In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: network dude

Most of the adamant chemtrail posters here are from CA, mostly northern. Dane Wigington and his posse are centered in the Mt. Shasta area. What little bit of visible news seems to come from there. It's just how I see it.

Well that doesn't surprise me at all because I have seen with my own eyes what is going on up there. Driving home from a backpacking trip up in Lassen National Park 2 years ago, it was impossible to not notice it while driving down Interstate 5. Can't prove what it was though.

What weather do you think is a result of the trails?

I have no idea if what they could be doing is working. I don't sit around with my head looking up at the sky every single day to be quite honest. It's not as if I post in chemtrail threads all the time. Been quite awhile since I participated in one here on ATS, and never anywhere else.

Lets suppose they were attempting weather modification for a minute. Well, It certainly isn't working out here in California. It's only rained 2 or 3 times this season. We are in a very severe drought out here. Many of the ski resorts have been forced to close down because of lack of snow. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Zaphod58In a sense contrails are. The three days after 9/11 showed a diurnal difference without contrails being in the air. It wasn't long enough to draw any conclusions though.

That is interesting information, I was not aware of that. Always open to learning new things, appreciate the info Zaphod. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

m.csmonitor.com...

Another study that took advantage of the grounding gave striking evidence of what contrails can do. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

www.pbs.org...

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yeah misunderstandings happen frequently in discussion forums. I understand that is not what you meant. Enjoy your weekend. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Zaphod58

That certainly makes sense, thank you for the links. Love the avatar by the way. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Petros312

Ah, Angry Man With Beard returns to the party.

No I STARTED the thread. Do try to keep up.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

And you just happen to omit quoting this information, which indeed IS what's relevant to the discussion within the context of geoengineering and chemtrail conspiracy theory, and when someone questions the relevancy of what you quoted you tell HIM to go to the link and find the relevant info.

It's there "EXHAUSTIVELY?" You are a champion at rhetoric. From your selected research

pg. 28, 4.2.2.Inhalation Exposure

"Data on the toxicity of barium compounds in animals following inhalation exposure are limited to a subchronic study conducted by Tarasenko et al. (1977)."

--The very first thing they say is that the data are LIMITED, which means NOT exhaustive. This SINGLE STUDY was done on RATS, which means the results do not exactly apply to human beings. To generalize from rats to human beings is often inappropriate or meaningless in this case.

Hence, this claim:

originally posted by: Astyanax
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted...

Is a blatant lie.




I urge others to go to the link above 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.

originally posted by: Petros312

It's there "EXHAUSTIVELY?" You are a champion at rhetoric. From your selected research

pg. 28, 4.2.2.Inhalation Exposure

"Data on the toxicity of barium compounds in animals following inhalation exposure are limited to a subchronic study conducted by Tarasenko et al. (1977)."

--The very first thing they say is that the data are LIMITED, which means NOT exhaustive. This SINGLE STUDY was done on RATS, which means the results do not exactly apply to human beings. To generalize from rats to human beings is often inappropriate or meaningless in this case.

Hence, this claim:

originally posted by: Astyanax
What happens to a person's respiratory and neurological system when breathing in airborne barium is exhaustively covered in the EPA document I posted...

Is a blatant lie.




I urge others to go to the link above 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.

Well played.
I was also thinking that the very reason there may not be a known threshold for barium toxicity levels in the blood is simply due to lack of data, rather than it not existing at all. There will of course be some variation based on age, gender and weight.

a reply to: Petros312

So what can we see to verify that barium is hazardous at "some" level?

(that's a part of this debate, so please don't take it as aggression.)

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312

So what can we see to verify that barium is hazardous at "some" level?

(that's a part of this debate, so please don't take it as aggression.)

We run into a problem though. If Petros is to claim that data is limited, how can he go back and claim that what he has been saying all along is meaningful.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312

So what can we see to verify that barium is hazardous at "some" level?

(that's a part of this debate, so please don't take it as aggression.)

A 49-year-old male pharmacist suffering from depression phoned the emergency services telling of how he had ingested barium chloride. He was found semicomatose in bed and resuscitation attempts were to no avail and he died at the scene. A white plastic container labelled "Barium chloride... Poison", and a book with a writing on a blank page... "give sulphate... SO(4)" were found. At autopsy, 1l of whitish-yellow fluid was found in the stomach. Autopsy barium levels were: blood 9.9mg/l; bile 8.8mg/l; urine 6.3mg/l; gastric 10.0g/l. Cause of death was given as cardiorespiratory arrest due to barium chloride poisoning.

Source

A PHARMACIST has the choice to choose any drug to kill himself, uses BARIUM CHLORIDE.
That to me speaks volumes.

It seems we have a fatal level at 9.9mg/l.

Could be less of course. It mentions there are only two other cases. So yes, data seems to be very limited.

I came up with a good list of citations here....
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The one thing I could think of that would make sense for high altitude spraying is maximized diffusion of the stuff being sprayed, at which point it would be at a trace level. But why do this? It's intended to do it's work while suspended in the air, not on whatever is below it on the ground.

My suspicion is that it's to lower the UV irradiation near ground level. If you're in a place with supposed chemtrail activity, I think a UV meter would show it with before and after measurements during an event. Lowering UV exposure from the sun is likely considered to have more benefit than risk, reduced smog and ozone near the surface, better agricultural production, and lowered risk of skin cancer. During high ozone days in the summer, it might even be considered a preventative geo-engineering measure to limit the duration or intensity of such events.

Why? Companies that produced stuff like all those CFCs years ago are still in business and have many ties to government. Putting a band-aid on the problem is better mitigation than people asking questions about why they can't go outside, etc. and wanting to claim legal damages. Not to mention they get to put out more product, even if it's something they may want to keep under wraps. (because who wants to be accountable for this too?)

Also most of the chemistry claimed to be in trace amounts from chemtrails seem to be shared with sunblock that most people purchase and willingly put on their skin. (And not all that is considered healthy either, but still beats a higer risk of melanoma.) It seems like it should make sense that it serves a similar purpose when diffused into the air.

a reply to: Petros312

No I STARTED the thread. Do try to keep up.

Yes, started the thread and then vanished for eight pages. Once again, welcome back!

And you just happen to omit quoting this information

I was replying to the following request from network nude. The request had nothing to do with barium inhalation.

network dude
What is the level in the bloodstream in which barium becomes a danger to the patient?

He was looking for the answer but couldn't find it. I provided documentation to show that there is no known 'dangerous' blood barium level, and the reasons why. The question of inhalation did not arise.

It's there "EXHAUSTIVELY?" You are a champion at rhetoric... This claim is a blatant lie.

Is it? 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.

I urge others to go to the link above and read the sparse data presented for yourselves

I do likewise; then we'll see who's telling the truth and who is just making things up as he goes along.

Lovely talking to you; Petros; you're always so restrained, polite and rational, and above all so charming.

a reply to: network dude

That did come off as a bit harsh, I meant it in sarcasm. My apologies.

Though I'm not here to make anyone "work" just to draw the same conclusions as I have. Whether you're on my side or not means little to me. My goal in that thread was to reach out to others who had experienced similar phenomenon. Not to verify their existence without a shadow of a doubt. Because like the OP said, this is just one of those conspiracy theories with no practical, or consistent recorded validation. In my mind, I'm quite convinced they are a reality. Based on my own observations and deductions, as well as those of many others.

Though what convinces me most of all is the governments track record with matters such as these. Ever heard of agent orange? There's ample evidence proving the U.S. has dabbled in mass contamination. Chemtrails are hardly a far fetched concept to grasp. Not to mention the fact that geoengineering has been thrown around enough in political debate to confirm it's at the very least crossed their minds.


My old man told me to keep an open mind, but not so much so that your brain falls out. I'm open to every possibility. Paradigm shifts are hardly a concept to me as I hold no beliefs that are so concrete as to have a difficult time accepting alternative possibilities. For all I know we're living in a complex virtual reality with set laws and physics, meaning whatever secrets or mysteries there are in this reality are irrelevant.

However, if the shoe fits...

Just so we're sure what we're talking about here, can you point to the geoengineering proposals to use barium that you are referring to?

a reply to: Petros312

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Though what convinces me most of all is the governments track record with matters such as these. Ever heard of agent orange? There's ample evidence proving the U.S. has dabbled in mass contamination. Chemtrails are hardly a far fetched concept to grasp. Not to mention the fact that geoengineering has been thrown around enough in political debate to confirm it's at the very least crossed their minds.

Here, I am in agreement with every single part of this post except the line "chemtrails are hardly a far fetched concept to grasp". Chemtrails are incredibly far fetched. They are simply nonsense. The rest of it I'm right with you. You can bring in several other Governments as well as the U.S. but chemtrails are still ridiculous and still mis identified contrails from high flying air traffic. If anything is going to get you it's something you won't see.

It frustrates me quite a bit more than it probably should that others don't seem to understand why.

a reply to: Petros312

If you have a point of discussion, please make it and debate its merits without making up stories about what you imagine other members are here for.

Showing such blatant disregard for what you know to be true, as opposed to whatever wild speculative trash you can throw out about other people, serves to shine a brighter light on your wider posts than you may realise.

I am happy to discuss almost anything with anyone but I won't be cowed by the lies of would be Internet bullies with too high an opinion of themselves.

Big kiss, sweet cheeks xx

a reply to: pauljs75

Your idea seems as if it would work just as well if those white lines were just contrails. I have my doubt about the companies that used to distribute CFC's caring enough about humanity to spend money helping those who cannot afford sunscreen, but it's plausible.

I can't help but wonder, why people stretch to come up with a reason for their existence, when the explanation of contrails is such an easy one to pick. An accidental byproduct of powered flight with condition right for persistent contrails. Even explains the blue sky days. Easy peasy.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

If we use that logic, we can justify any wild accusation and offer it legitimacy by just bringing up past mistakes the Government has made.

I swear this part still baffles me. Once you fully grasp the concept of contrails, and clouds, and weather, you have to work, pretty hard to make the chemtrail theory work in any way. Geo-engineering on the other hand has so many different aspects to it and so many possibilities, it's a justifiable topic to bring up. People seem to get angry about the cloud and weather relationship to contrails. Actively ignore it.

Thanks for responding in a way that would allow a response.

a reply to: network dude

I can't help but wonder, why people stretch to come up with a reason for their existence, when the explanation of contrails is such an easy one to pick.

People like ghost stories.

I guess a lot of people don't feel as healthy as they'd like to, and for no apparent reason. It happens to me sometimes but I know the reason why: I am an occasional martyr to depression, which I attribute to genetics; it runs in my family. I'm the lucky one actually, but I digress: what I mean to say is that the chemtrail fantasy gives people something to pin their blues on. Something outside them — I guess I don't need to explain why that would appeal in some cases.

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