Chem trails

casey212 wrote: »

why care, why debate the issue?

Could it be so that those you seek to raise awareness in are given the chance to hear both sides?

Don't you think its important that people get to hear both sides and make up their minds for themselves?

Do you think its acceptable that people are told they should not present their opinions, but rather should leave the discussion to those who have a differing opinion to them?

bonkey wrote: »

Could it be so that those you seek to raise awareness in are given the chance to hear both sides?

Don't you think its important that people get to hear both sides and make up their minds for themselves?

Do you think its acceptable that people are told they should not present their opinions, but rather should leave the discussion to those who have a differing opinion to them?

There are not two sides to this issue. Chemicals are being sprayed, how can this have two sides?

Why are you debating this?

Is it because of a benevolence toward mankind?

humanji

casey212 wrote:

This has to be the most stupid response I have ever seen.

You don't read you're own posts then?

casey212 wrote:

Allegedly chemicals are being sprayed

I fixed that one for you.

casey212 wrote:

I am concerned by this and seek to raise awareness.

Well, that's something, but there's little or no evidence to support your claims, so it can amount to scaremongering which does nobody any good.

casey212 wrote:

Where as you who proclaim that such activities are not taking place (you own personal beliefs I could hazard a guess at), then it will not harm you, why care, why debate the issue?

Man, you're missing the point. You see, there's 2 sides to the debate. You believe chemicals are being sprayed and others believe that they aren't. You have no conclusive proof that you're right, and the others have no conclusive proof that you're wrong. Therefore, you have a theory that has yet to be proven one way or the other.

This forum is for talking about these types of theories, for those who are for and against the theories.

casey212 wrote: »

There are not two sides to this issue. Chemicals are being sprayed, how can this have two sides?

Well, the two sides are :

1) Yes, we are being sprayed - chemtrails are real.
2) No, we are not being sprayed. They're contrails.

Why are you debating this?

Because I believe that there are two sides, and that your insistence to the contrary doesn't serve anyone.

Is it because of a benevolence toward mankind?

In a sense, yes. I believe my perspective, just as you believe yours. I (unlike you, apparently) accept that there is more than one perspective. While I hold little or no hope of ever convincing you, jessop1, or a number of others that many things you've put your faith in are simply wrong, I have a much greater hope that by ensuring the issue is discussed that others who approach the issue with a degree of uncertainty get to hear both sides.

I find it ironic that you, jessop1, etc. comment about how people all-too-easily believe what they're told, especially when they're only fed one side of the issue. And yet, despite being able to identify this problem, you believe that as long as its your side, there's no problem.

Indeed, you seem to be suggesting here that there is something wrong with people getting more than one side on the issue.

Why is that? Why are you trying to prevent discussion on this topic? What are you trying to hide?

jessop1

you are right casey it doesnt make sense why people who think something is bs would spend so much of their time and energy on "debunking" it.

And even at that, why not do it over at irish skeptics, the forum which is intended for debunking and such?

If I was to post conspiracy info over on irish skeptics, I would expect the kind of responses you see from the resident debunkers here. But here, on the forum for discussing conspiracy theories, you are also met with the ridicule, scorn etc. strange that eh? smell an agenda??

as I've said earlier, the goal is to cow people like you and me into not posting this info for fear of ridicule and to make people who may be bordeline considering this stuff feel like an idiot for cotemplating that it may be true. Thats the job of the internet debunker in a nutshell basically.

See my thread from way back on debunkers and their tactics. Make sure to check out the link to the debunkers bible, I'm sure you will notice some familiar tactics.

Gordon, I read your link and had a look around that site... saw enough to tell me its a total debunkery propoganda website with the same scornful and ridiculing tone as we see from many round here - which in itself is highly suspicious. The purpose of that website is the same as that of the internet debunker as I've described above. nuff said.

jessop1

some more useful info resources on chemtrails:
http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
http://bariumblues.com/

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

If I was to post conspiracy info over on irish skeptics, I would expect the kind of responses you see from the resident debunkers here. But here, on the forum for discussing conspiracy theories, you are also met with the ridicule, scorn etc. strange that eh? smell an agenda??

I do, but not the one you mean. I'm curious why every time someone posts a contrary opinion to yours, however politely and calmly, you immediately start throwing around accusations of ridicule and scorn?

It's clear that what you want is a forum where you can post conspiracy theories, and where no-one will point out any flaws in those theories. It's also clear to me that that's not what this forum is. So why do you keep turning thread after thread into a meta-discussion on the purpose of this forum and the motives of people who have the temerity to disagree with you?

jessop1 wrote: »

as I've said earlier, the goal is to cow people like you and me into not posting this info for fear of ridicule and to make people who may be bordeline considering this stuff feel like an idiot for cotemplating that it may be true. Thats the job of the internet debunker in a nutshell basically.

That's not my goal. My goal is, like bonkey, to present an alternative - and usually much more rational and credible - explanation for the alleged phenomena you claim to observe, so that people can see that they're not as clear-cut as you like to claim.

jessop1 wrote: »

See my thread from way back on debunkers and their tactics. Make sure to check out the link to the debunkers bible, I'm sure you will notice some familiar tactics.

Again, why the meta-discussion? Can't you stay on-topic?

jessop1 wrote: »

Gordon, I read your link and had a look around that site... saw enough to tell me its a total debunkery propoganda website with the same scornful and ridiculing tone as we see from many round here - which in itself is highly suspicious. The purpose of that website is the same as that of the internet debunker as I've described above. nuff said.

I have to hand it to you, you're absolutely masterful at avoiding actually discussing anything. All you have to do is label a website - without actually having to, y'know, say anything factual about it - and it's simply painted out of the discussion.

The website Gordon linked is straightforward, factual and - importantly - accurate. If there's anything on that site that's factually inaccurate, please point it out.

Prediction: you won't. Because you can't.

jessop1

the ridicule and scorn was going on on this thread long before I joined it.

As for gordons link - there is a hell of a lot wrong over there - but for a start its main attempt to throw cold water on the barium issue is basically just saying arkansas (where the particular sample was taken) is a barium rich state and that explains it... conveniently omitting that barium chemtrails have been observed all over the world

And btw, the hypocrisy of you accusing me of not discussing his link when you havent discussed any of the research information (bar a couple of pictures) in my numerous previous links.

I'm not masterful at avoiding discussion on issues but I may have developed a knack (through experience) of not being drawn down blind allies of obfuscation by the usual debunkers with an agenda.

miju

TheThing banned from conspiracy theories for two weeks

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

As for gordons link - there is a hell of a lot wrong over there - but for a start its main attempt to throw cold water on the barium issue is basically just saying arkansas (where the particular sample was taken) is a barium rich state and that explains it... conveniently omitting that barium chemtrails have been observed all over the world

Nice try. On the contrary, it points out that the barium levels of the water collected were identical to levels found in tap water, and that the level of barium was misrepresented by confusing ppm with parts per billion.

jessop1 wrote: »

And btw, the hypocrisy of you accusing me of not discussing his link when you havent discussed any of the research information (bar a couple of pictures) in my numerous previous links.

It's stretching the point to describe some of what you've linked as "research". For example, this page talks about "energy and light displays", and blithely describes clouds as "artificial", with no explanation for this description. What follows is a series of photographs of altocumulus clouds.

Another site, which you describe as a "useful info resource", has a page talking about chemtrails in the Disney/Pixar movie "Cars".

jessop1 wrote: »

I'm not masterful at avoiding discussion on issues but I may have developed a knack (through experience) of not being drawn down blind allies of obfuscation by the usual debunkers with an agenda.

I'm not looking for blind allies, I'm trying to talk logic and sense. Your constant defensiveness makes it hard to do so.

Answer me one question: do you believe in the scientific method?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nice try. On the contrary, it points out that the barium levels of the water collected were identical to levels found in tap water, and that the level of barium was misrepresented by confusing ppm with parts per billion.

I take it you did not study geography?

Are you aware of the process through which rain water filters into rivers/reservoirs.

How would the spraying of chemicals into the air/clouds not affect tap water.

casey212 wrote: »

How would the spraying of chemicals into the air/clouds not affect tap water.

How can you tell whether the impurities effected the water before it fell as rain, or after, while it was in the ground?

Additionally, you should consider yoru logic in combination with the fact that it appears that the levels of barium detected were normal but (honestly or otherwise) misinterpreted. By your reasoning, this should tell you that there cannot be excess barium in the air, cause if there was it would have been found.

jessop1 wrote: »

but for a start its main attempt to throw cold water on the barium issue is basically just saying arkansas (where the particular sample was taken) is a barium rich state and that explains it...

His link says that barium is a naturally occurring element found more-or-less everywhere, and that in the specific video being referred to, the data on camera doesn't match with what the presenter claims, but rather matches the expected background trace.

If you call that "attempting to throw cold water", thats your perogative. I'd say that its sufficient to call the validity of the information into doubt (it could, after all, have been a non-technical film-maker who dummied up the wrong information for the camera) and that without independant verification of the actual results, the claim of the concentrations being way too high is no longer trustworthy. Furthermore, unless the water was collected as it fell, rather than being scooped up from a puddle or something (which fits more with the description offered in the video), then its not a test of anything.

conveniently omitting that barium chemtrails have been observed all over the world

There should be evidence of barium all over the world...its naturally occurring at trace levels.

The video referred to is perhaps the best-cited case claiming verification of extremely high barium levels. Its the only one I'm aware of, but if you're saying that other water tests have been done around the world, and that - unlike the video that was debunked - proper testing showed exceptionalyl high levels of barium....then by all means point us at the evidence.

We should consider, however, why this video is used by CT proponents at all? If they examined it and researched its claims, they should have spotted the error, or it doesn't bode well for their credibility (individually and en masse) when it comes to understanding even basic scientific issues. If they didn't examine it and do their own research to validate its claims....well....draw your own conclusions. If they examined it, found the errors, but still decided to push it as their best proof...well...I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that as well.

If you present a mish-mash of evidence, then its sufficient for the weakest of it to be debunked. There is no valid excuse for including something weak, wrong or just plain irrelevant in evidence. If there is better proof of high barium concentrations, then why was this video presented at all?

bonkey wrote: »

How can you tell whether the impurities effected the water before it fell as rain, or after, while it was in the ground?

Additionally, you should consider yoru logic in combination with the fact that it appears that the levels of barium detected were normal but (honestly or otherwise) misinterpreted. By your reasoning, this should tell you that there cannot be excess barium in the air, cause if there was it would have been found.

So are saying that if a chemical substance were to be sprayed in the air, it would not end up in the water supply to some extent.

casey212 wrote: »

So are saying that if a chemical substance were to be sprayed in the air, it would not end up in the water supply to some extent.

No, I'm not saying that. I said - and am saying - that if you found something in groundwater, you couldn't tell if it was absorbed from the air by moisture which fell as rain, or was absorbed from the ground after the moisture fell.

I'm also saying that if you know that there's a background trace of substance X, and you find a quantity that is statistically within the regions of the expected background levels, then you can't even claim that there is something beyond the expected levels to be explained in the first place.

Put differently....we can tell that water for any given region should have a background trace of barium within a certain range. Analysis of the water mentioned in that video showed that it had a background trace of barium, well within the expected range.

If too much barium was found, we'd need to find a source - a reason for it being there.
If too little barium was found, we'd need to find a sink - a reason for it not being there.

In either of these cases, we couldn't just automatically assume that the source or sink was in one particular area of the water cycle.

What you have done is taken a situation where no unusual amounts of barium have been detected, and suggested that the amounts found must have come from the rain. What this requires is:

- that there is a source of barium (which you say is the chemtrails),
- a reason to believe this source occurs before the moisture falls as rain (which you do nto supply)
- a reason to explain why this extra barium isn't being found - i.e. an additional barium sink (which you do not supply)

So you're not supplying two of the three necessary conditions for your theory to be true. Worse, your explanation for the first condition is also your conclusion, and you've constructed an argument where a lack of evidence is being misconstrued as evidence.

Also, please note what I said in response to jessop1 - I do not rule out that there are other tests showing higher-than-expected levels of barium. Rather, I'm dealing with the highest-profile example which was linked to here. If there's better tests, then I'm really interested both in seeing them and in hearing why such a broken example was supplied when better tests have been carried out.

Have a look at this.

http://www.newstarget.com/022434.html

No doubt another madman.

humanji

Right, I wrote a reply to this, but the pc crashed before it saved, so I'll run over the gist:

- It's not the same type of spraying as the chem trails fiasco. It's low level aerial spraying
- It's to spray a pheromone to disrupt the mating of apple moths who are not native to the US and as such are being eradicated
- The problem with the spray is that it is rumoured to contain polypropylene polybenzyl isocyanate. There is no proof that it does, just a load of people claiming it does.
- Rumours don't automatically = truth.

humanji wrote: »

Right, I wrote a reply to this, but the pc crashed before it saved, so I'll run over the gist:

- It's not the same type of spraying as the chem trails fiasco. It's low level aerial spraying
- It's to spray a pheromone to disrupt the mating of apple moths who are not native to the US and as such are being eradicated
- The problem with the spray is that it is rumoured to contain polypropylene polybenzyl isocyanate. There is no proof that it does, just a load of people claiming it does.
- Rumours don't automatically = truth.

This spraying has nothing to do with moths. Even the government report shows that the spraying is only taking place in the cities, no the agricultural areas.

Luckily BIG arnie is not in this country, yet.

humanji

The moths don't nest in rural areas, they nest (and mate) in the urban areas as there are less predators for them. This is why they are a major problem. In New Zealand and Australia, their normal habitats are less populace and more open. When the moths came to the US, they found more urban areas that were a much safer environment to exist in and so, their numbers swell exponentially.

This isn't a new thing to happen. This is why you can't bring plants and animals into foreign countries at will. One small slip and you can upset an entire ecosystem.

jessop1 wrote: »

But why would random x's curves and stars etc be written in the sky for no apparant reason and with no audience?

IF you were trying to spray an agent, why would you fly in an x or a *? That makes no sense! You'd fly up and down in parallel lines to ensure maximum dispersion. :rolleyes:

jessop1 wrote: »

If its still there after a couple of minutes or so its generally not a contrail. I accept that in some atmospheric conditions they can linger for longer and even spread and expand somewhat, but not into the thick soupy sky gunk that I have myself witnessed on numerous occasions and shown in some of the pics above.

These must be seriously MASSIVE tankers that can spray the type of areas you are talking about. Who owns this fleet? Who pays for it's maintenance and fuel? Are air traffic control in on this as well? or how are their flights managed?

Nonsense.

Mahatma coat

Oh they have MASSIVE tankers, and there are poeple who will blindly follow orders, and these damm Lizzxards have deep pockets (they invented money remember) but this whole thing still screams absolute bollox.

I'm curious about a few things, whats the chemical makeup of regular jet exhaust vapour, does burnin whats basicly Kerrosene with a few additives release any of these chemicals?

and as has been asked before WHY?
if I wanted to poison a population ( and sometimes I get that urge ) this would be the least effective or stealthy method I could think of, and also the most indiscriminate. seriously if I wanted to remove any specific section of society I'd just poison their Nachos/Fried Chicken/Breakfast Rolls/Dim Sims etc...

The one thing I will say tho is that I have been home for a few weeks now and I have been looking at the Contrails of the planes flying overhead during the day ( theres generally a lot more here than I get in Australia) and I have noticed a diference in them from what I remember as a child, and even when compared to old photos which had contrails.

so there is some kind of change after occuring in the composition of these things, anyone got any REAL ideas as to why, I think it might have something to do with the composition of the fuels but I cant really find anyting which compares jet fuel from the 80's and now.

Well, one of the main reasons for the spraying involves the use of HAARP. The aluminium and barium provide a conductive atmosphere greatly increasing effectiveness.

casey212 wrote: »

Well, one of the main reasons for the spraying involves the use of HAARP. The aluminium and barium provide a conductive atmosphere greatly increasing effectiveness.

Cool. Well I'm just glad they've decided to do it in the slowest most expensive way. Thankfully they hadn't taught of using low flying planes and mustard gas or some other nastie.

Zulu wrote: »

Cool. Well I'm just glad they've decided to do it in the slowest most expensive way. Thankfully they hadn't taught of using low flying planes and mustard gas or some other nastie.

Just have patience, that time will come to as long as people are living in ignorance.

What!?! They are going to kil us all!!! But then who would they spray?

Zulu wrote: »

What!?! They are going to kil us all!!! But then who would they spray?

Calm down. No need to get excited. Take some valium.

casey212 wrote: »

Calm down. No need to get excited. Take some valium.

I dunno man, that's a mind altering drug. You sure it's cool?

Zulu wrote: »

I dunno man, that's a mind altering drug. You sure it's cool?

Thats a decision you will have to make for yo self, man.