In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: rebelv

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: rebelv

Geo-engineering, also known as cloud seeding, isn't the same as "chemtrails". Maybe you should look up the difference.

hu,

That's exactly what their doing with chem-trails. They're
making clouds artificially.

At least from my observations, that's what always happens
when the chem-trails start crisscrossing all over the sky.

lol

Rebel 5

Yes they're making clouds, that's what the chemtrail believers fail to understand and why the whole "contrails don't persist" thing makes absolutely no sense at all. It's not cloud seeding though.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: rebelv

Let me guess, contrails disappear quickly but chemtrails linger and spread, right?

You know, before we went to Moon and analysed samples of it, we didn't know what it was really made of. There was even a rumour it was made of cheese. But it was right there in front of our eyes!

There's a parallel in there somewhere ;-)

No, the one's that turn into clouds and are relatively low
altitudes, crisscrossing, turning on and off their trail,
sometimes making complete circles and crossing over
their own trails, that turn into clouds...

would be contrails, and have always
existed since jet planes were invented,

no the chemtrails
would be those airplanes flying at very high altitudes where
its very cold, and condescension occurs across the wings,
and have a vapor "tail" that stays the same length from the
plane, so as the plane moves along, the back of the vapor trail
dissipated at a very consistent rate, and when the plane is no longer
visible the vapor tail is no longer seen as well, and does not form clouds.

The later would be chemtrails, because I've never seen those in my life
until the last 15 years or so give or take.

The reason they are chemtrails is because they are at an altitude
in which patronizing particles are added.

Rebel 5

a reply to: Petros312
Nice find. I don't know if that textbook is the same one
the host was referring to, but a nice find anyway,
and very well may be.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: rebelv

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: rebelv

Let me guess, contrails disappear quickly but chemtrails linger and spread, right?

You know, before we went to Moon and analysed samples of it, we didn't know what it was really made of. There was even a rumour it was made of cheese. But it was right there in front of our eyes!

There's a parallel in there somewhere ;-)

No, the one's that turn into clouds and are relatively low
altitudes, crisscrossing, turning on and off their trail,
sometimes making complete circles and crossing over
their own trails, that turn into clouds...

would be contrails, and have always
existed since jet planes were invented,

no the chemtrails
would be those airplanes flying at very high altitudes where
its very cold, and condescension occurs across the wings,
and have a vapor "tail" that stays the same length from the
plane, so as the plane moves along, the back of the vapor trail
dissipated at a very consistent rate, and when the plane is no longer
visible the vapor tail is no longer seen as well, and does not form clouds.

The later would be chemtrails, because I've never seen those in my life
until the last 15 years or so give or take.

The reason they are chemtrails is because they are at an altitude
in which patronizing particles are added.

Rebel 5

Erm, how do they make clouds without condensation?

a reply to: rebelv

So they've been spaying since 1918? The first reported persistent contrails were as far back as then. They lingered and became clouds.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rebelv

So they've been spaying since 1918? The first reported persistent contrails were as far back as then. They lingered and became clouds.

And what the hell are patronising particles?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I would think they are the particles around which the condescension occurs, but maybe my ATS decoder ring is busted.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Lovely talking to you; Petros; you're always so restrained, polite and rational, and above all so charming.

Obvious sarcasm (i.e., a cheap jab intentionally designed to irritate me, much like a troll would do).

Note that what follows below is not an attack on the above quoted person more than it is a critical evaluation of the person's claim. It's easy to confuse the two, especially when the person who has tried to use deception is exposed and is fighting back to save face.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
Read the data provided before you call me a liar.

What's funny is you keep telling me to read something that's supposedly indicative of "exhaustive" research on barium toxicity relevant to a discussion on its proposed use in geoengeneering (topic and category of this thread), yet you do not quote the important info, respond as if I'm not reading what you posted, and continue to feign innocence when once again I can demonstrate your claim is quite deceptive.

Again, your original claim:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted earlier. As you would have noticed if you had bothered to read even the table of contents.

Note above the phrases "a person's respiratory and neurological system" (i.e., a human being) and "when breathing in airborne barium" (which is not ingestion by mouth to the digestive system).

Your defense of being shown that despite your bold statement the research is severely limited and in no way "exhaustive" :

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
See 'Respiratory Tract Absorption', p.9; 'Inhalation Exposure', pp.12-15; the section on histologic evaluations of the gastrointestinal tract on p.23; and 'Inhalation Reference Concentration', p.47.

Read the data provided before you call me a liar.

Read the "data?" As it pertains to human beings (your claim) this information (link) is so sparse it can hardly be called "data." But -- if you insist on continuing to expose how you are being so misleading:

'Respiratory Tract Absorption', p.9;
This sub-heading actually appears on pg. 7. And the VERY FIRST THING IT SAYS: "No data are available on respiratory tract absorption of barium in humans."

Inhalation Exposure', pp.12-15
The subheading 4.1.3.Inhalation Exposure does pertain to human beings who were exposed to barium as an occupational hazard, but this is only WHAT'S AVAILABLE FROM OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE. These case reports have limited information. For example the first 3 mentioned claim the individuals had signs of baritosis, which means they were inflicted with a lung disease. (See pneumoconios). If inhalation doesn't cause cancer it sure the hell is still capable of causing respiratory illness (in contrast to ingestion). The studies that follow address the prevalence of baritosis in the available cases studied, and even if no baritosis is found it does not follow from this that inhalation of barium particulates does not cause lung disease. Some of the research is not relevant anyway because, for example, "At this time, dust concentrations, ranging from 2734 to 11,365 particles per mL, were measured using a thermal precipitator; the concentration of barium in the dust was not measured" (Doig 1976). You see another study done (NIOSH 1982) with workers at a Sherwin Williams paint factory, albeit their particulate inhalation includes much more than barium so there are uncontrolled extraneous variables that could affect results. Yet, even here after supposedly isolating barium inhalation through statistical control it's suspected the people exposed to barium had increased blood pressure (hypertension). The validity of the research is questionable if it was based on a survey. The last study pertains to welders who used rods that contain barium, so this is not quite relevant. In fact, the only thing that can be learned from this research is that airborne barium particles can cause lung disease and high blood pressure, and if you contrast this with evaluations of ingested barium you see there's a distinct difference in the effects of barium if ingested vs. inhaled. But this is not "exhaustive" research by any means.

Histologic evaluations of the gastrointestinal tract on p.23
More irrelevant information about rats ingesting barium.

'Inhalation Reference Concentration', p.47.
This is only a summary of the above mentioned results indicating that barium particles when inhaled may be the cause of lung disease and hypertension.


Thus, there is only a single subheading (4.1.3.Inhalation Exposure) from several that you claim are relevant to "What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium" that actually is relevant, yet particularly limited given they cover case studies of occupational exposure. There is no information in this subheading validating your claims above:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted earlier. As you would have noticed if you had bothered to read even the table of contents.

Hence, this futile exercise only further demonstrates that you are still, under the guise of "exhaustive" research supposedly having been done that thoroughly outlines the dangers of human beings exposed to barium as airborne particulate matter, quite deceptive (aka a liar).

I repeat:

I urge others to go to the link and read the sparse data presented for yourselves and note the use of deception being used by someone who claims an issue relevant to geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory has somehow been debunked with this information, particularly given "debunkers" are attempting once again to confuse issues, misrepresent scientific research, and come to firm conclusions in the absence of evidence while posting:

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: network dude
The truth is that barium, like most light metals, simply isn't very toxic.

originally posted by: network dude
It does make a lot of sense that if it [barium] was a dangerous chemical doctors wouldn't be asking you to drink it or pipe it up your bum.

So it looks like at least one part of the hype has been put back into the reality box.

On the contrary, hype and exaggerated claims are all over this thread now for the purpose of supposedly "debunking" one issue of geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory. If you people are not intentionally engaged in a disinformation campaign, you are aiding those who are.

My work is done here.

originally posted by: Petros312

My work is done here.

Not quite. While you have done a fantastic job at showing how upset you can act, you haven't shown what levels are hazardous to humans with regard to barium. YOU are the one who seems to have issues with it. Before you can claim a level is "high" or even "elevated", you have to have something to compare it to.

At what level is barium in the blood become a problem?

originally posted by: network dude

At what level is barium in the blood become a problem?

At some point between 0.0mg/l and 9.9mg/l.

originally posted by: network dude
... While you have done a fantastic job at showing how upset you can act, you haven't shown what levels are hazardous to humans with regard to barium...

--An ad hominem type attack designed to mar my character.

originally posted by: network dude
Before you can claim a level is "high" or even "elevated", you have to have something to compare it to.
At what level is barium in the blood become a problem?

The one thing I see you do consistently is shift the focus of someone's point away from what their main point is. Now that once again you are bringing up the supposed importance of some specific level of barium to be found in the blood that somehow "proves" toxicity it's even more apparent.

How many different ways does it need to be said? Ingestion of barium and inhalation of airborne barium particles will both show up as levels elevated above some usual amount in the blood, BUT the effects of the two different exposures will lead to different health issues. If we do not have some all important "level of barium in the blood" that is indicative of toxicity (but actually we do, and I'm not going there because I'm playing into your distraction if I do), it does not negate the simple claim:

Airborne metal particulate matter, some of which has been proposed by geoengineers as useful in some way for geoengineering, which includes barium, pose a health hazard to certain individuals, specifically the respiratory system.

This simple claim is being "debunked" even in this thread in a very dubious manner. Be sure to ask me now what "level of barium" as inhaled airborne particles poses a health hazard. If you're a rat the above posted "exhaustive" research might help you determine this.

I admit the last sentence above can be a double entendre. As I said my work is done here.

You may have missed my question earlier. Can you clarify which geoengineering proposal you are referring to?
a reply to: Petros312

a reply to: Petros312

Now that once again you are bringing up the supposed importance of some specific level of barium to be found in the blood that somehow "proves" toxicity it's even more apparent.

Didn't that 'movie' "Shade" present claims of "elevated levels" of barium in their blood? That is what started this, right?

originally posted by: mrthumpy
You may have missed my question earlier. Can you clarify which geoengineering proposal you are referring to?
a reply to: Petros312

Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
"Keith proposes that disc-shaped, engineered nanoparticles, composed of layers of aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate, be released into the stratosphere."

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Didn't that 'movie' "Shade" present claims of "elevated levels" of barium in their blood? That is what started this, right?

--Well there you have it debunkers. Your chance now to sabotage even THIS thread topic by "debunking" the Shade vid for further distraction, deception, making firm conclusions in the absence of evidence, distorting blood test results (with links to metabunk.org), etc.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: mrthumpy
You may have missed my question earlier. Can you clarify which geoengineering proposal you are referring to?
a reply to: Petros312

Geoengineering: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
"Keith proposes that disc-shaped, engineered nanoparticles, composed of layers of aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate, be released into the stratosphere."

Thanks. I would imagine something like that would be very easy to spot in the environment, difficult to mistake that for something natural. Now, is there any way barium in that form can end up in the blood?

a reply to: Petros312

Well there you have it debunkers. Your chance now to sabotage even THIS thread topic by "debunking" the Shade vid for further distraction, deception, making firm conclusions in the absence of evidence, distorting blood test results (with links to metabunk.org), etc.

I posted a direct response to something you just said. Were you off topic, trying to distract from the thread with your comment?

The point was that this issue of elevated levels of barium in their blood was raised by the "chemtrail" believers, not someone else. The claim is not true so what should someone say about it?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rebelv

So they've been spaying since 1918? The first reported persistent contrails were as far back as then. They lingered and became clouds.

It was my attempt to be humerus.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: mrthumpy

I would think they are the particles around which the condescension occurs, but maybe my ATS decoder ring is busted.

Nope, you're decoder ring is working fine. BTW I think I said,
"since jet airplanes were invented. I know Jet planes have been here
for awhile, but I didn't think all the way back to 1918.

I just didn't know how to respond to what I perceived to be a
condescending and patronizing reply, so rather than get into an
argument, I decided to try and be funny...

I thought it was funny.

I do believe that someone is spraying chemicals into the air.

I got replies that Geo-engineering is different from chem trails.

I got replies that cloud seeding is different than chem trails.

But, that's what these planes are doing, they're making clouds,
artificially.

I'm not a scientist but I did watch Dr. George Fishback back in the
day, and I do know that in order for clouds to form they must form
around particulates in the air. Those particulates could be natural
dust, etc. It could be pollution, or... it could be chemicals being
sprayed into the air, at an altitude in which there is sufficient humidity
and temperature.

And then on the other hand, chemical particulates need not even
form natural clouds at all, the clouds can be comprised entirely of
chemicals.

Sorry if some people thought I was taking the subject matter
flippantly, I wasn't.

Rebel 5

a reply to: mrthumpy

Lemon flavouring?? LEMON FLAVOURING??!!!

Bloddy lug-zury.....back in my day we didn't have no LEMON FLAVOURING sonny!!

a reply to: rebelv

Piston engine aircraft leave contrails too. The first recorded persistent contrails were seen in 1914 but didn't really get reported until 1918. In WWI soldiers on the ground reported seeing long white lines as aircraft went overhead.