In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: network dude

The only thing you need to understand is that CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL & THEY ARE EVIL.

Actually the only thing I need to understand is that something asserted without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

I'll never understand why people care so much one way or another.

About anything.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OneManArmy

At what point does "high" become toxic? Or even fatal?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, when the person who ingested the barium stops breathing.

Wouldnt the only way to find out that information be as a result of illegal human experimentation?
Keep giving someone barium until the precise moment they stop breathing. And record the level in the blood.
Again, Im sure its illegal to carry out those types of definitive controlled experiments on humans.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Yea, but I think this discussion have gone far enough to warrant that. Now, all we need is a volunteer.

Muhahahahahahah!

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yea, but I think this discussion have gone far enough to warrant that. Now, all we need is a volunteer.

Muhahahahahahah!

LMAO.

We need answers!!!

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: network dude

The only thing you need to understand is that CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL & THEY ARE EVIL.

Actually the only thing I need to understand is that something asserted without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

I'll never understand why people care so much one way or another.

About anything.

Am I hearing you correctly? Sounds like we have a volunteer!

Just curious, if it doesn't matter then why do we need to understand that "chemtrails are real"?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OneManArmy

At what point does "high" become toxic? Or even fatal?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, when the person who ingested the barium stops breathing.

Wouldnt the only way to find out that information be as a result of illegal human experimentation?
Keep giving someone barium until the precise moment they stop breathing. And record the level in the blood.
Again, Im sure its illegal to carry out those types of definitive controlled experiments on humans.

We're not really after what might constitute a fatal dose though. I don't recall if any info is available from accidental exposure. IIRC there were human trials with barium but I don't recall in what form. I'm gonna have to go back through and look.

It's important to remember that all barium isn't equal, the compounds act differently.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

While I do believe in chemtrails, I was just mocking the debate as a whole. Our existence is laughable at best; with all the downfalls of society & human nature & the many sinister things going on in the world at the expense of the people, I find taking a strong stance on anything futile. I'm also anhedonic, nihilistic, & fatalistic, & just can't bring myself to care about the trivialities of modern day reality.

Accept Everything, Believe Nothing.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OneManArmy

At what point does "high" become toxic? Or even fatal?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, when the person who ingested the barium stops breathing.

Wouldnt the only way to find out that information be as a result of illegal human experimentation?
Keep giving someone barium until the precise moment they stop breathing. And record the level in the blood.
Again, Im sure its illegal to carry out those types of definitive controlled experiments on humans.

We're not really after what might constitute a fatal dose though. I don't recall if any info is available from accidental exposure. IIRC there were human trials with barium but I don't recall in what form. I'm gonna have to go back through and look.

It's important to remember that all barium isn't equal, the compounds act differently.

Yes indeed, but its the barium thats released from the compound and it is that released barium that is toxic and measurable in the blood. The compound is irrelevant I think, except it would take quite a while to establish a satisfactory result with barium sulphate suppositories. While a much smaller amount of barium chloride would achieve a result in super quick time.
Yes there were trials using 5ppm and 10ppm amounts, over a couple weeks, no significant results. Meaning it had no measurable effect on the blood pressure.

Below is a link to a PDF from the CDC I posted in another thread that gives some good info about studies on Barium, for anyone that hasn't seen it. One thing to point out is that on Pg 110 it gives the amount of Barium released into the air in each state. For anyone that is interested, Arizona is by far the highest. In fact, it is more than twice as high as the next highest state.

PDF

a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes indeed, but its the barium thats released from the compound and it is that released barium that is toxic and measurable in the blood.

That's where the specific compound matters. Barium sulfate?

Barium sulfate can be taken into our body because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. And if this sounds like an unpleasant experience, it's lucky that it's barium sulfate and not just barium that is used for the exam.

ww w.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Trans cripts/Barium.asp (best I can do for a link)

Keith's proposed particle asserted to be possibly in use is 3 layers; aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate.

Like many oxides, barium titanate is insoluble in water

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: anton74

That makes sense in the amount of dirt exposed in Arizona. Having spent time in Saudi Arabia, and knowing that it is largely dirt, I wonder how it ranks in this aspect. (thinking out loud, I am not asking you to do it for me.)

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: anton74

That makes sense in the amount of dirt exposed in Arizona. Having spent time in Saudi Arabia, and knowing that it is largely dirt, I wonder how it ranks in this aspect. (thinking out loud, I am not asking you to do it for me.)

We haven't scratched the surface of the dirt yet. It appears that the Mojave desert has a rather high concentration of Barium(Natural, not from spraying). Given this, it is foolish to ignore other sources of exposure in the OP's claim.

a reply to: anton74

Years ago I wrote a thread on barium and how much is released into the environment by ground based sources.

Here you go, back in 2008 I wrote this..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

7 years and chemtrail believers still parrot the same rubbish

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: anton74

Years ago I wrote a thread on barium and how much is released into the environment by ground based sources.

Here you go, back in 2008 I wrote this..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

7 years and chemtrail believers still parrot the same rubbish

It is quite sad. IMHO, checking ice core samples and comparing bone samples from modern humans to ancients would put the argument too rest. It worked for lead in gasoline.

ETA; Although, I shouldn't sat that given how long people debated Crop Circles on ATS. The rejection of science blows my mind.

originally posted by: rebelv



I guess, the second type of contrail (from what people are telling me), that's quite
distinct from the first, are flying, oh I estimate 10,000 to 15,000 feet maybe lower,
and I can see the aircraft that are leaving these long lasting contrails (I guess);
not exactly low, but certainly not high enough to produce temperatures in the minus
degrees.

So, I guess their is a second type of contrail (I never observed as a kid, even when
we were studying contrails at school) and believe me, I was fascinated with aircraft,
I could identify every one of them, if they were flying low enough, so I was constantly
looking up into the sky,

So, this second type of "contrail" seems to be markedly distinct with a completely
different set of characteristics of contrails I learned about in school and which I
observed until that last 15 years or so when I started noticing this new type of
"contrail"

Rebel 5

In my experience (as a photographer of aircraft with over 30,000 Shots ranging from ground level to altitudes in the 30,000's) this second type of contrail simply doesn't exist (except in the rarest of extremes of cold and humidity) and what they are telling you is wrong. I've often come across people who say that they can just 'see' that the contrail is lower, which is plainly nonsense as nobody can 'see' altitude. What thry invariably mean is that thry can see a quite large, broad trail and at the same time they can see a plane leaving a much narrower thin one. This then creates a trick of perspective where the broad trail looks lower because it's bigger and there is no other perspective to compare. I have a picture showing how deceptive this can be as a thin (apparently higher altitude) trail passes below a much broader one.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: rebelv



I guess, the second type of contrail (from what people are telling me), that's quite
distinct from the first, are flying, oh I estimate 10,000 to 15,000 feet maybe lower,
and I can see the aircraft that are leaving these long lasting contrails (I guess);
not exactly low, but certainly not high enough to produce temperatures in the minus
degrees.

So, I guess their is a second type of contrail (I never observed as a kid, even when
we were studying contrails at school) and believe me, I was fascinated with aircraft,
I could identify every one of them, if they were flying low enough, so I was constantly
looking up into the sky,

So, this second type of "contrail" seems to be markedly distinct with a completely
different set of characteristics of contrails I learned about in school and which I
observed until that last 15 years or so when I started noticing this new type of
"contrail"

Rebel 5

In my experience (as a photographer of aircraft with over 30,000 Shots ranging from ground level to altitudes in the 30,000's) this second type of contrail simply doesn't exist (except in the rarest of extremes of cold and humidity) and what they are telling you is wrong. I've often come across people who say that they can just 'see' that the contrail is lower, which is plainly nonsense as nobody can 'see' altitude. What thry invariably mean is that thry can see a quite large, broad trail and at the same time they can see a plane leaving a much narrower thin one. This then creates a trick of perspective where the broad trail looks lower because it's bigger and there is no other perspective to compare. I have a picture showing how deceptive this can be as a thin (apparently higher altitude) trail passes below a much broader one.

Interesting thread here

a reply to: mrthumpy

THAT'S what I'm talking about. Good one, cheers


This is the picture I was referring to earlier. I took it because I was reminded of a conversation on here, its not an example of my skills, lol.

Without the crossover, it would be very easy to assume the big trail was far lower in the sky. indeed before the A320 did cross the trail thats exactly what it looked like.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: OneManArmy

Yes indeed, but its the barium thats released from the compound and it is that released barium that is toxic and measurable in the blood.

That's where the specific compound matters. Barium sulfate?

Barium sulfate can be taken into our body because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. And if this sounds like an unpleasant experience, it's lucky that it's barium sulfate and not just barium that is used for the exam.

ww w.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Trans cripts/Barium.asp (best I can do for a link)

Yes I know, what I was trying to say is that if you wish to conduct the experiment with barium sulphate I feel sorry for the guy that needs to take an overdose of barium sulphate up the anal orifice, because that would take a great deal of suppositories to reach the desired result of barium poisoning. Ouch!!
Whereas if you conducted the experiment with Barium Chloride a small amount would be necessary to achieve the same overdose. And to the comfort of the "volunteer" could be taken orally.
Even some light metals can be toxic in extremely large amounts.

Keith's proposed particle asserted to be possibly in use is 3 layers; aluminum oxide, metallic aluminum, and barium titanate.

Like many oxides, barium titanate is insoluble in water

en.wikipedia.org...

Who is Keith? And as for the other metals or barium titanate, I wouldnt have a clue.
Everything I know about barium has been learned over the past couple of days. Im no chemist, just interested in getting to the bottom of this. Pun intended.
If someone is going to propose a particle, doesnt it help to have some scientific evidence?
Is there a link to any I could see?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: rebelv



I guess, the second type of contrail (from what people are telling me), that's quite
distinct from the first, are flying, oh I estimate 10,000 to 15,000 feet maybe lower,
and I can see the aircraft that are leaving these long lasting contrails (I guess);
not exactly low, but certainly not high enough to produce temperatures in the minus
degrees.

So, I guess their is a second type of contrail (I never observed as a kid, even when
we were studying contrails at school) and believe me, I was fascinated with aircraft,
I could identify every one of them, if they were flying low enough, so I was constantly
looking up into the sky,

So, this second type of "contrail" seems to be markedly distinct with a completely
different set of characteristics of contrails I learned about in school and which I
observed until that last 15 years or so when I started noticing this new type of
"contrail"

Rebel 5

In my experience (as a photographer of aircraft with over 30,000 Shots ranging from ground level to altitudes in the 30,000's) this second type of contrail simply doesn't exist (except in the rarest of extremes of cold and humidity) and what they are telling you is wrong. I've often come across people who say that they can just 'see' that the contrail is lower, which is plainly nonsense as nobody can 'see' altitude. What thry invariably mean is that thry can see a quite large, broad trail and at the same time they can see a plane leaving a much narrower thin one. This then creates a trick of perspective where the broad trail looks lower because it's bigger and there is no other perspective to compare. I have a picture showing how deceptive this can be as a thin (apparently higher altitude) trail passes below a much broader one.

Interesting thread here

I thought it was well known that altitude cannot be ascertained by just looking, you need a point of reference or triangulation to determine anything even close to accurate.

I can see only one way of determining if one trail was higher or lower than another just by looking and that would be to see if a plane fades behind a trail, hence over it, or remains fully visible, hence flys under it.
Our eyes play tricks on us all the time, the brain reinterprets what goes into our eyes to make sense of it, and it doesnt always do a good job of it.

EDIT TO ADD:

Yes waynos, thats exactly what I was talking about. Thanks for the visual aid.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Its a reference to Dr David Keith, who gets referenced on here quite a lot. There are several articles and videos that show up on google searches related to him. this is one

recode.net...