soil samples for 20 years, and the rates of Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium they find in these tests. I really would like a balancing opinion on this, it seems open and shut on the surface of it...

Originally posted by zorgon
Cons? or just plain incompetent fools?
Federal Reserve Lost 9 TRILLION Dollars.

Anyone that believes the Fed bankers just "lost" this money other than down their own, or friends pockets... I've got a bridge I'll sell you cheap....

Oh for PITY'S sake!!!! Listen to yourselves, and then, step back and apply some logic!!!!

Airplanes and other contraptions that are flying in the skies must
be sending down enough particles...

How many are "enough" so-called 'particles' to make any difference, hmmm?

In pounds (or kilograms, if you prefer) per square mile (or square kilometer)???

Instead of sitting there, and expounding on this like it "was or is happening", try to bring some actual numbers to it, for a change!!!! Else, chalk it up to "magic"?? Because, that's all you will have left, once you look critically at the physics.

Weed, I respect your skeptical voice and personally have taken a neutral stance towards this subject as I have not seen evidence before. The video I posted above has hard facts and 20 years worth of registered results. Could you please watch and address it as a counter point view... I've asked the same of phage. I know this is an "old" thread but it is making me lean from neutral towards this is real.

I hear and accept your "don't trust their agenda." It is very valid and pertinent. Can you please address the facts presented in the studies quoted.

Originally posted by Phage
Edward teller also wrote about the possibility of injecting aerosols by the use of aircraft ...
Strange. I don't see anyone talking about the sky being any bluer. I only see complaints about how "chemtrails" produce cloudy skies.

You are quoting a theoretic paper vs. actual observed results of the experiment... if the video I posted above is true. Experimental theory often differs from observed results.

Originally posted by burntheships
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af22587ccaa1.png[/atsimg]

If this is going on it is interesting, but not surprising they would go with cheap and effective over safe..... 4 4 2.... typical.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you for the photo explanation. Also on the skeptical end of this I question why I've not heard of military people saying they did the spraying. Don't know if this is because it doesn't exist or if I've just not researched enough.

Originally posted by zorgon
The QUESTION YOU ASKED was in regards capacity... well this clearly shows that they could EASILY carry the volume needed.

Good point. Also there seems to be a fuzzy argument that this geo-engineering can't be done because "it would take to much" (I think weed raised this earlier)... well.. the scientists say it can be done, and very cheaply from what I've read in this thread already. So all the arguments that this can't be done because of technology, cost, etc... should be laid aside as a moot point.

Originally posted by Kailassa


Nice picture showing how a large passenger jet could be converted to carry a huge amount of liquid.

Do you think that set-up could be used in a plane like this?

Good point, it's easy to make a plane capable of spraying. Can we all agree on this please.

The question is if they have begun, not if they are capable. All the data from the scientists say it can be done, it's a question of will it be done, or has it begun already.

I am still not sure either way. I have seen good points on both sides of this argument, but this thread has pushed me more towards the geoengineering has begun from a pretty solid I think chemtrails is baloney stance before this thread. I really would appreciate phage and weedwacker addressing the science in the video I posted above (or anyone else) and see if you can debunk the science presented there. It is the most conclusive I've seen anywhere... and yes, I hear you about question the source (that is a very salient point but already stated) please just address the science.

reply to post by pianopraze


Actually, the video "WitWatS?" (What in the World are they Spraying?) is a complete steaming pile of fresh.....landfill material.

The video I posted above has hard facts and 20 years worth of registered results. Could you please watch and address it as a counter point view.

I had given a thought to a thorough, point-by-point examination and refute to the outrageous, incorrect and skewed claims made....but, there is this that has already been done, and they summarize the video thusly:

The basic premise of the film is:

• Normal Contrails fade away quickly
  
• Scientists have talked about geoengineering using aluminum sprayed from planes
  
• Since 1999, trails have been observed to persist for a long time
  
• Tests in various locations at ground level have found different levels of aluminum
  
• Monsanto has genetically engineered aluminum resistent crops
  
• The government denies any spraying or geoengineering is going on
  
• THEREFORE: The trails are aluminum being sprayed as part of a secret government geoengineering project.

Source

In your question, you mention "20 years of registered results". The source notes, in part:

The aluminum tests are scientifically unsound

So the film is based on a false premise, and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion. But what about the aluminum tests? You can find the tests referenced in the film here:

contrailscience.com...

Feel free to peruse the rest of source.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you, I read through your source article... but I find it raises more questions to me than answers.
source paper

The first aluminum result is from the pond, discussed at the start of part 3, and it’s 375,000 ug/l. What they don’t mention is that it’s from pond sediment, sludge. So essentially it’s not testing water, but is instead testing the amount of aluminum in soil. So that’s 375 mg/kg for sediment that has settled in a pond over several years. That’s actually quite low. Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%, but is typically 7.1%, or 71,000 mg/kg. The amount of aluminum found in the sludge is quite easily explained by windblown dust. It’s low, probably because it’s a new pond, so a lot of the sediment is vegetable matter.

It is specifically stated this is a new pond with a special liner... so the above assertion is patently false and misleading. This was dug out and lined so it would not have the stated vegetable mater suggested any more than the similar but smaller one in my back yard.

I do find the 71k number interesting... but this is not what the video was addressing with the US Forestry Service 20 years of soil data. They were saying the PH is being changed. What would be a better argument is the video fails to substantiate the rise in PH to the aluminum... it is highly suggested but not proven.

Then there are the rain readings. 33, 262, 650, 188, 525, 881, 84, 815, 3450, 2190 ug/L. Wildly different values, some high sounding, some low. But no details are provided that correlate these different numbers of contrail activity. If this variation were due to aerial spraying, then surely a match would be found. These numbers simply tell us that different tests produced different results. It does not tell us why. No details of the sampling procedure are given, or the weather conditions preceding the test. Nor are we told what are the expected levels of aluminum to be found under these conditions.

Again misleading and mind manipulation arguments. They state that there are extremely high results in one breath and dismiss in the next. The video explicitly states their are days of spraying and days where there are not (min 24:20). The above data collaborates video testimony and substantiates their assertions. And these levels are self admittedly too high according to this article... to dismiss it as they don't know what the "expected" levels should be, is a fallacious argument.... they should be less than is being found unless there is an outside element introducing these substances and government action is required at 1000 - these numbers exceed that.

How much aluminum is there in the dust? Let’s say it’s about the ame as the amount of aluminum in soil (although it’s probably higher). How much dust is there in rain? According of Edward Elway Free of the the United State Bureau of Soils, in his book “The Movement of Soil Material by the Wind“, in tests performed by Tissandier, rain water contained 25,000 to 172,000 ug/L of particulates. But he notes “As the amounts of rain and snow which fell in the various cases are not given, the figures are of little value. The first drops of a rain storm will of course contain the largest percentage of dust, and as the storm continues the air is gradually wasted clean.”. Still if only 1% of the lowest figures there were aluminum, then that’s still 250 ug/L. And at a quite plausible 10% of the upper range, that’s 17,200 ug/L. A range that easily covers the observed test results.

This is the best argument set forward in this article, but it falls short also as it does not give sample data showing what the actual levels are in the region and this would not cause changes in soil ph because the soil being blown around would not substantially change the ph of the soil in the region. If I throw dirt from one area of my yard into another it's not going to change the ph absent some outside source.

Observed ph has been rising sharply per the US Forestry observed data and correspondingly changing the PH of the soil in the last 5 years escalating 10-12 times previous recorded data. (which I wish they would have shown actual data, I hate taking their word for it... this is a glaring hole in the video's argument... show the data people!). Another glaring whole I've found in the video is stating 6.8 is dangerously high which is then repudiated a few seconds later. I googled "ideal soil ph" and found this: link. which states ideal varies from 5.0-8.0. But it does say at the higher end the microorganisms and animals start to die so middle is better... presumably 6.x ph.

What the forester is saying is that a forest that has been at 5.6 over 20 years of data should stay around that to stay healthy, when you see a huge raise from 5.6 to 6.8 in 5 years it is unhealthy for the plants. The wind has presumably been blowing all this time so let's abandon wind blown soil an a factor in the change of the ph. I just pointed out the flaw in both theories here. I think the foresters point is valid.. especially as these number are presumably still rising and will presumably go outside the healthy range if current escalations persist on the observed data trend. Again the videos premise theory is that aluminum from spraying is raising the levels of the PH, but this link is not proved but it is a better argument absent other data.

The paper you provided says the dust from the wind is causing high levels in the water samples... even if correct, this does not address the change in ph. If the dust is in the wind it is being blown from the soil that is already there. Absent some outside source of new aluminum such as spraying or some other unknown catalyst for ph change, the ph in the soil would remain invariant. So this paper does not address the correct arguments and repudiate the video.

reply to post by pianopraze


Notwithstanding any of the assumptions of problems with the pond, liner, collection criteria, etc....those are rather un-scientific, in that there is no strict "control group" protocol involved.


About the pH changes....I might, off the top of my head, think to steer towards the concept of "acid rain" that was very, very much in the popular news media, and lingo, just a few years' back (a decade or more?). Seems it ran its course, as a "talking point" meme.

"Acid rain", though, was not related nor connected to contrails....but was a concern (valid, I would think) in that the "water cycle" of Mother Nature would pick up and distribute pollutants....land-based mostly, since the majority source was from such things as factories, mines, even autos and trucks, etc.

The rather loaded phrase "acid rain" was criticized, since it conjures up visions of ....well, acid....as in battery (sulphuric) and scenes from the movie "Alien" (LOL!).

When, in fact, it was intended to describe the altering of pH because of that aforementioned pollution factor...trending away from alkaline towards more acidity values. IIRC.

Also, in dredging up the memory banks, from online, was reminded that is not a new phenomenon. Was noted ever since the beginnings of the Industrial Age. There are also natural activities that can produce local variances. (Volcanoes, lightning, etc).

A few links, from a quick online search:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.epa.gov...

From 2002:

www.policyalmanac.org...

Generalized article (sorry, Wiki....just because it pops up first) about soil pH:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Notwithstanding any of the assumptions of problems with the pond, liner, collection criteria, etc....those are rather un-scientific, in that there is no strict "control group" protocol involved.


About the pH changes....I might, off the top of my head, think to steer towards the concept of "acid rain" that was very, very much in the popular news media, and lingo, just a few years' back (a decade or more?). Seems it ran its course, as a "talking point" meme.

"Acid rain", though, was not related nor connected to contrails....but was a concern (valid, I would think) in that the "water cycle" of Mother Nature would pick up and distribute pollutants....land-based mostly, since the majority source was from such things as factories, mines, even autos and trucks, etc.

The rather loaded phrase "acid rain" was criticized, since it conjures up visions of ....well, acid....as in battery (sulphuric) and scenes from the movie "Alien" (LOL!).

When, in fact, it was intended to describe the altering of pH because of that aforementioned pollution factor...trending away from alkaline towards more acidity values. IIRC.

Also, in dredging up the memory banks, from online, was reminded that is not a new phenomenon. Was noted ever since the beginnings of the Industrial Age. There are also natural activities that can produce local variances. (Volcanoes, lightning, etc).

A few links, from a quick online search:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.epa.gov...

From 2002:

www.policyalmanac.org...

Generalized article (sorry, Wiki....just because it pops up first) about soil pH:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by weedwhacker

There are control groups on the soil ph. 20 years of county records. Admittedly the water could be contaminated by soil, but the data i've seen so far shows the soil has less aluminum than the water in the pond and on Mt. Shasta. So that would not be a good argument to forward. Again the movement of soil would not change the PH so drastically. Prevailing high level winds bringing these from China would be a better argument, but that has been analyzed and shown not to be the source.

Good thought about the acid rain. However Acid would make the PH number GO DOWN, not up... so it is going the OPPOSITE from acid rain per your sources:

How Do We Measure Acid Rain?

Acid rain is measured using a scale called "pH." The lower a substance's pH, the more acidic it is. Pure water has a pH of 7.0. Normal rain is slightly acidic because carbon dioxide dissolves into it, so it has a pH of about 5.5. As of the year 2000, the most acidic rain falling in the US has a pH of about 4.3.

The majority of food crops prefer a neutral (pH 7) or slightly acidic soil (between 3.0 and 5.0)

Acidic is lower in number. Also acid rain has been an issue since the 80's at least... This would not cause the change in the last five years, or the increase of aluminum. If it were Acid rain the number would have gone from 5.6 to 4.3 instead of to 6.8. Acidity is lower, not higher.

As you get further into the video they goto hawaii to an all organic farm and the levels of Aluminum in the bodies are off the chart. The findings of the Senator in Arizona about the astronomical levels of aluminum in the air there (orders of magnitude higher than the 71k from the paper and these are in the air.. not soil) are also telling.

Local variance might be a good point, but from what. The data shows steady until the last five years.

Volcanoes also crossed my mind but there has been no vulcanism in this area in the last 5 years. This does not prove the videos assertion that it is the spraying. What is needed are plains to go up into the supposed chemtrails and analyze them. I find it strange this has not been forwarded and completed. But you have not begun to address the videos assertions or my points from above. You've only shows factors that would make the soil level go in the opposite levels from those observed and recorded. I have provided more flaws from the video than you have at this point.

So far BTS has provided better evidence and arguments in this thread. I'm new to this chemtrail as I dismissed it as a hoax before this. I'm swaying towards there might be something here at this point.

The facts say it only takes millions of dollars to implement (with black budgets in the BIllions this is a pittance) this project and our science (Tsar) advisor (the evil b****** euginicist that he is has stated his approval of the idea). You have the will, the means, and evidence presented in this thread. I'm looking for solid counter arguments to the information presented and not finding any yet.

I would like to see some closeups of these planes from good photo or video equipment so we can identify what is going on. I would like to see air analysis of these supposed chemtrails. If these are civilian jets, the fuel needs to be analyzed. If military or other... then huge questions arise. This videos argument is speculative but it offers better arguments and circumstantial evidence than the opposition I've heard so far. You and phage are both debunkers... step up my friend. I'm starting from neutral to haox, and BTS is winning this argument in my mind so far...

Originally posted by pianopraze

What the forester is saying is that a forest that has been at 5.6 over 20 years of data should stay around that to stay healthy, when you see a huge raise from 5.6 to 6.8 in 5 years it is unhealthy for the plants. The wind has presumably been blowing all this time so let's abandon wind blown soil an a factor in the change of the ph. I just pointed out the flaw in both theories here. I think the foresters point is valid.. especially as these number are presumably still rising and will presumably go outside the healthy range if current escalations persist on the observed data trend. Again the videos premise theory is that aluminum from spraying is raising the levels of the PH, but this link is not proved but it is a better argument absent other data.

The paper you provided says the dust from the wind is causing high levels in the water samples... even if correct, this does not address the change in ph. If the dust is in the wind it is being blown from the soil that is already there. Absent some outside source of new aluminum such as spraying or some other unknown catalyst for ph change, the ph in the soil would remain invariant.

Pianopraze,

Thanks for your insight and comments!

Your assement cuts through much of the argument that is usally presented to debunk the soil contamination increase in aluminum that has occured in the last decade.

I guess the usual explanation for the increase is acid rain?

reply to post by burntheships

A higher pH represents lower acidity, not higher. Acid rain does not cause a higher pH, it causes a lower pH.

Aluminum oxide, the most common culprit cited by "chemtrailers" (and also happens to be one of the most common compounds found naturally) is insoluble in water . Aluminum sulfate is soluble in water but, as a sulfate, it would decrease pH levels, not raise them.

It does not seem reasonable to claim that aluminum is the cause of increasing pH levels.

reply to post by Phage


Hi Phage,

Actually I was just referring to Weed's comments...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pianopraze

 

About the pH changes....I might, off the top of my head, think to steer towards the concept of "acid rain" that was very, very much in the popular news media, and lingo, just a few years' back (a decade or more?). Seems it ran its course, as a "talking point" meme.

"Acid rain", though, was not related nor connected to contrails....but was a concern (valid, I would think) in that the "water cycle" of Mother Nature would pick up and distribute pollutants....land-based mostly, since the majority source was from such things as factories, mines, even autos and trucks, etc.

The rather loaded phrase "acid rain" was criticized, since it conjures up visions of ....well, acid....as in battery (sulphuric) and scenes from the movie "Alien" (LOL!).

When, in fact, it was intended to describe the altering of pH because of that aforementioned pollution factor...trending away from alkaline towards more acidity values. IIRC.

Also, in dredging up the memory banks, from online, was reminded that is not a new phenomenon. Was noted ever since the beginnings of the Industrial Age. There are also natural activities that can produce local variances. (Volcanoes, lightning, etc).

reply to post by burntheships

Pianopraze,

Thanks for your insight and comments! ...

I must have misunderstood. In any case, no, acid rain does not cause an increase in pH, as Pianopraze pointed out.